|
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 12 2012 22:25 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 22:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 22:14 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 22:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 21:59 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 21:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 21:14 Sadist wrote:On November 12 2012 21:04 NicolBolas wrote:Hey, if corporations have the right to speech via donations to political candidates, then why not freedom of religion too? I'm opposed to them having either of these. This idea that a religious institution should be able to decide what it can cover is ridiculous and only is gaining attention because it is about birthcontrol/morning after pill. If there was a religion that believed cancer was gods will and was against treating it do you think that would actually fly? How about if a religion decided its insurance wouldn't cover blood transfusions? No one would think that was sane correct? But because this involves Christianity and sex they get a pass from quite a bit of the public. Its a joke. I would concur, this is an extreme double standard. You'll be hard pressed to show how it's a joke since most devot Christians have trouble witih the idea of double standards. I didn't realize that the miracle of life is comparable to cancer... I do agree that saying something is "God's will" is not justification for morality though I didn't realize your interpretation of a miracle is life nor did I realize your interpretation should mandate my belief structure. His analogy holds, if I believed cancer is good and we shouldn't treat cancer because of my religion and I owned a company then that would be laughed off, is the idea of controlling the ability for women to control their bodies different? The only difference I've seen is the argument "Didn't know life equivalent to cancer" Although it seems you agree that "God's will" isn't justification such that your first facetious comment seems entirely unneeded. It isn't just a difference, it is false to call it a double standard because the 2 two things have to be similar in nature. Basically anything can be deemed "good in someones opinion" and therefore anything can be "Gods will" to someone. I think your choice of wording on it being a double standard is poor, but I agree with the notion that any man making laws should never do it based on what he thinks "Gods will" is. My first comment was to point out I don't think you know what double standard means. Unless I am wrong, and if I am please explain how I am. Maybe my definition is wrong It's a double standard to allow belief like "pro life" mandating a womens body but not allow the same mandate to disallow cancer treatment under a plan because I'm "pro death" or something similar. The double stands in the morale belief being proposed over another person, if my belief is everyone should die as quickly as possible then should my company not allow ANYONE to get health treatment? It'd be fair since we can disallow treatment on belief for women. Talk about a money saver. And they are similar in nature. The analogy is about belief > rights. My belief is everyone dies, no healthcare and the belief of the religious folk is no abortions, no contraceptions covered. Belief over > rights is the argument. Well I'm against abortion from a personal moral standpoint, not to do with religion. I think its rights versus rights, not belief > rights. You might believe that an unborn baby is not deserving of rights and i might believe the opposite, but neither of these beliefs have to be because of a religion. I think the double standard lies in our legal system where a pregnant woman who is murdered and the baby dies is considered a double murder, but it isn't murder if she chose to abort the baby herself.
much like when an individual kills and is considered murder but when a sovereign does it's called an execution.
|
On November 12 2012 22:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 21:59 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 21:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 21:14 Sadist wrote:On November 12 2012 21:04 NicolBolas wrote:Hey, if corporations have the right to speech via donations to political candidates, then why not freedom of religion too? I'm opposed to them having either of these. This idea that a religious institution should be able to decide what it can cover is ridiculous and only is gaining attention because it is about birthcontrol/morning after pill. If there was a religion that believed cancer was gods will and was against treating it do you think that would actually fly? How about if a religion decided its insurance wouldn't cover blood transfusions? No one would think that was sane correct? But because this involves Christianity and sex they get a pass from quite a bit of the public. Its a joke. I would concur, this is an extreme double standard. You'll be hard pressed to show how it's a joke since most devot Christians have trouble witih the idea of double standards. I didn't realize that the miracle of life is comparable to cancer... I do agree that saying something is "God's will" is not justification for morality though Well, if you deny someone medical coverage for cancer you are pretty darn likely to take away their ability to live the miracle of life. Medical coverage shouldn't really be based on religion-except the individual's OWN religion. Thankfully having the insurers cover everything circumvents this.
But his suggestion was that people could say they believe cancer is good (something that almost everyone can agree is absurd) and that they don't believe it should be treated, and I am not disputing that we should do what we can to save that persons life, but this is one life's right being disputed. You can't compare that to a pregnancy, where what is at dispute is the mothers right to choose (something the country is split on) versus the unborn baby's right to life (2 lives' rights being disputed).
|
Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon".
A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k
|
lol @ the one guy in far north Canada
|
On November 12 2012 22:59 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 22:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 12 2012 21:59 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 21:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 21:14 Sadist wrote:On November 12 2012 21:04 NicolBolas wrote:Hey, if corporations have the right to speech via donations to political candidates, then why not freedom of religion too? I'm opposed to them having either of these. This idea that a religious institution should be able to decide what it can cover is ridiculous and only is gaining attention because it is about birthcontrol/morning after pill. If there was a religion that believed cancer was gods will and was against treating it do you think that would actually fly? How about if a religion decided its insurance wouldn't cover blood transfusions? No one would think that was sane correct? But because this involves Christianity and sex they get a pass from quite a bit of the public. Its a joke. I would concur, this is an extreme double standard. You'll be hard pressed to show how it's a joke since most devot Christians have trouble witih the idea of double standards. I didn't realize that the miracle of life is comparable to cancer... I do agree that saying something is "God's will" is not justification for morality though Well, if you deny someone medical coverage for cancer you are pretty darn likely to take away their ability to live the miracle of life. Medical coverage shouldn't really be based on religion-except the individual's OWN religion. Thankfully having the insurers cover everything circumvents this. But his suggestion was that people could say they believe cancer is good (something that almost everyone can agree is absurd) and that they don't believe it should be treated, and I am not disputing that we should do what we can to save that persons life, but this is one life's right being disputed. You can't compare that to a pregnancy, where what is at dispute is the mothers right to choose (something the country is split on) versus the unborn baby's right to life (2 lives' rights being disputed).
First of all, he's not talking about people. He's talking about an institution.
The problem is businesses that have contracted with insurers dictating medical treatment an individual will receive as a result of their religious beliefs. Most religious institutions that would deny cancer treatment would do so because they believe it is the person throwing away their eternal soul by contaminating their body. This is actually probably worth MORE than a life in the case of a morning after pill (considering not all pregnancies are brought to term anyway and an eternal soul is, well, a soul).
When it comes to what medical treatment people should be able to use, you have to consider their beliefs and health above the employers' when the two conflict or you reach problems like the one above. There's a lot of other conditions (epilepsy is quite commonly worshipped among some cultures, like the Hmong) where you can run into trouble if you don't.
Edit: Oh, and whether or not a one-day-fertilized embryo has a "right to life" is something the country is equally split on. If you murdered someone the day after they conceived I'm pretty sure you won't get convicted of a double murder, it's virtually undetectable (unless there's case law I'm unaware of).
|
On November 12 2012 22:25 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 22:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 22:14 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 22:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 21:59 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 21:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 21:14 Sadist wrote:On November 12 2012 21:04 NicolBolas wrote:Hey, if corporations have the right to speech via donations to political candidates, then why not freedom of religion too? I'm opposed to them having either of these. This idea that a religious institution should be able to decide what it can cover is ridiculous and only is gaining attention because it is about birthcontrol/morning after pill. If there was a religion that believed cancer was gods will and was against treating it do you think that would actually fly? How about if a religion decided its insurance wouldn't cover blood transfusions? No one would think that was sane correct? But because this involves Christianity and sex they get a pass from quite a bit of the public. Its a joke. I would concur, this is an extreme double standard. You'll be hard pressed to show how it's a joke since most devot Christians have trouble witih the idea of double standards. I didn't realize that the miracle of life is comparable to cancer... I do agree that saying something is "God's will" is not justification for morality though I didn't realize your interpretation of a miracle is life nor did I realize your interpretation should mandate my belief structure. His analogy holds, if I believed cancer is good and we shouldn't treat cancer because of my religion and I owned a company then that would be laughed off, is the idea of controlling the ability for women to control their bodies different? The only difference I've seen is the argument "Didn't know life equivalent to cancer" Although it seems you agree that "God's will" isn't justification such that your first facetious comment seems entirely unneeded. It isn't just a difference, it is false to call it a double standard because the 2 two things have to be similar in nature. Basically anything can be deemed "good in someones opinion" and therefore anything can be "Gods will" to someone. I think your choice of wording on it being a double standard is poor, but I agree with the notion that any man making laws should never do it based on what he thinks "Gods will" is. My first comment was to point out I don't think you know what double standard means. Unless I am wrong, and if I am please explain how I am. Maybe my definition is wrong It's a double standard to allow belief like "pro life" mandating a womens body but not allow the same mandate to disallow cancer treatment under a plan because I'm "pro death" or something similar. The double stands in the morale belief being proposed over another person, if my belief is everyone should die as quickly as possible then should my company not allow ANYONE to get health treatment? It'd be fair since we can disallow treatment on belief for women. Talk about a money saver. And they are similar in nature. The analogy is about belief > rights. My belief is everyone dies, no healthcare and the belief of the religious folk is no abortions, no contraceptions covered. Belief over > rights is the argument. Well I'm against abortion from a personal moral standpoint, not to do with religion. I think its rights versus rights, not belief > rights. You might believe that an unborn baby is not deserving of rights and i might believe the opposite, but neither of these beliefs have to be because of a religion. I think the double standard lies in our legal system where a pregnant woman who is murdered and the baby dies is considered a double murder, but it isn't murder if she chose to abort the baby herself.
The law you are talking about is different from state to state so I'm not sure why you're generalizing it. Women also can't abort a baby past a certain point but they can certainly be murdered at any time, so yet another huge generalization... I don't like the idea of abortion but I am very much pro choice because I can't simply see it as a black and white matter and I'm constantly shaking my head at the people who do.
|
|
|
On November 12 2012 18:39 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 16:34 Signet wrote:On November 12 2012 15:47 oneofthem wrote:
that quiz is annoyingly american It's supposed to be a map of Americans' ideologies, not all countries' ideologies. Ideologies are universal, what this quiz does is simply exclude or ignore many (that are present in America as well). When you can only choose between "Religion is very important to me" and "Religion is not that important to me" (but still is to an extent?), then it doesn't even cover the full spectrum of American ideologies. There are many other choices like that as well, quite skewed, loaded, or both.
Eh, at some point you'll either find the concept of a clustering of the population into a handful of groups useful or you won't. It's supposed to provide better insight than simply Right vs Left, but not go so far as to say "there are over 300 million beautiful snowflakes in America." The answers are supposed to be which one is closer to your view, not which one perfectly captures your view. No amount of choices will ever give perfect answers; there will always be people who fall between the options unless you make it essay based. (in the example you gave, obviously religion is not that important to atheists, I think this answer is a matter of common sense) Recalling that 75% of our country isn't college educated, and most people aren't spending time reading seminal philosophical papers/etc, I don't think a test that could detect the difference between libertarianism and minarchism, or the thousands of variants thereof, is going to be all that useful. And again, a test accurate enough to do that isn't going to give a picture of the entire country that can be easily digested. (which is the point of this, not to give each individual a very accurate picture of themselves)
The other side of the questionnaire design is how it is intended to be analyzed. Binary categorical answers are easily translated into binary numerical answers (0 or 1). Multiple categorical answers aren't. I can't assume that, for example, religion being very important/pretty important/mildly important/not that important/totally unimportant should really translate into 5/4/3/2/1. "Pretty important" might be closer to "very important" than "mildly important" for example -- ie, 15/14/10/5/1 might be more appropriate. From numerous literature, we know that "Republican"/"Lean Republican"/"Lean Democrat"/"Democrat" should actually translate into 0/0/1/1 rather than 1/2/3/4 because admitted partisans and partisan leaners actually vote the same way over the long run. So from an analysis perspective, having more descriptive categorical answers merely trades one problem for another.
|
On November 13 2012 01:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Edit: Oh, and whether or not a one-day-fertilized embryo has a "right to life" is something the country is equally split on. If you murdered someone the day after they conceived I'm pretty sure you won't get convicted of a double murder, it's virtually undetectable (unless there's case law I'm unaware of).
Murder is a state crime, so there are 50 different variations of that law.
|
On November 13 2012 01:47 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 01:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Edit: Oh, and whether or not a one-day-fertilized embryo has a "right to life" is something the country is equally split on. If you murdered someone the day after they conceived I'm pretty sure you won't get convicted of a double murder, it's virtually undetectable (unless there's case law I'm unaware of). Murder is a state crime, so there are 50 different variations of that law.
Is there any state that has convicted someone of a double murder for killing a woman the day after she conceived, though? As near as I can tell laws to that effect deal with fetuses, not embryos (and the morning after pill should NEVER be taken once a fetus enters the equation).
Edit: Nevermind, I found a page that shows about 2/3 of the states with laws related to it define it as a "homo sapiens in any stage of development." Not that you could ever prosecute someone one day after fertilization...
|
On November 13 2012 01:19 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 18:39 Talin wrote:On November 12 2012 16:34 Signet wrote:On November 12 2012 15:47 oneofthem wrote:
that quiz is annoyingly american It's supposed to be a map of Americans' ideologies, not all countries' ideologies. Ideologies are universal, what this quiz does is simply exclude or ignore many (that are present in America as well). When you can only choose between "Religion is very important to me" and "Religion is not that important to me" (but still is to an extent?), then it doesn't even cover the full spectrum of American ideologies. There are many other choices like that as well, quite skewed, loaded, or both. Eh, at some point you'll either find the concept of a clustering of the population into a handful of groups useful or you won't. It's supposed to provide better insight than simply Right vs Left, but not go so far as to say "there are over 300 million beautiful snowflakes in America." The answers are supposed to be which one is closer to your view, not which one perfectly captures your view. No amount of choices will ever give perfect answers; there will always be people who fall between the options unless you make it essay based. (in the example you gave, obviously religion is not that important to atheists, I think this answer is a matter of common sense) Recalling that 75% of our country isn't college educated, and most people aren't spending time reading seminal philosophical papers/etc, I don't think a test that could detect the difference between libertarianism and minarchism, or the thousands of variants thereof, is going to be all that useful. And again, a test accurate enough to do that isn't going to give a picture of the entire country that can be easily digested. (which is the point of this, not to give each individual a very accurate picture of themselves)
What I see as problematic in the "quiz" (it is not a test of your political standpoint but rather infotainment informing about how they have chosen to group opinions and who the stereotype on the person in the group is!), is that some of the questions are completely unrelated to any real ideology. It seems like they have tested hundreds of N/A questions to determine some correlation, which is ok, but it is pretty clear when taking the quiz that causation is not a concern considered very heavily. While some grouping is a good idea, I just do not think that the amount of issues being examined is broad enough (where is the more specific corporate republican vs libertarian divide, where is the solid liberal vs OWS or even more specific questions related to state vs federal government! Without these nuances, the groupings become a predetermined formula where results are just fun facts connected to a predetermined model with no focus on causation and dynamics! A political analyst need far better data (often related to talking-points) to determine a strategy for an election campaign and I cannot really see how a random american voter can use the informations from this quiz as anything other than pop-quiz knowledge. They learn only little about themself and the information about NASCAR dads and moms seem more like a 2000 pop political information than actually helpful knowledge about grouping.
|
On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". Show nested quote +A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k
Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon...
|
On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon...
Why does where he live matter?
|
On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon...
Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that.
|
On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that.
I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black).
I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't think the fresh water crowd has produced much in the way of helpful observations. aside from the always present "safety net reduces work incentive" stuff. it's just not very interesting to say, oh dear, we don't want to take away unemployment insurance, but let's just point out that it's making people not take lower paying shit jobs. obviously addressing the lack of better paying jobs is the problem.
if you assume all the causes economists claim are valid, they overdetermine the actual event. one guy has to be wrong and the other right. most of this lax comes from methodological margins.
|
On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon...
...also known as the "reality cocoon", or the real world.
|
On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon...
You can only nay-say Krugman as a source so many times before your lack of credible, opposing source material makes it look like it is only you with the political lens on. When you say stuff like "He's playing politics because he wants winner take all economics talks.", you are presuming a lack of economic utility in holding Republican feet to the fire in order to get an economic mandate across, when this is clearly not the case, at least not entirely. In this case specifically, the recommendation of economic brinkmanship is Krugman saying that making concessions is economically a poor choice, in addition to being politically malfeasant. If you think otherwise, prove it, instead of simply saying that it is so.
|
On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all).
He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
