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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chartseer who wrote (98762)	1/21/2011 11:32:46 AM
From: FJB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224749

Bradley effect From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Tom Bradley speaking at AIDS Walk LA at the Paramount Studios lot in 1988 The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect,[1][2] is a theory proposed to explain observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some US government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.[3][4][5] Instead of ascribing the results to flawed methodology on the part of the pollster, the theory proposes that some voters tend to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for the white opponent. It was named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections.[6] The Bradley effect theorizes that the inaccurate polls were skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias.[7][8] Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. Members of the public may feel under pressure to provide an answer that is deemed to be more publicly acceptable, or 'politically correct'. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor in to voters' answers.

To: chartseer who wrote (98762)	1/21/2011 12:54:09 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 224749

chartseer...now here is a niffty plan put forth by democrats. Ok so what if a dem. bigwig needs a body part in a hurry? And what if you are not quite dead....well could it be decided that you are close enough to being dead and the important person really need this part so what the heck lets get those parts right now and not wait.?? State plan volunteers all to donate organs, tissue 'You are automatically deemed to have consented' January 20, 2011 2011 WorldNetDaily wnd.com A plan that is being pushed now in the state of Colorado by two Democratic lawmakers would allow the government to assume that its residents want to donate their organs or tissue. "The bill changes the organ donation program so that a person is presumed to have consented to organ and tissue donations at the time the person applies for or renews a driver's license or identification card unless the person initials a statement that states that the person does not want to be considered as a possible organ and tissue donor," states the summary of the bill posted online by the state's 68th General Assembly. Carrying the plan in the state House is Rep. Dan Pabon, a Democrat from Denver, and in the Senate Sen. Lucia Guzman, also a Denver Democrat. It calls for state administrators to present to applicants the statement: You are automatically deemed to have consented to being an organ and tissue donor and this designation will appear on your driver's license or identification card. If you do not want to be considered an organ and tissue donor, you must elect to not be included on the organ donor registry by inserting your initials on the line below. The proposed statute changes, which apparently would be a first if adopted, provide that "the consent is sufficient to satisfy all requirements necessary to evidence the applicant's consent to anatomical donation of the applicant's organs and tissue." Neither Pabon nor Guzman responded to multiple WND requests for comment on the issue, but according to a report from KMGH-Television, Pabon described it as a way to make recruiting donors easier. But the broadcast by KMGH reporter Dayle Cedars said there already is some opposition, including that from Donor Alliance, a tissue recovery agency whose CEO, Sue Dunn, said there are some complications that perhaps should be addressed. She told the station the state already has one of the highest opt-in rates in the nation. "I think it is really important that we get the religious, the ethical, the legal – our diverse communities to weigh in and have a broad discussion," she said. She worries it actually could hurt donations because of the way "it gets presented at the driver's license office." KMGH reported similar plans already have failed in Delaware, Illinois and New York because of the coercive nature of the statement. Dr. Jackie Glover, of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities that is linked to the University of Colorado, had similar concerns. "It seems coercive. It is not voluntary if you don't ask me," Glover told KMGH. Arthur Caplan, who is with the University of Pennsylvania's bioethics center, warned that the words "presumed consent" alarm people. He told the station that something like "default to donation" would be better. "When you use the word 'presumed' it sounds like you're just going to take the organ, and that doesn't sound good," Caplan told the station. Commentator Wesley J. Smith at the First Things blog was alarmed. "When [organ donation] was being pitched to a wary public, we were solemnly assured that only those who specifically agreed to donate their organs ahead of time, or with consent from family after death, would be donors. Now, we see advocacy to do away with specific consent – in other words to the concept of 'donation' – and replace it with organ conscription, in which the state could take your organs unless you specifically opted out beforehand…" The British Medical Journal earlier studied the issue and said, "systems of opting out do not ensure higher rates of donation than opting-in systems." "People may be more likely to donate when they feel they retain control of that decision rather than the law dictating that donation should take place. Brazil had to withdraw its system of presumed consent because it aggravated mistrust in the health-care system," the report said. "We must not forget that many countries today are multicultural societies, where diverse groups view organ donation differently. Trust in the health-care system is not universal. Presumed consent could alienate even further those groups that lack this trust, and feed negative attitudes towards organ donation," the report said. For example, the report said, "Singapore's law on presumed consent makes exemptions for Muslims on religious grounds."