Dr. Frank's What's-it

The more Kerry and Heinz speak, the more likely this prediction is. If John and Teresa would just shut the fuck up and let Edwards do all the talking then he'd have a real good chance. I'm supporting Bush by default.

You'd never read shit like this in the Post. No sir, THAT is a good, honest, hard-workin' newspaper for people who don't have the "fancy highbrow education" required to read more than one syllable at a time.

i'm just going say you're crazy zaphod,
by default,and do church boys kiss their
mother with that mouth?; )

try writing me,your address still doesn't work.

Sorry, but the Kerry-Heinze duo just makes me angry and people don't like me when I'm angry..... Skin......turning.......green.....

"it saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale, who could be thinking about society in complex and meaningful ways."

Isn't this the essence of liberal "thought"? It's more important it be "complex" and "meaningful" than have real-world uses and applications?

Jeff,

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Conservatives and Republicans are incapable of handling polysyllabic reading material. We've never graduated from college, let alone attended one. Why, we don't even have our two front teeth!

This econometric business seems like a pretty ridiculous way to predict our next president. Much more logical is to examine their bloodlines, revealing, of course, that Kerry's to be elected:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=949182004

Things is gettin' a might twitchy round here (DC) as we inch towards November, that much I can tell you. As though the mental and emotional state of the locals is some kind of anthill, and Bush, Kerry, et al have been taking turns relieving themselves on it. Most of my peers are experiencing extreme crises of conscience over whom to vote for, and the bombardment of idiocy from both sides is not making it any easier.

It's still too early to tell who could take the election. Me, I'm going Nader- though it's a pretty poor thing to vote for someone you wouldn't actually want in the oval office (the man's platform revolves a little too much around what are currently "soft" issues for my taste), I feel that a vote for him is a vote against the bipartisan paradigm, and that's the best I can hope for this year.

Regarding Mr. Fair- never heard of him before now, but he sounds like a real twinkie.

Yeah, I saw that interview earlier. I got the picture he didn't think much of the interviewer when he came out with that game theory answer. And I got the feeling the interviewer was annoyed.

Economists are so weird.

Don't dis econometrics just because somebody did what is most likely a poor job applying it. Also, I think the bipartisan system gets a bad rap. The American population follows, roughly, a normal distribution along the political spectrum. At least a two party system means that canidates need to stay close to the center to win. The more canidates there are, the more likely a person with an extreme viewpoint, would be elected. It's not perfect by any means, but a two party system does protect against both religious right-wingers, and socialist left-wingers.

I really need to make up boilerplate on this, because this is the umpteenth blog I've had to respond to about Solomon; please forgive me if I sound impatient therefore.

The Deborah Solomon slot at the Magazine is deliberately intended for her to ask provocative, obnoxious, in-your-face questions. The Magazine, like the Book Review, is not part of the paper, but is a separate publication distributed with it. It is not a product of the news department.

I find the slot stupid and irritating, myself, but it no more represents the paper or news department (or editorial department) than "The Ethicist" does.

Point taken, Gary. Nevertheless: I stand by my initial judgement that it is indeed rather funny.