Arizona Secretary of State seeking to remove Obama from ballot

Lindisty wrote:

Crimson Jester wrote:

CourtFool wrote:

Arizona has some beautiful deserts.

When we passed through it, both times, it was night. I never got to see much of the desert. :/

Oh, but that means you got to see the night sky over the desert, which is pretty breathtaking, if you happen to be in a reasonably remote area. (And really, outside of the Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff metro areas, Arizona is pretty much ALL remote. :))

I was quite young. I really didn't see much. Shame.

You missed out. I enjoyed having the two vacation homes. Lake Havasu in the summer and just outside of Flagstaff in the winter. Only thing I regret was never seeing the Grand Canyon. Step-dad enjoyed taking us to see nutjobs like Robert Tilton and Kenneth Copeland and their ilk.

And now a message from your hippy left wing gay atheist Canadian, aka Me.

Don't like Texas then don't move there, otherwise grow up and leave Texas be. That is all.

That's just great for a gay atheist Canadian.

Here's the problem for any gay atheist Americans: Texas is our second largest state by mass, second largest in population (and therefore has the second largest representation in our House of Representatives), second largest in GDP.

In particular, the economic realities of Texas means that every time their agenda turns toward the stupid (which is more often than not) the rest of the nation suffers. So, for instance, if the entrenched power structure in Texas decides that they have had enough of this new fangled science mumbo jumbo and would rather live in the Bronze Age, the education of the rest of the nation is dragged down with them.

The fact that Texas is doing well economically (for whatever reasons, and whether you could say that's because of or in spite of the federal government) just makes it even worse. No matter how many jobs they provide as long as Texas (or at least its government) remains a steady contributor of anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-equality Good Ol' Boys their impact on this country is going to be deleterious.

I just had to copy paste the link's web address and put it up in my finder thingy;

New Jersey has the highest median family income with 66 k, and Texas is down in the bottom 10 states with 47 k.

As a Jerseyite I should tell you that the median is rather skewed by the presence of a cluster of very high incomes including the Duke fortune. We've got some very very highs and a broad base of very lows including several cities like Paterson which is so bad off that two of the neighboring towns changed their names to avoid association with it. On top of that we have Camden that if looked at from the Whitman bridge kind of brings back images of London during the blitz. Most of Jersey's job growth has bee in the low end service industry as we've been caught up in the general crash of the New York City area.

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

I just had to copy paste the link's web address and put it up in my finder thingy;

New Jersey has the highest median family income with 66 k, and Texas is down in the bottom 10 states with 47 k.

As a Jerseyite I should tell you that the median is rather skewed by the presence of a cluster of very high incomes including the Duke fortune. We've got some very very highs and a broad base of very lows including several cities like Paterson which is so bad off that two of the neighboring towns changed their names to avoid association with it. On top of that we have Camden that if looked at from the Whitman bridge kind of brings back images of London during the blitz. Most of Jersey's job growth has bee in the low end service industry as we've been caught up in the general crash of the New York City area.

The whole point of a median, as opposed to a mean, is that it isn't as skewed by outliers. It doesn't matter how high the "very very highs" are, they still only count as one point above the median. Assuming those numbers are correct, half of New Jerseyites make over 66K and half make less. That one of those above is the Duke fortune is irrelevant.

The whole point of a median, as opposed to a mean, is that it isn't as skewed by outliers. It doesn't matter how high the "very very highs" are, they still only count as one point above the median. Assuming those numbers are correct, half of New Jerseyites make over 66K and half make less. That one of those above is the Duke fortune is irrelevant.

Exactly correct. I'm sure he just read it as "mean."

Let's put it this way, the average income of New Jersey is heavily deviated by the statistics of the most wealthy.

Texans, Arizonians. All just a bunch of yanks to me. ;p

Let's put it this way, the average income of New Jersey is heavily deviated by the statistics of the most wealthy.

Yes. The mean is. That's why you use the median, which is what was quoted.

The numbers that were given are not "deviated by the statistics of the most wealthy", so any argument that relies on that is not valid.

Texans, Arizonians. All just a bunch of yanks to me. ;p

Don't let a Texan hear you say that.

Actually that's another one of my big gripes about the South. I always hear politicians on the right go on and on about the REAL America and say how much we northerners and coastal dwellers hate America, but "Yankee" and "Yank" specifically means America. We don't define ourselves as being something else and then call everybody in the southern reaches by the term that means American.

For that matter, we don't fly the flag of the greatest traitors in this history of the United States and call it national pride. You want anti-American? THAT'S anti-American. But you won't see Joe Arapaio making a big stink over those people's citizenship.