?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile ABMann.net Previous Previous Next Next
New icon! - Portrait of a Young Man as The Artist — LiveJournal
abmann
abmann
New icon!
Source

You can only do so much with MS Paint.

Psycho Killer
by Talking Heads
I can't seem to face up to the facts
I'm tense and nervous and I
Can't relax
I can't sleep 'cause my bed's on fire
Don't touch me I'm a real live wire

Psycho Killer
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
Psycho Killer
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away

You start a conversation you can't even finish it.
You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?

Psycho Killer,
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
Psycho Killer
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away

Ce que j'ai fais, ce soir la
Ce qu'elle a dit, ce soir la
Realisant mon espoir
Je me lance, vers la gloire ... OK
We are vain and we are blind
I hate people when they're not polite

Psycho Killer,
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
Psycho Killer,
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away

oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh....
--

This may be the most obnoxious meme ever.
Click the text!
Glittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layoutsGlittergraphics.us - Myspace Glitter Graphics, MySpace Graphics, Glitter Graphics, MySpace layouts
--
Best Bumper Sticker award: "We don't have a democracy, we have an auction."

Current Mood: crazy crazy

5 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
aetrix9 From: aetrix9 Date: December 27th, 2005 04:29 pm (UTC) (Link)
And our frigging multi-million dollar action is the reason we need campaign finance reform.

But before that I think we need election reform. (PDF 390K)
abmann From: abmann Date: December 27th, 2005 04:39 pm (UTC) (Link)
This paper’s thesis is that
1. Nader’s complaints about US democracy are correct.


Not exactly a hypothesis I like to see, sounds a little biased. :)

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner explore the affect of campaign expenditure on voting trends, as in how much money gets you how many votes.

From Freakonomics:
Now, returning to the issue of campaign spending: in order to figure out the relationship between money and elections, it helps to consider the incentives at play in campaign finance. Let's say you are the kind of person who might contribute $1,000 to a candidate. Chances are you'll give the money in one of two situations: a close race, in which you think the money will influence the outcome; or a campaign in which one candidate is a sure winner and you would like to bask in reflected glory or receive some future in kind consideration. The one candidate you won't contribute to is a sure loser. (Just ask any presidential hopeful who bombs in Iowa and New Hampshire.) So front-runners and incumbents raise a lot more money than long shots. And what about spending that money? Incumbents and frontrunners obviously have more cash, but they only spend a lot of it when they stand a legitimate chance of losing; otherwise, why dip into a war chest that might be more useful later on, when a more formidable opponent appears?

Now picture two candidates, one intrinsically appealing and the other not so. The appealing candidate raises much more money and wins easily. But was it the money that won him the votes, or was it his appeal that won the votes and the money?

That's a crucial question but a very hard one to answer. Voter appeal, after all, isn't easy to quantify. How can it be measured?

It can't, really -- except in one special case. The key is to measure a candidate against ... himself. That is, Candidate A today is likely to be similar to Candidate A two or four years hence. The same could be said for Candidate B. If only Candidate A ran against Candidate B in two consecutive elections but in each case spent different amounts of money. Then, with the candidates' appeal more or less constant, we could measure the money's impact.

As it turns out, the same two candidates run against each other in consecutive elections all the time indeed, in nearly a thousand U.S. congressional races since 1972. What do the numbers have to say about such cases?

Here's the surprise: the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1 percent. What really matters for a political candidate is not how much you spend; what matters is who you are. (The same could be said and will be said, in chapter 5 about parents.) Some politicians are inherently attractive to voters and others simply aren't, and no amount of money can do much about it. (Messrs. Dean, Forbes, Huffington, and Golisano already know this, of course.)
aetrix9 From: aetrix9 Date: December 27th, 2005 05:00 pm (UTC) (Link)
The paper's hypothesis is most decidedly NOT about Nader, though you quoting part of the paper. That phrase is a reference to other parts of the paper (p1) where the author outlines ciearly that "Nader’s first complaint about US politics is that the top two parties and their presidential candidates are nearly identical – 'Tweedledum and Tweedledee' – offering voters little or no real choice." and "Nader’s second complaint is that both of the two Tweedledee parties are increasingly dominated by the big business and highly-moneyed interests who fund their enormously expensive campaigns against each other." This point #2 was the reason that I posted the link to the paper.

Sorry to be kinda tigh-holed about my response, but i was quite surprised that you just grabbed one thesis statement, took it out of context and used it to dismiss the paper entirely.

Hey! You went to a liberal arts school didn't you?
abmann From: abmann Date: December 27th, 2005 05:07 pm (UTC) (Link)
I read the opening. I was amused by the thesis stated as a reference to the opening. Bad mojo.

I'm not an idiot.
aetrix9 From: aetrix9 Date: December 27th, 2005 05:09 pm (UTC) (Link)
(I was also making an introduction to the paper to anyone else reading the thread.)
5 comments or Leave a comment