Monday Highlights

Hokay, what’s out there for us today?

  1. New light tech for one.
  2. Canonizing a leper.
  3. The left, it seems, can put their smug “we look at data, unlike you all, because we’re oh, oh, oh, so rational and you aren’t” and stuff it.
  4. Trickle down tech comes to the long gun.
  5. So … people who make arguments for campaign finance reform … are they all over this?
  6. Is this the real fiscal cliff?
  7. Some humor for your Monday morning.
  8. That’s just wrong.
  9. No, it would not “have been better to discuss the connections” because there aren’t any plausible connections to be made.
  10. A lovely quote on love.
  11. So, seriously (unlike TIME), who would you propose for person of the year?
  12. The Mandarins are doing well.
  13. And some advice for joining the Mandarin class.

2 Responses to Monday Highlights

  1. 3.The left, it seems, can put their smug “we look at data, unlike you all, because we’re oh, oh, oh, so rational and you aren’t” and stuff it.

    You seem to have confused ‘data’ with simply worshipping someone as some type of prophet. From the article:

    In the offending article, which is ever-so-subtly entitled “Is Obama Toast?,” Silver presents a formula of his own design that seeks to determine the probability of an Obama victory based on three factors: the President’s approval ratings, his economic performance, and the ideological positioning of the Republican candidate. Silver’s analysis results in a grim forecast for President Obama in a variety of scenarios. For example, Silver gives President Obama only a 17 percent chance of winning if pitted against Mitt Romney in a stagnant economy.

    It would seem there’s two possibilities:

    1. Silver’s model predicting Presidential victories was not very good at capturing reality, esp. when you compare it to his model aggregating poll results which seems to be as good as a model can get.

    2. Silver’s model was accurate and Obama was an exceptionally skillful candidate who was able to beat dramatic odds against him that would have normally sunk most other sitting Presidents.

    It is interesting, though, that the charge the the Obama campaign ‘dumped all over him’ seems poorly supported, unless by ‘dumped all over’ the right means something like had the nerve to disagree with him based on the facts and theory. This seems to be a recurring problem with the right. Loyalty is overrated relative to rationality. Those blessed as ‘the right people’ cannot be criticized. Witness the savage attacks that came down on conservatives who jumped off the Sarah Palin train early in 2008. How did ‘doubling down’ on her work out for the right? What does it say for Republican credibility that now, after Romney was deemed beyond criticism, he is being scapegoated for 2012′s failure? It says when you hear a Republican saying someone is really bad or really good, odds are low he’s telling the truth. Odds are he is simply signaling his loyality to ‘the cause’ which means marginal truth value to those seeking out the facts.

    My smugness is only enhanced by your attempts to challenge it!

  2. Boonton,

    My smugness is only enhanced by your attempts to challenge it!

    No. Your smugness is purely enabled by your epistemic bubble.

    Witness the savage attacks that came down on conservatives who jumped off the Sarah Palin train early in 2008. How did ‘doubling down’ on her work out for the right?

    In light of post election surveys showing that Palin didn’t hurt McCain in the end, … answer: it didn’t.

    Let’s see, Democrats attack Sliver when his model was against him. GOP does the same. The democrat attack is based on questioning the model. The GOP attack is too (recall, questions about whether the models which depended on higher than 2008 Dem turnout was questioned … this is a model question not a loyalty one). Gosh … I’m missing the difference. Oh, wait.

    Your smuggness is unwarranted and childish.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>