Evil Conservatives? Have you been keeping up at all?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2005 1:30 PM EDT |
Let's see just how wrong this is... 1. There is my pet peeve...Joe SixPack. Poor old Joe is far more likely to be tossed about by liberal journalists, entertainers, etc, than any conservative I know. Why a peeve? Because he betrays the utter disdain for ordinary working people that so many elite or wannabe-elite snobs nurture. Joe SixPack? Given that Old Joe may not even drink, that he (or, for that matter, Jane) are as likely to be performing the services that keep the country going, coaching little league/soccer, volunteering at Habitat for Humanity, raising kids, helping out neighbors, contributing to disaster-relief, contributing to the community, etc,etc,etc, this whole "SixPack" think is utterly demeaning. 2. Conservatives? Have you guys bothered to see who the heaviest hitters behind this crap are? They are the entertainment industry -- mainstay Democratic money players. If you're going to jump all over the bad guys, at least keep your bad guys straight. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2005 2:17 PM EDT |
One party rule sucks, doesn't it. Can't tell the conservatives from the liberals, since they all support the same programs. Administrations come and go, and the same programs reviled by one side when not in power are expanded on once they are in power. It was Republicans and Democrats who convinced me that voluntary interaction works very well indeed, since they demonstrate how badly the opposite fails. I recommend http://www.lneilsmith.com/new-cov.html |
| helios Nov 12, 2005 4:00 PM EDT |
Dino...Time out man. Glennbeck.com - Glenn refers to "evil conservatives" in the same tongue in cheek manner as I. Have an "I am an Evil Conservative" bumper sticker on my pickup truck along with one that proudly states, in red, white and blue waves: I (heart) Halliburton) Meant nothing by the joe sixpack reference...I am an example of Joe Sixpack for the love of frickin Pete, and that would be a six pack of Pepsi for all you know. I have two of my six crews now in Mississippi as volunteers, cleaning up the mess and working UNDER Habitat for Humanity. it's costing me a mint to do it, and I have to work beside Jimmy Carter types in order to help out. The story is valid...the headline itself was an attempt at humor. Obviously either a very bad attempt or one considered out of bounds by our particular politics. Either way...I won't bother you with posts any more. I will spend my time otherwise brushing up on my etiquette helios |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2005 4:12 PM EDT |
helios - Nothing personal meant, but... Mr. Bob hit it on the head. The reference may be tongue in cheek, but its humor stems from a good guy/bad guy mentality, when we should never trust "our" guys any more than "their" guys. After all, it was "my" guys who screwed most American business over by failing to complete the Microsoft prosecution (and, ahem, by failing exercise anything resembling budget constraint). As to the Joe SixPack -- It really is a personal peeve and I should be less jumpy, especially in a posting environment where you really can't know who you're talking to. I know it can be a bit like "redneck" -- which is either a badge of honor or a putdown depending on who's using it where. I spend w-a-a-a-y too much time in the company of people who are too proud of their educations, their creativity, etc, and when they use the term, it ain't a term of endearment. Sorry if I got all nuclear on an innocent bystander. |
| helios Nov 12, 2005 4:17 PM EDT |
it was "my" guys who screwed most American business over by failing to complete the Microsoft prosecution (and, ahem, by failing exercise anything resembling budget constraint). we can hang out. Above everything else...the MS/DOJ softball chapped my @$$. Guess we all have our buttons...me included. As for elitists, come spend some time in Austin some time. There are 3 nose-in-the-air professors for every regular person here. LOL. Don't EVEN get me to quoting Michael Savage. Glenn Beck is bad enough (but he's a hoot) peace. helios |
| Fritz Nov 12, 2005 4:48 PM EDT |
Well, Helios and I already know we have very differing political opinions, and I'll avoid getting too far into them here. However, sometimes I just can't help myself. What bugs me about this article is that the poster went out of their way to tie this to Bush as if he even knew this was going on, and the wording "under siege" indicates they are being ruthlessly attacked. Also, mention the "liberal media" one more time and I'm going scream. First, ask yourself who keeps telling you there's a liberal media, the people in the media do, that makes tons of sense. Second, check out MediaMatters.org sometime, it documents all the incidents of conservative bias every day. I'm not going to say that there aren't incidents of liberal bias, but amazingly there is no website that specifically documents them. You'd think if it were so incredibly obvious it would be easy to point out some specific examples day to day. Personally, I believe that for the most part the media is biased to defend those in power be it Democrat or Republican, at least until they start obviously failing. The media was with Clinton until his "issues" came up. They've been babying Bush for 5 years and are just now starting to be hard on him. Too little, late of course and it's hurtful because honest debate could only help this country. We all have differing opinions but if we could honestly discuss them then we could get along. I mean, last I checked Helios still doesn't hate me, and I don't hate him. Hate just isn't necessary to dissagree. -> Fritz |
| bstadil Nov 12, 2005 6:13 PM EDT |
"tie this to Bush as if he even knew this was going on" Yes, why should this be an exception |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2005 6:26 PM EDT |
Helios - Well, think of UT as the price you have to pay for getting to live in Austin. There are worse places to play, my friend, worse places indeed. |
| helios Nov 13, 2005 2:54 AM EDT |
Naw Fritz...you and me are way ok...despite the political chasm between us...Linux has bridged that and I remember we have met in the middle on that bridge several times. I better shut up, strains of the Coke jingle are starting to play in my head...can Kum-bi-ah be far behind? helios |
| mvermeer Nov 13, 2005 3:39 AM EDT |
> Well, think of UT as the price you have to pay for getting to live in Austin. Watch that, Dino. Some of my best friends are from Austin, and from UoT... like the GPS folks from Space & Geophysics Lab. It's not a price but a prize -- like in, winning ;-) And don't get me started on anti-intellectualism... |
| dinotrac Nov 13, 2005 4:30 AM EDT |
Martin, Martin, Martin -- Austin is a wonderful place, and UT is a fine place for those of an academic bent. And I certainly don't want to get you started...after all, you must weep to see the way universities frown on intellectual pursuits these days. |
| dinotrac Nov 13, 2005 5:01 AM EDT |
Martin - I almost forgot...you will love this: I saw this in a journal article -- I won't embarrass the University by giving its name -- somebody sent to me, seeming to support the proposition that religious faith played a causal role in failure to accept evolution (I could believe that one), high teen suicide rates, high levels of STD, high infant mortality, homicide, etc. But here is the kicker: [12] Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions. Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results, and because the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion below). Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial examination. Yup, they effectively said that, well, we can't really do any meaningful statistical analysis, so we're just going to reach our conclusions without it. Another favorite was several references to the US statistics as an "outlier", though, in the absence of a regression analysis, I'm not at all sure what it is lying out from... But, if I recall correctly (and, believe me, I do) an outlier is something that you investigate further because it doesn't conform to the relationship exhibited in the other data and may break your hypothesis. I just hope the "hard" sciences still demand more rigor than that. |
| mvermeer Nov 13, 2005 7:51 AM EDT |
Dino, yes, the Greg Paul article. Yes, the 'hard' sciences are a little bit more rigorous, but that comes with the territory. As for the social/human sciences, this article isn't in my impression any worse than the average. And that too comes with the territory: pretending that you can get meaningful results by applying an exact method when your material simply isn't up to it, is plain silly. The related attitude that if it cannot be expressed in numbers, it doesn't count, is equally silly. Science, especially of the 'non-hard' variety, does benefit from a little common sense ;-) The guy should be commended for trying... |
| mvermeer Nov 13, 2005 1:30 PM EDT |
> seeming to support the proposition that religious faith played a causal role in failure to accept evolution (I could believe that one), high teen suicide rates, high levels of STD, high infant mortality, homicide, etc. Eh, no, Dean. If you read the article you will see that it aimed at demonstrating that at least the available evidence does not support the contention that all these nasty things are caused by (or correlated with) godlessness. And I would say he pretty much makes that limited argument. As for not doing any regression analyses: just look at the pictures! I bet your common sense is as good as any regression software :-) (But do remember, correlation is no causation. It doesn't tell what caused what.) The same about calling the US an outlier: again, look at (some of) the pictures. It's the same as when you are, e.g., measuring the circumference of a tree as a function of its height. Even if most of your measurements will lie roughly on a staight line, a few will not. The conclusion then is, that these measurements do not belong to the same population but to another one; perhaps another tree species, or a diseased individual. That's an "outlier": a point far removed from the line that goes almost through all the other points. What you do with it is reject it in statistical testing as being irrelevant to what you are trying to study. Assuming it is, of course. See, e.g., Figures 2 and 7 for illustration. That's outliers for you. Again, no computation needed to see the obvious. As for what sets the US apart from all other countries, your guess is as good as mine... violence and sexual stupidity, but what causes it? My personal pet theory is that both are related to the motives that made people emigrate from the old continent. Fleeing from religious persecution, or from the long arm of the law (or creditors). Thus the people from which many current Americans descend, and that defined the cultural context of the new country, were selected to be of both higher religiosity and higher criminal/violent tendencies, both undoubtedly with a genetic component. And yes, I do believe that religion can play, and has played here, a causal role in keeping people uninformed and hostile about sexuality, the body and women. With the results that we see. |
| dinotrac Nov 13, 2005 2:34 PM EDT |
Martin, Martin, Martin... There's what's said and what's said... This seems to be a "Publish or Perish" article. I agree that we should applaud anybody who tries to bring objective rigor to the social sciences. It's certainly the answer to charges of pontificating on research money. But...you gotta admit, objective rigor has standards, and any decent statistician should have red-flagged this one in the design stage. |
| tuxchick Nov 13, 2005 2:53 PM EDT |
oh you brainiacs, you over-complicate everything. The obvious and true answer is "those people." "Those people" are the biggest troublemakers, all they want to do is make our lives miserable. If we could just do away with "those people" life would be splendid. Can we all at least agree that Pat Robertson really ought to be institutionalized? |
| dinotrac Nov 13, 2005 3:08 PM EDT |
tuxchick -- Well, it's hard to argue with "those people." As to Pat Robertson, well...I look at it this way: He's not Fred Phelps. That's got to count for something, right? |
| tuxchick Nov 13, 2005 3:13 PM EDT |
The way I see it, Pat the R. is a much more effective lunatic, because he neither foams nor shrieks. So that makes him more dangerous. At least Rev. Fred is blatant about his true intentions! |
| dinotrac Nov 13, 2005 3:44 PM EDT |
tux -- It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I view Pat R. as neither a lunatic nor a danger, except maybe to Christian ideology. He doesn't hold public office, he doesn't break (so far as I know) the law, and, though he says some very strange things sometimes, I don't regard him as a hate-monger a la Phelps. In a world that has room for Michael Moore, Jerry Springer, and the New York Times, I rather doubt that old P.R. is much to worry about. |
| tuxchick Nov 13, 2005 3:51 PM EDT |
Dino, point taken. We need a bigger institution. |
| dinotrac Nov 13, 2005 3:53 PM EDT |
And to completely screw up the topic... Have you seen that Pa may allow hunting with atlatls? These are prehistoric throwing sticks that provide extra boost to spears, heaving them off at speeds up to 80 mph. Unsubstatiatable rumor has it Microsoft figured that atlatl was an acronym for something really cool and rushed to file a patent application for a single-stage delivery acceleration methodology. The PTO prior art database has nothing on it. Go figure. |
| tadelste Nov 13, 2005 7:25 PM EDT |
Dino: Are you serious? |
| tuxchick Nov 13, 2005 7:31 PM EDT |
tom, don't worry, dino will get a nice room between Pat Robertson and Michael Moore. Should be fun. |
| pat Nov 13, 2005 7:40 PM EDT |
Hey Fritz. That whole Clinton thing was nothing but a media generated frenzy. Can anyone here tell me what year Clinton was lowest in the polls? Can you say 1993. Years before the media generated frenzy. To all those who mention listening to glenbeck. Are you insane? I'd rather listen to white noise. |
| tadelste Nov 13, 2005 7:42 PM EDT |
tuxxie: I didn't know any room existed between Pat Robertson and Michael Moore. I thought it was space: light years and lights years of space. |
| Fritz Nov 13, 2005 10:39 PM EDT |
> That whole Clinton thing was nothing but a media generated frenzy. Can anyone
> here tell me what year Clinton was lowest in the polls? Can you say 1993. Years
> before the media generated frenzy. Pat, that was partly the point I was trying to make. That the media bias just goes after whoever looks easy. A good enough leader can, of course, rise above it. However, it certainly doesn't excuse non-objective reporting. No matter what side your on, it's better if the media stays int he middle. The effect of a "reporter" pushing any opinion onto a story is usually only to diminish the true issues at hand. They pushed on Clinton when they felt he was in a position he couldn't fight back from. He fought anyway, and he did pretty well. My fear is that they will now swing over and push on turn the current administrations issues into "good tv". I'm afraid this will undermine the true issues which need to be honestly and openly analyzed and discussed, not turned into talking points and ran across a ticker. -> Fritz |
| dinotrac Nov 14, 2005 3:19 AM EDT |
Fritz - Live in all the denial you want, but every study of voting patterns, financial contributions, party affiliation, etc, makes clear that there is a strong media bias towards the Democrats. Please understand what bias is, however. It's not dishonest, but a function of personal experience and belief. You tell the truth as you see it, but you have blinders on because all people do. Propaganda is a different beast, but that's not what we're talking about. |
| helios Nov 14, 2005 4:54 AM EDT |
"To all those who mention listening to glenbeck. Are you insane? I'd rather listen to white noise." come on now...there is a very distinguishable difference between Glenn Beck and white noise...White Noise takes much longer to drive you insane. helios |
| jimf Nov 14, 2005 6:56 AM EDT |
tadelste: I strongly suspect that Pat Robertson and Michael Moore 'are' the same person :D |
| dinotrac Nov 14, 2005 8:12 AM EDT |
jimf: Some people are merely bi-polar, some people are REALLY bi-polar. ;0) |
| mvermeer Nov 14, 2005 9:25 AM EDT |
> But...you gotta admit, objective rigor has standards, and any decent statistician should have red-flagged this one in the design stage. Look at the plots, Dean... and then tell me if you still need a statistician. |
| dinotrac Nov 14, 2005 9:26 AM EDT |
Martin -- I looked at the plots. To analyze those plots without looking deeper into the data, you need to have reached your conclusions before you started the study. |
| Fritz Nov 15, 2005 1:35 AM EDT |
It's easy to prove a bias either way if you honestly believe the truth is objective. The problem is that this is so rarely the case. Bias can easily be seen in the media every day throught he blatant lies and and misinformation that is spouted every day. I'll say again, look at mediamatters.org. It documents specific cases of right wing bias in the media, and every incident is provided with the actual video and audio from the moment in question. Whether you agree with the viewpoints of the creators of mediamatters doesn't matter, but you can't say it's lies when they provide the very video/audio that they are discussing. I'll ask again, provide me with a location to see specific the liberal bias that is supposedly running rampant in the media. If you can't do that, maybe you need stop and think why. The only site even close from the right-wing is fairpress.org, but if you actually read through it, it only points out where the reporting differs from their opinions. No matter what your opinion is, the media will frequently present a different angle. Writing an article everytime somebody on TV disagrees with you doesn't prove anything -> Fritz How the liberal myth was created. http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004170.php "the myth of the ‘liberal media’ empowers conservatives to control debate" - Eric Alterman |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!