Liberal Media Attempting to Understand Conservatives

[CRGreathouse]

I'm going to copy Gokul43201 in copying CRGreathouse.

In the past months of US health care policy discussion, the fact that people go in and out of coverage was repeatedly cited in various sources, especially between jobs; the oft cited figure of ~45 million uninsured was shown to include the short term uninsured (in addition to illegals, 20 somethings who could afford but rejected coverage, etc). I guess then that the initial '88-'94 survey frequently captured people out of coverage between jobs, and later when the CDC recorded their death some portion actually had coverage though a subsequent job.

This would suggest, to me, that the true size would be larger in magnitude then captured by the study. On one hand, that wouldn't surprise me -- 45k is a pretty small number. But is it right? And, of course, how trustworthy is the original calculation? The error bars must be so big that the direction of the effect must almost be in question...

 

[Galteeth]

I'm going to copy Gokul43201 in copying CRGreathouse.



This would suggest, to me, that the true size would be larger in magnitude then captured by the study. On one hand, that wouldn't surprise me -- 45k is a pretty small number. But is it right? And, of course, how trustworthy is the original calculation? The error bars must be so big that the direction of the effect must almost be in question...

Another question is the "deaths due to." As in, their has to be some cutoff for "preventable" deaths. For example, including say, cancer, would inflate the figure upward, since not all cancer deaths would be prevntable even with with health coverage. On the other hand, the number could be underestimated if too strict a definition were applied, i.e., if only deaths that were certainly preventable were included, as some may have been preventable but not with certainty.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Another question is the "deaths due to." As in, their has to be some cutoff for "preventable" deaths. For example, including say, cancer, would inflate the figure upward, since not all cancer deaths would be prevntable even with with health coverage. On the other hand, the number could be underestimated if too strict a definition were applied, i.e., if only deaths that were certainly preventable were included, as some may have been preventable but not with certainty.

Yes, that seems more of a wash to me. What do you think?

 

[mugaliens]

Another question is the "deaths due to." As in, their has to be some cutoff for "preventable" deaths. For example, including say, cancer, would inflate the figure upward, since not all cancer deaths would be prevntable even with with health coverage. On the other hand, the number could be underestimated if too strict a definition were applied, i.e., if only deaths that were certainly preventable were included, as some may have been preventable but not with certainty.

I think a lot more disease would be eliminated if people simply took better care of themselves.

 

[planck]

You'll love the new cover of Time magazine regarding the ground zero mosque. "How islamophobic are we?"

It's always about intentions with the leftist media. Those who disagree are never well-intentioned, just intolerant bigots.

 

[DanP]

It's always about intentions with the leftist media. Those who disagree are never well-intentioned, just intolerant bigots.

There is liberal media. There is conservative media. Both are biased, in a greater or lesser manner.

Then we have the audience, which suffers from the so called "hostile media bias". They all believe that the "opposing" media is hostile, and will see this hostility even when there is none or very little. No one is immune to this bias. No matter how much they pride with their rationality, hostile media biases stays with them.

 

[Galteeth]

There is liberal media. There is conservative media. Both are biased, in a greater or lesser manner.

Then we have the audience, which suffers from the so called "hostile media bias". They all believe that the "opposing" media is hostile, and will see this hostility even when there is none or very little. No one is immune to this bias. No matter how much they pride with their rationality, hostile media biases stays with them.

From my point of view, I think what's remarkable is how much the mainstream media agrees. That is to say, there will be sharp disagreement, but the areas of disagreement are well defined, and in a sense, fairly shallow.

 

[mheslep]

You'll love the new cover of Time magazine regarding the ground zero mosque. "How islamophobic are we?"

It's always about intentions with the leftist media. Those who disagree are never well-intentioned, just intolerant bigots.

Time's descended into Jokedom. They're not long for this world now, just like Newsweek. I believe they intend to make Lady Gaga person of the year, likely via some weird logic that if they appeal to teenagers they can stay relevant. Maybe they can devote a dozen pages to boy bands. FAIL.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20100830,00.html

 

[Galteeth]

Time's descended into Jokedom. They're not long for this world now, just like Newsweek. I believe they intend to make Lady Gaga person of the year, likely via some weird logic that if they appeal to teenagers they can stay relevant. Maybe they can devote a dozen pages to boy bands. FAIL.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20100830,00.html

I was actually fairly annoyed when TIME didn't make Osama Bin Laden its man of the year IN 2001 and caved into political pressure, naming George Bush. Nevermind that man of the year was not meant to be an honor, simply an acknowledgment of the person who for better or worse had the most influence on the world, and that previous men of the year have included hitler and stalin.

As far as Newsweek, I couldn't have been happier they folded. That magazine was always a propaganda rag, and Johnathan Alter personally lied to me in a condescending manner when i was working for Ron Paul's campaign.

What's the jist of this Islamophobia article?

 

[mheslep]

...
What's the jist of this Islamophobia article?

Given the inflammatory title and that it is a TIME article I'm really not interested in what it says.

 

[vertices]

Given the inflammatory title and that it is a TIME article I'm really not interested in what it says.

Just out of interest, why do you think it is inflammatory?

 

[mheslep]

Just out of interest, why do you think it is inflammatory?

Is/does everyone in your country __________________? Pick one: a racist; beat their women; ignorant; fat; smell bad; selfish, etc. Hey its just a question (not).

The point is, that like the above, I find the TIME title to be an unfounded accusation condescendingly hiding in a question.

 

[Galteeth]

Is/does everyone in your country __________________? Pick one: a racist; beat their women; ignorant; fat; smell bad; selfish, etc. Hey its just a question (not).

The point is, that like the above, I find the TIME title to be an unfounded accusation condescendingly hiding in a question.

That's one way of interpreting it. That implies that "islamophobia" is a bad thing (which is probably the pov of the article, but which isn't clear from the title in and of itself)

 

[mheslep]

That's one way of interpreting it. That implies that "islamophobia" is a bad thing ...

The intention of affixing 'phobia' as a suffix to anything is to connote it as bad or at least undesirable, as by definition a phobia is an irrational or unthinking fear. It's a culture war tactic. TIME and others are not engaging in debate by using the term, they're trying to end it by saying from the outset that the other side is irrational and fearful.

 

[Gokul43201]

Color me unimpressed by the rationality of our demands that the Mosque/Cultural Center not be permitted to be built.

This was a fun watch ... well for the most part (skip ahead to 2:40): http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-16-2010/mosque-erade

 

[brainstorm]

The intention of affixing 'phobia' as a suffix to anything is to connote it as bad or at least undesirable, as by definition a phobia is an irrational or unthinking fear. It's a culture war tactic. TIME and others are not engaging in debate by using the term, they're trying to end it by saying from the outset that the other side is irrational and fearful.

Those debatophobes!

 

[mheslep]

Those debatophobes!

 

[planck]

Well, here's the Time article (abridged version).

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011798,00.html

But I'll save you the time from reading. Basically, the fact that nearly 3/4 of us toothless, slack-jawed, neaderthals who opine for the days of segregation and pre-women's suffrage--do not support this GZ mosque. And this REALLY upsets the enlightened media because it's very "intolerant" and "bigoted." Hence the reason why the brilliant Katie Couric was forced to pedantically remind us all of our misgivings:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-20014479-500803.html

*eyes frickin roll*

 

[RenasontsMan]

///

But I'll save you the time from reading. Basically, the fact that nearly 3/4 of us toothless, slack-jawed, neaderthals who opine for the days of segregation and pre-women's suffrage--do not support this GZ mosque. And this REALLY upsets the enlightened media because it's very "intolerant" and "bigoted." ///

*eyes frickin roll*

I LOVE it when you talk dirty, Max.

I suppose that I am, like you, a Neanderthal, and a slack-jawed one at that...that is, to hear the media talk.

Say, did you hear about Newsweek leftist magazine being sold for $1.00, plus existing debt?

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of leftists, I tell ya.

Oh, and USA Today is cutting 20% of its staff too!

::appy times, are here again...::::

 

[planck]

You like that dirty talk, do you.

You'll love the newest shocking revelation by the former BBC chief then:

Yes, BBC was biased: Director General Mark Thompson admits a 'massive' lean to Left

Back then, of course. Not now. No, not now. Back then.

I'm waiting for the afternoon's shocking new story:

"Scientific studies confirm: Men are visually stimulated by female cleavage"

 

[Galteeth]

"Scientific studies confirm: Men are visually stimulated by female cleavage"

Do you have a link to that study?

 

[mugaliens]

Do you have a link to that study?

Ever since I was first allowed to read studies like this in the 70s, I've come across more than 100 of them throughout the years, and from many different sources.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-49MF08F-B&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1452953909&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32786998fcc8c96fecef419265f774fb&searchtype=a"...

My Google search on "study visual sexual cues in men" revealed 45,000+ hits, the first ten of which are from Neuroimage, interscience, psychological bulletin, Neurobiology, sagepub, royal society publishing, and again from interscience.

I am not trying to "shame" anyone here (so apologies in advance, Galteeth), but I do have to ask: Did you bother doing a search before asking your question? The above search took about 18 seconds. It took five minutes to type up this post.

Getting back to the OP, I am trying to say that I'm rather disgusted with the practice of "questionno para linkum" as a means of arguement, delay, or obfuscating the issue, and my point on this is NOT directed at you, Galteeth, but at either liberal or conservative media "attempting" to understand the other side, as per the OP.

I don't find it difficult in the least to understand either side, and often the only understanding that's required is that they're either ill-informed on an issue, or being idealistic rather than factual, or that sometimes they're just wrong.

I believe the fix for side-errancy is simple: Gather the facts. A conscientious search to ascertain what it is the other side is talking about before responding is a good start. Sadly, many folks never make a good start. Instead, they jump into their foxholes and begin firing whenever they believe they recognize the rhetoric of the "enemy," which doesn't do anyone on either side any good whatsoever. If we were to map it out on an MRI, I think we'd find it's akin to certain addictive behaviors, rather than any sort of rational response.

 

[Galteeth]

Ever since I was first allowed to read studies like this in the 70s, I've come across more than 100 of them throughout the years, and from many different sources.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-49MF08F-B&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1452953909&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32786998fcc8c96fecef419265f774fb&searchtype=a"...

My Google search on "study visual sexual cues in men" revealed 45,000+ hits, the first ten of which are from Neuroimage, interscience, psychological bulletin, Neurobiology, sagepub, royal society publishing, and again from interscience.

I am not trying to "shame" anyone here (so apologies in advance, Galteeth), but I do have to ask: Did you bother doing a search before asking your question? The above search took about 18 seconds. It took five minutes to type up this post.

Getting back to the OP, I am trying to say that I'm rather disgusted with the practice of "questionno para linkum" as a means of arguement, delay, or obfuscating the issue, and my point on this is NOT directed at you, Galteeth, but at either liberal or conservative media "attempting" to understand the other side, as per the OP.

I don't find it difficult in the least to understand either side, and often the only understanding that's required is that they're either ill-informed on an issue, or being idealistic rather than factual, or that sometimes they're just wrong.

I believe the fix for side-errancy is simple: Gather the facts. A conscientious search to ascertain what it is the other side is talking about before responding is a good start. Sadly, many folks never make a good start. Instead, they jump into their foxholes and begin firing whenever they believe they recognize the rhetoric of the "enemy," which doesn't do anyone on either side any good whatsoever. If we were to map it out on an MRI, I think we'd find it's akin to certain addictive behaviors, rather than any sort of rational response.

The "link" thing was intended as humor. Actually, the poster did send me a pm link to the studies. It wasn't a serious contribution to the conversation. Sorry if i derailed the discussion. Carry on.