This is making the rounds, one of those e-mail circulars that it's really hard to find the original source of. If anyone has an idea of where it came from, please post it to comments or send me an e-mail.
A Day in the Life of Joe Republican
By John Gray, Cincinnati, Ohio
Joe gets up at 6:00 am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good, clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and efficacy. All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance.
Now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. Joe takes his morning shower, reaching for his shampoo; his bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know the amount and identity of the substances he was putting on his body.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor to society. Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer upholds these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a workers compensation or unemployment check because some Liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work, and he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmer's Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark!) He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad
lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees. "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives", he says. "After all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".
[Thanks to Trish for sending me this.]
This piece makes a point that needs to be made more often, which is that much of what we all take for granted in life actually came about because of liberal activism and government action. Another example is the interstate highway system: how many people driving in safety and convenience on these roads really take in that they were built and designed by their various governments, using their tax dollars, and that this is the entire point about why we have and need governments.
As I suspected might be the case, the place where I'm working for the next 2 1/2 weeks has no good internet access. I can get online to get my e-mail, but the connection's not fast enough to surf or blog with. I have a new cellular modem, but the cell signal I get isn't strong enough for it to work well (it's even slower than the slow land-line).
The upshot of it all is that I'll be posting on Sunday nights and Mondays, when I'm back in New York for my days off (and to see various doctors in connection with my heart problem). That's when I'll update the electoral college tracking survey, which will probably take up most of my available blogging time.
So, don't expect any deep insights from this quarter for a couple of weeks. (As if you were expecting deep insights in the first place...)
Seven days pass, and, lo and behold, my last survey of Electoral College tracking / prediction / projection / forecast / scoreboard / map sites is once again passe, so let's check in and see what the trackers have to say.
Larry Allen (9/6 - new) Kerry 254 - Bush 233 - ?? 51 (CO, FL, NV, WI) (new to survey)
MEDIAN: Kerry 254 - Bush 259 (remainder: 25) (was: 254-263-21)
MODE: Kerry 254 - Bush 233 (remainder: 51) (was: 254-284)
Note: I've dropped the averages for "Sites with no ??," since they didn't seem to be very helpful. (If anyone misses them and wants them back, please let me know.)
"Mean" is what we usually call "average." All items are added up and divided by the number of items.
"Median" is the center point, the middle value in a list. There are as many values larger than the median as there are values that are smaller.
"Mode" is the number in a list which appears the most times.
RANGE Kerry max: 311 (327) Kerry min: 146 (161)
Bush max: 316 (300) Bush min: 166 (147)
A very difficult week to categorize by the evidence of the electoral college trackers. On the one hand, Bush is clearly still slightly ahead at this point (20 sites have Bush winning, 30 winning or ahead, while only 14 show Kerry winning, 18 winning or ahead; and Bush is ahead on mean and median), but Kerry gained on more sites than he lost on, whereas Bush gained and lost equally. Bush was not able to consolidate his substantial gains of last week, and, in fact, lost a little ground, but Kerry also wasn't able to take advantage of that and stayed static or lost a little himself.
Overall, a week of stasis or minor losses for both candidates. Kerry sits at 249 to 254 electoral votes, while Bush is just slightly ahead of him with 253 to 259. (Both are below the 270 vote threshhold.) Whatever "convention bounce" Bush received seems to have played itself out.
Invariably, no matter how many times I check and recheck them, immediately after I post the survey a number of sites will update their numbers -- sometimes I suspect they're just waiting for me to publish before they make their changes -- so for a few days (assuming I have access to the web) I'll update figures, make corrections, and add any new sites that come to my attention. I'll note these changes here, and mark the entry for each altered site as well.
(9/13) One prediction site I wanted to note, but didn't want to include in the survey, is SqueezeVote.com, which issues a daily Electoral College prediction map based on the sales of George W. Bush and John Kerry squeeze dolls. As of 9/12, their numbers were 267-132-139 -- but the map is decidedly odd: the "swing states" include TX and GA!
(9/13) Alan Reifman has an interesting essay on whether pollsters should weigh their poll results for party i.d. here. There's already been some discussion about it over on MyDD.
From each website I've taken the most comprehensive set of numbers offered, if possible without a "toss-up" category or other caveats, just Kerry versus Bush. Many of them differentiate between "solid" or "strong", "slightly" or "weak", and "leaning" or "barely" states, but I've combined them all together in order to present numbers which are as comparable as possible.
I encourage everyone to use the links and check each site for the specifics of that site's methodology and presentation.
My convention is that Kerry is listed first and Bush second, bold type indicates a winning candidate (i.e. 270 electoral votes or more), and italics or underlining indicates a leading candidate.
Sites which haven't updated in a while will be temporarily removed from the list until they're freshened. The time period I'll keep a stagnant site on the list is a little under a month right now, but that will tighten up as we get closer to the election.
One-time Electoral College status check articles from the news media (as opposed to ongoing features) will be included, but only for a single interation of the survey, unless they are replaced by a new article.
As always, if anyone has links for any other sites that regularly track Electoral College status, please feel free to send them my way and I'll be glad to add them to the list. I'm also more than happy to hear from the proprietors of any of the sites surveyed here, should they have any complaints, comments, or suggestions for improvements.
Simply stated, it's that monetary damage caused by hurricanes is reported without using some sort of standard dollar (say, 1980 dollars), and without taking into account the difference in the amount of development and population size over the course of time. To do a useful comparison between hurricanes, it probably should be stated in standard dollards and on a per capita basis.
But that of course pales before the fact that we get so focused on the damage done in Florida (or Texas, or wherever in the US the hurricane makes landfall) that we almost completely ignore the much more extensive damage, in lives and other human costs, they do to the Caribbean islands they hit before reaching us.
hostile to science
lacking in empathy
lacking in public spirit
out of control
Thanks to: Breeze, Chuck, Ivan Raikov, Kaiju, Kathy, Roger, Shirley, S.M. Dixon
i've got a little list...
Steven Abrams (Kansas BofE)
Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson
Roger Ailes (FNC)
Alan Bonsell (Dover BofE)
Bill Buckingham (Dover BofE)
George W. Bush
Bruce Chapman (DI)
The Coors Family
William A. Dembski
Leonard Downie (WaPo)
John Gibson (FNC)
Fred Hiatt (WaPo)
James F. Inhofe
Philip E. Johnson
by Joel Pelletier
(click on image for more info)
Stephen C. Meyer (DI)
Judith Miller (ex-NYT)
Sun Myung Moon
Elspeth Reeve (TNR)
Martin Peretz (TNR)
Richard Mellon Scaife
Susan Schmidt (WaPo)
John Solomon (WaPo)
Richard Thompson (TMLC)
Bob Woodward (WaPo)
All the fine sites I've
Be sure to visit them all!!
Arthur C. Clarke
Daniel C. Dennett
Philip K. Dick
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Harder They Come"
Ursula K. LeGuin
The Marx Brothers
Michael C. Penta
Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
"The Red Shoes"
"Singin' in the Rain"
Talking Heads/David Byrne
Hunter S. Thompson
"2001: A Space Odyssey"
If you read unfutz at least once a week, without fail, your teeth will be whiter and your love life more satisfying.
If you read it daily, I will come to your house, kiss you on the forehead, bathe your feet, and cook pancakes for you, with yummy syrup and everything.
(You might want to keep a watch on me, though, just to avoid the syrup ending up on your feet and the pancakes on your forehead.)
Finally, on a more mundane level, since I don't believe that anyone actually reads this stuff, I make this offer: I'll give five bucks to the first person who contacts me and asks for it -- and, believe me, right now five bucks might as well be five hundred, so this is no trivial offer.