Rules for thee, and rules for me

[vt]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

As I said they are all crooks looking to get the goodies without earning them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/ny...ills.html?_r=0

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ncy-mark-steyn

I just like to see both sides called out equally

We've lost our bearings when it comes to politicians:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/op...5315.html?_r=0

[Woodsman]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

By citing right wing and neocon sources exclusively. You're a comic genius, vt!

[don]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

bi-partisanship . . . balanced reporting . . . showing both sides

(The Recovery is trademarked - nice touch)

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

Did you make that photo meme Don? Or find it on the net?

The background looks like a photo of my hometown earthquake aftermath.

[vt]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

You left out the other side of the political spectrum:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...9f1_story.html


"So is there a case study of science denial that largely occupies the political left? Yes: the claim that childhood vaccines are causing an epidemic of autism. Its most famous proponents are an environmentalist (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and numerous Hollywood celebrities (most notably Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey). The Huffington Post gives a very large megaphone to denialists. And Seth Mnookin, author of the new book The Panic Virus, notes that if you want to find vaccine deniers, all you need to do is go hang out at Whole Foods."


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-mooney?page=4

Note: Mother Jones is not right wing or neocon


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/in.../#.VNGyDJ2jOM4


It looks like as the MSM is starting to show both sides of issues more.

[Woodsman]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

...It looks like as the MSM is starting to show both sides of issues more.

Yup. If there's one thing I've learned in our interactions, it's that idiocy is fair and balanced.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberals Finally Cleared of Anti-Vaccine Madness

—By Kevin Drum
| Mother Jones | Tue Jan. 28, 2014 5:35 PM EST

It's been true for some time that conservatives are far more likely that liberals to hold a number of false beliefs about the world, some of which were always political (e.g. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, evolution is a myth) and some which became more political over time, particularly the belief that the planet is not warming and its subsidiary beliefs, which include the idea that there is a great deal of disagreement among climate scientists as to whether warming is occurring. Sometimes when this is brought up, someone will mention that liberals believe some demonstrably false things too, like the idea that childhood vaccines cause autism.

The trouble is, there has never been anything other than anecdotal evidence for this contention. Yes, there may be a parent at your kid's organic vegan locally sourced small-batch co-op nursery school who thinks it's true, and dangerous lunatic Jenny McCarthy, the nation's most prominent propagator of this theory, is a Hollywood celebrity and many Hollywood celebrities are liberals, but that doesn't mean that liberals in general are more likely to believe in the fictional vaccine-autism link.

So here is some empirical data, from Dan Kahan of Yale Law School and the Cultural Cognition Project. Kahan did a study that included a survey and some experiments testing both what people believe about the topic and how they react to different kinds of information about it. And it turns out that not only do very few people believe that childhood vaccines pose a danger, liberals are no more likely to believe that than conservatives; in fact, they're slightly less likely to believe it. Here's the key graph, which shows how much risk people of different ideologies associate with a variety of things like legalizing marijuana, gun ownership, and global warming. The black line is vaccines:


So there you have it. The perhaps more troubling finding comes from Kahan's experiments, where subjects read an op-ed making one of a number of arguments for vaccinating, and were then asked their feelings about vaccines. One of the op-eds, which was framed with contempt for "anti-science" people who don't believe in evolution and global warming and also believe in an imaginary link between vaccines and autism—precisely the kind of op-ed a snooty liberal might write!—actually produced polarization, pushing some people into the anti-vaccine camp. He explains:

Whereas subjects in the control were not meaningfully divided over vaccination risks and benefits, those in the "Anti-science" condition showed signs of polarization. Exposure to the "Anti-science" op-ed significantly weakened the positive affective orientation of subjects with a cultural style that features concern over social-deviancy risks—including legalization of drugs and teaching of sex education—and that is associated with religiosity and disbelief in evolution. As a result, a meaningful gap emerged between subjects with this cultural risk predisposition and subjects with alternative predisposition, one that is associated with a secular outlook and that features low concern for social deviancy risks and greater concern over climate change and gun control.

To translate, the op-ed heaping ridicule on the anti-vaccine advocates essentially sent a tribal signal to (some, not all) conservatives, saying that the anti-vaxers are your kind of people, or at least, the people you hate also hate anti-vaxers. They responded by moving over to the anti-vaccine position. So liberals, take note: if you want to convince as many people as possible, when you're talking about this you should consider the opposition to vaccines a unique, non-ideological misconception, which it is.

[don]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

Did you make that photo meme Don? Or find it on the net?

The background looks like a photo of my hometown earthquake aftermath.

Can only take credit for finding it.

(can Boehner make Obama laugh so hard he cries )

[vt]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

NYT neoconIt's as liberal as the day is long in summer. There's idiots on both sides; admit it.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/to...rticle/2559706

[Woodsman]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

NYT neoconIt's as liberal as the day is long in summer. There's idiots on both sides; admit it.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/to...rticle/2559706

Well, I can confirm with absolute metaphysical certainty that there's at least one idiot on the right side represented here. From personal and near daily experience of late, no less.

Do you understand what the word "cosmopolitanism" means (hint: NYT readers > Fox News viewers)? Are you familiar with the concept of an "establishment?" Ever hear of a guy named Abe Rosenthal?

For most of his 17 years at the helm, Rosenthal battled what he considered the left-liberal tendencies of many of his reporters. He growls about his Washington bureau reporters quoting congressional liberals more often or more favorably than conservatives. Reading a 1979 piece about the 10th anniversary of Woodstock, he recoiled at its description of the event as a symbol of "national, cultural, and political awakening." He distrusted as partisan the reporting of Raymond Bonner and pulled him out of Central America. He gave an extraordinary mandate to freelancer Claire Sterling to connect the Soviets to organized terrorism, presumably because nobody inside the paper could—or would—pursue the angle.

Or a gal named Judith Miller?

In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.
The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.

Since leaving The Times, Miller went to work for the notoriously liberal rag known as The Wall Street Journal, a pinko think tank called the Manhattan Institute, and was embraced by that Trotskyite Roger Ailes to work in the left-wing propaganda organ we know as Fox News.

Maybe you have, maybe you haven't?

But fundamentally, it's clear to me that you lack the necessary discernment to note the ideological nuance between the Time's reporting and editorializing on soft news like "gay marriage" and hard news like "Iraq war." You know nothing of the politics of the world we live in.

So do yourself a favor and please stop acting the fool. I'm starting to become embarrassed for you. No one should have to suffer the kind of public humiliation you do on a daily basis.

[vt]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

Says the former GOP staffer to the former Vista Volunteer. I've been consistent all my life; you have swung from the right wing to the left. No wonder you're conflicted!

"The loser of the debate sometimes resorts to personal attacks"

It's crystal clear you don't understand liberal versus leftist, or didn't read what I said. To repeat; I said the New York Times is liberal not leftist. To enlighten you there are four political parties in the United States:

The Democrats; centrists that are more socially liberal and believe in larger government, but more bipartisan on national security. Support private industry, but more regulation.

The Left Wing; far left on everything.

The Republicans, centrists that are are more socially conservative but are moving to the center on the national level. They still believe in sizable government but want to make it more efficient. Bipartisan on national security.

The Right Wing, far right on everything.

The House of Representatives has become more split between left and right wings; The Senate and Presidency (when the exception of current occupant) has almost always been Centrist (with occasional renegades).

You seem to be really hung up on war. Yes Iraq was wrong! On a geopolitical basis it made no sense; Saddam's Iraq was a perfect counterweight to Iran; and we could control Saddam. Of course Vietnam was a huge mistake by Democrat leadership. Bosnia was the wrong war for us to get involved in; the Europeans should have handled all of it. Clinton failed twice to get Bin Laden; and the last 15 years has seen the rise of terrorism.

You also don't understand economics and what creates jobs. Certainly the Tea Party is wrong on their approach to spending. Republicans have the wrong priorities on defense and Democrats the wrong approach on the economy and social programs. Neither party understands how to grow this economy or how FIRE has caused major damage.

In Vista I was the only member of my 16 member group fighting FIRE. We had a major success in housing and working with teens. We helped the poor to get access to government help where needed, and taught community leaders to understand the use of credit; we help the poor obtain loans. Vista did more to help the poor than the great majority of current government programs.

While never in the military, I understand how tactics and strategies have changed, and what changes are necessary; and when and how to use military power.

It's sad that you fail to respect reasonable viewpoints such as socially moderate, and fiscally responsible. Plus clearly seeing how other nations balance their internal politics with being responsible or not in foreign policy.

[Woodsman]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

To enlighten you there are four political parties in the United States...

I concede the field, sir. Your knowledge is without peer.

[jk]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

woodsman, i have a great deal of respect for you and your knowledge, and i am often in agreement with the things you say. it was only your name as the op that finally got me to open this thread, which i have been deliberately avoiding. i was avoiding it because i thought it was likely just another left-right ideology contest. unfortunately i was correct. i read the first few posts here and then decided not to bother with the rest.

perhaps you find these exercises amusing or entertaining. certainly no one's mind is changed by these debates. at least i don't recall anyone ever saying s/he'd had an epiphany and changed position on an issue. do you?

so why not save your energy and your time to focus it on threads which are less purely ideological? your knowledge of history might then provide more light than heat.

[Woodsman]

Re: Rules for thee but not for me

woodsman, i have a great deal of respect for you and your knowledge, and i am often in agreement with the things you say.

Same here, JK.

it was only your name as the op that finally got me to open this thread, which i have been deliberately avoiding. i was avoiding it because i thought it was likely just another left-right ideology contest. unfortunately i was correct. i read the first few posts here and then decided not to bother with the rest.

I think that's a great idea. I encourage everyone to do just that.

perhaps you find these exercises amusing or entertaining.

Immensely.

certainly no one's mind is changed by these debates. at least i don't recall anyone ever saying s/he'd had an epiphany and changed position on an issue. do you?

Generally, it's not possible to change someones mind. No matter how absurd the proposition and regardless of the quality of argument, if the information proffered doesn't square with prior beliefs, the information is discarded. That's axiomatic. I wish it were not so, but there is.

Besides, I've said this on multiple occasions. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind. Do you?

so why not save your energy and your time to focus it on threads which are less purely ideological? your knowledge of history might then provide more light than heat.

Nah, I'm good. But I appreciate your thoughtfulness.