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 : Err America: They Report, They Decide -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (805)	6/23/2006 4:48:29 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1513

What a back stabbing, lying, treacherous, opportunistic scumbag! Kerry was against cutting and running before he was for it! That Was Then, This Is Now Power Line John Kerry on the campaign trail, in December 2003, before the Council on Foreign Relations: <<< I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election, the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy. Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal dates, without adequate stability, is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not be dictated by the schedule of the next American election. I have called for the administration to transfer sovereignty, and they must transfer it to the Iraqi people as quickly as circumstances permit. But it would be a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle to speed up the process simply to lay the groundwork for a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops. That could risk the hijacking of Iraq by terrorist groups and former Ba'athists. >>> Kerry was against cutting and running before he was for it! powerlineblog.com cfr.org

To: American Spirit who wrote (805)	6/23/2006 4:59:26 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1513

Liberals Are Racist, Study Suggests--II BY JAMES TARANTO Best of the Web Today Friday, June 23, 2006 Two weeks ago, we noted an article by the Washington Post's Richard Morin, who conducted a study along with Shanto Iyengar of Stanford University that purported to find that Americans' attitudes toward Katrina victims were colored by race, to the disadvantage of blacks. We pointed out that the sample was highly skewed toward liberals and Democrats (as well as toward the well-educated and, to a lesser extent, toward whites), and said, "if this study shows that the participants are racially biased, that doesn't prove that Americans are racially biased. At most it proves that well-educated liberal white Americans are." Now Morin has done a follow-up column, in which he shows that we were right: <<< As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race. Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine. But for Democrats, race mattered--and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues." . . . Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white." >>> Very interesting, and kudos to Morin and Iyengar for the follow-up. We should say, though, that although these results are consistent with our own prejudices about those on the liberal side of the political spectrum, we doubt this study comes anywhere near proving anything. This is for several reasons: - Although it's not specified how the survey participants were chosen, it seems clear that they are a self-selected rather than representative sample. The follow-up work corrects for political bias but apparently not for other biases (e.g., toward highly educated whites). - As we understand the description of the study, each individual participant saw either a white face or a black face (or another variant), not both. Thus the disparities found were between the averages of two different groups of people. It may be that the differences were the result of some unknown factor, whether random or systemic, that differentiates the two groups. - Even if we assume that the disparity is the result of liberals "being affected by racial cues," such cues do not necessarily reflect racist attitudes (in the classic sense of believing that blacks are inferior). It could be that liberals believe blacks are more resilient and thus need less help to recover, or that they believe (correctly) that blacks have lower incomes on average and thus need less to compensate for lost wages. Also, we take issue with the characterization of Democrats as "generous" because they are willing to "give" more money to the hypothetical victims. Participants were not asked how much of their own money they were willing to contribute, but rather how much "government aid" they thought the victims should receive. If Democrats are more eager to spend "government" money than Republicans are--and, with the possible exception of members of Congress, it is a commonplace that they are--does this mean that Democrats are more "generous"? Or does it mean that Republicans are more apt to think of government as spending their money, while Democrats think of it as other people's? opinionjournal.com washingtonpost.com opinionjournal.com