Political Contradictions

[Fencer X and Y]

I completely agree with I LUV SABRE. The reason why Prop 8 passed was because of the minority vote. Now ask yourself how would MLK vote? For or against prop 8? The truth is no one really knows since he was a religious man. But his belief in total equality, I think, would have trumped his religious views. Now is it not hypocrocy for those minorities that got equal rights to not want to give those same rights to others?

[lindajdunn]

I completely agree with I LUV SABRE. The reason why Prop 8 passed was because of the minority vote. Now ask yourself how would MLK vote? For or against prop 8? The truth is no one really knows since he was a religious man. But his belief in total equality, I think, would have trumped his religious views. Now is it not hypocrocy for those minorities that got equal rights to not want to give those same rights to others?

I think the reason Proposition H8te passed is because outside organizers, and especially the Mormons, spent a lot of money in California and spread a great deal of misinformation.

Polls taken since the vote show that many people either changed their opinion or misunderstood the voting option.

[dcmdale]

To Hauptman's original game, I put together a list of about a dozen contradictions that I thought might be true of liberal states and did some quick research to back up or discard each. Here are some that appeared to be supportable with at least some statistical evidence:

Disclaimer: Since the presentation of the problem already lies well within the How to Lie With Statistics realm, I emphatically did not do either serious research or rigorous statistical analysis. If any or all of these turn out to be unsupportable, then so be it. This falls into the "interesting, but not worth more than 30 minutes of research" category.

1. Liberal states have a higher income gap than conservative states.
2. Liberal states have more hate crimes reported per capita than conservative states.
3. Liberal states have lower charitable giving per capita (as a percent of income).
4. Liberal states have a higher suicide rate than conservative states.
5. Liberal states have a higher K-12 student-teacher ratio than conservative states.

As with the original list, explanatory reasons exist for many (all?) of these.

[Fencer X and Y]

I think #1 is a really interesting one. It's kind of like Bruce Springsteen really advocating for workers rights and fighting for the little guy and then making a deal with Wal-mart. Anyone else thinks that there's something wrong with that?

[Hauptman]

To Hauptman's original game, I put together a list of about a dozen contradictions that I thought might be true of liberal states and did some quick research to back up or discard each. Here are some that appeared to be supportable with at least some statistical evidence:

Disclaimer: Since the presentation of the problem already lies well within the How to Lie With Statistics realm, I emphatically did not do either serious research or rigorous statistical analysis. If any or all of these turn out to be unsupportable, then so be it. This falls into the "interesting, but not worth more than 30 minutes of research" category.

1. Liberal states have a higher income gap than conservative states.
2. Liberal states have more hate crimes reported per capita than conservative states.
3. Liberal states have lower charitable giving per capita (as a percent of income).
4. Liberal states have a higher suicide rate than conservative states.
5. Liberal states have a higher K-12 student-teacher ratio than conservative states.

As with the original list, explanatory reasons exist for many (all?) of these.

I like your list!!

1. Maybe liberal states are wealthier in general and so would produce a larger gap? I'll have to check the numbers.

2. This one is weak because of reporting standards. I have no doubt that conservative states don't care about this issue, and so don't report it accurately.

3. This is a killer. I think it's dead on accurate, although you could substitute gov't spending for charitable spending and offset the balance. You could call it a different approach to the same problem; caring for the poor.

4. This one is fascinating. Do you have the numbers on this? I'd love to see how big a difference it is. Perhaps it's related to the closer relationship of conservatives to religion? On a side note, I don't necessarily see this as reflecting any sort of liberal hypocrisy.

5. Liberal states tend to have higher populations, and population density, which may contribute to this issue. I wonder how the spending per pupil and overall spending compares.

Good stuff!

[Hauptman]

I think #1 is a really interesting one. It's kind of like Bruce Springsteen really advocating for workers rights and fighting for the little guy and then making a deal with Wal-mart. Anyone else thinks that there's something wrong with that?

Were you refering to Bruce or the larger point when you say there's something wrong?

If you're refering to the larger point, there may be.

If you're refering to Bruce and his advocacy I don't anything wrong with that.

[Fencer X and Y]

I was refereing to the Boss. To me it just seems like he wants others to treat all workers fairly and have good working conditions etc... but if he can make some extra money by signing a deal with Wal-mart (that is notorious for labor obuse) then it's okay. As long as he still talks about how important it is to give everyone health coverage and a fair minimum wage. That to me is hypocrisy

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

To Hauptman's original game, I put together a list of about a dozen contradictions that I thought might be true of liberal states and did some quick research to back up or discard each. Here are some that appeared to be supportable with at least some statistical evidence:

Disclaimer: Since the presentation of the problem already lies well within the How to Lie With Statistics realm, I emphatically did not do either serious research or rigorous statistical analysis. If any or all of these turn out to be unsupportable, then so be it. This falls into the "interesting, but not worth more than 30 minutes of research" category.

1. Liberal states have a higher income gap than conservative states.
   

1. Surprising. If one has a look at income gaps, measured by Gini Index, one sees that they are in the low-to-moderate range for most countries with high GDP/capita, while poorer countries generally have high income gaps. USA is an outlier, among high-income countries it has the by far highest income gaps. The lowest income gaps are found in Azerbaijan, and the Nordic countries. Namibia has the highest incomes gaps worldwide.
   
   

2. Liberal states have more hate crimes reported per capita than conservative states.

[tchwojko]

I'm curious what Europeans think of Republican's running around yelling "OMG! Socialism! Horrors!"

[trickery dickery dock]

Well, since everyone else took a swing at this, I guess I will too.


Congregate and worship is not the same as institute a government-like organization that takes advantage of people. Congregate and worship is more like, IMO, gathering at someone's house (which, btw, was what early Christians did), not gathering at a building that was constructed for thousands of dollars that could have gone to feed hungry children (and is taken from hard-working poor people). Look up "Would Jesus Wear a Rolex (On his Televsion Show)", Ray Stevens. Good song.


Oh, that's right! We shouldn't read it ourselves... we should just go along with what other people say, because they must know enough that you should trust your fate to them. Less work that way too. Convenient.


No thanks. I don't believe something because someone else tells me to believe it. If I believe I do so of my own accord.



I corrected it for you.

...and like everyone else, you fail.

First of all, spreading The Word of God is not a waste of money. Life is meaningless and worthless without Jesus. Period. Second of all, my church does help feed starving children, and many other churches do as well (ever hear of the CHRISTIAN Children's Fund, moron?). Third of all, I don't know what kind of church you have been to, but at my church, we have BIBLE STUDY. We read The Word of God, and LEARN it, not "go along with what other people say."

[trickery dickery dock]

I was refereing to the Boss. To me it just seems like he wants others to treat all workers fairly and have good working conditions etc... but if he can make some extra money by signing a deal with Wal-mart (that is notorious for labor obuse) then it's okay. As long as he still talks about how important it is to give everyone health coverage and a fair minimum wage. That to me is hypocrisy

All liberals are either hypocrites (like springsteen) or just plain crazy (like big-brother hussein obama). They like to make up fake problems instead of trying to solve REAL problems. If it wasn't so evil, I would almost think it was smart. Example: The biggest real problem right now is Muslims trying to kill us and upset the world order. Instead of trying to solve it (not an easy task), they make up a problem like global warming, which distracts from the real problem. So while we're busy buying little wimp-mobiles and eating tofu, we forget that another 9/11 is being planned (until it happens again, and then hopefully we'll elect somebody who isn't a total moron).

[I_luv_saber]

I think the reason Proposition H8te passed is because outside organizers, and especially the Mormons, spent a lot of money in California and spread a great deal of misinformation.

I don't see why, this isn't a complcated issue. You are either for extending the right to gays or against it. If people were indeed swayed, they must have been rather undecisive to begin with.

I still call hypocrisy.

First of all, spreading The Word of God is not a waste of money.

No it's not. Building big churches is. You need a building dedicated for it to do it? I thought you were supposed to spread the word by living by example?

Life is meaningless and worthless without Jesus. Period.

For you. For many others this is not the case.

Second of all, my church does help feed starving children, and many other churches do as well

Very noble. However, think of how many more you could feed had you not spent thousands of dollars on a useless building. My personal feeling (as a Christian, mind you) is Jesus would be appaled at the way most Christians live today. Many live far above their needs rather giving what extra they have to the needy, many simply follow the word of a preacher without "doing the legwork" themselves, and many simply give money and assume their job is done.

The Christian religion has gone far downhill, very sadly. I'd like to see it return to it's roots more.

(ever hear of the CHRISTIAN Children's Fund, moron?).

How Christian-ly of you. Jesus'd be proud (I can see his smiling face now).

Third of all, I don't know what kind of church you have been to, but at my church, we have BIBLE STUDY. We read The Word of God, and LEARN it, not "go along with what other people say."

Do all memebers attend this? I've never seen a church where all members study the Bible as they should. Secondly, this need not be done in a special building either. It can be done by inviting friends over to your house. Thousands of dollars saved, thousands of children fed.

All liberals are either hypocrites (like springsteen) or just plain crazy (like big-brother hussein obama).

Keep on spreadin' that Christian example!

If it wasn't so evil, I would almost think it was smart.

I don't really have anything i particular to say to this sentecne I thought I would just point and laugh.

Example: The biggest real problem right now is Muslims trying to kill us and upset the world order.

All Muslims are doing this? Really? Thanks for the heads up!

So while we're busy buying little wimp-mobiles

1st commandment... SUV's are ordained by God. Thou shalt have no fuel-efficient vehicles before it. Check.

and eating tofu,

2nd... thou shalt not eat the tofu. Since it's for wimps. Check.

we forget that another 9/11 is being planned (until it happens again, and then hopefully we'll elect somebody who isn't a total moron).

Why oh why was I distracted from terrorists whilst eating my tofu in my smart car?! Thankfully I know better now.

[Insipiens]

Very true that it "could be". But, as of yet, that hasn't been shown aside from Prop 8.

Not to mention, I still see it as highly hypocritical to wave the flag for, say, workers rights, and to vote in favor of Prop 8.

Is your view based on the premise that "rights" such as workers' rights and gay rights are a single homogeneous group, such that you are either motivated by a concern for "rights" or not? (writing that sentence has made me wonder why is one expression possessive in normal parlance and one not - why don't we write "gays' rights" or "worker rights"? ) This seems a possible but not necessary view and I don't think it is necessarily hypocritical to argue that not all rights are of the same kind. I think culturally this is quite likely to be the case in Europe where socialism has not been seen as a bad thing and is distinguished from communism.

I'm curious what Europeans think of Republican's running around yelling "OMG! Socialism! Horrors!"

I think it probably varies, but the general reaction is probably "OMG Americans!"
Actually I find it quite interesting that "liberal" in the US seems to mean in favour of a whole number of things but particularly:

state provided health care
more support for unions and workers rights
support for abortion
gay rights
higher taxes

Once upon a time liberal meant something more along the lines of allowing people to get on with their lives which could be interpreted politically as less government involvement. And in the UK at least now liberal doesnt necessarily mean anything very much politically - much like the Liberal Democrats who for most of the last 20 years (perhaps less so recently) have been particularly unimpressive and unrealisitc.

[I_luv_saber]

Is your view based on the premise that "rights" such as workers' rights and gay rights are a single homogeneous group, such that you are either motivated by a concern for "rights" or not? (writing that sentence has made me wonder why is one expression possessive in normal parlance and one not - why don't we write "gays' rights" or "worker rights"? ) This seems a possible but not necessary view and I don't think it is necessarily hypocritical to argue that not all rights are of the same kind. I think culturally this is quite likely to be the case in Europe where socialism has not been seen as a bad thing and is distinguished from communism.

Very good post and some good points put forth. While you are right that the two should not necessarily come hand in hand, my personal experiences here are that California is one of the preachiest regarding liberalism and putting gay rights at the forefront of that issue (not just San Fran, mind you). Mind you, this is just my experience and I have no evidence to back this up. But, working from the stanpoint, it seems hypocritical to me.

[Fencer X and Y]

Actually I find it quite interesting that "liberal" in the US seems to mean in favour of a whole number of things but particularly:

state provided health care
more support for unions and workers rights
support for abortion
gay rights
higher taxes

Once upon a time liberal meant something more along the lines of allowing people to get on with their lives which could be interpreted politically as less government involvement. And in the UK at least now liberal doesnt necessarily mean anything very much politically - much like the Liberal Democrats who for most of the last 20 years (perhaps less so recently) have been particularly unimpressive and unrealisitc.

In America it's the result of a two party system. So "liberal" in america really means the Democratic party issues, and "conservative" means Republican. And, as you point out, that puts someone who is lets say a libertarian or a socialist or a social conservative in an awkward situation. Do you vote for your party and have your vote be meaningless, or do you align yourself with a party that you half-agree or, an even worse case scenario, that you think will do the least amount of damage. They also sometime completely flip. The democrats before Woodrow Wilson used to be the "conservative" party and the Republicnas the progressive. Let's not forget that Lincoln was a Republican.

[lindajdunn]

Quote:
I think the reason Proposition H8te passed is because outside organizers, and especially the Mormons, spent a lot of money in California and spread a great deal of misinformation.

I don't see why, this isn't a complcated issue. You are either for extending the right to gays or against it. If people were indeed swayed, they must have been rather undecisive to begin with.

I still call hypocrisy.

The wording on the ballot was confusing and the claims made by many opposed to same sex marriage were misleading. For example, claims that teachers would be required to teach kindergarteners that same sex marriage is the same as opposite sex marriage.

[dcmdale]

They also sometime completely flip. The democrats before Woodrow Wilson used to be the "conservative" party and the Republicnas the progressive. Let's not forget that Lincoln was a Republican.

Not only have the parties flipped (on many issues), but the definitions of liberal and conservative have flipped as well. "Conservative" and "Conservationist" didn't use to be opposites. Conservatives in the sixties were the people opposed to the "pop-top, no-deposit/no-return" innovations in the culture because it was so wasteful. The G.O.P. was the "peace" party before Pearl Harbor. The Democrats were the party of Jim Crow.

[erooMynohtnA]

All liberals are either hypocrites (like springsteen) or just plain crazy (like big-brother hussein obama). They like to make up fake problems instead of trying to solve REAL problems. If it wasn't so evil, I would almost think it was smart. Example: The biggest real problem right now is Muslims trying to kill us and upset the world order. Instead of trying to solve it (not an easy task), they make up a problem like global warming, which distracts from the real problem. So while we're busy buying little wimp-mobiles and eating tofu, we forget that another 9/11 is being planned (until it happens again, and then hopefully we'll elect somebody who isn't a total moron).

This guy is my favorite poster since Fatfencer.

[dcmdale]

1. Maybe liberal states are wealthier in general and so would produce a larger gap? I'll have to check the numbers.

Also true within the caveats how to lie with statistics. One of the reasons that I like this discussion is that it fits well within a pet belief that I have that elected governments are more effective at accomplishing the opposite of their reputation. In this case, liberal states generally have healthier business climates.

2. This one is weak because of reporting standards. I have no doubt that conservative states don't care about this issue, and so don't report it accurately.

The reporting standards are federally mandated. Now, it could be that victims are less willing to file a report in conservative states.

Having lived both in liberal and redneck areas, I actually would not be surprised if this was accurate. The vast bulk of reported hate crimes are racially based to the point of overwhelming any other category, so race is what the stats are really talking about.

The level of racial hatred that I see day-to-day where I live now is far greater than I saw in California, say, but there is this game of plausible deniability that they play here that seems to provide a release for racism here that didn't exist for racists in California.

That's just my theory, though.

4. This one is fascinating. Do you have the numbers on this? I'd love to see how big a difference it is. Perhaps it's related to the closer relationship of conservatives to religion? On a side note, I don't necessarily see this as reflecting any sort of liberal hypocrisy.

I stupidly didn't keep them, but I will see if I can find them again.

What I was really looking for was measures of "happiness." Presumably, a key component of what makes a liberal a liberal is the desire to promote personal happiness as broadly (liberally) as possible. Of course, "happiness" is a difficult metric in and of itself. I was looking for a surrogate.

5. Liberal states tend to have higher populations, and population density, which may contribute to this issue. I wonder how the spending per pupil and overall spending compares.

Undoubtedly higher populations and higher student-teacher ratios seem to go together. I don't have time to look up the spending numbers: my guess would be that absolute spending/student is higher in liberal states, but that spending/student as a percentage of income might not. But that is just a guess.

[trickery dickery dock]

I don't see why, this isn't a complcated issue. You are either for extending the right to gays or against it. If people were indeed swayed, they must have been rather undecisive to begin with.

I still call hypocrisy.


No it's not. Building big churches is. You need a building dedicated for it to do it? I thought you were supposed to spread the word by living by example?


For you. For many others this is not the case.


Very noble. However, think of how many more you could feed had you not spent thousands of dollars on a useless building. My personal feeling (as a Christian, mind you) is Jesus would be appaled at the way most Christians live today. Many live far above their needs rather giving what extra they have to the needy, many simply follow the word of a preacher without "doing the legwork" themselves, and many simply give money and assume their job is done.

The Christian religion has gone far downhill, very sadly. I'd like to see it return to it's roots more.


How Christian-ly of you. Jesus'd be proud (I can see his smiling face now).



Do all memebers attend this? I've never seen a church where all members study the Bible as they should. Secondly, this need not be done in a special building either. It can be done by inviting friends over to your house. Thousands of dollars saved, thousands of children fed.



Keep on spreadin' that Christian example!


I don't really have anything i particular to say to this sentecne I thought I would just point and laugh.



All Muslims are doing this? Really? Thanks for the heads up!




1st commandment... SUV's are ordained by God. Thou shalt have no fuel-efficient vehicles before it. Check.



2nd... thou shalt not eat the tofu. Since it's for wimps. Check.


Why oh why was I distracted from terrorists whilst eating my tofu in my smart car?! Thankfully I know better now.

You know, just because your demented view of Christianity dictates that we all wander into the woods to hug trees (and probably other men), doesn't mean that the Christian tradition is wrong. Most of us would like to have a decent place where we can meet for worship, Bible study, baptisms, weddings, and funerals. Is that wrong? Is it really too much to ask? If you liberals had any real sense of logic, you would see how quickly that could apply to everything else in the world. Why have buildings for anything? Why not just live in hippie communes and do away with hotels, restaurants, and stores? Surely there's wasted money there. How much have you donated to feed starving children with all the money you think your saving by not going to church?

Islam is indeed a false and violent religion. In case you haven't noticed, the most violent region on earth is full of them. Coincidence? How else would you explain it? (Perhaps it is also a coincidence that they're trying to destroy Israel, which would also conveniently stop the Second Coming?)

FACT: Without Jesus Christ, a human life is not any more meaningful than a rat's life. This is why spreading The Word is important.

While it may not distract you from the issues, fake things like global warming and "insufficient" health care give the liberal media an excuse to put the spotlight elsewhere.