After his acquittal, the Fraternal Order of Police went to bat for him to return to work. The arbitrator concluded that oral sex had occurred but that prosecutors failed to prove it was forced. So he reduced Paige’s dismissal to a 30-day suspension. Paige returned to work in April 2009, police spokesman Lt. Ray Evers said. He also got back pay; an amount wasn’t immediately available, but his current salary is $62,519, according to city payroll records.

Paige, who joined the force in 1989, had a lengthy disciplinary history even before he met Harris.

As a rookie, he was suspended for repeatedly sleeping while on duty, allowing a prisoner to escape through carelessness and pursuing a motorist out of his district, according to court records. In 1994, a suspect complained that Paige stole $1,200 from his car during an arrest; that suspect later refused to participate in the internal-affairs probe, and Paige was suspended only for failing to complete an incident report and property receipt, court records show.

Thank God for Unions, right pacino?

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120 ... a_cop.html

This is clearly a smear job written by an amateur. It is obvious right here: "allowing a prisoner to escape through carelessness". How else do you "allow" a prisoner to escape unless it is collusion.

Now that I have had my fun, I certainly do not understand cases like this. There are plenty of situations that can be and are pointed to where unions act for their member at all cost ignoring fact. I think that the one thing that unions could do to realign themselves with the rest of America is to take a stance that there are bad employees and if these employees operate outside the bounds of reasonable expectation that they should receive nothing in the way of help from the union. Undertaking the effort to define what is outside the box of reason could instantly make unions more respectable.

So looking at the RCP Electoral College map, it appears that Obama has several "paths" to victory, while Romney pretty much needs to sweep every "undecided" state to win. Now, I think there are all kinds of reasons why we may discount the particulars of the RCP map--for instance, SC is shown as "leaning" Romney, but it's tough to imagine Romney not holding SC pretty comfortably. And probably lots of states don't have great polling data at this point.

But nevertheless, I do draw the inference that this time around the electoral college system favors Obama, and that it's possible that Obama will win the electoral college while losing the popular vote--Romney will rack up huge margins in the red states. If that does happen, will the current conservative defenders of the EC (who seem to be stuck in 2000) stay the course? Is it possible that in this partisan age someone will actually stick with a principle even when it works against partisanship?

I'll be frank--much like I despise the idea that every state (even Delaware) gets two Senators, I despise the electoral college even more. I mean, I love Florida, I really do. But I don't think those people should pretty much decide who gets to be President.

I've seen a bunch of people talking about Obama's advantage in the electoral college, but I don't really see it. He's up by 3-5% in the national polls right now, and the classification of a state being leaning is 5%+, which means if the race shifts back to parity nationally, some lean Dem states (PA, NV) should shift back to tossup and some tossups will become lean GOP (AZ, MO).

If you assign states where Obama is winning by less than 3% to Romney, Obama wins the electoral college 284-254. If you raise that to 4%, Romney takes it 276-262. Given that's the gap the national polls are picking up as well, seems like it's right on the usual knife edge and no real advantage to either candidate. Maybe Romney has fewer paths than Obama (ie Obama can pick off VA/NC/CO or FL or OH from the Bush 2004 states), but I'm not really sure that makes a huge difference. Romney's place to expand the map appears to be limited to PA and NH unless he wins by more than a few percent, but after reapportionment, the Bush 2004 states get you to 292, so there's a bit of margin for error there.

TenuredVulture wrote:So looking at the RCP Electoral College map, it appears that Obama has several "paths" to victory, while Romney pretty much needs to sweep every "undecided" state to win. Now, I think there are all kinds of reasons why we may discount the particulars of the RCP map--for instance, SC is shown as "leaning" Romney, but it's tough to imagine Romney not holding SC pretty comfortably. And probably lots of states don't have great polling data at this point.

But nevertheless, I do draw the inference that this time around the electoral college system favors Obama, and that it's possible that Obama will win the electoral college while losing the popular vote--Romney will rack up huge margins in the red states. If that does happen, will the current conservative defenders of the EC (who seem to be stuck in 2000) stay the course? Is it possible that in this partisan age someone will actually stick with a principle even when it works against partisanship?

I'll be frank--much like I despise the idea that every state (even Delaware) gets two Senators, I despise the electoral college even more. I mean, I love Florida, I really do. But I don't think those people should pretty much decide who gets to be President.

So basically what you're sayings is not all states are created equally?

You hate that small states have equal representation in the Senate. You hate that bigger states get to "decide" elections.

What would you advocate?

I think you miss the deep red state issue that I raise though--Romney will win Texas by a bigger margin than Obama wins CA or NY. Romney is going to accumulate tons of useless votes in the South and other deep red states. I'm more or less operating under the assumption that the social conservatives in deep red states turn out for Romney, which might not hold up--hence the RCP map showing SC pink instead of red. But even so, Romney will outperform McCain in those states.

And I do think too much is made of the path to victory issue in terms of winning the election--if Romney picks off PA, the election is over.

TenuredVulture wrote:I think you miss the deep red state issue that I raise though--Romney will win Texas by a bigger margin than Obama wins CA or NY. Romney is going to accumulate tons of useless votes in the South and other deep red states. I'm more or less operating under the assumption that the social conservatives in deep red states turn out for Romney, which might not hold up--hence the RCP map showing SC pink instead of red. But even so, Romney will outperform McCain in those states.

And I do think too much is made of the path to victory issue in terms of winning the election--if Romney picks off PA, the election is over.

I don't think you're right about the win TX by more than lose CA and NY thing. Obama won CA by 24% and NY by 26%, McCain won TX by 12%. Obama won nationally by 7%, so if you correct for that you're looking at TX +19%, CA -17%, NY -19%. There are more states maybe that GOP vote is wasted in, but gets canceled out a bit by CA being freaking humongous and the small state bias in the electoral college.

Obama could certainly win the EC narrowly and lose popular vote narrowly, but I think the reverse is true for Romney.

slugsrbad wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:So looking at the RCP Electoral College map, it appears that Obama has several "paths" to victory, while Romney pretty much needs to sweep every "undecided" state to win. Now, I think there are all kinds of reasons why we may discount the particulars of the RCP map--for instance, SC is shown as "leaning" Romney, but it's tough to imagine Romney not holding SC pretty comfortably. And probably lots of states don't have great polling data at this point.

But nevertheless, I do draw the inference that this time around the electoral college system favors Obama, and that it's possible that Obama will win the electoral college while losing the popular vote--Romney will rack up huge margins in the red states. If that does happen, will the current conservative defenders of the EC (who seem to be stuck in 2000) stay the course? Is it possible that in this partisan age someone will actually stick with a principle even when it works against partisanship?

I'll be frank--much like I despise the idea that every state (even Delaware) gets two Senators, I despise the electoral college even more. I mean, I love Florida, I really do. But I don't think those people should pretty much decide who gets to be President.

So basically what you're sayings is not all states are created equally?

You hate that small states have equal representation in the Senate. You hate that bigger states get to "decide" elections.

What would you advocate?

The problem with both the electoral college and the Senate is that both systematically disenfranchise people. It's not big v. small states, it's the people in those states. Unless you live in FL, PA, OH, and a handful of other states, there's absolutely no reason to vote in the Presidential election. Urban Texans, rural Californians, sane people from Oklahoma don't count. The arguments made by defenders of the Electoral College are pretty universally dumb--either beside the point (how does the electoral college preserve or expand states rights?) or flat out wrong (it doesn't protect the interests of rural voters as there are few states where rural voters form anything close to a majority and those states are all small).

As far as the Senate, Senators representing roughly 10% of the US can effectively block legislation. Both lead to perverse outcomes--zillions of highway dollars spent on empty interstates in Wyoming, the continuation of the utterly pointless and self-defeating Cuba embargo, ethanol, and so on.

So, I advocate a national popular vote to fix one, and I'd probably turn the Senate into something like the House of Lords. But obviously, neither are going to happen any time soon as both would require a constitutional amendment.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I think you miss the deep red state issue that I raise though--Romney will win Texas by a bigger margin than Obama wins CA or NY. Romney is going to accumulate tons of useless votes in the South and other deep red states. I'm more or less operating under the assumption that the social conservatives in deep red states turn out for Romney, which might not hold up--hence the RCP map showing SC pink instead of red. But even so, Romney will outperform McCain in those states.

And I do think too much is made of the path to victory issue in terms of winning the election--if Romney picks off PA, the election is over.

I don't think you're right about the win TX by more than lose CA and NY thing. Obama won CA by 24% and NY by 26%, McCain won TX by 12%. Obama won nationally by 7%, so if you correct for that you're looking at TX +19%, CA -17%, NY -19%. There are more states maybe that GOP vote is wasted in, but gets canceled out a bit by CA being freaking humongous and the small state bias in the electoral college.

Obama could certainly win the EC narrowly and lose popular vote narrowly, but I think the reverse is true for Romney.

Neither of us are considering yet another possiblity--a Ron Paul independent run. That will likely deny anyone a popular vote majority (though presumably it helps Obama but maybe not) and if that results in a replay of 1992, I wonder what happens politically then.

Again, however, assuming the Obama losing the popular vote an wins the electoral vote scenario plays out, do conservative EC defenders stick to their guns or not?

If Paul runs, Obama likely gets a plurality, rather than an absolute majority, of the popular vote. Four years ago, he received an absolute majority, something not all that common in recent presidential elections. I guess it is barely conceivable that Paul wins one or two states and throws the election into the House. Not likely, both because I seriously doubt he could win any states, but also because a Paul run likely increases Obama's electoral vote count.

Do I understand correctly that the guy running against Bob Casey says that, if elected, he will drive to implement Cain's 9-9-9 plan? If so, WTF is wrong with the GOP in PA to make this their candidate?

Young Barack Obama in love

(from page 3)

She remembered how on Sundays Obama would lounge around, drinking coffee and solving the New York Times crossword puzzle, bare-chested, wearing a blue and white sarong.

So Mourdock looks like he's gonna beat Lugar.

There's a Texas Poll showing Romney with a 7 point lead. Now, it's Democratic PPP, and obviously, Romney is going to win Texas, and probably by something like 14 points, if not more. But still. That's comparable to Obama's lead in places I'd still consider toss ups like Nevada and Virginia.

On the weak jobs report, Romney's suggested 500,000 jobs/month created is more like what we should be seeing

well, it's been done, of course

16 times

since the 1930s

5 times

since 1970

This guy's more than a jobs-creating genius - he's a jobs-creating genie!

That socialist rag, the Wall Street Journal, called him on it

Why would someone running for the presidency, whose fundamental claim to voter attention is that he knows how to create jobs, say something that so deftly suggests that he knows nothing about doing so?

One could unpack Romney's statement and the ignorance or (more likely) cynicism that informs it, but my strong guess is all that really matters here is the public perception of the economy. The big takeaway for the low-information voter is "the report is disappointing and the already-weak recovery is slowing down." Romney's remark just underlines that perception.

What kind of frustrates me is, one, that these numbers are frequently revised to a not-inconsiderable degree (the March number, also "disappointing" at 120k, now comes in at a much more creditable 154k), and two, that the Republicans' cuts to state and local government employment are depressing the pace of the recovery compared to historical norms.

But this really does look like 2004 in reverse: if it's a straight referendum on the incumbent, he has a problem, but if it's more of a choice, he probably stays on the job because the challenger from Massachusetts is a super-rich, severely unlikable douche. Whatever the jobs number is that would change the calculus, 115k probably isn't it.

Couple of ballot boxes lost and found in London's mayoral election

Boris Johnson is so weird

dajafi wrote:One could unpack Romney's statement and the ignorance or (more likely) cynicism that informs it, but my strong guess is all that really matters here is the public perception of the economy. The big takeaway for the low-information voter is "the report is disappointing and the already-weak recovery is slowing down." Romney's remark just underlines that perception.

What kind of frustrates me is, one, that these numbers are frequently revised to a not-inconsiderable degree (the March number, also "disappointing" at 120k, now comes in at a much more creditable 154k), and two, that the Republicans' cuts to state and local government employment are depressing the pace of the recovery compared to historical norms.

But this really does look like 2004 in reverse: if it's a straight referendum on the incumbent, he has a problem, but if it's more of a choice, he probably stays on the job because the challenger from Massachusetts is a super-rich, severely unlikable douche. Whatever the jobs number is that would change the calculus, 115k probably isn't it.

I agree with all of that. Romney's playing politics by exaggerating what a real recovery looks like, and Obama loses if the race becomes about him and win if it becomes about Romney.

Werthless wrote:I agree with all of that. Romney's playing politics by exaggerating what a real recovery looks like, and Obama loses if the race becomes about him and win if it becomes about Romney.

But no "good" politician exaggerates as he has, because he's gone so far it looks like incompetence. Anyone with an ounce of preparation does not suggest 500k jobs/month is what's to be expected. And he made similar absurd suggestions about a target unemployment rate.

If you're to be credible as the "job creator expert wunderkind" candidate, you can't do that. And he did it. Did it almost as if he didn't think at all about it. Which is probably accurate.