Patterico's Pontifications

I did attend graduate school, I do go to church, I was once between the ages of 18 and 29, but that was 28 years ago, and I am white.

They said that if I voted for John McCain, we’d see the deficit tripling and millions of people thrown out of work. I did vote for John McCain; guess this is all my fault.

The Catholic Dana (3e4784) — 5/13/2010 @ 1:04 pm

That’s all right Dana.
They told me if I voted for Barry Goldwater, that we would be involved in a land war in Asia within the year.
58,000 deaths, all my fault.

AD - RtR/OS! (2aae98) — 5/13/2010 @ 1:31 pm

Dana, I would be very interested in seeing a break down of those post-grads Gallop spoke with. How many of those polled stayed on in some form of theoretical, insular academia, and how many others went out into the world to actually, like, you know, *use* the specialized skills we got in grad school. (I think we can probably guess a large part of the composition of the Obama loving group.)

elissa (2769fa) — 5/13/2010 @ 1:36 pm

The Emperor has no rainbow coalition!

Icy Texan (1cd8c3) — 5/13/2010 @ 1:44 pm

and/or be vegetarians

and have 2.8 bicycles.

nk (db4a41) — 5/13/2010 @ 1:57 pm

… and/or lives on the East or West Coasts.
… and/or believes global warming is the greatest threat mankind currently faces.
… and/or religiously reads The New York Times and watches MSNBC.

But none of those questions were asked.

DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/13/2010 @ 2:03 pm

I bet a large portion of them also happen to either not have jobs or never had a real one outside the Gov.

Mr. Pink (ff4ec0) — 5/13/2010 @ 2:04 pm

I didn’t see them do an intersection of the age and education profiles. It could be that his biggest supporters are the 18-29 with grad school background- in other words, those whose opinions are still dependent on the campus milieu and have not yet been in the “real” world enough. Even college grads in the 18 to 29 group have had more years experience on their own.

Then there is Dennis Prager’s point of view that the longer you are in education after high school the dummer you get, at least in things that matter.

MD in Philly (ea3785) — 5/13/2010 @ 2:23 pm

“To have opinions that mis-informed, you really have to go to Grad-School.”

AD - RtR/OS! (2aae98) — 5/13/2010 @ 2:26 pm

Then there is Dennis Prager’s point of view that the longer you are in education after high school the dummer you get, at least in things that matter.

Comment by MD in Philly — 5/13/2010 @ 2:23 pm

Heh! When I got into high school, I tested at 145 IQ. When I got out, I tested at 133. But it could have been the LSD. 😉

nk (db4a41) — 5/13/2010 @ 2:36 pm

“No more LSD for me,…” Larry Norman

I think one specific he cited was a student’s knowledge about basic things in US history and govt., not during high school but once you got into college.

Those drugs that distort reality mess up all of the tests that have to do with associations- you know, why by logical when you can be creative.

AD-RtR/OS! has captured it.

MD in Philly (ea3785) — 5/13/2010 @ 2:47 pm

One example of higher education making people stupid was the difficulty we had in Colorado getting rid of the fraud Ward Churchill, and how many of his students came out of the woodwork to defend him because his fraud made them feel better about hating anglos.

SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2010 @ 2:52 pm

anecdotal data – I’m 36, I’m currently in post-graduate school, I do not attend church, I’m white, i’m not a vegetarian, i used to own a bicycle but it’s been stolen, i live on the west coast, i periodically read the NYT but never watch MSNBC, and i’ve had a private sector software job of one sort or another for fiteen years.

I’m not sure I’d call myself an “Obama supporter”, though: I voted for him, and I think he’s doing an OK job, and I certainly prefer his agenda to Boehner’s agenda, but he’s irritated me at least as much as he’s pleased me.

aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/13/2010 @ 3:42 pm

AD, I guess I am just as guilty as you for Vietnam, as I also voted for Goldwater.

And right now I am trying to digest aphrael’s opinion that Obama is doing an ok job. That doesn’t compute in my brain.

PatAZ (655234) — 5/13/2010 @ 4:52 pm

A significant portion of those post-grads are likely seeking teaching certification for K-12 public school employment. I’d like to see a breakdown of the category by academic discipline.

ropelight (f60615) — 5/13/2010 @ 4:57 pm

aphrael,

What do you think about Obama asking Congress to retroactively expand BP’s legal liability for the April 20th oil spill? Does that bother you from a legal standpoint?

DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/13/2010 @ 5:02 pm

DRJ: I hadn’t noticed that.

It’s not clear to me from that article what they’re actually asking for in the way of a change to the law.

If it’s (a), changing the rule so that future oil spills don’t have the liability limit, I’m in favor.

If it’s (b), retroactively changing the rule so that BP is liable today beyond it’s liability on the day of the spill, I don’t see how it’s constitutional and, even if it is, it’s wrong: we shouldn’t gerrymander the rules after the fact.

If it’s (c), setting up a rule whereby if BP promises to pay for costs beyond the liability, they can subsequently be held to that promise – it depends on the details of the new rule. Conceptually I’m in favor of it; BP should not be able to reap public relations gains by promising to pay for all costs and then later only paying for the liability limit. If they make a promise under these circumstances, I support a means to bind them to it. (That said, it can’t be retroactive: they can’t be bound to a promise they made before the binding was authorized – they’d have to be given the opportunity to re-make the promise after the legislation passed).

The article doesn’t tell me which is under discussion.

aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/13/2010 @ 5:09 pm

MD in Philly said: Then there is Dennis Prager’s point of view that the longer you are in education after high school the dummer you get, at least in things that matter.

The process of getting a PhD has been described as progressively learning more and more and more about less and less and less until finally you know everything there is to know about nothing.

Spartan79 (300102) — 5/13/2010 @ 7:16 pm

aphrael:

The article doesn’t tell me which is under discussion.

Does this White House Press Briefing by Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, help?

Q Good morning, everyone. When you say lifting the cap on damages, are you talking about retroactively increasing BP’s liability, or is this for future incidents lifting the cap?

MS. BROWNER: Yes, we are updating the statute to address all situations and, yes, we are lifting the cap retroactively.

Q Is there an ex post facto problem in doing that?

MS. BROWNER: No, we do not believe so, because what we are doing is updating the statute and it covers all companies.

Does that make legal sense to you?

DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/13/2010 @ 7:55 pm

And if it does, what’s to stop the Administration from urging Congress to retroactively alter the Tax Code so we all owe more taxes for past years? After all, it’s only updating a statute and it would cover everyone.

DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/13/2010 @ 7:58 pm

They told me if I voted for John McCain that Gitmo would still be open in a year.

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/13/2010 @ 8:51 pm

“Does that make legal sense to you?”

DRJ – Why don’t they just go ahead and nationalize the oil companies and please Maxine Waters?

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/13/2010 @ 8:55 pm

They probably want to, daley, but maybe they are going alphabetically. A is for Automobile …

DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/13/2010 @ 9:11 pm

DRJ – that’s ridiculous. I don’t see how the cap could be lifted retroactively. I’m not an expert in the interpretation of the ex post facto clause, but I would interpret it to bar this kind of change to the law.

And I find the proposal offensive: fundamental fairness says that you don’t change the liability rules after the event. Maybe the event makes you realize that you should chaange the rules for future events, but retroactive changes offend me on a deep level.

aphrael (9e8ccd) — 5/13/2010 @ 10:12 pm

Daleyrocks: nationalizing the oil companies would be vastly preferable to establishing the principle that legal responsibilities can be retroactively modified.

aphrael (9e8ccd) — 5/13/2010 @ 10:15 pm

Aphral #24:

Ditto. This is about the law and incidents like this show this Administration treats the law as a disposable inconvenience.

DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/13/2010 @ 10:19 pm

B is for banks

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/13/2010 @ 10:43 pm

C is for Corporations

John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 5/13/2010 @ 10:45 pm

Heh. The sad thing is we could probably cover several letters of the alphabet after only 16 months.

DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/13/2010 @ 11:20 pm

Well, C is for Climate and D is for Doctors.

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/13/2010 @ 11:27 pm

E is for energy.

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/13/2010 @ 11:27 pm

Whew! For a minute there I thought that B was for beer.
Gad! Can you imagine Biden Brew? Flat, boring & just plain wrong.

F will be for farms & factories.
G for gasoline.
H for (well, they already did that one)
I for (ditto; see above)
J for jobs; you name it, they’ll nationalize it

Icy Texan (176b23) — 5/14/2010 @ 2:44 am

fundamental fairness
Comment by aphrael

I agree that the idea of retroactive changes in the law is fundamentally unfair, but these folks are happy to be fundamentally unfair in the here and now to “make up” for past unfairness done by somebody else, and even then they choose what unfairness to focus on out of their own preferences, itself unfair.

MD in Philly (ea3785) — 5/14/2010 @ 6:42 am

“Daleyrocks: nationalizing the oil companies would be vastly preferable to establishing the principle that legal responsibilities can be retroactively modified.”

aphrael – Didn’t California retroactively regulate the profitability of insurance companies with a ballot initiative some years back? How was that fair?

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/14/2010 @ 6:47 am

daleyrocks – i’m not familiar offhand with that law, and i’m unlikely to have voted for it.

aphrael (73ebe9) — 5/14/2010 @ 7:36 am

aphrael – That would be Prop 103.

Just one provision:

Lines Regulated by Proposition 103

* The following lines of insurance are regulated by Prop 103: Personal automobile, dwelling fire, earthquake, homeowners, inland marine, and umbrella, commercial aircraft, boiler and machinery, burglary and theft, business owners, earthquake, farm owners, some fidelity, fire, glass, , medical malpractice, miscellaneous, multi-peril, other liability, professional liability, special multi-peril, and coverage under the United States Longshoremen’s & Harbor Workers’ Compensation.

Act Rollback Provisions

* Prop 103 required every insurer to reduce its rates at least 20% less than those rates that were in effect on November 8, 1987.

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/14/2010 @ 4:46 pm

Daleyrocks: ahhh, that passed in an election I was not eligible to vote in.

However, retroactivity isn’t clear from that. A requirement that *tomorrow* you set your rates to be what they were *last year* isn’t retroactive.

It’s only retroactive if it requires your rates to have been lower yesterday.

aphrael (9e8ccd) — 5/14/2010 @ 11:12 pm

aphrael – Prop 103 passed Nov. 8, 1988. It demanded insurers drop rates at least 20% below where they were a year before the date of passage. Attach your own label for that action instead of retroactivity. To me it is along the same lines as what Obama is proposing for the oil industry, a taking from private industry for the privilege of staying in business. They are doing the came things by setting minimum loss ratios in the health care reform bill.

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/15/2010 @ 6:44 am

5/13/2010

Obama Supporters

38 Responses to “Obama Supporters”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out