I was out yesterday with my mother and stepfather, among others, and the conversation came to the situation along the border. I mentioned the article I am linking while trying to make the point that border violence, at least on the American side, is down over the last ten years.
The strange part was the reaction it generated in my mother, who cited several anecdotal examples of violence. She was absolutely adament that I was wrong and was unwilling to even consider that the statistics and number based analysis presented in the article had any validity at all. It makes me a little sad that she is willing to completely discount everything I say on any subject related to politics and the only reason I can see is that I lean closer to the middle than she does.
I love you, Mom, but anecdotal evidence is less useful than measurable statistics. You are a scientist, you know that.
Violence is not up on Arizona border###
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Erick Erickson asked a question...
That I would like to answer. In his 5/11 RedState Briefing, he asked...
How Is Elena Kagan ‘More Representative’ of America?
Well, Erick, as the third SCOTUS member who is a woman, she brings us closer to the 50/50 demographic breakdown of men to women in this country. If she is homosexual then she would be more representative of the 2-3% of our population. There have been 111 SCOTUS justices, so her presence would still be less than 1% of the total number of justices.
Ericson also decried the alma mater of Kagan, ignoring the fact that George Bush's SCOTUS nominees were also from Harvard Law and Yale Law. In addition, he took issue with replacing "the last veteran" on the court with a non veteran "in a time of war," again ignoring the fact that if that criteria were applied to Roberts and Alito, they would have come up short in a time of war as well. Apparently, there are two different sets of standards for nominees in Erickson's mind, one for conservatives and another for liberals.
But who cares about hypocrisy anymore, it is just SOP.
How Is Elena Kagan ‘More Representative’ of America?
Well, Erick, as the third SCOTUS member who is a woman, she brings us closer to the 50/50 demographic breakdown of men to women in this country. If she is homosexual then she would be more representative of the 2-3% of our population. There have been 111 SCOTUS justices, so her presence would still be less than 1% of the total number of justices.
Ericson also decried the alma mater of Kagan, ignoring the fact that George Bush's SCOTUS nominees were also from Harvard Law and Yale Law. In addition, he took issue with replacing "the last veteran" on the court with a non veteran "in a time of war," again ignoring the fact that if that criteria were applied to Roberts and Alito, they would have come up short in a time of war as well. Apparently, there are two different sets of standards for nominees in Erickson's mind, one for conservatives and another for liberals.
But who cares about hypocrisy anymore, it is just SOP.
Some people just keep lying...
...to misrepresent the views of other people.
One of my morning readings every day is the newsletter from RedState. Today, Erick Erickson went so far as to claim that the American Academy of Pediatrics, and by some incomrehensible extension the entire progressive movement, actually condones the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM).
In order to get our definitions straight, FGM is an abhorent practice in many parts of Africa in which female children have their clitoris removed before they reach childbearing age. In the misogynistic cultures in which this procedure is performed, women aren't supposed to derive pleasure from sex and as such, the clitoris becomes superfluous equipment. The entire thing is disgusting and is used to oppress women as they have for centuries in those cultures.
There are a number of pediatricians in the United States who perform a ritual for families from those cultures in which they nick the clitoris with a scalpel or razor, a cut that heals completely and has no lasting effects. In many cases, it has been reported that the doctors never actually touch the girl with the cutting instrument, merely wave it over the girl in a symbolic gesture to fulfill the requirements of the ritual. This was the procedure that the AAP endorsed over the surgical removal of the clitoris.
Of course, our doctors routinely engage in male genital mutilation in the form of circumcision, the removal of the foreskin of the penis. This procedure has at least a basis in reality as a penis with the foreskin is more difficult to clean and more prone to spreading sexually transmitted diseases including HIV to women. In addition, there is a significantly higher prevalence of penile cancer among men who have never been circumcised comared to those circumcized at birth.
Unfortunately, this wasn't the only lie in the post to which I am referring. The author went on to imply that the entire progressive movement, in the form of Hollywood, is busy being apologists for Roman Polanski. I'm not generally one to agree with the Church of Scientology, but in an interesting turn of events, not a single Scientologist has defended Polanski and there are many other Hollywood types who did not sign on to the petition asking for his release. Most of the people who signed the petition were French citizens and, much as some people would like it to be so, Whoopi Goldberg does not represent the entirety of the progressive movement. For anyone who wants a fuller account of the situation than what RedState is putting out there, here you go. Despite the claims that nobody in Hollywood is condemning Polanski, it sure seems that there are a lot of people out there doing just that.
I hate it when people lie and I truly despise it when they lie for political gain. There are so many legitimate reasons to disagree with people on the other side of the political spectrum that there is no excuse for misleading or lying to people.
Tsk, Mr. Erickson
One of my morning readings every day is the newsletter from RedState. Today, Erick Erickson went so far as to claim that the American Academy of Pediatrics, and by some incomrehensible extension the entire progressive movement, actually condones the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM).
In order to get our definitions straight, FGM is an abhorent practice in many parts of Africa in which female children have their clitoris removed before they reach childbearing age. In the misogynistic cultures in which this procedure is performed, women aren't supposed to derive pleasure from sex and as such, the clitoris becomes superfluous equipment. The entire thing is disgusting and is used to oppress women as they have for centuries in those cultures.
There are a number of pediatricians in the United States who perform a ritual for families from those cultures in which they nick the clitoris with a scalpel or razor, a cut that heals completely and has no lasting effects. In many cases, it has been reported that the doctors never actually touch the girl with the cutting instrument, merely wave it over the girl in a symbolic gesture to fulfill the requirements of the ritual. This was the procedure that the AAP endorsed over the surgical removal of the clitoris.
Of course, our doctors routinely engage in male genital mutilation in the form of circumcision, the removal of the foreskin of the penis. This procedure has at least a basis in reality as a penis with the foreskin is more difficult to clean and more prone to spreading sexually transmitted diseases including HIV to women. In addition, there is a significantly higher prevalence of penile cancer among men who have never been circumcised comared to those circumcized at birth.
Unfortunately, this wasn't the only lie in the post to which I am referring. The author went on to imply that the entire progressive movement, in the form of Hollywood, is busy being apologists for Roman Polanski. I'm not generally one to agree with the Church of Scientology, but in an interesting turn of events, not a single Scientologist has defended Polanski and there are many other Hollywood types who did not sign on to the petition asking for his release. Most of the people who signed the petition were French citizens and, much as some people would like it to be so, Whoopi Goldberg does not represent the entirety of the progressive movement. For anyone who wants a fuller account of the situation than what RedState is putting out there, here you go. Despite the claims that nobody in Hollywood is condemning Polanski, it sure seems that there are a lot of people out there doing just that.
I hate it when people lie and I truly despise it when they lie for political gain. There are so many legitimate reasons to disagree with people on the other side of the political spectrum that there is no excuse for misleading or lying to people.
Tsk, Mr. Erickson
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
How to disagree...
I just read a fantastic article on how to disagree agreeably. It lays down many of the common ways that people disagree in an uncivil manner and describes why those methods aren't civil. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to talk about our political process.
You're not helping...
This message is to the person or persons that had an envelope filled with white powder delivered to Jan Brewer's (Governor of Arizona) office.
Cut it out, YOU'RE NOT HELPING!!!
Our political process and dialogue is in bad enough shape that we don't need some lame, stupid, threatening bullshit like this. All you are doing is feeding the noise machine on the other side of the aisle and muddying the waters for anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion with our fellow Americans regarding politics and the political process.
Jan Brewer is a public servant who is doing what she feels her constituents want to do. You don't have to agree with her, you have every right to disagree. You have every right to write her, email her, fax her, or protest her, but you do not have the right to pull stupid shit like this. Please, for the love of God, stop it.
By the way, the exact same thing goes for whoever mailed a letter with white powder in it to Anthony Weiner with a note about the recent healthcare bill. You don't have any more right to pull this kind of moronic stunt than the people on the other side of the aisle.
So, once again, to anyone of any political persuasion who thinks mailing white powder to public officials might be a good way to exercise their First Amendment rights...
YOU'RE NOT HELPING!
Cut it out, YOU'RE NOT HELPING!!!
Our political process and dialogue is in bad enough shape that we don't need some lame, stupid, threatening bullshit like this. All you are doing is feeding the noise machine on the other side of the aisle and muddying the waters for anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion with our fellow Americans regarding politics and the political process.
Jan Brewer is a public servant who is doing what she feels her constituents want to do. You don't have to agree with her, you have every right to disagree. You have every right to write her, email her, fax her, or protest her, but you do not have the right to pull stupid shit like this. Please, for the love of God, stop it.
By the way, the exact same thing goes for whoever mailed a letter with white powder in it to Anthony Weiner with a note about the recent healthcare bill. You don't have any more right to pull this kind of moronic stunt than the people on the other side of the aisle.
So, once again, to anyone of any political persuasion who thinks mailing white powder to public officials might be a good way to exercise their First Amendment rights...
YOU'RE NOT HELPING!
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
This is not the official Coffee Party blog...
...but I am a Coffee Party member who loves talking about politics and especially loves the "civility pledge" because I believe that there is no reason for us to scream at each other.
Purpose:
I created this blog to give me a place where I can talk about things from both sides of the aisle that just don't make sense to me. I plan on doing this in as civil a way as possible without being too politically correct. At present, I plan to keep the comments unmoderated, but if too many loonies come in, I reserve the right to change this.
Barriers to civil dialogue:
Hyperbole is one of the biggest barriers to civil dialogue, in my opinion. Neither side is immune, both sides engage, and I pledge to avoid hyperbolic nonsense in my own writing. The best example I can think of is Hitler. Both sides have used Hitler as a comparison to their political opponents (Left wing example, right wing example) and neither side has a point. IMO, the word Hitler should be used as an analogy only when you are comparing him to someone else who engaged in mass genocide. In the modern world, the only examples would be things like the genocidal campaigns in Rwanda and Darfur.
Biased "News" organizations, which I define as organizations that overtly espouse one ideology and demean the opposite are the wedge that is driving Americans apart. More and more vitriolic nonsense is spewed by people for whom honesty in political discussions is nothing more than a quaint memory of a bygone era. There are certainly some actors in this arena who are far worse than others, but suffice to say that I believe 24 hour "news" has gutted TV journalism by melding entertainment and news. For the record, I will pretty much trust articles distributed by Reuters and the Associated Press as I trust both organizations to do the fact checking that is so sorely lacking in much of the rest of the media.
Pundits that attack the opposition instead of engaging in reasoned, fact-based debate are the single biggest driver of the wedge between the left and the right. Most of the pundits I decry work for the organizations I mentioned in the paragraph above and are easily identified in the way they address and label their political opponents. Anyone who ever referred to Bush as a "Nazi," "Fascist," or "murderer" is in this category, as is anyone who ever referred to Obama as a "Socialist," "Kenyan," or "Communist" similarly belongs here.
Rigid ideology is one of the most insidious viruses to have infected our political process. The blind followers of the left and the right are the ones who have escalated the screaming match to the point that political dialogue is something that many people avoid at all costs. Neither the liberals nor the conservatives are 100% right on every issue and anyone who believes they are is decieving themselves. It is extremely important to civil dialogue for everyone to keep an open mind so that when facts are presented, they are accepted as fact and not dismissed because of ideology.
Purpose:
I created this blog to give me a place where I can talk about things from both sides of the aisle that just don't make sense to me. I plan on doing this in as civil a way as possible without being too politically correct. At present, I plan to keep the comments unmoderated, but if too many loonies come in, I reserve the right to change this.
Barriers to civil dialogue:
Hyperbole is one of the biggest barriers to civil dialogue, in my opinion. Neither side is immune, both sides engage, and I pledge to avoid hyperbolic nonsense in my own writing. The best example I can think of is Hitler. Both sides have used Hitler as a comparison to their political opponents (Left wing example, right wing example) and neither side has a point. IMO, the word Hitler should be used as an analogy only when you are comparing him to someone else who engaged in mass genocide. In the modern world, the only examples would be things like the genocidal campaigns in Rwanda and Darfur.
Biased "News" organizations, which I define as organizations that overtly espouse one ideology and demean the opposite are the wedge that is driving Americans apart. More and more vitriolic nonsense is spewed by people for whom honesty in political discussions is nothing more than a quaint memory of a bygone era. There are certainly some actors in this arena who are far worse than others, but suffice to say that I believe 24 hour "news" has gutted TV journalism by melding entertainment and news. For the record, I will pretty much trust articles distributed by Reuters and the Associated Press as I trust both organizations to do the fact checking that is so sorely lacking in much of the rest of the media.
Pundits that attack the opposition instead of engaging in reasoned, fact-based debate are the single biggest driver of the wedge between the left and the right. Most of the pundits I decry work for the organizations I mentioned in the paragraph above and are easily identified in the way they address and label their political opponents. Anyone who ever referred to Bush as a "Nazi," "Fascist," or "murderer" is in this category, as is anyone who ever referred to Obama as a "Socialist," "Kenyan," or "Communist" similarly belongs here.
Rigid ideology is one of the most insidious viruses to have infected our political process. The blind followers of the left and the right are the ones who have escalated the screaming match to the point that political dialogue is something that many people avoid at all costs. Neither the liberals nor the conservatives are 100% right on every issue and anyone who believes they are is decieving themselves. It is extremely important to civil dialogue for everyone to keep an open mind so that when facts are presented, they are accepted as fact and not dismissed because of ideology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)