Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (11689)	10/10/2003 8:45:30 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793838

Andrew Sullivan is right about the media's use of "Imminent." ________________________________ FRONTLINE'S LIE: More imminent insinuation from the left. Frontline, the left-wing arm of liberal WGBH, ran a documentary last week, paid in part by tax-payers' dollars, that threaded the "imminent" meme throughout. (They had the gall to email me to promote it). Here's one question posed to Paul Bremer that simply assumes the lie: I guess the problem is that Americans cautioned that this aftermath would be difficult, and that we didn't sign up for a humanitarian mission; we signed up to rid ourselves of an imminent threat. Was the war wrongly sold? The distortion continues relentlessly. And you're paying for some of it. - 7:36:41 PM HERE'S DASCHLE: From October 10, 2002, here's an extract from Tom Daschle's case for agreeing with the administration's rationale for war: The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent, but it is real, it is growing, and it cannot be ignored. There you have it. Why does the media continue to lie about the arguments made for war against Saddam? They keep moving the goal-posts so the administration cannot win. Just as they did all they could to prevent the war, and to undermine it when it was going on, now they seek to distort history to advance the agenda of appeasing terrorist-sponsoring tyranny. (Thanks to Bo Cowgill.) Keep those "imminent" references coming. We can turn this untruth around. andrewsullivan.com

To: JohnM who wrote (11689)	10/10/2003 9:10:46 PM
From: sullie6	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

Let's see if I understand you correctly John. What you are saying is certain conservatives on this thread aren't worthy of seriously discussing the relation between race/ethnicity and academic achievement because they are only capable of angry, hostile, or abusive responses (flaming). However, if there were to be a discussion, you would have to be the arbiter of what research is germane to the discussion & which is not. Additionally you will decide what needs to be extrapolated out of certain research. However, even that might reduce the strata affecting the reliability of the results. Therefore, you need to be able to eliminate even more research from discussion as you see fit. And too many variables make it too complex for certain of us conservatives to draw conclusions from, so you must be able to exclude even more research from the discussion at will. Even under these circumstances, you still have serious reservations about a serious discussion about race/ethnicity & academic achievement. Why? Because so many folks on this thread hold stereotypical views on race, so you doubt this thread would be able to accomplish anything noteworthy. Please correct me if I misunderstood what you said John. TIA

To: JohnM who wrote (11689)	10/11/2003 12:41:10 AM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793838

I doubt single variable explanations will get the matter very far. Once one gets into multiple variable ones, the policy issues get difficult to address. Well said, John. --ken

To: JohnM who wrote (11689)	10/11/2003 10:30:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

I'm not saying this cannot be done. Lots of people do research here Pity you are not one of them. The really frustrating thing about talking with you is the feeling that you could bring some real evidence to the table if you wanted to, but chose to simply wiggle out of it and obfuscate whenever anyone asks you to.

To: JohnM who wrote (11689)	10/13/2003 10:54:59 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

If someone wishes to have a serious conversation about the relation between race/ethnicity and academic achievement, we could certainly have it. It would be an extraordinary achievement here, however, because the basic and, so far as I can tell, only style is flaming different points of view. I fully realize many points that could be made in the discussion that are difficult, to put it mildly: 1.- The statistical issues are difficult. I am somewhat familiar with them since my job requires me to do a bit of epidemiology. I do not claim expertise, yet I do not see any evidence here that any poster can properly address them. 2.- The definitional issues are hellish, too. 3.- You are absolutely correct that untangling class from ethnicity is daunting--part of the statistical and definitional issue, in my view, though you seem to think that the better prism is class, a notion with which I disagree because it injects improper value judgments into the discussion. I'm not sure that it is possible to arrive at anything approaching a decent answer even if an otherwise qualified person were to devote years of study to the issue. Given the difficulties, I suspect it is best to leave the subject alone. There is far too much room for interpretation. Moreover, very few of us--not me, for sure--are qualified to discuss the issue in any intelligent fashion. Nonetheless, I don't agree with your a priori notion that discussion will probably lead to flame wars. As you well know, posters here will not allow others to get away with sloppy thinking and facile comments. Valid criticism is often self-indulgently characterized as flaming. Failure to substantively respond to valid criticism by decrying its tone can properly be interpreted as avoiding the issue. From a human standpoint, it is also quite annoying. Discussions that could otherwise be fruitful do not take place.