Thoughts including BP, Rasmussen and Damages

I haven't posted in a while; since healthcare reform passed.  I was not happy with the omission of the public option but I am overall pleased with AHCA especially since the community option may serve as a long term public option; in the heat of the debate I under estimated this part. As to the mandate, truth be told, $750 is not a lot of money to those that can afford it so even on this point I will take a step back.  So this brings me to two observations I want to make on the issue de jour. First, in seeing the amount of damage the spill is creating, what, up to 80 billions? more? Isn't the Supreme Court reversing the damages provision from 5 bill to 500 mill in the Exxon Valdez case look absurd in its face? Someone should read that opinion and tear our esteemed judges a new one. 

Also, on Barton's apology, just for fun, it got me thinking how Rasmussen could put a good spin on his idiocy.  Here it is: "If Barton feels the apology helps the energy industry, do you think he was out of line?" Or, "Would you not vote for Barton because of his comments?" Both questions are set to get the best possible answers for Barton, instead of a simple you approve or disapprove of his remarks question.  The way I see Rasmussen is like an economists sees the economy: macro and micro.  Depending on the issue, he will spin on narrow or large grounds.  For progressive issues, he will find the conservative spin; e.g., abortion, welfare, government- the question would be "is there a better way to do things?"   - but for conservative issues such as defense, taxes- the question would be "do you think they are behaving with good intentions?"  No doubt, Rasmussen is about driving narrative.   Liberals never do things the best way whereas conservatives always have good intentions.      



Tags: (all tags)


Advertise Blogads