Do people really still care about Deep Throat? I don't, sorry, maybe I'm too young. I liked it better when it was a mystery.
Interesting article on love's biological basis from the NYT. They use fMRI data, which is always fun to analyze. (NOT!) Yeah, well read it, but ignore the headline because it is painfully stupid.
Maybe I should start insulting people because I'm so bored. Hmmmm.... Who do I hate a lot 100%er , being shut down. Ariana Huffington? nah, huffington toast has that well in hand. Damn, I'm too apathetic. I could post mean things about people I like. But then I'd be an asshole with no friends instead of just an asshole. Oh well back to the jorb.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Dude
If you get a dell you should definetly shell out extra bucks for their business help line if possible. My dad put me on his and I got to talk to someone who actually speaks english. It was amazing. And I was really grateful for it as I was attempting to re-seat my processor.
Anyway, my computer is broken, as in they are coming out this week to replace the motherboard and RAM. So no blogging while not at work for a while.
Hope everyone had a good memorial day weekend.
Anyway, my computer is broken, as in they are coming out this week to replace the motherboard and RAM. So no blogging while not at work for a while.
Hope everyone had a good memorial day weekend.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Corn fuled cars
Here we come.
My Alma Mater has produced new biodiesel that is apparently easier to produce and more green than previous attempts.
Richard Jackson, president of Capital Technologies International (CTI), said the new process, which causes no harm to the environment, produces biodiesel more quickly and is less expensive than standard methods. The technology has been licensed to CTI and patents are pending. David Purta and Marc Portnoff of Carnegie Mellon's Center for Advanced Fuel Technology (CAFT) were principal developers of the new process.
Made from domestic agricultural products, biodiesel fuel can be burned or blended with petroleum in diesel engines without vehicle modifications. Certified by the U.S. Department of Transportation as the preferred low-cost alternative fuel, biodiesel emissions reduce public health risks associated with air pollution. Biodiesel is less volatile, non-toxic and biodegradable.
Where can I buy stock?
My Alma Mater has produced new biodiesel that is apparently easier to produce and more green than previous attempts.
Richard Jackson, president of Capital Technologies International (CTI), said the new process, which causes no harm to the environment, produces biodiesel more quickly and is less expensive than standard methods. The technology has been licensed to CTI and patents are pending. David Purta and Marc Portnoff of Carnegie Mellon's Center for Advanced Fuel Technology (CAFT) were principal developers of the new process.
Made from domestic agricultural products, biodiesel fuel can be burned or blended with petroleum in diesel engines without vehicle modifications. Certified by the U.S. Department of Transportation as the preferred low-cost alternative fuel, biodiesel emissions reduce public health risks associated with air pollution. Biodiesel is less volatile, non-toxic and biodegradable.
Where can I buy stock?
Pollibuster
Mystery Pollster has a great analysis of polls on the filibuster. I can't really add anything to that discussion, it is definetly worth a read.
Girls Rule
Qando links to a poll showing 53% support for Hillary Clinton in '08. That's exciting. I don't know if I like her or not, but the part of me that is still playing Girls vs. Boys in kickball is jumping for joy. It would be great to have a female president, but not at the expense of having a good leader so I will reserve judgement. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of women felt this way.
A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.
That's not really surprising, though why not say 60% of women and 45% of men. I hate it when they round like that. It's probably like 6/10 women and 5/10 men. But this way it sounds like there is some HUGE gap. I hate journalists.
In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.
Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.
Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.
I find the age gap in the last paragraph begins to confirm my suspicions about the generational differences in the US. Younger generations I think have very different views on the roles of men and women. It strikes me that debates on women in certain fields may be started by people in generations that are less accepting of women. I think that as these old men retire the workforce may even itself out and salary gaps may begin to close. But that may just be wishful thinking.
Anyway, Chicks for President!
Update: Atrios has a post on this as well.
A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.
That's not really surprising, though why not say 60% of women and 45% of men. I hate it when they round like that. It's probably like 6/10 women and 5/10 men. But this way it sounds like there is some HUGE gap. I hate journalists.
In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.
Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.
Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.
I find the age gap in the last paragraph begins to confirm my suspicions about the generational differences in the US. Younger generations I think have very different views on the roles of men and women. It strikes me that debates on women in certain fields may be started by people in generations that are less accepting of women. I think that as these old men retire the workforce may even itself out and salary gaps may begin to close. But that may just be wishful thinking.
Anyway, Chicks for President!
Update: Atrios has a post on this as well.
I'm not dead
Just in case you were worried.
I had SAS training this week. (Which will hopefully make my resume even more appealing) It was fun, but there was no internet. I met some nice people who work at FedEx and we had lunch together, that was fun.
I'm back in the office today, so hopefully I'll have something of value to say later.
Oh and by the way, any Pittsburgh residents looking for a dog, Treach is still in the shelter. Poor guy :-(
I had SAS training this week. (Which will hopefully make my resume even more appealing) It was fun, but there was no internet. I met some nice people who work at FedEx and we had lunch together, that was fun.
I'm back in the office today, so hopefully I'll have something of value to say later.
Oh and by the way, any Pittsburgh residents looking for a dog, Treach is still in the shelter. Poor guy :-(
Monday, May 23, 2005
Links to stuff you've probably already seen.
As my life/career/self-esteem/desire to continue living have all hit rock bottom and with all of that so has my ability to add anything to any discussion in the blogosphere.
So here are some links to some things all of which you have probably seen already.
Female circumcision at Ideonexus, conversation on it at Kav's
Media Bias discussions at Balloon-Juice and Protien Wisdom
Best review of the worst book ever at Quando
Open mocking at Echidne of the snakes
100 Best movies at A Small Victory
Discussing Souper-Bias or Nuclear War over at Cabal
If you can't find something entertaining in that list then well... sorry.
So here are some links to some things all of which you have probably seen already.
Female circumcision at Ideonexus, conversation on it at Kav's
Media Bias discussions at Balloon-Juice and Protien Wisdom
Best review of the worst book ever at Quando
Open mocking at Echidne of the snakes
100 Best movies at A Small Victory
Discussing Souper-Bias or Nuclear War over at Cabal
If you can't find something entertaining in that list then well... sorry.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Congratulations Class of 05
My little sister graduated from highschool tonight. We have the same alma mater, private, catholic, all girls, you get the idea. We graduate in white formal gowns (usually wedding dresses sans train and veil) and carry red roses. It's a beautiful ceremony and though I'm not a fan of tradition or girliness it made my graduation very special and unique. She looked gorgeous (of course, since we share a gene pool). I'd post pictures but I don't want you cretons oggling my sister.
I especially enjoyed the graduation speaker they had this year. It was a woman who is currently the principal of a local boys highschool. And her speech was amazing, lots of encouraging girls to be independent, to think and act independently and to strive for excellence. She pointed out all of the opportunities that women have now that they didn't have years ago. I had no idea that women once couldn't take out loans or have their own credit cards. I guess I did, but the practicality of the situation didn't sink in until I heard her say it.
But seeing them up there, all these proud independent women going of to amazing futures made me proud to be a woman. And that I think is why I liked going to a girls school. Even though I didn't get a long with most of my classmates and I didn't really fit in, I never felt like I was just a girl. Academically they expected a lot from you, they expected excellence. They expected us to compete against the boys and win. And that is something I don't think I would have gotten at a co-ed school.
I've heard people say that single sex education hurts socialization etc. But that is bullshit, if you get 60 teenage girls together, eventually they will find themselves some boys. And they will also find independence and a sense of their own self worth. Maybe that's why catholic school girls are so much trouble, we know what we want and we have the audacity to go for it. (Even if what we want is a bottle of tequila.)
Congratulations Class of 05!
I especially enjoyed the graduation speaker they had this year. It was a woman who is currently the principal of a local boys highschool. And her speech was amazing, lots of encouraging girls to be independent, to think and act independently and to strive for excellence. She pointed out all of the opportunities that women have now that they didn't have years ago. I had no idea that women once couldn't take out loans or have their own credit cards. I guess I did, but the practicality of the situation didn't sink in until I heard her say it.
But seeing them up there, all these proud independent women going of to amazing futures made me proud to be a woman. And that I think is why I liked going to a girls school. Even though I didn't get a long with most of my classmates and I didn't really fit in, I never felt like I was just a girl. Academically they expected a lot from you, they expected excellence. They expected us to compete against the boys and win. And that is something I don't think I would have gotten at a co-ed school.
I've heard people say that single sex education hurts socialization etc. But that is bullshit, if you get 60 teenage girls together, eventually they will find themselves some boys. And they will also find independence and a sense of their own self worth. Maybe that's why catholic school girls are so much trouble, we know what we want and we have the audacity to go for it. (Even if what we want is a bottle of tequila.)
Congratulations Class of 05!
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
# Ninja and the Migraine
This morning our faithful Ninja arrived at work after a 2 hour battle with a migraine that was only won after calling in reinforcements. In her in box she found an e-mail waiting for her from Dumbass. This e-mail, very politely requested that she do some copy and pasting. However Ninja has been doing this particular copying and pasting every week for the past 6 months. And this week this copying and pasting is going to be particularly useful, and so Ninja, being the amazing copy an paste artist that she is was already starting to do this when she opened the e-mail. Needless to say she was slightly peeved to be reminded to do work that she was already doing. She informed Dumbass that she had the matter well in hand and that his request was unnecessary. Dumbass declared that she was being too "sensitive."
Blogging will be light this week because I there is actually work to do AND I'm going back to St. Louis to watch the Sister of Shinobi graduate from HighSchool.
Blogging will be light this week because I there is actually work to do AND I'm going back to St. Louis to watch the Sister of Shinobi graduate from HighSchool.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Liberal MSM (with Meanwhiles)
Instapundit and several other blogs have cited this survey from the University of Conneticut today. (JD, you got your wish, they surveyed the journalists and found out about their political leanings, YAY, now we can disagree about what it means.)
Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1–but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation “moderate,” versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative…
You may want to read the whole article, it is very informative lots of juicy stuff, but since this came up into he comments before I will focus on the Liberal Journalists/normal people divide.
One of my concerns with this report is that it has an non representative sample.
However, the journalist part of this new poll, as with so many previous ones, seems to weigh its sample much too heavily toward managers, and so may not represent a true cross-section in the profession.
Of 300 surveyed–with 120 from TV and 180 from newspapers of different sizes–a lopsided 43% of them were news directors or editors, 4% TV producers, 5% news analysts and columnists and just 47% at the reporter level. One in three have spent 25 or more years in the field. They were overwhelmingly white (83%), largely male (70%) and relatively well-paid (with a significant number making more than $100,000).
So this could bring about some bias in the results, since there were so many very experienced journalists involved.
While the numbers from the public do show a growing distrust of the Liberal mainstream media, this is not necessarily an effect of their liberalism.
Journalists are politically not a representative sample of the American public. That is what this shows. And that is not at all surprising considering that Journalists themselves are not a representative sample of the American public in many other ways. The ones in this study were largely male, and well paid. 90% of the journalists had a college degree (compared to 23% of normal people). We should not expect the political leanings of a highly specialized group of people to look like the American public's. Would you expect the political leanings of all CEOs in the country to look like the American publics? Or even the political leanings of McDonald's employees?
Well if you would, you shouldn't. I think it would be rare to find any profession that is representative of the entire population. Every job requires certain characteristics of the workers, and Journalism probably more than most. Think about the sort of things required to motivate someone to be a journalist, it has to be a very specialized group of people. I think it would be nice if more conservatives were involved in the media, but the media is on its last legs anyway. And there are lots of good conservative bloggers!
I do not dispute the bias in the Media, I do not dispute that the media has been doing a crappy job, but I do not think that any of these things have to do with how liberal the media is. (I think some of the bias has to do with our own personal biases and) I think that they have to do with how lazy and or corrupt the media is. It is easier to talk about things that you agree with than it is to really question what is going on from an objective point of view. It is in their self interest to write stories that will get you recognized without fact checking them because this will guarantee exposure. Things like Memogate and NewsweeklyStupidity don't happen because they are liberal, these things happen because they have no incentive to do a better job. And it looks like blogs are starting to give them that incentive.
Blogs showed their growing influence among those polled as 83% of journalists reporting the use of blogs, with four out of 10 saying they use them at least once a week. Among those who use them, 55% said they do so to support their news gathering work. And even though 85% believe bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections, 75% say bloggers are not real journalists because they don't adhere to "commonly held ethical standards."
well, neither do they.
MEANWHILE: Owlish makes a good point, what would the world be like if the media suddenly became a conservative media?
I will counter with, what if the media actually did its job, that is Reporting all of the Facts, and left the political grandstanding to the politicians. That must be my youthful idealism talking again.
Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1–but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation “moderate,” versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative…
You may want to read the whole article, it is very informative lots of juicy stuff, but since this came up into he comments before I will focus on the Liberal Journalists/normal people divide.
One of my concerns with this report is that it has an non representative sample.
However, the journalist part of this new poll, as with so many previous ones, seems to weigh its sample much too heavily toward managers, and so may not represent a true cross-section in the profession.
Of 300 surveyed–with 120 from TV and 180 from newspapers of different sizes–a lopsided 43% of them were news directors or editors, 4% TV producers, 5% news analysts and columnists and just 47% at the reporter level. One in three have spent 25 or more years in the field. They were overwhelmingly white (83%), largely male (70%) and relatively well-paid (with a significant number making more than $100,000).
So this could bring about some bias in the results, since there were so many very experienced journalists involved.
While the numbers from the public do show a growing distrust of the Liberal mainstream media, this is not necessarily an effect of their liberalism.
Journalists are politically not a representative sample of the American public. That is what this shows. And that is not at all surprising considering that Journalists themselves are not a representative sample of the American public in many other ways. The ones in this study were largely male, and well paid. 90% of the journalists had a college degree (compared to 23% of normal people). We should not expect the political leanings of a highly specialized group of people to look like the American public's. Would you expect the political leanings of all CEOs in the country to look like the American publics? Or even the political leanings of McDonald's employees?
Well if you would, you shouldn't. I think it would be rare to find any profession that is representative of the entire population. Every job requires certain characteristics of the workers, and Journalism probably more than most. Think about the sort of things required to motivate someone to be a journalist, it has to be a very specialized group of people. I think it would be nice if more conservatives were involved in the media, but the media is on its last legs anyway. And there are lots of good conservative bloggers!
I do not dispute the bias in the Media, I do not dispute that the media has been doing a crappy job, but I do not think that any of these things have to do with how liberal the media is. (I think some of the bias has to do with our own personal biases and) I think that they have to do with how lazy and or corrupt the media is. It is easier to talk about things that you agree with than it is to really question what is going on from an objective point of view. It is in their self interest to write stories that will get you recognized without fact checking them because this will guarantee exposure. Things like Memogate and NewsweeklyStupidity don't happen because they are liberal, these things happen because they have no incentive to do a better job. And it looks like blogs are starting to give them that incentive.
Blogs showed their growing influence among those polled as 83% of journalists reporting the use of blogs, with four out of 10 saying they use them at least once a week. Among those who use them, 55% said they do so to support their news gathering work. And even though 85% believe bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections, 75% say bloggers are not real journalists because they don't adhere to "commonly held ethical standards."
well, neither do they.
MEANWHILE: Owlish makes a good point, what would the world be like if the media suddenly became a conservative media?
I will counter with, what if the media actually did its job, that is Reporting all of the Facts, and left the political grandstanding to the politicians. That must be my youthful idealism talking again.
Friday, May 13, 2005
My name and other issues
I made the decision when I started blogging not to use my real name. The reason for this is manyfold and I wont bore you with them, but perhaps the most important issue is that I could lose my job for the things I have said in this blog. And while I don't like my job very much it does provide food and shelter for me, and I have come to enjoy those things.
I also made the decision to post my blog on my AIM profile for friends to read, apparently forgetting that some of the people that have my screen name were not my friends. So now these people are plagueing me and forcing me to do something I hate, deleting comments, in order to preserve the anonymity which I have been very careful to maintain.
If someone has a question for me they are free to ask me in private after identifying themselves and I will also be free to answer them. But anonymous posts in my blog comments that reveal personal information that I have worked carefully to hide are unlikely to extract any information from me beyond a sharp reminder that that poster is in fact quite rude. (In case you missed it, this is the sharp reminder. I'm tired.)
If you want to talk, send me an e-mail. If you have a comment on a post, then please feel free to share.
And, I am deliberately not answering your question because I am deeply offended by the manner in which you chose to ask it. You know me, so you know how to contact me, and if you really want to know the answer you can give me a call or send me an IM and I might tell you.
I also made the decision to post my blog on my AIM profile for friends to read, apparently forgetting that some of the people that have my screen name were not my friends. So now these people are plagueing me and forcing me to do something I hate, deleting comments, in order to preserve the anonymity which I have been very careful to maintain.
If someone has a question for me they are free to ask me in private after identifying themselves and I will also be free to answer them. But anonymous posts in my blog comments that reveal personal information that I have worked carefully to hide are unlikely to extract any information from me beyond a sharp reminder that that poster is in fact quite rude. (In case you missed it, this is the sharp reminder. I'm tired.)
If you want to talk, send me an e-mail. If you have a comment on a post, then please feel free to share.
And, I am deliberately not answering your question because I am deeply offended by the manner in which you chose to ask it. You know me, so you know how to contact me, and if you really want to know the answer you can give me a call or send me an IM and I might tell you.
The Birds and the Birds
Conversations with hypothetical offspring of my little sister:
"Auntie Shinobi, What's The Gay?"
"Well sweety, when two boys or two girls love eachother very much they move in together, decorate their new apartment and buy dogs. That's The Gay."
"Do they get Married?"
"No, they can't get married because the adults are afraid of them."
"Oh, Can I pet their doggies?"
Try as hard as I can, I still don't understand why people want to ban gay marriage. I am trying to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and find a reason not based on bigotry and I can't think of one. Is there some kind of economic benefit we gain by preventing more people from marrying? If so, why do we not do away with straight marriage as well? If we are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage then we shouldn't we be doing away with things like divorce, and the entire city of Las Vegas?
I read this really well thought out article by Eugene Volokh. And he points out a lot of the flaws in the Nebraska ruling and depressed me even further with the realization that it probably wont stand up to scrutiny. So in order to comfort myself I decided to try and rationalize why 70% of the members of the voting population of Nebraska want to prevent gay marriage in the hopes that I could convince myself to agree with them. And though I have tried, I cannot. Can someone explain it to me?
"Auntie Shinobi, What's The Gay?"
"Well sweety, when two boys or two girls love eachother very much they move in together, decorate their new apartment and buy dogs. That's The Gay."
"Do they get Married?"
"No, they can't get married because the adults are afraid of them."
"Oh, Can I pet their doggies?"
Try as hard as I can, I still don't understand why people want to ban gay marriage. I am trying to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and find a reason not based on bigotry and I can't think of one. Is there some kind of economic benefit we gain by preventing more people from marrying? If so, why do we not do away with straight marriage as well? If we are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage then we shouldn't we be doing away with things like divorce, and the entire city of Las Vegas?
I read this really well thought out article by Eugene Volokh. And he points out a lot of the flaws in the Nebraska ruling and depressed me even further with the realization that it probably wont stand up to scrutiny. So in order to comfort myself I decided to try and rationalize why 70% of the members of the voting population of Nebraska want to prevent gay marriage in the hopes that I could convince myself to agree with them. And though I have tried, I cannot. Can someone explain it to me?
Bolton
I'm back today. Left work early yesterday because I was sick, so I WoWed and slept all afternoon. Didja miss me? No? Thought not.
This morning I've read 3 posts on John Bolton. All of them are pro his confirmation.
I'm pretty on the fence about Bolton. Some people seem to that he is what the UN needs, I tend to disagree. I myself am not very good at being diplomatic. I tend to tell people exactly what I think in the crudest terms imaginable. (You can ask my best friend who I nagged for 5 years to break up with her boyfriend with complete disregard for her feelings in the matter.) This is why I, will never work at the UN. For while being obtuse and mean may work with friends or subordinates, it does not work with other diplomats.
Now, I'm not trying to say that John Bolton actually is that big of an asshole, because I don't know him. But Senator Voynavich seems to think that he is. This concerns me, why? To explain I will use a quote from Independance Day which I recently re watched "The LA Police department have asked citizens to refrain from firing their guns at the spaceship, you may inadvertantly trigger an interstellar war." Similarly I would ask that John bolton refrain from insulting members of the UN, he may inadvertantly make things worse for us.
I am sure he will get confirmed and everyone will forget all of the partisan posturing that has been going on. But my private hope is that Congress will actually make a decision based on what is best for the country which may or may not be confirming Bolton. Whoa... sorry what? I must be crazy.
But my personal opinion is that we need a Dick in the UN, not another Asshole. Why? Because Dick's can fuck those pussies in the UN, and dicks can also fuck the assholes. (Go Team America!!!)
This morning I've read 3 posts on John Bolton. All of them are pro his confirmation.
I'm pretty on the fence about Bolton. Some people seem to that he is what the UN needs, I tend to disagree. I myself am not very good at being diplomatic. I tend to tell people exactly what I think in the crudest terms imaginable. (You can ask my best friend who I nagged for 5 years to break up with her boyfriend with complete disregard for her feelings in the matter.) This is why I, will never work at the UN. For while being obtuse and mean may work with friends or subordinates, it does not work with other diplomats.
Now, I'm not trying to say that John Bolton actually is that big of an asshole, because I don't know him. But Senator Voynavich seems to think that he is. This concerns me, why? To explain I will use a quote from Independance Day which I recently re watched "The LA Police department have asked citizens to refrain from firing their guns at the spaceship, you may inadvertantly trigger an interstellar war." Similarly I would ask that John bolton refrain from insulting members of the UN, he may inadvertantly make things worse for us.
I am sure he will get confirmed and everyone will forget all of the partisan posturing that has been going on. But my private hope is that Congress will actually make a decision based on what is best for the country which may or may not be confirming Bolton. Whoa... sorry what? I must be crazy.
But my personal opinion is that we need a Dick in the UN, not another Asshole. Why? Because Dick's can fuck those pussies in the UN, and dicks can also fuck the assholes. (Go Team America!!!)
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Typography
Spent the last hour or so reading through this PEW Typology study. (Via Michelle Malkin, okay, I admit it, I want to be her when I grow up.)
Gerry at DalyThoughts has a great summary of the report for people who don't want to read the whole thing. (for instance anyone in their right mind)
One thing that I noticed in the study that I found really interesting was this-
In an era when virtually all political issues are seen through partisan lenses, the political typology still finds numerous value cleavages in American society, many of which cut across party lines. In fact, public values about security and the use of military force are among the only value dimensions in which Republican and Democratic groups clearly align on opposite sides, and, even here, the intensity of opinion differs significantly within each coalition.
The divide on this subject is much clearer than any of the other issues I saw mapped out. There is a clear difference between the parties. (This takes the blame off of religious conservativism which seems like it has been blamed a lot for recent between party animosity. The Pew study shows this not exclusively a Republican value. Conservative democrats make up 15% of the population and tend to be more religious and to agree more with Republicans on issues like gay marriage. )
So it looks like the main issues dividing the country along party lines are the Use of Force and the War on Terrorism, not Terry Schiavo or Supreme Court justices. I think this is something that both parties should take note of for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Gerry at DalyThoughts has a great summary of the report for people who don't want to read the whole thing. (for instance anyone in their right mind)
One thing that I noticed in the study that I found really interesting was this-
In an era when virtually all political issues are seen through partisan lenses, the political typology still finds numerous value cleavages in American society, many of which cut across party lines. In fact, public values about security and the use of military force are among the only value dimensions in which Republican and Democratic groups clearly align on opposite sides, and, even here, the intensity of opinion differs significantly within each coalition.
The divide on this subject is much clearer than any of the other issues I saw mapped out. There is a clear difference between the parties. (This takes the blame off of religious conservativism which seems like it has been blamed a lot for recent between party animosity. The Pew study shows this not exclusively a Republican value. Conservative democrats make up 15% of the population and tend to be more religious and to agree more with Republicans on issues like gay marriage. )
So it looks like the main issues dividing the country along party lines are the Use of Force and the War on Terrorism, not Terry Schiavo or Supreme Court justices. I think this is something that both parties should take note of for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The Biggest Idiot on THP (with Meanwhiles!)
Jim Lampley posted this FASCINATING post on The Huffington Post today. Really, full of facts and stuff. Um. Yeah. (Via atrios)
Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.
And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.
I admit, it is rather odd that the exit polls would be so wrong. But there are many possible explanations for such a discrepancy.
As Mr. Lampley points out
It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research [and its uncanny accuracy and validity. !?!?!?!]
Apparently Jim went to a completely different school of social research than the one I went to. But maybe it is just because I only have an undergraduate degree that I understand how delicate polling can be. Only someone with a basic university education could possibly understand that a poll is only as good as it sample and that exit polls are imprecise at best because they cannot be completely random.
It is clearly unreasonable to think that that exit pollers were swamped by democrats eager to give their opinions and passed by by Dubya's supporters. And how could I even question the validity of the always precise pollsters by pointing out that maybe their representatives were located in areas that tended to lean left. Obviously someone who spends their life talking while sweaty guys punch each other is the man we should be listening to when it comes to exit polling. No? Hmm.
We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, that's why there are identifiable margins for error.
Actually, what we know is that 95% of the time the data will fall within those margins of error. So, 5 % of the time the data falls outside of the range, in other words, 5% of the time the polls will be WRONG.
I know, I with a mere B.S. could not possibly comprehend how implausible it is that the exit polls are wrong. If you don't believe me, look at this post by the much more informed Mark Blumenthal at Mystery Pollster. (Which by the way was posted a long time ago, like... Near when the election actually happened as opposed to half a year later.)
I'm sorry Jim, I'm upset that Bush won too, but sadly exit polls are not evidence of vote tampering. It is possible that the votes were tampered with. And really, I wish I believed that they were. But I think that the probability of the polls being wrong is .05 and the probability of national vote tampering is probably closer to .0000000001
I would also like to add that conspiracy theories that eschew logic, reason and science are probably not the best way to help the already beleaguered left.
UPDATE: John Cole has a post on this and he pointed me to John Conyers who backs up Lampley's ridiculous accusations with a little movie somebody made. Oh god, I'm so ashamed that I voted democrat right now.
MEANWHILE: The Mystery Pollster has posted a response to the Lampley debacle. He has a lot of good links and more information on the entire exit poll debate. Definetly worth a read.
Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.
And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.
I admit, it is rather odd that the exit polls would be so wrong. But there are many possible explanations for such a discrepancy.
As Mr. Lampley points out
It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research [and its uncanny accuracy and validity. !?!?!?!]
Apparently Jim went to a completely different school of social research than the one I went to. But maybe it is just because I only have an undergraduate degree that I understand how delicate polling can be. Only someone with a basic university education could possibly understand that a poll is only as good as it sample and that exit polls are imprecise at best because they cannot be completely random.
It is clearly unreasonable to think that that exit pollers were swamped by democrats eager to give their opinions and passed by by Dubya's supporters. And how could I even question the validity of the always precise pollsters by pointing out that maybe their representatives were located in areas that tended to lean left. Obviously someone who spends their life talking while sweaty guys punch each other is the man we should be listening to when it comes to exit polling. No? Hmm.
We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, that's why there are identifiable margins for error.
Actually, what we know is that 95% of the time the data will fall within those margins of error. So, 5 % of the time the data falls outside of the range, in other words, 5% of the time the polls will be WRONG.
I know, I with a mere B.S. could not possibly comprehend how implausible it is that the exit polls are wrong. If you don't believe me, look at this post by the much more informed Mark Blumenthal at Mystery Pollster. (Which by the way was posted a long time ago, like... Near when the election actually happened as opposed to half a year later.)
I'm sorry Jim, I'm upset that Bush won too, but sadly exit polls are not evidence of vote tampering. It is possible that the votes were tampered with. And really, I wish I believed that they were. But I think that the probability of the polls being wrong is .05 and the probability of national vote tampering is probably closer to .0000000001
I would also like to add that conspiracy theories that eschew logic, reason and science are probably not the best way to help the already beleaguered left.
UPDATE: John Cole has a post on this and he pointed me to John Conyers who backs up Lampley's ridiculous accusations with a little movie somebody made. Oh god, I'm so ashamed that I voted democrat right now.
MEANWHILE: The Mystery Pollster has posted a response to the Lampley debacle. He has a lot of good links and more information on the entire exit poll debate. Definetly worth a read.
I'm not Biased, YOU are!
As an outraged centrist, I am long weary of hearing about how liberal/not liberal enough most of the media is. It is an un-ending conversation. I am not going to propose an end to it unfortunately. I am going to point out however that this conversation is inevitable, and fruitless.
The Hostile Media Phenomenon-Opposite groups, such as at football matches, will both perceive balanced and neutral views as hostile to their side.
This phenomenon has been documented in several experiments using both political ideologies as well as sports coverage.
Controlling for the same news clips, subjects differed along partisan lines on simple, objective criteria such as the number of references to a given subject. As such, the hostile media effect is not just a difference of opinion but a difference of perception.
So this argument is inevitable. Even if the media were completely unbiased we would still percieve it as being biased against our side, whichever side that may be.
Now obviously the media is not unbiased. But I think they are biased in their own special way. They have a ratings bias. They write and publish things that get them traffic or ratings. They don't cover things that are only interesting to small pockets of the population, and they find stories that while not all that important are entertaining. (Runaway Brides, fingers in chili, that sort of thing.)
All I'm saying is next time you get mad about something you think it is biased, remember maybe it isn't the story that's biased, maybe it is you.
(This came up because of the comments in this post over at Kav's blog, and I decided to post about it because I got tired of copying and pasting data.)
The Hostile Media Phenomenon-Opposite groups, such as at football matches, will both perceive balanced and neutral views as hostile to their side.
This phenomenon has been documented in several experiments using both political ideologies as well as sports coverage.
Controlling for the same news clips, subjects differed along partisan lines on simple, objective criteria such as the number of references to a given subject. As such, the hostile media effect is not just a difference of opinion but a difference of perception.
So this argument is inevitable. Even if the media were completely unbiased we would still percieve it as being biased against our side, whichever side that may be.
Now obviously the media is not unbiased. But I think they are biased in their own special way. They have a ratings bias. They write and publish things that get them traffic or ratings. They don't cover things that are only interesting to small pockets of the population, and they find stories that while not all that important are entertaining. (Runaway Brides, fingers in chili, that sort of thing.)
All I'm saying is next time you get mad about something you think it is biased, remember maybe it isn't the story that's biased, maybe it is you.
(This came up because of the comments in this post over at Kav's blog, and I decided to post about it because I got tired of copying and pasting data.)
Good Advice
Good advice today from John Hawkins. (via Michelle Malkin AGAIN! shock)
7) If you're an attractive woman, you can gain a lot of extra traffic over time by posting pics. Maybe you think that's sexist, maybe not, but it has been proven to work time and time again.
I like that one a lot. But sadly I am doomed to be trafficless, for-
25) Given that there are plenty of people who've been fired or disciplined at work either for blogging on the job or for something they said on their blog, the fewer people at your job who know about your blog, the better.
If I put my picture on it, that would kinda give the game away now wouldn't it. ::sigh:: Maybe someday when I haven't been calling my boss a dumbass recently I will post pictures and then you can all come oogle me.
Until I get another job, or get fired, I will simply attempt to improve the quality of my content so that people might actually want to read what I have to say. But first it is time for the #Ninja to copy and paste things from one excel file to another. I went to college for THIS?
7) If you're an attractive woman, you can gain a lot of extra traffic over time by posting pics. Maybe you think that's sexist, maybe not, but it has been proven to work time and time again.
I like that one a lot. But sadly I am doomed to be trafficless, for-
25) Given that there are plenty of people who've been fired or disciplined at work either for blogging on the job or for something they said on their blog, the fewer people at your job who know about your blog, the better.
If I put my picture on it, that would kinda give the game away now wouldn't it. ::sigh:: Maybe someday when I haven't been calling my boss a dumbass recently I will post pictures and then you can all come oogle me.
Until I get another job, or get fired, I will simply attempt to improve the quality of my content so that people might actually want to read what I have to say. But first it is time for the #Ninja to copy and paste things from one excel file to another. I went to college for THIS?
Monday, May 09, 2005
Celeblogs
If I had tags, I would file this under bitter.
Everyone is posting about Ariana Huffingtons new blogthingy. Some people are being optimistic about its future and nice about it. Others, well.... is this optimism?
I however, will be reading and posting on This blog instead. (Via Michele Malkin who I never thought I would link to) I really like their title too!
I think the reason I was attracted to the blogosphere is that it seems to in some way reward individuals who are intelligent and who have things to say. (hence, no traffic for me) And while I have respect for celebrities, and think that it is great that they have opinions I can turn on the TV at any time and find out what they think, that's why I don't watch TV news anymore.
I'm not saying that I dont think celebrities should have blogs. I think they should, and if they have valuable things to say I will link to them and read them as individauls. But I think that to create a powerhouse of recognizable names and a blogroll of the most popular blogs etc... well, it's just unfair to the rest of us.
Arianna Huffington's makes me think of building a megamall full of chains right next to a street with lots of high quality privately owned shops.
Or is it the Celebrity DU?
I could name dozens of blogs with far more insight, intelligence, and worth that will never get mentioned in the media, yet because a handful of vapid Hollywood twats is throwing their names into the fray, this site will get ungarnered attention.
Everyone is posting about Ariana Huffingtons new blogthingy. Some people are being optimistic about its future and nice about it. Others, well.... is this optimism?
I however, will be reading and posting on This blog instead. (Via Michele Malkin who I never thought I would link to) I really like their title too!
I think the reason I was attracted to the blogosphere is that it seems to in some way reward individuals who are intelligent and who have things to say. (hence, no traffic for me) And while I have respect for celebrities, and think that it is great that they have opinions I can turn on the TV at any time and find out what they think, that's why I don't watch TV news anymore.
I'm not saying that I dont think celebrities should have blogs. I think they should, and if they have valuable things to say I will link to them and read them as individauls. But I think that to create a powerhouse of recognizable names and a blogroll of the most popular blogs etc... well, it's just unfair to the rest of us.
Arianna Huffington's makes me think of building a megamall full of chains right next to a street with lots of high quality privately owned shops.
Or is it the Celebrity DU?
I could name dozens of blogs with far more insight, intelligence, and worth that will never get mentioned in the media, yet because a handful of vapid Hollywood twats is throwing their names into the fray, this site will get ungarnered attention.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Dog Blogging
Yeah so, I think cat blogging is dumb. Dog blogging is equally dumb. But I'm going to do it anyway on the off chance that anyone in the Pittsburgh area is looking to adopt a dog and might actually read this blog. HAH!
This is my buddy Treach (not to be confused with Treacher, who, sadly is not my buddy, because he doesn't know me.) Treach is a big boy and can be a little intimidating. But fortunately He's great with kids and is very smart and friendly. We spent last saturday together at Petsmart shopping for a new family, but he didn't find any that he really liked. He needs a nice family to spoil him and fatten him up a bit.
And this is Bruiser. He's a sweet puppy who lost one of his legs. He's still learning to get around, but he desperately needs someone to love him and tell him it will all be okay.
Support your local animal shelter. And have a nice weekend.
This is my buddy Treach (not to be confused with Treacher, who, sadly is not my buddy, because he doesn't know me.) Treach is a big boy and can be a little intimidating. But fortunately He's great with kids and is very smart and friendly. We spent last saturday together at Petsmart shopping for a new family, but he didn't find any that he really liked. He needs a nice family to spoil him and fatten him up a bit.
And this is Bruiser. He's a sweet puppy who lost one of his legs. He's still learning to get around, but he desperately needs someone to love him and tell him it will all be okay.
Support your local animal shelter. And have a nice weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
