Tuesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, September 27. 2016

Pic via Driscoll at Insty

Mirengoff: Thoughts on an unpleasant evening

'Bizarre' Donald Trump seemed 'dreadfully unprepared'

He winged it, had no plan. Thinks he is better than he is.

Trump’s debate incompetence a slap in the face to his supporters

Dick Morris on Trump at Debate: 'He's Coasting'

Commenter here: "I expected more from him. I believe average citizens did too."

Can we say that many people hoped he would be commanding and dominate the discussion, but failed to do so? It seems easy for him to be a petty man at times.

24 of the Most Banned Books of All Time

'Effeminism' and the War on Boys

Tough cookie: The only woman ever to make it to the finals of "American Ninja Warrior"

Clemson bans Harambe memes for promoting 'rape culture,' 'racism'

KU bars gorillas from jungle-theme decoration due to 'masculine image'

Pumpkins are racist

Tom Hanks Finds Himself Under Fire For ‘Deeply Racist’ Film Career, Working with Clint Eastwood

The Depression Was Great for the American Kitchen

Scientists Are Uncertain Why Earth Is Leaking Oxygen, But, They’re Willing To Think It’s ‘Climate Change’

I feel it especially during my cardio intervals

In Defense of Profits -- Why They Are At Least As Moral as Wages

FDA's Dangerous Deals With Reporters

Is American Pet Health Care (Also) Uniquely Inefficient?

Colleges Turn to Coloring Books to “De-Stress” Students

Rioting is great fun.

Yes, unleashed Id and they pay you to do it. This is election astroturf.

George Soros' False Flag Factories

Punt the Pundits - Stop watching the social justice warriors of the NFL media universe

I’m Black. Does America Have a Plan for My Life?

Nope, and be grateful because your life is all yours.

How Trump can shrink the federal gummint

Jordanian king: US thinks it knows Middle East better than its residents

Mead: The Real Middle East Story - Precisely because he has a colder view of international affairs than Obama, Netanyahu’s leadership has made Israel stronger than ever.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:15 | Comments (49) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Attacking Tom Hanks? I guess you gotta dig deep to find new levels of outrage to stay relevant in certain circles, but most people stop paying attention when you start attacking motherhood and apple pie.

#1 Jerryskids on 2016-09-27 07:57 (Reply)

Debate
I suppose you have to have one debate, but I am indifferent to them. I think of them as an occasion for meaningless sound bites. I prefer one on one interviews where the candidate can elaborate and explain his/her position with reasonable time constraints. Huckabee did something like that a couple of cycles ago. In terms of debate performance I have to give this one to Hillary even though her content struck me as stale and ineffective. Also, she sounded like a typical politician.

#2 Exasperated on 2016-09-27 08:14 (Reply)

I prefer politicians get their message out from the porch of an observation car. Somewhere out in the Dakotas or Utah, since I live in The South.

#2.1 BillH on 2016-09-27 10:10 (Reply)

I also don't care about debates. I will note that if Trump broke even he may have an advantage, because he has been learning as he goes.

#3 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-09-27 08:41 (Reply)

yeah, I think so too

#3.1 Bird Dog on 2016-09-27 08:42 (Reply)

Glenn Reynolds says Trump didn't throw anything, and Clinton didn't cough up any blood--he calls it a tie.

#3.1.1 Texan99 on 2016-09-27 09:47 (Reply)

Given the expectations, a tie is a win for Trump. On the other hand, there is evidence that it was actually an outright win for Trump given the snap polls after the debate (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html).

Time will tell.

#3.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-09-27 09:59 (Reply)

mudbug: On the other hand, there is evidence that it was actually an outright win for Trump given the snap polls after the debate

The CNN poll was based on statistical sampling. An informational poll, such as by Drudge, does not represent a valid statistical sampling.

#3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-27 10:26 (Reply)

In the first place, I said there was evidence. I didn't not imply it was conclusive. In the second place, you only mentioned two polls. The link I provided referenced many polls, the vast majority of which were won by Trump - including from outlets that would be more friendly to Clinton like Variety. In the third place, a statistical sampling must be accurate to produce accurate results. I don't know the proportion of Republicans to Democrats in their sampling, but from that I've read recently that might be a moving target if there is as large a number of people changing their registration from Dem. to Pubbie as some expect - which jibes with the increased Pubbie turnout and reduced Dem turnout at the primaries.

As I said, we shall see.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-09-27 10:47 (Reply)

mudbug: In the first place, I said there was evidence.

The very weak evidence you cited is contradicted by the scientific survey.

mudbug: a statistical sampling must be accurate to produce accurate results. I don't know the proportion of Republicans to Democrats in their sampling

26% Republican
41% Democratic
33% Independent

A Gallup poll, from larger samples shows:

27% Republican
31% Democrats
38% Independent

But look at leaners:

41% Republican
48% Democrats

The CNN poll results were 62% to 27% ±4.5% that Clinton won, far exceeding whatever sampling error there may have been by party. In addition, people are more likely to identify with the party of the winner, so some of the apparent discrepancy may not be due to sampling error, but leaners expressing a preference.

Sure. The poll results could be off somewhat, and opinions are temporal, but it's unlikely that the sampling error was off by enough to change the conclusion that people thought she won.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-27 11:05 (Reply)

Like I said (again): we'll see.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-09-27 11:39 (Reply)

mudbug: Like I said (again): we'll see.

We'll see if the debate changed any votes, however, it's clear that most people saw Clinton as the winner of the debate.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-27 13:36 (Reply)

Clear to you.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-09-27 14:10 (Reply)

You can believe that if you want. However, with Trump dominating every single online poll (with the exception of CNN) it proves one thing to me: He has rabid followers who will vote. The fact that Hillary could not pull off any 'wins' in these online polls should worry her.

It's about mobilization and getting out the vote. Trump is running circles around her in this area right now. His online presence and support is unprecedented. These people will stand in line for hours to vote on Election Day.

#3.1.1.1.1.2 MissT on 2016-09-27 12:39 (Reply)

Hillary was glib, polished - and looked like a stereotypical movie politician.

You know the kind - the ones who are perfect in public and horrible in private. The villain, who thinks she's got everyone fooled and is close to getting what she's been scheming for.

It makes me wonder what's about to go wrong for her.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1 Jlawson on 2016-09-27 13:27 (Reply)

MissT: However, with Trump dominating every single online poll (with the exception of CNN) it proves one thing to me: He has rabid followers who will vote.

Yes, the polls are skewed. Just ask President Romney.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2016-09-27 13:35 (Reply)

Z: ... it proves one thing to me: He has rabid followers who will vote.

Then it must also prove to you that Hillary doesn't have followers who will vote.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.2.1 mudbug on 2016-09-27 15:56 (Reply)

Really? You're still arguing the point? Online polls are subject to swarming and overvoting. They have little relationship to public opinion generally.

The real question is whether the debate will change votes, which is yet to be seen.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-27 16:07 (Reply)

I didn't say it. You did!

Let's recap. YOU (not I) said that those polls PROVED to YOU that Trump had rabid followers who will vote. Since Hillary lost almost all of those polls, the inference to be drawn was that apparently Hillary didn't have people like that or they would have voted for her. Are you going to argue the reasonableness of that?

#3.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-09-27 23:10 (Reply)

mudbug: YOU (not I) said that those polls PROVED to YOU that Trump had rabid followers who will vote.

We have never referred to anyone as "rabid followers".

You seem to think that a thousand votes on an online poll necessarily represents thousands of people. Individuals will manipulate online polls by casting thousands of votes.

mudbug: Since Hillary lost almost all of those polls, the inference to be drawn was that apparently Hillary didn't have people like that or they would have voted for her.

Apparently Clinton supporters are less likely to think that non-scientific polls are of much value. It's a self-selecting group. People, like you, who value non-scientific polls, are apparently more easily manipulated, so the polls are manipulated.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-28 09:30 (Reply)

My mistake. I misread your post. The "rabid followers" comment was from MissT.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-09-28 09:43 (Reply)

I thought it was a tie overall, Clinton winning on points, but do points matter outside the political junkies?

But now, I wonder. Trump is said to have done well in the first third of the debate, when the most people are watching. He really nailed Hillary with the 30 yrs of getting none of this done meme.

It seems to me, to win the election, one needs to nail the beginning of the debate before people tune out. Also, now future debates matter less due to lack of drama or comedy. The only people disappointed are the political junkies and pundits and most of them hate Trump anyway.

#3.2 JK Brown on 2016-09-27 12:02 (Reply)

Is it just me, or do I smell something fishy about the fact checking of Ford moving small cars to Mexico. "Not one job will be lost."
The whole point of moving would be to "loose jobs". Unless they are either going to bring in other projects from somewhere else (repatriate jobs), or greatly expand production of other things already made. I doubt there is a shortage of the things already made, so that would mean the next part will be reducing the hours of the existing workers to give some hours to the people whose job went away.

Yes, it's probably just me.

#4 The other Jerry on 2016-09-27 09:08 (Reply)

Smaller cars are labor intensive, so producing them in Mexico is cheaper. Larger cars with more features, are more technology intensive, so producing them in the U.S. is cheaper. Ford has said they will have the same number of U.S. workers after the shift in production.

#4.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-27 10:10 (Reply)

Smaller cars have a lower sticker price so wages as a percentage of production cost have more impact on profit per car produced. The profit on larger more expensive vehicles is less sensitive to wages. It is certainly possible that overall employment at Ford could stay the same even with production moving. I know there is significant expansion going on at the Ford truck plant here in KY.

#4.1.1 Christopher B on 2016-09-27 11:12 (Reply)

Christopher B: I know there is significant expansion going on at the Ford truck plant here in KY.

Also, Ford will be building the new Bronco SUV and Ranger pickup in Wayne, MI.

#4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-27 13:41 (Reply)

Labor intensive? Installing a dash assembly on an F-150 is no more nor less labor intensive than installing same on a Focus. He Focus sells for $20000, the F-150 for $50000. See where the profit is?

#4.1.2 Clinton on 2016-09-27 12:15 (Reply)

Zachriel spouting off something she knows nothing about?

Why I never...

#4.1.2.1 DrTorch on 2016-09-27 13:30 (Reply)

Considering that Clinton had the questions in advance, kept referring to her notes (in order of them being asked), and had Lester Holt assisting her by playing the third wheel in the attack on Trump (since when is a moderator a "fact checker" and who cares about the birthed issue, which is actually a Hillary topic from 2008), the debates only revealed how much our country is at risk for the elite politicians, media and banksters continuing their reign at any cost. The citizens will lose if we don't have someone take over the presidency who can expose the corruption and reset the projection into a Global Order where our Constitution is secondary to the rulers at the U.N.

#5 jma on 2016-09-27 09:54 (Reply)

Good assessment of the "debate."

#5.1 mary on 2016-09-27 10:34 (Reply)

jma: Considering that Clinton had the questions in advance

Do you have any actual evidence of that, or does it just feel true?

#5.2 Zachriel on 2016-09-27 10:52 (Reply)

re Do you have any actual evidence of that, or does it just feel true?

Clinton Received Debate Questions Week Before Debate, According to Sources

http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-debate/

#5.2.1 feeblemind on 2016-09-28 15:39 (Reply)

"The Baltimore Gazette, a newspaper that existed very briefly just after the Civil War, has returned online as a site to spread fake news stories and other nonsense."

#5.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-28 16:24 (Reply)

Effeminism:

Even when they are almost 40 years old (the first wave) I can pretty much spot a man who was raised by " a single mom" fairly quickly. That is to say a man whose mom dumped the dad in exchange for child support payments and leadership training by the local fem nazi chairman at the local 'university'. A mom who then went on to be . . .oh, never mind. My point being they are fairly easy to spot!

#6 facultywife on 2016-09-27 10:45 (Reply)

The Depression Was Great for the American Kitchen

From the link:

QUOTE:

The tractor. Between 1930 and 1940, despite the fact that credit had dried up and farms were failing left and right, tractors became the majority of the horsepower available on American farms. ...
There were other technologies that made inroads during the decade thanks to falling prices, improving design and rural electrification. But indisputable pride of place goes to the refrigerator, which had penetrated 20 percent of American homes by 1932, and 50 percent by 1938. That bears a second look: In the depths of the Great Depression, people are purchasing a major expensive appliance, which suggests just how great refrigerators are.

Even in the Great Depression, technological progress penetrated the market.

My mother and my father's sister both told me that the economic pressures of the Great Depression led both their families to utilize home gardens, resulting in their eating pretty well during the Great Depression.

#7 Gringo on 2016-09-27 11:07 (Reply)

We had an ice box until well after WW2. In the winter we had a window box, which we kept above freezing by cracking the window open when necessary. My folks got their first electric refrigerator around '47. My Dad had his own business with 3-4 employees. Not all business owners are plutocrats.

#7.1 BillH on 2016-09-27 11:57 (Reply)

Earliest memories:

1. Ice man coming up two flights of stairs to put ice in "ice box"--spring 1946
2. squeezing the red dot in the margarine to make it look like butter. Late 1945
3. then standing in line to get "real butter", came home and mom laid down for a nap. I pulled chair over to ice box and climbed up on top and munched on the "real butter". I still remember doing that, but it was in a different kitchen (?)
4. I also remember (1946?) the "rag man and his horse". Main streets of major city still had an African/American "rag man" who drove a horse and cart and picked up the "donations". Kinda like Goodwill in a Cart ! :-)

#7.1.1 facultywife on 2016-09-27 15:32 (Reply)

The Great Depression was a time of deep investment in labor saving machines and tooling. The government kept the wages to high so the businesses bought machines to cut labor costs. This worked out to be very useful when the war broke out.

The Great Depression wasn't so bad if you had a job and could keep it. A lot of people did share jobs so others could get by with a partial wage and thus did struggle along as well.

If you are ever able to step back and see, you will see that The Great Depression was due to the national socialism imposed by the New Deal.

QUOTE:

The slogan into which the Nazis condensed their economic philosophy, viz., Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz (i.e., the commonweal ranks above private profit), is likewise the idea underlying the American New Deal and the Soviet management of economic affairs. It implies that profit-seeking business harms the vital interests of the immense majority, and that it is the sacred duty of popular government to prevent the emergence of profits by public control of production and distribution.

von Mises, Ludwig (1947). Planned Chaos

#7.2 JK Brown on 2016-09-27 12:13 (Reply)

JK Brown: If you are ever able to step back and see, you will see that The Great Depression was due to the national socialism imposed by the New Deal.

That is simply contrary to fact. Change in GDP, fixed dollars:

1930, -8.6%
1931, -6.5%
1932, -13.1%
1933, -1.3%, New Deal
1934, +10.9%
1935, +8.9%
1936, +13.0%

As you can see, the dramatic collapse in GDP preceded the New Deal.

#7.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-27 13:47 (Reply)

First off, GDP is a measure of economic activity. Kuznets said it was never designed to measure economic well being. Second, the 1937 "recession within the depression" was largely due to a collapse in business investment, due largely to uncertainty over the direction of the multitude of government edicts and programs. If you wish to throw in the contraction of the monetary base due to the sterilization of gold inflows from 1937 on, you have a stagnant economy throughout the thirties. Unemployment did fall during the early days of the 30s, but never dropped below 15% until full mobilization of the war.
Bottom line: for tens of millions of Americans, 1938 wasn't much different than 1934.

#7.2.1.1 Clinton on 2016-09-27 22:52 (Reply)

Clinton: Kuznets said it was never designed to measure economic well being.

GDP is certainly not the only factor in economic or social well-being, nonetheless, the collapsing economy led to widespread dislocation and suffering. The Great Depression precedes the New Deal by several years, which contradicts your claim that the Great Depression was due to the New Deal.

#7.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-28 09:23 (Reply)

I never said that the Mew Deal preceded the Great Depressin! Read what I wrote! You implied that since GDP was rising, all was well. I stated that since unemployment remained above 15% (above 30% in many areas) for the duration of the 30s, hard times persisted, and since business investment slumped due to uncertainty over New Deal laws and programs, it can be, and has been argued, that the New Deal also served to prolong the depression. The contraction of the monetary base didn't help with investment either, but that's another story.

#7.2.1.1.1.1 Clinton on 2016-09-28 11:29 (Reply)

Clinton: I never said that the {N}ew Deal preceded the Great Depressin! Read what I wrote!

Okay. Will do. You said, "The Great Depression was due to the national socialism imposed by the New Deal." Unless you are supposing some sort of time tunneling effect, if the Great Depression was due to (i.e. caused by) the New Deal, it can't follow the advent of Great Depression.

Clinton: You implied that since GDP was rising, all was well.

We implied no such thing. We pointed to GDP numbers to date the beginnings of the Great Depression and the New Deal.

Clinton: it can be, and has been argued, that the New Deal also served to prolong the depression.

That's not the original claim you made.

In fact, GDP grew rapidly with the New Deal, then contracted during the 1937-8 recession when Roosevelt pulled back from the New Deal, then resumed growth when they reversed course again, finally ending with the Great Stimulus of WWII.

#7.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-28 11:36 (Reply)

Are you replying to me or one JKBrown. I am clearly NOT he.

#7.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Clinton on 2016-09-28 18:31 (Reply)

We apologize for the misattribution.

You did seem to be defending JK Brown's position. If not, then nevermind.

#7.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-28 19:10 (Reply)

It was two against one. Holt interrupted Mr. Trump many times but Mrs. Clinton? Not once. Shads of Candy Crowley.

#8 oolioo (Link) on 2016-09-27 12:01 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Holt interrupted Trump a whopping 41 times, either to “fact-check” the Republican nominee, or to ask a follow-up question. Clinton was only interrupted seven times during the course of the 90-minute debate.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/holt-interrupted-trump-way-more-than-clinton-in-debate/

#8.1 feeblemind on 2016-09-27 12:42 (Reply)

"I’m Black. Does America Have a Plan for My Life?

Nope, and be grateful because your life is all yours. "

Well, not strictly true. If you are male, they have a plan for you to work, pay taxes and die shortly after your productivity wanes.

That is why we hear so much about the "men" not working and supposedly playing video games. This is concerning because they were depending on their cut from those men's wages.

And no, those not supporting themselves, need to get at least work to see after themselves, but assuming you don't do something foolish and take on a wife and kids, no need to work yourself to death to keep up a society that sees you as a meal ticket.

#9 JK Brown on 2016-09-27 12:07 (Reply)

One of the best comments I read before the debate; 'Donald Trump has to convince the viewers he's not Hitler, Hillary Clinton has to convince them she's not Hillary Clinton.'

I think that's the heart of it and hence Donald won.

#10 Jim O'Neil (Link) on 2016-09-28 00:03 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, September 27. 2016

Tuesday morning links