OT - How Conservatives Lost the Educated Class

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Yeah, the same people that look at gays as "sinners". When they start accepting LGBT people into their ministries, and not as reclamation cases, you can tell me that they are a compassionate people.

I find it disgusting that people still experience this horrid bullshit. It is truly terrible. I truly feel that if the evangelicals were in power, there would be a muted sort of genocide against unrepentant gays, and that is unacceptable to me.

Let the Evangelicals be Evangelical. Let them seek office. After all, that is America. Let anyone seek office. Please. I am begging my fellow Americans...please don't let these intolerant, unconstitutional people ever gain power.

I am a black american. My ancestors fought for fairness. They endured hardships that I will never have to endure.

I am not gay. However, if me having to be gay helps lend credence to their fight for equality, then call me gay. In spirit, I will be gay. FUCK THE BIGOTS, AND MAY HELL EXIST SO THEY CAN ROT IN ITS BORDERS.

Also, let me speak on people who are against abortion. Fuck you. Worry about yourself. The police don't consider a pregnant mother able to drive in the carpool lane. Are you anti-police?

A fetus can't feel a thing. Tell me what you felt when you were a fetus. Yeah..you didn't feel a thing. That's because your first memory was when you were 3 or 4 years old.

I'm all for abortion. I eat steaks. I think a fully grown cow has a more developed nervous system than an unborn human fetus.

Feel free to disagree.

I'm with DaddyTorgo and KWhit. +3

[Buccaneer]

Karlifornia is too young to have so much negativity, anger and hatred.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Yeah, the same people that look at gays as "sinners". When they start accepting LGBT people into their ministries, and not as reclamation cases, you can tell me that they are a compassionate people.

I find it disgusting that people still experience this horrid bullshit. It is truly terrible. I truly feel that if the evangelicals were in power, there would be a muted sort of genocide against unrepentant gays, and that is unacceptable to me.

Let the Evangelicals be Evangelical. Let them seek office. After all, that is America. Let anyone seek office. Please. I am begging my fellow Americans...please don't let these intolerant, unconstitutional people ever gain power.

I am a black american. My ancestors fought for fairness. They endured hardships that I will never have to endure.

I am not gay. However, if me having to be gay helps lend credence to their fight for equality, then call me gay. In spirit, I will be gay. FUCK THE BIGOTS, AND MAY HELL EXIST SO THEY CAN ROT IN ITS BORDERS.

Also, let me speak on people who are against abortion. Fuck you. Worry about yourself. The police don't consider a pregnant mother able to drive in the carpool lane. Are you anti-police?

A fetus can't feel a thing. Tell me what you felt when you were a fetus. Yeah..you didn't feel a thing. That's because your first memory was when you were 3 or 4 years old.

I'm all for abortion. I eat steaks. I think a fully grown cow has a more developed nervous system than an unborn human fetus.

Feel free to disagree.

In a thread nominally dedicated to intellectualism, I find this to be a pretty glaring example of the lack of logic and reason that's prevalent and pervasive in both parties today.

Ignoring, for the most part, your cartoonish attempts to paint your ideological opponents as monsters (muted genocide? Unconstitutional people? Really?), let’s get right to the heart of your fallacy.

If we believe that we have rights, then it means we believe our lives are worth something. Rights and privileges are sometimes used as one and the same (witness the 14th Amendment, for example), in the sense that we hold a person valuable enough to afford them certain privileges we don’t extend to other objects. We don’t value cows as highly as we value human beings, for example.

The belief that your life is inherently worth something, and you were inherently entitled to make of it what you would, is the driving force behind the concept of individual liberty. We haven’t always had that concept with us, and it certainly hasn’t been the dominant political thought throughout human existence. With the Reformation in the 16th century, we started an incredible philosophical and political journey into unexplored waters that has lasted for half a millennium. The progress has not always been easy or fast. It has often been uneven. But it has generally moved forward over time.

Now, where are you going to find a more rapid pursuit towards or preservation of individual liberty… in a society that holds life in so much esteem that it wants to extend human rights to the unborn, or in a society that advocates killing the elderly and the retarded (as ethicist Peter Singer has proposed)? I know, I know, that’s not your position. But I don’t hear you loudly proclaim against those who hold our life (and therefore liberty) in such low esteem that he would kill those on the edges of productive society.

We’re not worker bees. We’re not unthinking. We show mercy as a society. What morally killed slavery? Ultimately, it was the idea that even though someone may have the ability to enslave someone else, there is nothing that gives you the right to enslave someone. Our respecting the rights of others is, in a way, the strong showing mercy to the weak.

And again, one side shows an over-commitment (and perhaps one sided in the instances of those who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty) to mercy, while the other extreme shows an unflinching utilitarian view of inviduals.

At heart, those who are opposed to abortion are advocating for the full potential of human life. Those opposed to abortion believe, at least on some level, that we should have the right to prevent human life if it benefits society or ourselves. If left in a state of nature, the fetus will most likely turn into a child (barring miscarriage). That child will most likely grow into an adult. If left to nature, that fetus will be entitled to human rights. The question is when?

I don’t think a scientific consensus exists as to when life begins. The evangelicals believe it begins at conception. There are those who believe it begins at birth. I think most Americans fall into the camp of better safe than sorry, but aren’t willing to take it as far as the “life begins at conception” position. There are an awful lot of them who do, however, and I’ve yet to be convinced that is a bad thing, or at least that it’s worse than the utilitarian point of view you find at the opposing end of the spectrum.

As for evangelicals thinking gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, and what not are “sinners”… so what? We don’t have a right to not be offended by other people’s speech in this country, but behavior is another matter. As long as our laws aren’t solely based on the preachings of one denomination (or even one religion), they’re allowed to be based in a societal consensus. Witness the Supreme Court case on the death penalty for child rape. We may not like the result, but there’s nothing unconstitutional about it. When it comes to societal consensus on gay rights, I think we’re much closer to seeing acceptance for things like civil unions than we do tarring and feathering homosexuals. You also need to keep in mind that while some evangelicals are probably glad to tell someone they’re going to hell… these people have problems that are not necessarily the effect of religion. There are also people out there who try to prevent “sins” because they are compassionate. I think, frankly, most evangelicals need to be more tolerant of others who don’t share their point of view, and I don’t think they do a very good job of convincing others of their viewpoint, because it’s very easy for them to insult and fearmonger those they are trying to “save”.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

In a thread nominally dedicated to intellectualism, I find this to be a pretty glaring example of the lack of logic and reason that's prevalent and pervasive in both parties today.

Ignoring, for the most part, your cartoonish attempts to paint your ideological opponents as monsters (muted genocide? Unconstitutional people? Really?), let’s get right to the heart of your fallacy.

If we believe that we have rights, then it means we believe our lives are worth something. Rights and privileges are sometimes used as one and the same (witness the 14th Amendment, for example), in the sense that we hold a person valuable enough to afford them certain privileges we don’t extend to other objects. We don’t value cows as highly as we value human beings, for example.

The belief that your life is inherently worth something, and you were inherently entitled to make of it what you would, is the driving force behind the concept of individual liberty. We haven’t always had that concept with us, and it certainly hasn’t been the dominant political thought throughout human existence. With the Reformation in the 16th century, we started an incredible philosophical and political journey into unexplored waters that has lasted for half a millennium. The progress has not always been easy or fast. It has often been uneven. But it has generally moved forward over time.

Now, where are you going to find a more rapid pursuit towards or preservation of individual liberty… in a society that holds life in so much esteem that it wants to extend human rights to the unborn, or in a society that advocates killing the elderly and the retarded (as ethicist Peter Singer has proposed)? I know, I know, that’s not your position. But I don’t hear you loudly proclaim against those who hold our life (and therefore liberty) in such low esteem that he would kill those on the edges of productive society.

We’re not worker bees. We’re not unthinking. We show mercy as a society. What morally killed slavery? Ultimately, it was the idea that even though someone may have the ability to enslave someone else, there is nothing that gives you the right to enslave someone. Our respecting the rights of others is, in a way, the strong showing mercy to the weak.

And again, one side shows an over-commitment (and perhaps one sided in the instances of those who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty) to mercy, while the other extreme shows an unflinching utilitarian view of inviduals.

At heart, those who are opposed to abortion are advocating for the full potential of human life. Those opposed to abortion believe, at least on some level, that we should have the right to prevent human life if it benefits society or ourselves. If left in a state of nature, the fetus will most likely turn into a child (barring miscarriage). That child will most likely grow into an adult. If left to nature, that fetus will be entitled to human rights. The question is when?

I don’t think a scientific consensus exists as to when life begins. The evangelicals believe it begins at conception. There are those who believe it begins at birth. I think most Americans fall into the camp of better safe than sorry, but aren’t willing to take it as far as the “life begins at conception” position. There are an awful lot of them who do, however, and I’ve yet to be convinced that is a bad thing, or at least that it’s worse than the utilitarian point of view you find at the opposing end of the spectrum.

As for evangelicals thinking gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, and what not are “sinners”… so what? We don’t have a right to not be offended by other people’s speech in this country, but behavior is another matter. As long as our laws aren’t solely based on the preachings of one denomination (or even one religion), they’re allowed to be based in a societal consensus. Witness the Supreme Court case on the death penalty for child rape. We may not like the result, but there’s nothing unconstitutional about it. When it comes to societal consensus on gay rights, I think we’re much closer to seeing acceptance for things like civil unions than we do tarring and feathering homosexuals. You also need to keep in mind that while some evangelicals are probably glad to tell someone they’re going to hell… these people have problems that are not necessarily the effect of religion. There are also people out there who try to prevent “sins” because they are compassionate. I think, frankly, most evangelicals need to be more tolerant of others who don’t share their point of view, and I don’t think they do a very good job of convincing others of their viewpoint, because it’s very easy for them to insult and fearmonger those they are trying to “save”.

Beautifully said, Cam. I disagree with most of what you said, but I appreciate the thoughtfulness and beauty with which you said it. I will digest this and try to figure how exactly I disagree with what you said. You upped the ante in classy way....I'm a young kid, and I can learn from people like you, Cam, even if I disagree with some principles. Give me a day to think about everything you posted. I don't want to be a reactionary idiot...at least not this time.

Also, Buccaneer...I agree with you..I am too young to be so angry. I wish my life had turned out different. But it is how it is. Sorry. Do you ask people to learn to deal with you, or do you just let them figure it out on their own? I'm thinking the second one. I hope that when I'm your age..I can have your level of wisdom. That last sentence is not sarcasm in any way...for real.

EDIT: Bucc...I am a budding libertarian...and that is in part thanks to you. Thanks for that.

[Buccaneer]

Karlifornia, I will think of a good response and get back to you. Hope you have a good day.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by TroyF

That's all he can do and yet that won't even be enough. OK, someone finally gets to the supreme court and they overturn Roe V. Wade. Then what? It simply goes back to the states control like it was before Roe V. Wade. Then it becomes chaos. Abortion, like it or not, isn't going anywhere for a long, long time. It's just not happening. Because of that, I won't vote on that issue, no matter how I feel on the subject. (As noted earlier, I'm undecided on it.)

Here's your original claim:

Originally Posted by TroyF

In truth, Evangelicals won't get power now no matter who is elected. Bush is pro life, correct? What exactly has he been able to do in 8 years to curb abortions? Supreme Court justices? Please. Spare me

Evangelicals want abortion outlawed. To do this, they need the following to happen:

1. Elect a like-minded President who will stuff the federal bench with pro-lifers and stuff the SCOTUS with pro-lifers.

2. When SCOTUS is a 5-4 pro-life majority, Roe gets overturned.

3. In roughly half the states they have anti-abortion legislation waiting to go. Getting that passed is the next step.

4. Once this is done, start working on the other half of the states to outlaw abortion. If necessary (and ironically) get SCOTUS to do it.

Evangelicals got power to do #1 by being a big part of electing Bush. If they are a big part in electing McCain, they'll probably get #2 done (and #3 follows logically), since Stevens and Ginsburg will probably retire during the next term.

I don't understand how you can claim that evangelicals don't have power (probably inordinate power) in today's GOP, and especially for the past 8 years.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by TroyF

As I noted above and someone else in the thread already did as well, true conservatism doesn't exist anymore. Reagan is spinning in his grave at a 700 billion dollar buyout for example.

This is the same Reagan under which the debt ballooned from $500B to $4000B under, right?

SI

[Subby]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This is the same Reagan under which the debt ballooned from $500B to $4000B under, right? SI

Oh historical pwnination.

I need an ironic t-shirt or something for this moment.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

In a thread nominally dedicated to intellectualism, I find this to be a pretty glaring example of the lack of logic and reason that's prevalent and pervasive in both parties today.

Similarly, your post is an example of cleverly cloaking a one-sided argument in the raiment of even-handedness.

We don’t value cows as highly as we value human beings, for example.

Tangent: If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd ask someone to dig up the numbers to juxtapose the amount the American consumer spends on beef in a year vs. the amount they privately donate to charities that help humans.

So "value" may be the wrong word. It's perhaps more correct to say that we categorize human beings differently than animals (obvious, but there you go), as a society. Animals have a close-ended use, while humans have an open-ended potential to do almost anything with their lives.

If we were to have an intellectual conversation on this point, we might argue, between conservatives and liberals, how much potential an average human can actually realize given their starting point in life. If there's a conservative/liberal divide here, it's that conservatives view achievable potential more expansively regardless of the "starting point" than liberals do. In my view, conservatives' claims are largely backed up by anecdotes while liberals' claims (both claims on this topic, solely) are largely backed up by data.

With the Reformation in the 16th century, we started an incredible philosophical and political journey into unexplored waters that has lasted for half a millennium.

Actually, I think most would agree that this new path of philosophy started with the Italian Humanists in the 14th century, which later influenced the Reformation.

Now, where are you going to find a more rapid pursuit towards or preservation of individual liberty… in a society that holds life in so much esteem that it wants to extend human rights to the unborn, or in a society that advocates killing the elderly and the retarded (as ethicist Peter Singer has proposed)? I know, I know, that’s not your position.

It is, however, a false dichotomy. We aren't choosing between those who would preserve life at any cost and those who would dispassionately give and take life based on the calculated return to society. You've taken an issue on which the majority of people hold a range of nuanced positions and decided to use cariacatures instead. I'm not sure how that advances the conversation.

And again, one side shows an over-commitment (and perhaps one sided in the instances of those who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty) to mercy, while the other extreme shows an unflinching utilitarian view of inviduals.

Not everyone pro-life is James Dobson and not everyone pro-choice is Peter Singer. Again, a false dichotomy. Worse, a false dichotomy cloaked in evocative language. Clearly the "good" side are over-commited to mercy, while the "evil" side are "unflinching(ly) utilitarian".

At heart, those who are opposed to abortion are advocating for the full potential of human life. Those opposed to abortion believe, at least on some level, that we should have the right to prevent human life if it benefits society or ourselves.

That's one way to put it.

Another way to put it would be that those opposed to abortion agree with the restriction of individual liberties in the pursuit of the preservation of the potential of a human life (and in some medical cases the potential may be very low indeed). At heart, they agree with this because they believe that the genesis of life itself is, for lack of a better word, sacred.

Those in favor of choice (which is what I think you meant in the 2nd sentence) at heart believe in the right of individuals to make choices for themselves without preconditions being set by others as being superior to any "sacredness" being present in the act of conception. Note that this description takes into account the fact that most in favor of choice have considerable issues with 2nd/3rd trimester abortions.

The "sacred divide" (again, for lack of a better word) of about 3 months is, realistically, what separates the majority of the pro-life crowd from the majority of the pro-choice crowd.

Tangent: Politically, this is the problem. I'd guess the majority of the pro-choice crowd would be OK with a ban (or not seek to overturn such a ban) on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions were it not for the fact that the pro-life crowd would (and does) simply use such a ban as a foundation upon which to build support for a full ban (and abstinence-only sex education, and raising the age of consent, and a ban on some contraception methods, etc...). Conversely, I'd guess a large chunk of the pro-life crowd would be OK with a certain flexibility during the 1st trimester, especially in cases of rape, incest or severe medical danger to the mother, fetus or both, but will never agree to this since it's tacitly conceding defeat to a portion of the pro-choice crowd's argument.

I don’t think a scientific consensus exists as to when life begins. The evangelicals believe it begins at conception. There are those who believe it begins at birth. I think most Americans fall into the camp of better safe than sorry, but aren’t willing to take it as far as the “life begins at conception” position. There are an awful lot of them who do, however, and I’ve yet to be convinced that is a bad thing, or at least that it’s worse than the utilitarian point of view you find at the opposing end of the spectrum.

The problem is that the argument isn't between those who want to outlaw abortion completely and those who want to be able to abort 40-week fetuses. Again you present a false dichotomy to color your argument.

You're illustrating the key problem here, Cam. Every argument about abortion has to boil down to talking about intractible God-fearers, secular baby-killers, or both.

When it comes to societal consensus on gay rights, I think we’re much closer to seeing acceptance for things like civil unions than we do tarring and feathering homosexuals.

Again with the false dichotomy, used here to belittle concerns about gay rights coming to fruition. Basically, gays should be so happy because societal consensus is against tarring and feathering them that they should just accept any equality that's engineered vis-a-vis civil unions? How about recognizing that whatever inequalities that are resolved legally by an agreement on civil unions, we'll still have the problem that there are parts of this country in which openly gay people can not live without fear of intimidation?

There are also people out there who try to prevent “sins” because they are compassionate. I think, frankly, most evangelicals need to be more tolerant of others who don’t share their point of view, and I don’t think they do a very good job of convincing others of their viewpoint, because it’s very easy for them to insult and fearmonger those they are trying to “save”.

With this I agree, and would extend it to many parts of the political spectrum. To relate this to the opening post, though, I'd suggest that the inability of the modern GOP to have this kind of open discussion within the party and for that to be OK is what's driven intellectuals, or, more broadly, anyone with nuanced viewpoints, from the party, even if temporarily.

[lighthousekeeper]

I get the sense (in part from reading this thread) that the political party that can successfully incorporate libertarian beliefs into their platform, will succeed in the coming years. I wouldn't be surprised if the Rep. party begins to make this transformation post-election to accomodate the many of us who are fiscal conservatives & anti-big government, but clash with many of the Republican's current social/moral/anti-intellectual stances.

[flere-imsaho]

Where do social conservatives go then?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This is the same Reagan under which the debt ballooned from $500B to $4000B under, right?

SI

I guess I'm not sure what you are getting at here. All I'm saying is that Reagan wouldn't have supported a 700 billion dollar bailout. Not that the national debt didn't go up with him in office. There were reasons for the debt, including a major recession that happened at the beginning of his time in office.

[gstelmack]

What's really needed is a good middle-of-the-road party that believes in tolerance, personal responsibility, and less government, all of which go hand-in-hand. Alienate both extreme sides of the spectrum. Push the Dems off way to the left, the Repubs off way to the right, and grab the middle ground.

To explain myself a bit to avoid people focusing on the particular words I used, "tolerance" means issues like gay rights, but it also means "equality", which includes no special favors in addition to no road blocks. "personal responsibility" means allowing folks to fail while still helping those that need an occasional helping hand through no fault of their own. "Right to pursue happiness" rather than "Right to receive happiness" and all that. "less government" means act as more as a mediator and protector, rather than a helicopter parent. Maybe more like a benevolent uncle or something.

That's the party I could get behind. I thought McCain was that guy a few years back, but he's not now. I thought Obama could be, then he started running for president. Sigh.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

What's really needed is a good middle-of-the-road party that believes in tolerance, personal responsibility, and less government, all of which go hand-in-hand. Alienate both extreme sides of the spectrum. Push the Dems off way to the left, the Repubs off way to the right, and grab the middle ground.

To explain myself a bit to avoid people focusing on the particular words I used, "tolerance" means issues like gay rights, but it also means "equality", which includes no special favors in addition to no road blocks. "personal responsibility" means allowing folks to fail while still helping those that need an occasional helping hand through no fault of their own. "Right to pursue happiness" rather than "Right to receive happiness" and all that. "less government" means act as more as a mediator and protector, rather than a helicopter parent. Maybe more like a benevolent uncle or something.

That's the party I could get behind. I thought McCain was that guy a few years back, but he's not now. I thought Obama could be, then he started running for president. Sigh.

+1

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Where do social conservatives go then?

Church.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Here's your original claim:



Evangelicals want abortion outlawed. To do this, they need the following to happen:

1. Elect a like-minded President who will stuff the federal bench with pro-lifers and stuff the SCOTUS with pro-lifers.

2. When SCOTUS is a 5-4 pro-life majority, Roe gets overturned.

3. In roughly half the states they have anti-abortion legislation waiting to go. Getting that passed is the next step.

4. Once this is done, start working on the other half of the states to outlaw abortion. If necessary (and ironically) get SCOTUS to do it.

Evangelicals got power to do #1 by being a big part of electing Bush. If they are a big part in electing McCain, they'll probably get #2 done (and #3 follows logically), since Stevens and Ginsburg will probably retire during the next term.

I don't understand how you can claim that evangelicals don't have power (probably inordinate power) in today's GOP, and especially for the past 8 years.

It all seems so easy, doesn't it? Well, explain this one:

1) Anyone the GOP nominates has to go through the process of being confirmed. Good luck doing that with a majority democratic senate.

2) Good luck on getting half the states to agree to outlaw abortion. I'd be stunned if it were more than 25% of the states who banned abortion. There are states with trigger laws about it, but there are also states with trigger laws to allow it.

3) Again, this seems so easy, doesn't it? Do you have any understanding of how hard this is going to be to pass? Do you understand that public sentiment is pro Roe V Wade and not against? If we ever get to this level (and I give it about a 1.3% chance, if that), then the people will decide with their votes. Even in some of the automatic states, there would be little chance of success for abortion bans taking place.

Really, this is all the doomesday scenario. It's similar to what a republican might do in voicing their concerns with a liberal talking about welfare.

There is no overriding public sentiment to get abortion overturned. Until there is, it aint happening.

Again, I'm not pro choice or pro life. I know that's a cop out. I'm just torn on the issue. the way it goes. . .

Either way, I'm not voting on a candidate based off of one issue. If you choose to do so, that's your right.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Where do social conservatives go then?

They'd have to do what us fiscal conservatives are doing now. Hold their nose and vote for the candidate they think will do the least amount of damage or waste their vote on a third party candidate who has no chance in hell of winning.

Either way, they'd lose. Welcome to the world of libertarians.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It all seems so easy, doesn't it?

I didn't say that. I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth.

1) Anyone the GOP nominates has to go through the process of being confirmed. Good luck doing that with a majority democratic senate.

As long as they're competent, they'll get confirmed. See: John Roberts, Samuel Alito.

2) Good luck on getting half the states to agree to outlaw abortion. I'd be stunned if it were more than 25% of the states who banned abortion. There are states with trigger laws about it, but there are also states with trigger laws to allow it.

The percentage isn't the point. The point is that a certain proportion of states will more-or-less automatically outlaw abortion, which is a step in the process for the pro-life movement.

3) Again, this seems so easy, doesn't it? Do you have any understanding of how hard this is going to be to pass? Do you understand that public sentiment is pro Roe V Wade and not against? If we ever get to this level (and I give it about a 1.3% chance, if that), then the people will decide with their votes. Even in some of the automatic states, there would be little chance of success for abortion bans taking place.

This, yes, is the hard part.

Really, this is all the doomesday scenario. It's similar to what a republican might do in voicing their concerns with a liberal talking about welfare.

Well, the final, final result is the doomsday scenario, yes, but the first parts seem pretty straightforward. Again, this was in response to your two claims:

In truth, Evangelicals won't get power now no matter who is elected. Bush is pro life, correct? What exactly has he been able to do in 8 years to curb abortions? Supreme Court justices? Please. Spare me

If McCain gets elected and Stevens and/or Ginsburg retire, Roe gets overturned and the Evangelicals get what they wanted. Given that Evangelicals would help deliver a McCain victory, and did help deliver two Bush victories (for which they were rewarded with two SC justices and numerable federal bench appointments), I'd say that have had, and will have, power.

Here's your second claim:

That's all he can do and yet that won't even be enough. OK, someone finally gets to the supreme court and they overturn Roe V. Wade. Then what? It simply goes back to the states control like it was before Roe V. Wade. Then it becomes chaos. Abortion, like it or not, isn't going anywhere for a long, long time. It's just not happening. Because of that, I won't vote on that issue, no matter how I feel on the subject. (As noted earlier, I'm undecided on it.)

I guess I disagree with the state of abortion now and the state of abortion should Roe be overturned as:

1. not being a pretty major change

2. not being a pretty significant victory for Evangelicals and a demonstration of their "power" to drive progress on this issue in their favor

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

What's really needed is a good middle-of-the-road party that believes in tolerance, personal responsibility, and less government, all of which go hand-in-hand. Alienate both extreme sides of the spectrum. Push the Dems off way to the left, the Repubs off way to the right, and grab the middle ground.

To explain myself a bit to avoid people focusing on the particular words I used, "tolerance" means issues like gay rights, but it also means "equality", which includes no special favors in addition to no road blocks. "personal responsibility" means allowing folks to fail while still helping those that need an occasional helping hand through no fault of their own. "Right to pursue happiness" rather than "Right to receive happiness" and all that. "less government" means act as more as a mediator and protector, rather than a helicopter parent. Maybe more like a benevolent uncle or something.

That's the party I could get behind. I thought McCain was that guy a few years back, but he's not now. I thought Obama could be, then he started running for president. Sigh.

This is where I am also I think. I think I agree with almost every example you gave and going with a major middle of the road party that I felt actually had a chance to make a difference would mean much more to me than how dirty I feel when I compromise various beliefs to get behind a Democrat or Republican with my vote currently.

[TroyF]

OK flere. We'll just have to wait and see. I don't think Roe V. Wade will be overturned in my lifetime. Public sentiment will win out here and there just isn't an overall public sentiment for abortion to be outlawed.

You make the statement: If McCain gets elected and Stevens and/or Ginsburg retire, Roe gets overturned and the Evangelicals get what they wanted. That's all fine and good. But I don't think the scenario would play out the way you think it would. And until it does, the "power" you profess the Evangelicals to have is based off of the same thing that I give as reasons they don't have power. Supposition and prediction.

As long as we agree there, I don't see where there is anything to debate on this.

Doesn't matter anyway. Obama is winning the election, barring a complete meltdown. I thought it'd be tougher for him 5 or 6 months ago, but he's did a good job snagging a decent amount of the Hillary supporters, his intrastructure is solid and the "conservative" aren't sold at all on McCain. All that equals to him walking in the White House and all of this conjecture being worthless anyway.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I guess I'm not sure what you are getting at here. All I'm saying is that Reagan wouldn't have supported a 700 billion dollar bailout. Not that the national debt didn't go up with him in office. There were reasons for the debt, including a major recession that happened at the beginning of his time in office.

I thought the dots were really simple to connect. He ran up a bunch of debt because there was a major recession during his time in office- sounds a lot like a big bailout only spaced out more.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by TroyF

OK flere. We'll just have to wait and see. I don't think Roe V. Wade will be overturned in my lifetime. Public sentiment will win out here and there just isn't an overall public sentiment for abortion to be outlawed.

I tend to agree here. I could see Roe being overturned (see below), but I think the eventual backlash might result in the number of states actually outlawing abortion being pretty small.

You make the statement: If McCain gets elected and Stevens and/or Ginsburg retire, Roe gets overturned and the Evangelicals get what they wanted. That's all fine and good. But I don't think the scenario would play out the way you think it would.

Really? Are you saying that the Democrats and/or public, knowing that another pro-Life justice means overturning Roe would go to any lengths to not confirm that justice? I concede that you could be correct if that's your argument.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I thought the dots were really simple to connect. He ran up a bunch of debt because there was a major recession during his time in office- sounds a lot like a big bailout only spaced out more.

Sadly, we'll never know if Reagan would have signed FIRREA, which essentially cost $125 billion.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Those in favor of choice (which is what I think you meant in the 2nd sentence) at heart believe in the right of individuals to make choices for themselves without preconditions being set by others as being superior to any "sacredness" being present in the act of conception. Note that this description takes into account the fact that most in favor of choice have considerable issues with 2nd/3rd trimester abortions.

A key point in my stance against abortion is that the choice had already been made. Conception is a natural - one might say, intended (by nature) - outcome of sex. If someone is choosing to have sex, you're accepting the chance of conception. Use birth control all you like, and bring that chance down - but it's still there. In a general sense (taking aside cases of rape, etc.), abortion is an attempt to avoid the consequences of an action already taken.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

... a large chunk of the pro-life crowd would be OK with a certain flexibility during the 1st trimester, especially in cases of rape, incest or severe medical danger to the mother, fetus or both, but will never agree to this since it's tacitly conceding defeat to a portion of the pro-choice crowd's argument.

I think this is likely the case as well.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I thought the dots were really simple to connect. He ran up a bunch of debt because there was a major recession during his time in office- sounds a lot like a big bailout only spaced out more.

SI

He ran up debt because he felt it was time to defeat communism. He simply destroyed the Soviet Union through forcing them to spend dollar for dollar with us. He believed in the end the Soviet Union would collapse, there would be economic turmoil in our country for a while, and then things would balance out. For the most part things went exactly as he and his advisors believed they would.

[CamEdwards]

Karl,

thanks for the kind words. I'm looking forward to reading your reply when you have the time.

Flere,

I actually don't have the time to give your reply the attention it deserves, but just a few quick points:

1- I'll concede the Italian humanist movement because of the effects it had in making the Reformation possible, but I still don't think it had the widespread immediate cultural impact of the Reformation. Still, if we want to extend the proto-enlightenment back another 100 years, I'm down with that.

2- the false dichotomy stuff will have to wait, but no, my intention is not to make it an either/or proposition, and in fact I don't think I did that. I merely stated the opposing ends of the spectrum, and pointed out that the majority of Americans fall somewhere in between.

3- GLBT's not being safe because they are GLBT could certainly be addressed through specific legislation without trying to legislatively change societal attitudes towards GLBTs in general. I don't think there is a common societal attitude of acceptance of beatings and murder of those who are GLBT. I also don't think there is a common societal attitude of acceptance of same sex marriage, though our societal position is edging that way. My chief concern is the courts or legislatures getting too far out in front of society in general, because that's where we tend to not get government of, for, and by the people.

anyway, will try to respond in greater detail later, but I appreciate your thoughts too.

[stevew]

I've had an enjoyable time listening to Savage ruminate this week on creating a third party. As if there's a snowballs chance in hell that it would be successful.

It's weird how a guy can go from sounding pretty calm and half decent one minute, to hate filled rhetoric the next. Not everything has to be so black and white. I probably need to get Sirius so I can listen to the Cam Edwards show every night as I drive.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by stevew

I've had an enjoyable time listening to Savage ruminate this week on creating a third party. As if there's a snowballs chance in hell that it would be successful.

It's weird how a guy can go from sounding pretty calm and half decent one minute, to hate filled rhetoric the next. Not everything has to be so black and white. I probably need to get Sirius so I can listen to the Cam Edwards show every night as I drive.

I have never found savage to be "pretty calm and have decent."

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It all seems so easy, doesn't it? Well, explain this one:

1) Anyone the GOP nominates has to go through the process of being confirmed. Good luck doing that with a majority democratic senate.

I cited this poll in another thread - In Poll, 54% Back Alito's Confirmation

How long do you think the Democrats can block McCain nominees until the public gets fed up? At some point, they'll have to let one through who is qualified. A majority backed Alito's confirmation and he was the most extremely anti-Roe justice that had ever been nominated to the court.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by stevew

I've had an enjoyable time listening to Savage ruminate this week on creating a third party. As if there's a snowballs chance in hell that it would be successful.

It's weird how a guy can go from sounding pretty calm and half decent one minute, to hate filled rhetoric the next. Not everything has to be so black and white. I probably need to get Sirius so I can listen to the Cam Edwards show every night as I drive.

Well, you need to get Sirius (and tell them it's because you want to listen to that Cam Edwards fella every night), but don't do it because you think I can't (and don't) see some things in black and white.

I mean, my mind's made up on the gun issue, which is what I primarily talk about. But I don't subscribe ill intent to the vast majority of people who support gun control. I see it as typically a combination of not knowing/thinking about the issue, coupled with societal attention of violent crime without equally prominent coverage of self-defense stories, and the fact that people DO misuse firearms. I also know that I'm not going to get anyone at all to listen to me if I'm calling them names, so I try to be as reasonable as I can.

I figure if that doesn't work out, I can always pull a Flasch and start a show called "Cam Edwards and the Quest for Truth".

BTW, I've always thought Savage was about as real as professional wrestling.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Also, Buccaneer...I agree with you..I am too young to be so angry. I wish my life had turned out different. But it is how it is. Sorry. Do you ask people to learn to deal with you, or do you just let them figure it out on their own? I'm thinking the second one. I hope that when I'm your age..I can have your level of wisdom. That last sentence is not sarcasm in any way...for real.

EDIT: Bucc...I am a budding libertarian...and that is in part thanks to you. Thanks for that.

Thank you for the compliment, Karlifornia. I can understand how one's life situation can make one bitter or resentful, I have been there (and probably am still to some extent). But in the end, it really is about attitude and how one responds to things around you - especially of those thing you cannot control.

There is, always have been and always will be, injustices and unfairness - thus the nature of humans. We put too much faith in man's systems, especially in the political and religious systems. They have their places in our lives but they are not the answers. What we can do, instead, is to do what Jesus has taught us - to love one another. That is the most fundamental need we humans have, regardless if one have faith in God or not. Such love can manifest itself in many ways and part of it is to accept each other for what we are for all of us can make a difference, however big or small.

That also means to accept yourself, knowing that you can make a positive difference - regardless how other people perceive you or what they have done to you. That's the hard part.

We cannot control man's political or religious systems, so one should have the attitude of not dwelling on the negatives but to accentuate the positives that are all around us. No matter where you are in life, there are always those that are less fortunate than yourself (or anyone of us here). Do we take a selfish attitude and claim what is ours while blaming others? Or are we willing to sacrifice and to give to others in the many ways that we can? I also believe that is the same attitude we have towards human life - to love, to respect and to cherish it - not to treat it as if it is worth nothing. That is the attitude we can control and it really is about personal responsiblity - having courage to affect change and to be selfless about it.

That is why I believe in what Jesus said when the Pharisees (whom we have way too many of today) tried to trap him in paying tribute to Caesar. He said give to him to what is his (in looking at a Roman coin), he had better things to do. The government can take everything I have but will I choose to hate or will I continue to love and still find it my heart to give to others? Man's religious systems can choose to do atrocities in the name of God but will I hate or will I continue to love and see the goodness that many are doing?

You mentioned wisdom. Experience and knowledge can certainly contribute to wisdom but I do not consider myself wise - just having more dots to connect. But I am coming to grips more with personal accountability and responsibility. I can blame and hate the way things are but I am increasingly choosing not to, simply by having a more giving and selfless attitude and to learn to accept myself for who I am.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by TroyF

They'd have to do what us fiscal conservatives are doing now. Hold their nose and vote for the candidate they think will do the least amount of damage or waste their vote on a third party candidate who has no chance in hell of winning.

Either way, they'd lose. Welcome to the world of libertarians.

Unfortunately, the mere psychology behind these two groups almost prevents the libertarians from ever becoming the dominant force. Not to paint with too broad a brush, but church-based groups are used to a hierarchical structure and organizing together. A libertarian half driven by ideals of self-reliance and individualism tends to be heavy on people who adhere to these rules and stray away from centralized machine politics, which is to say the modern 2-party system. So while you can get a charismatic leader at the top (Reagan) to change the tenor of the debate, the actual party machine will never have many libertarian-leaning people.

The double-whammy is that now, even at the top, individuals running for president don't seem to be willing to go out on their own (the ones that do, like Paul and Kucinich, get treated as clowns). Like gstelmack said, Senators McCain, Biden, Lieberman, (maybe even Obama although he always seemed to be more of a charismatic salesman in the Deval Patrick, Tommy Carcetti mode than a principled man) were some of the best centrist politicians this country had to offer. And all three changed drastically on the stump. Oh well, I'll go wipe my tears with Federalist #10.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well, you need to get Sirius (and tell them it's because you want to listen to that Cam Edwards fella every night), but don't do it because you think I can't (and don't) see some things in black and white.

I mean, my mind's made up on the gun issue, which is what I primarily talk about. But I don't subscribe ill intent to the vast majority of people who support gun control. I see it as typically a combination of not knowing/thinking about the issue, coupled with societal attention of violent crime without equally prominent coverage of self-defense stories, and the fact that people DO misuse firearms. I also know that I'm not going to get anyone at all to listen to me if I'm calling them names, so I try to be as reasonable as I can.

I figure if that doesn't work out, I can always pull a Flasch and start a show called "Cam Edwards and the Quest for Truth".

BTW, I've always thought Savage was about as real as professional wrestling.

I'll probably never buy a gun, but the last thing I want is Pelosi and her whacko friends interpreting the constitution for me. So we probably would agree on most of the gun issues.

Although lately, due to my job, I have considered going through the proper training, et al, and getting a conceal and carry permit w/ hand cannon. Something I've been mulling over, anyways.

Plus it would come in handy when the inevitable laser carrying zombie militia comes back from the dead.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

1- I'll concede the Italian humanist movement because of the effects it had in making the Reformation possible, but I still don't think it had the widespread immediate cultural impact of the Reformation. Still, if we want to extend the proto-enlightenment back another 100 years, I'm down with that.

Not to get all history geek on your (OK, yes, to get all history geek on you - after all, this is the time period of my master's thesis), but bear in mind that the Italian Humanist movement became, essentially, the Renaissance. While there's some parallel between the Renaissance and the Reformation, the former does predate the latter.

anyway, will try to respond in greater detail later, but I appreciate your thoughts too.

Same here, and no rush - we're all busy people, after all.

[flere-imsaho]

Further grist from Andrew Sullivan.

[Noop]

If the Republicans did not claim Religion I don't think most people would be for them. (Well the modern version) I am not sure how giving a tax break to the rich will help our economy personally. That being said I really don't like somethings the Democrats do either I am with the poster who said we need a third party.

[flere-imsaho]

The NYT seems to have thing for these:

Two years ago, a list of the nation’s brainiest cities was put together from Census Bureau reports — that is, cities with the highest percentage of college graduates, which is not the same as smart, of course.

These are vibrant, prosperous places where a knowledge economy and cool things to do after hours attract people from all over the country. Among the top 10, only two of those metro areas — Raleigh, N.C., and Lexington, Ky. — voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election.

This year, all 10 are likely to go Democratic. What’s more, with Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia now trending blue, Republicans stand to lose the nation’s 10 best-educated states as well.

It would be easy to say these places are not the real America, in the peculiar us-and-them parlance of Sarah Palin. It’s easy to say because Republicans have been insinuating for years now that some of the brightest, most productive communities in the United States are fake American — a tactic that dates to Newt Gingrich’s reign in the capitol.

Brainy cities have low divorce rates, low crime, high job creation, ethnic diversity and creative capitalism. They’re places like Pittsburgh, with its top-notch universities; Albuquerque, with its surging Latino middle class; and Denver, with its outdoor-loving young people. They grow good people in the smart cities.

But in the politically suicidal greenhouse that Republicans have constructed for themselves, these cities are not welcome. They are disparaged as nests of latte-sipping weenies, alt-lifestyle types and “other” Americans, somehow inauthentic.

If that’s what Republicans want, they are doomed to be the party of yesterday.

Not only are we becoming more urban as a nation, but we’re headed for an ethnic muddle that could further shrink the party of small-mindedness. By 2023, more than half of all American children will be minority, the Census Bureau projects.

Ronald Reagan was lashed by liberals for running a “Morning in America” campaign, but he knew this country, at heart, was always tomorrow-looking — and he fared very well in educated cities as well as small towns. “Whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone,” said Reagan, “I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears.” Barack Obama, who brings that music to the stage, leads by 30 points on the “hope and optimism” question in polls.

Spurning the Reagan lesson, John McCain made a fatal error in turning his campaign over to the audience of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. In so doing, he chose the unbearable lightness of being Sarah Palin, trotted out Paris Hilton and labeled Obama a socialist who associates with terrorists.

At a recent Palin rally, the crowd started chanting, “We want Fox!” McCain has given them just that. But how isolated and out-of-touch is this audience? At the end of each debate, a sure-fire way to decide who won was to look at the Fox viewers poll — typically showing a landslide for McCain. Within a day, scientific surveys found big wins for Obama.

Whether Americans are real or fake, they can see through Palin, a woman who couldn’t correctly answer a third grader a few days ago when asked to explain the duties of vice president. Somewhere, between the shuffling to costume and accessorize Palin with a $150,000 wardrobe, her handlers never handed her a copy of the Constitution.

Republicans blow off the smart cities with the counterargument that they win the exurbs — the frontier of new homes, young families and the fresh middle class. And it’s true, in 2004, George Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in America.

That will not happen this year. Polls show McCain is losing 20 percent of self-described moderate Republicans. And new registration figures and other polls indicate that Obama will likely win such iconic exurban centers as Washoe County, Nev., Loudoun County, Va., and Wake County, N.C.

But in the kind of pattern that has held true since McCain went over to the stupid side, his brother recently referred to suburban northern Virginia as “communist country” and a top adviser, Nancy Pfotenhauer, said it was not “real Virginia.”

Here in Seattle, it’s become a one-party city, with a congressman for life and nodding-head liberals who seldom challenge a tax-loving city government. It would be nice, just to keep the philosophical debate sharp, if there were a few thoughtful Republicans around.

That won’t happen so long as Republicans continue to be the party of yesterday. They’ve written the cities off. Fake Americans don’t count, but this Election Day, for once, they will not feel left out.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I am not gay. However, if me having to be gay helps lend credence to their fight for equality, then call me gay. In spirit, I will be gay. FUCK THE BIGOTS, AND MAY HELL EXIST SO THEY CAN ROT IN ITS BORDERS.

That's been done before.

TAMPA - Whether or not Joe Redner is gay, attorneys and First Amendment experts are calling the strip club owner's recent disclosure a brilliant legal move.

Because how can anyone prove he's not?

"I would assume it would be virtually impossible for them to disprove his clear and unequivocal statement," First Amendment attorney Luke Lirot said.

The owner of the Mons Venus and regular county agitator has publicly said he's gay over and over in the newspapers, radio and television in the past week. The disclosure came after Redner sued the county over its June prohibition barring county government from acknowledging or participating in gay pride events.

County attorneys tried to get Redner's case dismissed by arguing Redner isn't personally affected by the ordinance, implying in veiled legalese that Redner isn't gay.

Redner amended his complaint last week to say he is a homosexual.

In the days since, Redner has given ambiguous interviews, saying with a chuckle that he is in a sexual "transition stage" or that he's announced his sexual orientation "to help a good cause," making his sexual disclosure seem contrived or at least well-timed.

Yet, Redner denies his disclosure is a legal ploy made falsely to bolster his case, although he says the case did spur him to reveal it.

Hillsborough County attorneys are particularly skeptical of Redner's claim and are even contemplating deposing Redner under oath, if U.S. District Judge James Moody deems the issue pertinent.

"If he's made an allegation that he's gay, and that's false, then I think that would be of interest to the court," said Robert Brazel of the county attorney's office. "You're normally not supposed to make false allegations to the court."

Redner said he welcomes the opportunity to sit down across the table from county attorneys and tell all.

"I'm available any time they want me," said Redner, who has two ex-wives, five children and several grandchildren. "I can't wait for them to depose me."

Experts in the First Amendment, the area of law governing many gay rights issues, say it will be difficult to prove anything more than what Redner says. No real legal definition or interpretation of homosexuality exists.

"I'm not sure that the courts have felt it necessary to interpret the reference to homosexuality and address the vagueness and ambiguity of that term," said Joseph Jackson, legal skills professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.

Several attorneys said they think homosexuality is more of a state of mind.

"I think the best evidence of what someone's sexuality is is the way the person considers him or herself to be," said Rebecca Steele, an attorney for the West Florida chapter of the ACLU. "It's going to be difficult to find proof of anyone's sexuality other than what they testify about."

Lirot said that being a homosexual doesn't require a person to be intimate with someone of the same sex.

"I don't know if it actually needs an act to be completed," said Lirot, who has represented Redner before but isn't involved in the suit against the county. "I guess that's why they call it sexual orientation and not sexual activity."

Even if the county attorneys manage to prove or convince a judge that Redner has lied about his sexual orientation as a way to bring his case, the penalties are financial and rarely enforced.

Plus, Redner disclosed his sexual orientation in a legal complaint, which is not under oath. So if he lied, he hasn't committed perjury, said Tampa lawyer John Lauro.

Under the law, whatever Redner alleges must be assumed true, unless proven otherwise, which means the burden lies with the county to spend the time and money to investigate.

"He's taken a legal position that is unassailable and put himself in a position that if he's gay, he's got standing, and if he's not gay, so be it," Lauro said. "The downside is nonexistent and nobody is going to prosecute him for that."

The legal debate over Redner's sexual orientation may never happen. County attorneys say they'll likely pursue a more mundane legal avenue for getting Redner's case tossed.

Redner, they say, has to prove he has an actual injury. And not being able to admire gay pride library exhibits, which were removed days before the county passed its ban, might not be enough to qualify.

That's the main reason the gay rights group Equality Florida has yet to file a lawsuit or get involved with Redner's lawsuit. It is waiting for the county to enforce the ban, which it sees as more of an illegal action, said Equality Florida spokesman Brian Winfield.

"The strongest lawsuit is going to be about implementation, and frankly we've been standing around since the summer challenging them to implement their own policy," Winfield said.

Redner's disclosure might never be debated because some experts say he didn't need to bring it up. He probably wouldn't have lost his right to bring the case based on his sexual orientation.

Redner said he had no choice once the issue was raised.

County attorneys wrote that Redner showed no "concrete or "particularized' interest at all in "gay pride recognition and events.' "

Yet, First Amendment violations affect everybody. Such violations are better raised by someone or a group of people representing more of the general public, some attorneys said.

"When one of us is oppressed, none of us is free," said Jackson, the professor. "Straight people are harmed like gay people are by discrimination that prohibits expression of a gay viewpoint. So too are all of us harmed by discrimination."

hxxp://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/17/Hillsborough/His_gay_claim_likely_.shtml

[CamEdwards]

This line amused me.

By 2023, more than half of all American children will be minority, the Census Bureau projects.

Wouldn't they then be a majority?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

This line amused me.


Wouldn't they then be a majority?

No, because they are of different minorities. It does not say that half of all children will be black, or hispanic, or asian. It says "minority." So no one single minority will become the majority, just the collection of "non whites."

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

No, because they are of different minorities. It does not say that half of all children will be black, or hispanic, or asian. It says "minority." So no one single minority will become the majority, just the collection of "non whites."

True, but then again there wouldn't be a majority at all, right?

[CamEdwards]

BTW, in looking over the brainiest cities and their crime rates, the Times article is false. Here's the 10 ten cities and whether or not their crime rate is higher or lower than the national average.

1- Seattle. Crime rate is higher.

2- San Francisco. Crime rate is higher.

3- Raleigh. Crime rate is higher.

4- Washington, D.C. Crime rate is higher.

5- Austin, TX. Violent crime rate is lower than national average. Property crime is higher.

6- Minneapolis. Crime rate is higher.

7- Atlanta. Crime rate is higher.

8- Boston. Crime rate is higher.

9- San Diego. Crime rate is lower.

10- Lexington-Fayette. violent crime rate is higher, property crime is lower.

Pittsburgh, Albuquerque, and Denver also didn't make the top ten, which the author certainly implied. All three of those cities, btw, also have violent and property crime rates above the national average.

There are, of course, larger points that should be addressed in that column, but I think it's interesting that he's so wrong on that particular point.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

No, because they are of different minorities. It does not say that half of all children will be black, or hispanic, or asian. It says "minority." So no one single minority will become the majority, just the collection of "non whites."

Don't forget the bi-racial kids. What are you, racist or something? Jeez.

And once everyone's a minority, does that mean that we'll all be equal?

[stevew]

Hey cam-

Any chance you'll be available to XM listeners anytime soon? There's already several channels in the "Best of sirius" package.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

This line amused me.


Wouldn't they then be a majority?

I'm guessing that more than half of all children being minority would be true, because when you take adults into consideration they would still be minorities.

Someday they won't be minorities though. Oh, the horror!

[miked]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

BTW, in looking over the brainiest cities and their crime rates, the Times article is false. Here's the 10 ten cities and whether or not their crime rate is higher or lower than the national average.

1- Seattle. Crime rate is higher.

2- San Francisco. Crime rate is higher.

3- Raleigh. Crime rate is higher.

4- Washington, D.C. Crime rate is higher.

5- Austin, TX. Violent crime rate is lower than national average. Property crime is higher.

6- Minneapolis. Crime rate is higher.

7- Atlanta. Crime rate is higher.

8- Boston. Crime rate is higher.

9- San Diego. Crime rate is lower.

10- Lexington-Fayette. violent crime rate is higher, property crime is lower.

Pittsburgh, Albuquerque, and Denver also didn't make the top ten, which the author certainly implied. All three of those cities, btw, also have violent and property crime rates above the national average.

There are, of course, larger points that should be addressed in that column, but I think it's interesting that he's so wrong on that particular point.

Atlanta is in the top 10?

[Subby]

Is he taking into consideration just the cities or the metropolitan areas? I would think that crime would go down for the DC Metro area....but would be absurdly high if you just considered DC.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

BTW, in looking over the brainiest cities and their crime rates, the Times article is false. Here's the 10 ten cities and whether or not their crime rate is higher or lower than the national average.

...

There are, of course, larger points that should be addressed in that column, but I think it's interesting that he's so wrong on that particular point.

I wonder if... just possibly... the author was comparing those cities to other cities rather than a composite nationwide average including areas with dramatically different demographics? I'd agree that "low crime" is a potentially misleading title to bestow on any city (given that cities tend to have dramatically higher crime rates than rural areas, especially in certain subsets), but isn't there still something valid about noting that one city has a lower crime rate than another or than a composite of other areas of its size? Wouldn't we all be proud of a city like New York (at least at one point) that worked to effectively reduce crime from one high level to something lower, even if the new lower level was still much higher than the crime rate in Eau Clare, Wisconsin or Ames, Iowa?

I'm not saying I'm particularly persuaded by the argument in the article. But if you're critical of him using one meaning or "low crime" and then act as if there's only one possible meaning of that term and it happens to be the one that you pick, then I'm not sure you're enhancing your argument there.

It might be an ambiguous or even misleading use of a statistic, but it's not "false."

[OldGiants]

I was ver;y concerned with the left-wing trend in the country in the 1960's. So I voted Nixon and every Republican who followed him. I watched the left get pretty well trashed and saw the country swing pretty heavily to the right as of now.

I'm voting for Obama because my nature is much like Nobel Prize Winner Thomas Mann (The Magic Mountain) who said he leaned left when the boat rocked right and right when the boat leaned left. Hitler hated him, even though Mann was anti-Communist. I loathe the anti-intellectuals on the right (Brown Shirts, anyone?) as well as the elitism of the left ('we're so much better and smarter than you are that you prove your ignorance by voting against us'. Yeah, that's worked very well as an election tactic, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore.)

There is just enough center left in the US to make our weight and intentions felt. It is time for the pendulum to swing left for the simple reason it needs to be more toward the center.

It'll all work out.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

BTW, in looking over the brainiest cities and their crime rates, the Times article is false. Here's the 10 ten cities and whether or not their crime rate is higher or lower than the national average.

1- Seattle. Crime rate is higher.

2- San Francisco. Crime rate is higher.

3- Raleigh. Crime rate is higher.

4- Washington, D.C. Crime rate is higher.

5- Austin, TX. Violent crime rate is lower than national average. Property crime is higher.

6- Minneapolis. Crime rate is higher.

7- Atlanta. Crime rate is higher.

8- Boston. Crime rate is higher.

9- San Diego. Crime rate is lower.

10- Lexington-Fayette. violent crime rate is higher, property crime is lower.

Pittsburgh, Albuquerque, and Denver also didn't make the top ten, which the author certainly implied. All three of those cities, btw, also have violent and property crime rates above the national average.

There are, of course, larger points that should be addressed in that column, but I think it's interesting that he's so wrong on that particular point.

The list I see is:

1. Boulder, Colo.
2. Stamford, Conn.
3. San Francisco
4. Madison, Wis.
5. Boston
6. San Jose
7. Raleigh-Durham
8. Ann Arbor, Mich.
9. Middlesex-Somerset, N.J.
10. Washington

And I saw another article that referenced Albuqurque as being #7. I think we need to find the proper list.