Originally Posted by Wes84

According to Colin Woodard in American Nations, there are three nations within Pennsylvania: Yankeedom (Northern Tier), the Midlands (SE and along the Middle Tier), and Greater Appalachia (lower Central-SW). Pennsyltucky would primarily be associated with the Appalachian part of the state. Maybe even some of the counties just on the outside of its national boundaries could be considered Pennsyltucky.

I am scratching my head at this wondering if Pittsburgh really deserves to be considered part of Appalachia. It has, after all, a world-class symphony orchestra and three professional sports teams. Perhaps it is a capital of a part of Appalachia. Certainly I was a fish out of water there for the ten years I lived there.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I am scratching my head at this wondering if Pittsburgh really deserves to be considered part of Appalachia. It has, after all, a world-class symphony orchestra and three professional sports teams. Perhaps it is a capital of a part of Appalachia. Certainly I was a fish out of water there for the ten years I lived there.

My dad was from around the Pittsburgh area and I had cousins there for a long time. I agree that it's part of Greater Appalachia. The professional sports teams don't make it any less so. The symphony orchestra and other cultural amenities are more or less expected of any city in any region, though I'm glad to know they're there.

Albuquerque has a symphony orchestra, several live theater venues, and other such amenities and we're down here in El Norte, home of red & green chile, lowriders, and everything else that goes with Norteno culture. (As someone told me last night, there's a reason Breaking Bad was filmed in Albuquerque!). I'm sure there are people who would move here and say "Duh? I've moved to Bordertown?" and I scratch my head ans say "No, it's nothing of the sort - it's just a regular city, with everything you'd expect from a city."

a blog with some statistical insights -

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/th...r-first-dates/

- including these -

If you want to know…

Do my date and I have the same politics?

Ask him or her…

Do you prefer the people in your life to be simple or complex?

because…

We were very surprised to find that this one question very strongly predicts a person’s ideas on these divisive issues:

Should burning your country’s flag be illegal?

Should the death penalty be abolished?

Should gay marriage be legal?

Should Evolution and Creationism be taught side-by-side in schools?

In each case, complexity-preferrers are 65-70% likely to give the Liberal answer. And those who prefer simplicity in others are 65-70% likely to give the Conservative one.

This correlation is for a nationwide dataset; it won’t be as useful in places where one ideology is much more prevalent than the other. For example, in New York City there are lots of people who like simplicity and yet have Liberal politics.

Or perhaps for more important insight -

Okay, if you want to know…

Will my date have sex on the first date?

Ask…

Do you like the taste of beer?

Because…

Among all our casual topics, whether someone likes the taste of beer is the single best predictor of if he or she has sex on the first date.

No matter their gender or orientation, beer-lovers are 60% more likely to be okay with sleeping with someone they've just met. Sadly, this is the only question with a meaningful correlation for women. For men there are a few others:

Q: In a certain light, wouldn't nuclear war be exciting? 'yes'⇒83%
Q: Assuming you were in the position to do so, would you launch nuclear weapons under any circumstances? 'yes'⇒82%
Q: Could you imagine yourself killing someone? 'yes'⇒82%

First, I have to give guys credit for logical thinking: in the post-apocalypse, THERE ARE NO SECOND DATES.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

My dad was from around the Pittsburgh area and I had cousins there for a long time. I agree that it's part of Greater Appalachia. The professional sports teams don't make it any less so. The symphony orchestra and other cultural amenities are more or less expected of any city in any region, though I'm glad to know they're there.

Albuquerque has a symphony orchestra, several live theater venues, and other such amenities and we're down here in El Norte, home of red & green chile, lowriders, and everything else that goes with Norteno culture. (As someone told me last night, there's a reason Breaking Bad was filmed in Albuquerque!). I'm sure there are people who would move here and say "Duh? I've moved to Bordertown?" and I scratch my head ans say "No, it's nothing of the sort - it's just a regular city, with everything you'd expect from a city."

Heck, even Detritus, Michigan (get it?) and St. Louis, Misery (get it?) have their cultural attractions and pro sports teams. Good ones. But after leaving Comerica Park at the end of a Tiger baseball game I would get as quickly as possible onto the freeway and waste no time going away from downtown.

Redistricting 2012: Entrenchment for the status quo

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...cts/54492050/1

According to data calculated by the non-partisan Cook Political Report, there were 159 swing seats going into the 2000 elections based on congressional lines drawn in the 1992 reapportionment. The number of swing seats dropped to 104 by 2010, based on lines drawn in the 2002 reapportionment. A handful of states have not yet finalized their maps, but Cook calculates the number will likely decline to 96 following 2012's reapportionment — a 40% drop in the number of swing seats over the course of the past two decades mainly attributable to redistricting.

Do you know how much the Democratic challengers have raised in my district? Me neither - it wasn't enough to trigger the disclosure requirements.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Heck, even Detritus, Michigan (get it?) and St. Louis, Misery (get it?) have their cultural attractions and pro sports teams. Good ones. But after leaving Comerica Park at the end of a Tiger baseball game I would get as quickly as possible onto the freeway and waste no time going away from downtown.

Even Fargo has a symphony. They are pretty damn good, too.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Heck, even Detritus, Michigan (get it?) and St. Louis, Misery (get it?) have their cultural attractions and pro sports teams. Good ones. But after leaving Comerica Park at the end of a Tiger baseball game I would get as quickly as possible onto the freeway and waste no time going away from downtown.

Cute, Brower, really cute, and yes, we get it. Gee, mommy, guess what funny thing someone said on the playground today? It was SO witty! Giggle, giggle - can I have my afternoon snack now?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Cute, Brower, really cute, and yes, we get it. Gee, mommy, guess what funny thing someone said on the playground today? It was SO witty! Giggle, giggle - can I have my afternoon snack now?

I admit -- those were horrible jokes.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I admit -- those were horrible jokes.

Dreadful. Go thou and sin no more.

In PA, another blue dog Dem. loses a house seat to a gen X "Old school Roosevelt Democrat."

Originally Posted by pennlive.com

Holden, who was elected to Congress in 1992 and was one of its conservative so-called Blue Dog Democrats, lost to personal injury attorney Matt Cartwright, who spent nearly $400,000 in the race.

Cartwright's campaign hit Holden with allegations that he was too conservative for the district's voters, citing his vote against President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

But Cartwright also benefited from the new congressional district boundaries redrawn by the Republican-controlled state Legislature to give reconfigured tens of thousands more Democrats and the newly added cities of Scranton, Wilkes-Barre and Easton — areas unfamiliar to Holden.

Democrats now outnumber Republicans by 24 percentage points in the new district, where as the GOP held a four-point registration edge in Holden's current district. Those voters supported a member of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition in Washington, which includes moderate and conservative Democrats lobbying for greater fiscal responsibility.

The new boundaries apparently left Holden vulnerable among a new crop of voters.

Cartwright, 50, had name recognition in the important Scranton media market after long running ads for his Moosic law firm. He has proudly called himself "an old-school Roosevelt Democrat."

National interest groups have also run ads on behalf of Cartwright, including a League of Conservation Voters campaign that cited what it called Holden's poor environmental record.

What's old is new again.
We be 4T.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

In PA, another blue dog Dem. loses a house seat to a gen X "Old school Roosevelt Democrat."


What's old is new again.
We be 4T.

This is how the general cycle operates.

I can't believe Biden went there -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O2SpNS4944

What will be interesting is how Romney will show he has a big stick as well. He's willing to do just about anything. I shutter at the possibilities here.

This is an extremely accurate survey of where we are in Washington and how we got there. And it is important reading for many posters here, particularly younger ones, who seem especially stubborn about refusing to recognize the fundamental differences between our two parties at the moment. Of course, the piece would have been even better with a generational twist. Gingrich and Norquist bracket the Boom generation. There are no comparable Boomers on the Democratic side, and the Democratic leadership in Congress is still mostly Silent.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This is an extremely accurate survey of where we are in Washington and how we got there. And it is important reading for many posters here, particularly younger ones, who seem especially stubborn about refusing to recognize the fundamental differences between our two parties at the moment. Of course, the piece would have been even better with a generational twist. Gingrich and Norquist bracket the Boom generation. There are no comparable Boomers on the Democratic side, and the Democratic leadership in Congress is still mostly Silent.

And why we're in this handbasket. And its floor is heating up rapidly. Yes.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This is an extremely accurate survey of where we are in Washington and how we got there. And it is important reading for many posters here, particularly younger ones, who seem especially stubborn about refusing to recognize the fundamental differences between our two parties at the moment. Of course, the piece would have been even better with a generational twist. Gingrich and Norquist bracket the Boom generation. There are no comparable Boomers on the Democratic side, and the Democratic leadership in Congress is still mostly Silent.

Sorry Dave but your link does not work.

Citizen's United ruling may be very impactful in congressional races.

The argument is not that there are no fundamental differences between the parties, not from thoughtful people at any rate. The argument is that neither party will do what we need done: restore democracy and put an end to the domination of corporate interests in our politics. As long as both parties remain bought and paid for, replacing one with the other is not going to solve our problems. That's not to say it may not be better in some ways. It's just to say we'll still be in the soup, with regard to the big problem beside which all others are either trivial or unsolvable.

Paranoid conspiracy theorists think it was planned this way, that evil masterminds have set us up with the illusion of democracy, diverting popular unrest into electoral politics. I don't. I think it's a case of spontaneously-generated pseudo-intelligence rather than genuine planning, much like evolution. But in practice, it makes no difference. The result is the same.

The partisan error is made from both sides, by the way. I've seen people foaming at the mouth over Obama, complaining about things that are his fault only in that he has failed to put a stop to them when he could have; they didn't START with his administration.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Sorry Dave but your link does not work.

I don't know what to say. It just worked fine for me when I tried it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The partisan error is made from both sides, by the way. I've seen people foaming at the mouth over Obama, complaining about things that are his fault only in that he has failed to put a stop to them when he could have; they didn't START with his administration.

Not putting a stop to them when he had the majority in congress and the wind behind his back is very telling. Standing by and watching a house burn when you have a water hydrant next to you, has made him seem weak or approving.

I couldn't resist.

We have schools that are struggling to keep staff and services. We have a deteriorating middle class. We have millions of people without health care and jobs. We have an ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. And that only touches the surface of our problems in this country.

Yet we have a bloated military budget, the largest in the world, where both parties are dedicated to keeping it that way.

Shortly after his election as president, Barack Obama, in a speech announcing several members of his new cabinet, stated as fact that "[w]e have to maintain the strongest military on the planet." A few weeks later, on March 12, 2009, in a speech at the National Defense University in Washington D.C., the president again insisted, "Now make no mistake, this nation will maintain our military dominance. We will have the strongest armed forces in the history of the world." And in a commencement address to the cadets of the U.S. Naval Academy on May 22nd, Obama stressed that "[w]e will maintain America's military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen."

Sure, the politicians on both sides may differ in opinion about some issues, but the main source of our ongoing demise, the wars and the expansive military budget, they are partners in crime. And both parties are dedicated to continuing the drilling of a huge hole in the bottom of our life boat. The life boat that is loosing air, while we produce billions of dollars in weapons, supply and maintain thousands of military bases around the world and get involved in wars that didn't have to happen.One of the greatest historians, Chalmers Johnson wrote, "What Obama failed to note is that the United States no longer has the capability to remain a global hegemon, and to pretend otherwise is to invite disaster."

"According to a growing consensus of economists and political scientists around the world, it is impossible for the United States to continue in that role while emerging into full view as a crippled economic power. No such configuration has ever persisted in the history of imperialism."

The bottom line; both parties are dedicated to being the most powerful military force in the world. That's a huge and, most crucial similarity, that could eventually mean the end of America as we have known it. Maybe the Romans who also had over stretched it's military power at the peril of its citizens could teach both parties a thing or two.

Just a visual to the above post:

Top 10 Military Spenders in 2008
(in billions of dollars)
1. United States — 607.0
2. China — 84.9
3. France — 65.7
4. United Kingdom — 65.3
5. Russia — 58.6
6. Germany — 46.8
7. Japan — 46.3
8. Italy — 40.6
9. Saudi Arabia — 38.2
10. India — 30.0

The U.S. spent 7 times more than the second-biggest spender, China. Incidentally, that doesn’t make China the second-strongest military—not by a long shot. SIPRI researcher Sam Perlo-Freeman explains that’s because “a lot of other countries have been at this game for a lot longer than China.”

Put another way, the U.S. spent more on its armed forces than the next 14 countries combined.
SIPRI points out that U.S. arms spending increased by 71 percent during the presidency of George W. Bush and as a result, global military spending is 45 percent greater than it was a decade ago. From 2007 to 2008, U.S. military spending increased by 10 percent which helped make global military spending 4 percent higher in 2008 than 2007.

Are all these guns really necessary? Do we need to spend so much more than other nations?

President Obama and his Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, seem to think so. They proposed a marginal increase in the 2010 military budget and Congress approved.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Just a visual to the above post:

Top 10 Military Spenders in 2008
(in billions of dollars)
1. United States — 607.0
2. China — 84.9
3. France — 65.7
4. United Kingdom — 65.3
5. Russia — 58.6
6. Germany — 46.8
7. Japan — 46.3
8. Italy — 40.6
9. Saudi Arabia — 38.2
10. India — 30.0

The U.S. spent 7 times more than the second-biggest spender, China. Incidentally, that doesn’t make China the second-strongest military—not by a long shot. SIPRI researcher Sam Perlo-Freeman explains that’s because “a lot of other countries have been at this game for a lot longer than China.”

Put another way, the U.S. spent more on its armed forces than the next 14 countries combined.
SIPRI points out that U.S. arms spending increased by 71 percent during the presidency of George W. Bush and as a result, global military spending is 45 percent greater than it was a decade ago. From 2007 to 2008, U.S. military spending increased by 10 percent which helped make global military spending 4 percent higher in 2008 than 2007.

Are all these guns really necessary? Do we need to spend so much more than other nations?

President Obama and his Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, seem to think so. They proposed a marginal increase in the 2010 military budget and Congress approved.

I would like to see a reduction in foreign based troops and an increase in our naval forces to respond to future threats. It is always a judgment call on what level of military spending is required and I just hope hope that we keep a sufficient level to deter attacks on the USA.

It is clear that raw funding levels are not adequate to describe military strength and the following is offered as one alternate source of information:

Global Firepower - 2012 World Military Strength Ranking

http://www.globalfirepower.com/
GlobalFirepower.com (GFP)
GFP provides a unique analytical display of data covering global military powers with statistics compiled through various sources. ...The user should note that nuclear capability is not taken into account for the final ranking for this listing ....Therefore GFP comparisons are for consideration in a conventional war based solely on each individual nation's capabilities on land, at sea and through the air while including logistical and financial aspects when waging total war.

Country Ranks 1 through 30...
1. USA
2. Russia
3. China
ETC.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Not putting a stop to them when he had the majority in congress and the wind behind his back is very telling. Standing by and watching a house burn when you have a water hydrant next to you, has made him seem weak or approving.

Of course, but that's your criticism of Obama, or my criticism of Obama. The difference being that neither of us supposes the problem would be solved if we put a Republican in the White House instead.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Of course, but that's your criticism of Obama, or my criticism of Obama. The difference being that neither of us supposes the problem would be solved if we put a Republican in the White House instead.

Your exactly correct.