|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Oct 18, 2012 12:03:56 GMT -5
If Obama is for pay equity, why do women in his White House get paid less? You know that's not how pay equity is measured, right? The better question would be why are there so many fewer women than men in the highest ranking positions in Obama's WH staff?
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Oct 6, 2012 14:17:01 GMT -5
Household survey says the country's employment grew by 873,000 in September while the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the economy added 114,000 non-farm payrolls. Anyone care to explain and to say which is being used in the 7.8% unemployment rate? There are two estimates because there are two different surveys fielded. The household survey (the one that said there were 873,000 new jobs) includes a broader range of jobs/employment situations (including white- and blue-collar jobs, self-employed, farm workers, private household workers, etc.) but a smaller sample size, meaning estimates are less precise but more broadly representative. The 114,000 number comes from the establishment survey. This includes a narrower range of occupations (hence the lower measure of new jobs) but has a much larger sample size. The 7.8% estimate comes from the household survey (as this is the broader measure of employment it is more relevant to In the end, these numbers are estimates; an amazing amount of assumptions must be made to generate anything that gets reported. A few things to keep in mind when deciding how much faith to put in these estimates: 1. The same methods are used every month. If you don't believe this September's number (7.8%), you shouldn't believe last month's (8.1%) or last September's either (9.0%). 2. The point estimates get all the press but there are HUGE confidence intervals around the estimates. Anything less than about 40,000 (establishment survey) or 100,000 (household survey) is statistically insignificant. 3. The numbers are almost always significantly revised the in subsequent month(s) as these first estimates are based on a portion of the overall sample. The full numbers will be out November or possibly December, but I suppose that by then there'll be FAR less interest in these nitty gritty details.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Oct 4, 2012 11:08:27 GMT -5
What did Romney say about the IPAB that was incorrect? The panel isn't going to be looking at best practices, it's going to look at what they deem to be cost effective treatments and set forth limitations based on that analysis. There is no way the board could possibly "tell people ultimately what treatments they can have" (the line Romney repeated a couple of times). You can still pay for and receive whatever care and treatments you'd like, but Medicare will focus on the more effective options. Intuitively this makes sense* (why would a government program explicitly include ineffective options?) but also makes it an easy target for those deliberately wanting to score some cheap political points. Both candidates are guilty of this at various times, but just calling you on your statement above. * Of course this ignores the fact that the IPAB, while effective in theory, is so constrained in what it can actually do that it will be hard pressed to find the huge savings.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 18, 2012 19:36:39 GMT -5
But it's not picking and choosing specific years, I'm talking recent performance for consecutive years. It's not one or two appearances. It's four. It is a trend. Actually you're talking about 4 out of 5 years while conspicuously not including either of the earlier two (which just happen to disprove your point). If you want to talk about "recent" trends, why include four years ago but not five? Why gloss over the year we missed the tournament entirely? Your metric counts that year as 'better' than this year, right? Please don't try to make up statistics to prove your point. We get that you're upset; just leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 18, 2012 19:23:53 GMT -5
There needs to be a benchmark, and that's what the expected win total/seed I used does. It's (revealingly) biased to only use specific years for your benchmark though. Do the same thing for JTIII's whole tenure and it becomes something like 12 expected wins based on seed and 8 actual wins. We can then quibble over the relative value of the elite eight win versus a first round one (I'd make that trade everyday), whether the seedings were correct, and whether it's a big enough discrepancy to care. You might, others might not. BTW- are we to conclude that Esh was a double awesome tournament coach because he exceeded his expected wins per seed by a full 100% over his time here?
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Nov 23, 2011 14:33:42 GMT -5
Ed, the mere fact that you are bringing these issues up as a notable change implies that you have some sort of issue with it. Generally people don't bring up issues such as this unless they are either pleased or displeased with the change. But regardless of why you decided to bring this up...
What so many of us seem to have a problem with, though, is that there is a giant retaining wall on the slippery slope you have created. Children simply cannot consent to sex with adults. Period. Broadening societal recognition of different ways adults can consent to have sex with one another is a different issue. A relevant slippery slope argument along those lines would be bestiality.
I’m not sure where in ANY of the recent “loosening” of moral standards there has been ANY movement towards changing a child’s right to consent. If your point was really to have a dialogue about a child’s ability to consent why not package it as such? We could talk about a child’s ability to sign a contract or enlist in the military, or even drinking/voting/driving age restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 26, 2010 9:57:28 GMT -5
Guess you haven't really read any of the health care law. As has been observed it takes away my liberty to not buy health insurance. But also a great portion of the law concerns setting up numerous bureacracies whose functions are to evaluate the "quality" of doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and other health care providers, including medicare & Medicaid and basing their compensation on such "quality", with "quality" to be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, a political appointee. Ultimately this will lead to rationing of health care by government fiat, taking away my liberty for health care my doctor and I may want. And if you don't believe that, I can't help you. They also mandate end-of-life consultations, even if I don't want them (taking away a liberty). If anyone doesn't see the ultimate goal of this is to ration end-of-life treatment, again I can't help you. Yes, ultimately "death panels". Other parts give the government access to financial records, even if I don't want them to have access. The law also stipulates upwards of $500B cuts in Medicare reimbursement, certain to greatly reduce the number of doctors and hospitals that will accept Medicare patients. Medicaid-eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid, taking away a liberty. I could go on. Read the law. Come on Ed, please don't carry on about the "death panels" and then implore folks to read the law. And as to the quality stuff... I think you're a bit off. The point of quality measures is to someday be able to actually reform health CARE, not health insurance entitlement. Why should some hospitals get paid for doing a surgery and also redoing the surgery when the first one wasn't done right. Other hospitals just do the one and thus get paid less. Why is it bad to reimburse based on a doctor's ability to deliver medical outcomes rather than just endless medical care? This does not take away your liberty to see whatever doctor you'd like. But it does give me the liberty to not have to pay for Dr. McQuack's substandard care practices. That said, this system is years away from anything close to implementable so the attempt to measure "quality" (another topic entirely how to define that) will IN NO WAY impact who you can see; believe it or not Sebelius is not out to get you or kill your family. At least not after 2pm.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 25, 2010 14:19:20 GMT -5
It's really freaking annoying that the games are scheduled to virtually overlap entirely. They're scheduled for 7:07, 7:27, 9:37, and 9:57. Would it kill the NCAA to space the games out more than 20 minutes?
They do the same thing for earlier rounds too, which left me watching the last few minutes of the 25 point Duke-Cal debacle instead of the Purdue-T A&M or Xavier-Pitt nailbiters that both ended at almost the exact same time.
If CBS and their one channel is going to carry the games, why not space them out so people can actually watch them?
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 25, 2010 10:37:01 GMT -5
I am making a statistical argument. You are responding with an anecdote. It reminds me of the health care "summit." I hope your friends are healthy, I honestly do, but I also hope they didn't have to borrow someone's teeth. Most 20-somethings ARE healthy and need only the most basic of coverage. You're insurance premiums ARE going to go up as a result of this mandate, because now they have to cover EVERYONE, including the group of Americans that, statistically, are the least likely to require expensive care. This bill is not going to stop premiums from rising. If you believe it will, I have some property in Florida for sale that I'd like to speak with you about. Prime real estate, only slightly submerged. Why would an influx of healthy 20-somethings who pay more insurance premiums increase premiums for everyone else? I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that the bill won't stop costs from rising, but to claim that adding more healthy 20-somethings to the ranks of the insured will by itself increase costs is bonkers.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Feb 25, 2010 15:58:31 GMT -5
Probably some names, but I'd bet in general, they'd support Medicare, seeing as how it's a safety net / supplement rather than a take over of the entire industry, just like S-Chip had Republican support. I know this isn't necessarily the right forum for this but to call Medicare a safety net / supplement is a pretty big reach. Medicaid? Possibly. But Medicare no way. Its a single payer system, covers like 40 million people through its own tax, and costs close to $500 billion per year. It would be laughed out of the building. And I know several Republicans did vote for the most recent iteration of SCHIP but remember it was vetoed by Bush as a "federalization of health care" or something.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Feb 18, 2010 10:34:09 GMT -5
You got to be kidding me. Shaun White's first run was better than both Vito's and the Finnish kid's. He's head and shoulders better than anybody else. It's not even close. Just because he was getting about 5 ft higher out of the pipe doesn't mean it was a better run. They said before the olympics they would hold each athlete to their own personal standard (and if they would match it). Shaun White's first run was not his personal best where as both Vito and the Fin pushed themselves and both did tricks that neither had ever done in competition. I agree with much of the rest of your post... but this first part is, as Peter King would put it, semi idiotic-esque. Judging based on perceived personal best?? Gimme a break. Yes, the fact that his jumps were literally head and shoulders above everyone else matters. What doesn't matter is what hypothetical Shaun White should have been able to do. This 'personal best' logic is bs. Although maybe if it's really used I could finally win that myself an olympic gold by scraping my way down the halfpipe and not falling once!! That would definitely be a personal best for me on a snowboard.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Jan 29, 2010 10:20:08 GMT -5
It's still a Sox/Eagles/Ohio State bar and even though that caters to most GU students, I'm not cool with it. In addition to being an Ohio St bar, it's also a Penn St bar. WTF is that?!
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Jan 18, 2010 13:29:27 GMT -5
Now I have no issue whatsoever with the TD--and it's actually considered rubbing it in if Vikings had kicked a FG there. If you don't want them to try and score-don't use your timeouts as if your team is still in the game. That being said--what kind of RETARDED logic is the "Hail Mary" game supposed to bring to this? I mean does this make up for that game? Will this "hurt" Drew Pearson? As a Viking fan are you really so inept full of a loser mentality that a game in 1975 still holds so bitter? Any Dallas fan can sit back and laugh at Viking fans when it comes to their "bitterness" knowing they were organization that GAVE Jerry Jones 3 Super Bowl Trophies--due to Mike Lynn and the Herschel Walker trade. Now that is reason to be bitter--but a game in 1975? GET A LIFE. ;D Pretty simple actually, and most certainly not worth getting Simmons' esque CAPS LOCK worked up about. DFW said there was no rivalry. I countered there was at least a history. Could have mentioned the Walker trade/fire sale/debacle but chose a football moment instead. Nice try though.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Jan 18, 2010 10:17:14 GMT -5
What's the need to run up the score in a playoff game? It's a low-class move for a non-rivalry game and doesn't help the Vikings one bit next week. Geaux Saints. How was this running up the score? The Vikings scored the final touchdown on 4th and 4 from the Cowboys' 11. What should they have done? Kick a field goal to make it 30-3? Take a knee? In a playoff game!? Also, if you think there's no history between the Cowboys and Vikings, you might want to brush up on the history of the hail mary pass.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Dec 23, 2009 14:45:06 GMT -5
The minus 1 column looks, with the potential exceptions of Louisiana and Iowa, like a list of small socialist nations under the yoke of years of communist Democrat control. Thankfully, Jersey has been freed at the gubernatorial level. Strangely, the minus states also look like a list of states with low immigration. Even more strangely, the plus states look like a list of states with high immigration. ( www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-34.pdf) Also, I wouldn't suggest using gubernatorial party affiliation as any indication of free/not free from the communist yoke. Minnesota hasn't had a democratic governor since 1991 and for most of the past decade had a Republican-controlled state legislature.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Dec 12, 2009 12:11:21 GMT -5
What about strip clubs that serve really good steak? Over rated. I don't want to put anything from a strip club in my mouth unless I see the seal broken myself The grossness of this post is WAYYYY underrated!
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Apr 27, 2009 9:50:40 GMT -5
Percy Harvin anyone? I like the Vikings choice of OT Phil Loadholt from OU in the 2nd round, bc the Vikings need a RT desperately, but it seems like they could have taken Oher instead of Harvin, who is both dumb (it's not the fact that he smokes pot, its the fact that he wasn't smart enough not to do it when he knew he'd be taking a drug test at the combine), coming out of a spread offense and a hybrid RB/WR that's relatively fragile, and I have no confidence in Childress being able to utilize him effectively (like Sean Payton has had some success doing with Reggie Bush). The thing that boggles my mind about the Harvin pick is that the Vikings apparently put together a list of 70 players they wouldn't draft because of "character issues." If failing a combine drug test doesn't get you on that list I wonder what those 70 guys had to do!?
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Apr 15, 2009 14:14:02 GMT -5
To be fair, Excitable, you didn't use the whole quote. The whole quote is: "“I think there is attrition in college basketball, in one form or another,” Thompson said when asked about the several transfers over a few years. “People leave because they are unhappy with the basketball situation, people leave because they have things going on in their personal life, and people leave because they don’t have the opportunity to return.” Its not obvious that he's talking about Omar with that last part of the statement. In fact, I believe he's talking about other transfers, and not Omar, from past rumors. I dont think Omar did anything besides work hard and play hard. It then goes on to say "He declined to place Wattad into one of these categories." If you read the Parsing the Goodbyes blog linked above... well, I'll leave the insinuations up to Coach. They're not allowed on here since they might offend the player's family. On Edit: Not trying to say anything negative about Omar, I really liked him and have no reason to believe that he's transferring for any other reason than that he feels it's best for him. However, since we can all pretty much agree that anything coming out of the athletic department is pretty carefully calculated, why would "I think there is attrition in college basketball, in one form or another, people leave for various reasons" not work? Is "people leave because they don’t have the opportunity to return" really necessary to mention when discussing a particular player? See that's what I think is interesting about the quote. My impressions of Wattad were the same so it kinda caught me by surprise to hear any insinuation from III. Or at the very least--even if I'm just reading too much into it--it was a weird time and place to comment generally on transfer trends in college basketball.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Apr 15, 2009 13:29:26 GMT -5
A really interesting quote by Thompson in the Hoya story: “People leave because they are unhappy with the basketball situation, people leave because they have things going on in their personal life, and people leave because they don’t have the opportunity to return.”
|
|
|
Ugh
Mar 12, 2009 14:03:33 GMT -5
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 12, 2009 14:03:33 GMT -5
Cursory internet research shows that in the three year period (1990-1992) immediately preceding the mass popularity and inclusion of airbags in US automobiles, there were 11 reported cases of child hypothermia in a car. From 2004 to 2006, there were 110 cases. That's pretty amazing. So my question is why not (continue to) install a simple On/Off airbag switch, put car seats in the front--where it is pretty unlikely you'd forget/neglect/whatever the kid--and turn the airbag off as needed? You could even make some special kind of hook up so that the car seat automatically disables the airbag. It couldn't cost our friends in Detroit THAT much, right? When it comes down to it, airbags were a public safety intervention. Sometimes the unintended consequences of these interventions mean tweaking the policies a bit.
|
|