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 (48585)	6/3/2004 9:48:35 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793955

Yes, the truth does hurt. A perspective on the vitriol Polipundit We've had many discussions lately about the stunning degree of partisan-liberal bias emanating from the national media. And, of course, we've had the unfortunate pleasure of seeing with our own eyes the sad level of vitriol spewing forth from angry liberals, whether it be about politics, economics, history, or culture. The question arises, however: why? Why all this hatred on the left? There's an easy answer, really. It's simple math. In 1992, a Democrat won the White House for the first time since 1976. At that point, the Democratic Party controlled 30 Governor's chairs, to 18 for the GOP. The Democrats won 59 percent of the total state legislative seats available that year. They controlled both chambers of the Legislatures in 25 states, compared to just 8 for the GOP. In Congress, of course, they had large majorities both in the House and in the Senate. What's happened since then? Well, frankly, total political realignment. Today, the GOP controls 28 Governor's chairs. Republicans rule the State House in California (and have done so for 16 of the past 23 years); New York (since 1994); Florida (since 1998); and Texas (since 1994). Today, the GOP controls the Legislatures of 21 states, to 16 for the Democrats (a net change of 22 states(!) from the political landscape that existed in 1992). Last election cycle, the GOP won an absolute majority of the available state legislative seats; the first time that's happened since 1952. In Congress, the Democrats have been reduced to a trivial minority in the House. In the Senate, the GOP has had majorities in 9 of the past 10 years. Looking to the top of the political ticket, it has been 28 years since a Democratic nominee for President has won even 50 percent of the total vote. On the other hand, GOP nominees have accomplished that feat on three separate occasions in the intervening period. In sum, we are witnessing the death of the Democratic Party. They have been in steep decline for almost two full generations. At this point, they are facing the end game. And, deep down, they know it. That is why there's so much anger, so much hostility, and so much gamesmanship, on that side of the aisle. Liberalism? Well, liberalism was dealt its Stalingrad-style defeat back in 1994, when the GOP picked up 52 U.S. House seats and 12 U.S. Senate seats (yeah, you read that right!) in a single evening, in response, of course, to the ill-fated attempts by the Clinton Administration to govern from the left. Frankly, liberals never were anything more than a political side show in this country. They were able to glom onto political power only by aligning themselves with Southern, conservative Democrats. After Novemember 1994, however, that one trick pony broke its leg and got put to sleep. The far left now is like Bruce Willis in the Sixth Sense. They don't even know that they're already politically dead. It's high time, in my view, that we stop being so diplomatic about our friends on the left and start calling their vitriolic politics for what it is: fatuous spitework! Nothing more, nothing less. So long, Democrats. I'll light a candle for you. P.S. - A synopsis of much of the underlying raw data from above can be found in this article, previously published in the Weekly Standard. The remainder is easily obtainable in the public domain, through Google. polipundit.com

To: JohnM who wrote (48585)	6/4/2004 1:27:22 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

John and karen, I think the issue for churches is the non-profit 501C-3 tax exemption. The members of churches are free to say whatever they please, and invite guests to do the same. The issue is: Do they want to keep their NON PROFIT tax emempt status or not? If so, no politics, campaigning, or fundraising for political purposes in the church.

To: JohnM who wrote (48585)	6/4/2004 4:39:41 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793955

Good comment Ignoring SAT scores just because the children of high-achievers tend to do well would be like ignoring height in basketball players just because the children of tall people tend to be tall. Sharpen Your Number Two Pencils [Gail Heriot (visiting from The Right Coast), June 4, 2004 Volokh blog The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that a new study on that most dreaded of standardized tests, the SAT, will soon be published in the Journal of Econometrics. According to the Chronicle, the study's author "argues that SAT scores can 'launder' an applicant's background, such as race and family income." "'If colleges do not wish to consider a student's background as an admissions qualification,'" he says, "'you have to be very careful ....'" I look forward to the article as I look forward to all articles on the SAT. I'm sure that one day I'll find one that is fair and thoughtful, but so far the ones I've seen that have received pre-publication publicity have tended to be more political propaganda than anything else, even those that appear in respectable journals. Still, you can't blame a woman for hoping. SAT bashing has been popular over the past few years, mainly because the issue is seen as related to the controversy over race-based admissions. Nicholas Lemann's The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy attempted (unsuccessfully in my humble opinion) to portray the SAT as somehow sinister. Peter Sacks' Standardized Minds: The High Price of America's Testing Culture and What We Can Do to Change It was even more critical. Using neo-Marxist jargon, he called standardized tests, including the SAT, "a highly effective means of social control ... serving the interests of the nation's elite" and a tool for elites to "perpetuate their class privilege with rules of their own making." At one point, the Clinton administration's Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education issued draft "guidelines" that would have strong-armed colleges and universities into de-emphasizing or eliminating the SAT. (They were withdrawn when an uproar ensued.) James Bryant Conant and Henry Chauncey no doubt took a few revolutions in the grave when they heard Sacks' accusation. They created the SAT for precisely the opposite purpose--to take privilge away from the WASPish families of the Eastern Establishment and put it into the hands of talented young people, regardless of background. And they were pretty successful. More than one Nebraska farm girl or governemnt clerk's son from Newark has beaten out a scion of wealth and privilege for a seat at Harvard or Yale precisely because of the SAT. Sacks called the close relationship between social class and standardized test score the "Volvo effect." He cited a study, which he claimed found that 50% of the variability in individual SAT scores is explained by parents' level of education. If so, that would be extraordinary. But the study he cited wasn't about individual test scores at all, but rather school-wide average test scores. As a statistical matter, it is irrelevant to the point Sacks was trying to convey. The error was one statisticians call an "aggregation fallacy." Groups and individuals are different. Focusing on groups will tend to obscure important individual differences that happen to be evenly distributed among the various groups. In other words, even if individual SAT scores tend to be one-tenth social class and nine-tenths random luck, schools in wealthier neighborhoods would tend to do a bit better than those in poorer neighborhoods if only because the more important "random luck" factor would be pretty evenly distributed among all schools. Under such circumstances, the school-wide data would indicate--quite misleadingly--that social class accounts for up to 100% of the variation, while the individual data would credit it with only 10%. Does that mean that there is no relationship between socio-economic class and SAT scores? Of course not. For whatever combination of nature and nuture, the children of successful, well-educated parents do tend to do better than less-privileged children. But the effect is not as overwhelming as Sacks argues. The notion that only those with Volvos need apply to the Ivy League is nonsense. Moreover, insofar as the children of successful parents do score more highly, the test is measuring something real and not something that will disappear if the SAT is abolished. Such students, on the whole, don't just tend to get better scores, they tend to do better in college too. Ignoring SAT scores just because the children of high-achievers tend to do well would be like ignoring height in basketball players just because the children of tall people tend to be tall.