Monday, May 15th, 2006...2:42 pm
Pederson Retroactively Endorses Dean for President, I Guess
Jon Kyl’s latest ad says:
Jim Pederson was Democrat Party Chairman. He contributed millions of his personal money to elect liberal candidates and support liberal causes. Liberals like, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, [and] John Kerry.
I thought this was odd, since when Howard Dean ran for President, Pederson was State Democratic Party Chairman. It would have been unusual, and big news, if Pederson had supported a candidate in the highly contested Democratic presidential primary in 2004.
(As an aside, a knock that many of Pederson’s supporters had against his predecessor Mark Fleischer was that he broke this unwritten rule and actively supported Bill Bradley in the 2000 presidential race.)
Well, as it turns out, he did not. In fact, he gave no money to the candidates listed in the ad. You don’t even have to believe me, you can check his contributions on Open Secrets. On there, I found out that Pederson gave money to Elaine Richardson’s 2002 congressional race. This ticks me off because I supported Raúl Grijalva that year. He also gave to the Young Democrats of America, an organization so dangerously radical that they once had me on their executive board.
Of course, Kyl’s ad weasel-words this claim by saying “liberals like…” so he isn’t saying Pederson gave the money to them, but only, to paraphrase Miracle Max, mostly did. I’m sure that their argument would be that by bankrolling party activities, Pederson helped these candidates out. Except in the case of Kerry, this is a pretty far stretch, since neither Kennedy or Clinton ran for election in the two cycles where the party benefitted his largesse.
(Even if Pederson did give to Clinton, this would make him no more liberal than Rupert Murdoch)
Interestingly, prior to becoming party chairman, Pederson funded the “Fair District” initiative which ended up solidifying our gerrymandered hard right majority in the legislature, and the “Clean Elections” initiative, which made the activist-conservative candidacy of Len Munsil possible. You’d think they’d be more grateful.
57 Comments
May 15th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
You know, it’s OK if he did give to Democrats. I have not fact checked the Kyl add but I did go to http://www.fec.gov and found a lot more donations than you listed.
Some of the people who received money from James Pederson are Jeff Bingaman (10-28-05), Maria Cantwell (6-30-05), Raul Grijalva (9-25-02), Ben Nelson (12-31-05), David Obey (3-30-06), Max Cleland (3-31-02), Tom Harkin (3-27-02), Max Baucus (4-24-02), Harry Reid (8-13-04), Ken Salazar (5-10-04), Steve Owens (3-31-98), Al Gore (3-15-99), Tom Daschle’s PAC New Leadership for America (3-26-03 and 10-12-04), and Edward Kennedy (10-12-04.)
This is only a small sample but it is a lot more than you listed.
There is also a donation of $5,000 to the Arizona Republican Party made on 7-7-97 made by a James E. Pederson of Phoenix, AZ.
Again, this is a free country and Jim can donate to whom he wants but it does appear according to the Federal Election Commission that the Kyl add is at least correct that Pederson donated to Kennedy.
May 15th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
OK, you’re losing me. This is a little too “Inside Democrat Baseball” for me…yawn.
Jerrymandered, right-wing…sure, sure…Dems really put a halt to that when they were in power mm-hmm.
On the Clinton contribution item, these days you must specify to which of them you refer. Bill is actually a good conservative bet as he reformed welfare and tempered enthusiasms for power grabs via sexual harassment claims. The other one, speaking her name makes my mouth itch, is a pro-war advocate…soooo…you’ve got that going for you…
May 15th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
I figured there’d be an ad out like this some months ago when I got a call from a so-called ‘pollster’ who clicked off the names on that list asking for my opinion of them, then asked me a bunch of ‘would you be more or less likely to vote for Pederson if you knew…’ followed by a whole bunch of personal attacks (at least a couple of which I knew personally to be either lies or very distorted). So I knew then that was the kind of campaign that Jon Kyl planned to run, and I’m not a bit surprised to hear it on ads today.
Obvious, getting re-elected is more important to Jon Kyl than telling the truth.
May 15th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
One would think that a Democratic State Party chair would give to Democratic candidates.
And I am pretty sure the “independent” part comes from not having a ton of corporate sponsers. But I would have to look up the FEC reports Pederson has filed to be sure.
But I bet my FEC reports are much cleaner.
May 15th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
He has obviously backed liberal Democrats [Emily's List, pro-abortion that was a pass-through to Boxer]. In Pederson’s own commericals he calls himself an independant and says nowhere that he is a Democrat. That is why Kyl is just pointing out that is not the case. JP gave lots of money to the libs (that is OK)…he shouldn’t be ashamed of who he is or what he believes in.
May 15th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
EMILY’s List is not solely for Barbara Boxer, thinkright. To Phxkid, the ad is still dishonest by its nature, and is just another dirty shot by Kyl.
Also Pederson calls himself an independent not to hide party identity, but to show he’s more committed to results than to being a rubber stamp like Kyl.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
espo the add seems pretty correct to me. It says he contributed to liberals like Kennedy and in 2004 he gave $2,000 to Teddy. Someone named Roberta Pederson from Phoenix, AZ also made a separate $2,000 donation to Edward Kennedy on 10-12-04. Since her occupation is listed as homemaker I am guessing the source of the money care from somewhere other than her homemaking business.
Pederson is going to loose anyway so it doesn’t really matter about the adds.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Yeah but it also claims John Kerry, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, none of which he gave to. The fact is it is terribly misleading. Honestly I think Pederson should say “who cares who I gave to, this is just another ludicrous attempt by Jon Kyl to avoid debating the issues. He’s afraid because he’s got no real ideas and is just a rubber stamp for the Bush administration’s failed policies.”
May 15th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Anyone who has cleaned a house knows that one should be paid at least $50K a year. Ugh!
May 15th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Also Emily’s List is for pro-choice women who raise boatloads of cash. No one outside of antisocial people is pro-abortion.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
espo here are just some of the numbers. My understanding of politics is that in giving to a Senatorial Campaign Committee you are helping Senators from that party, i.e. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. See below for the facts. It does appear as if he was supporting Democrats and Democratic Senators. Since Clinton and Kerry fall into that category he was helping them. And that OK. It’s also OK for Kyl to point that out.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $5,000 9-29-00; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $50,000 10-9-02; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $25,000 3-26-03; Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $10,000 6-22-01; Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $10,000 9-20-02; Democratic National Committee $20,000 6-20-00; Democratic National Committee $20,000 8-28-01; Democratic National Committee $100,000 12-28-01; Democratic National Committee $100,000 7-30-02; Democratic National Committee $25,000 1-30-03; Democratic National Committee $26,000 6-29-05; Young Democrats of America $2,500 1-18-02; Emily’s List $2,000 5-20-02; Emily’s List $1,000 3-22-04.
For good measure Roberta also joined in. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $26,700 12-5-05.
elizabeth the partial birth abortion procedure is pretty anti social and receives strong support from many in the Democratic Party.
There is a difference between what someone should be paid and what he or she is paid. Lets just say that Roberta is paid $50,000 a year. Then she spent over half of her yearly income in one check for $26,700.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
thinkright:
The reason that Pederson calls himself ‘independent’ is to follow through on what he said right before that that he doesn’t care if Republicans have an idea. He is contrasting himself from the traditional partisan back and forth in Washington where people are more interested in denying the other party a victory than they are in solving problems.
His other point is even more blunt. Look at his slogan:
He’ll be nobody’s Senator but ours.
In this, the year of Jack Abramoff and numerous other Washington corruption scandals, Pederson is pointing out that 1) he is too rich to be bought with money, and 2) he is largely self financing his campaign because then he won’t ‘owe’ anybody anything. Jon Kyl, who has been in Washington either as an intern, a staffer, a lobbyist a Congressman or a Senator for his entire adult life, has by now become such a slave of the system that even if he wanted to change, he could not. Not only because he has lived inside the beltway for so long (even for a time as a kid, when his dad was a Congressman) that to him the people at the Cato institute represent ‘middle America,’ but because all this distortion has been financed with big money, and those who have been paying it expect something in return.
The big special interests that have paid Kyl a ton of campaign cash and given him numerous paid trips, meals and other perks to vote against the interests of the people of Arizona on everything from negotiating prescription drug prices to allowing warning labels on food, now have him so far in both monetary and other kinds of debt that they own his soul.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
espo:
You are right there.
I was in New Mexico when Jeff Bingaman first ran against incumbent Republican Senator Harrison “Jack” Schmitt in 1982.
Schmitt ran some apparently devastating negative ads that attacked Bingaman’s role (then as state A.G.) in a couple of cases. The ads were lies. Bingaman stood up and called them lies publically, and corrected the record. Schmitt looked both foolish and viscious at the same time, and his campaign never recovered. Bingaman is today running for his fourth Senate term (and the only time he was really challenged in the interim was in the Republican year of 1994, when he got an ‘attack dog’ opponent by the name of Colin McMillan, and Bingaman proved he could give it back with interest, and he won by a comfortable margin in a year when Republicans were sweeping their way through New Mexico as they were elsewhere.)
You are right, Espo, you are right– if Pederson gets the facts together and calls Kyl’s ads on the factual lies– without using the word, ‘lie’ but just correcting the record, he could really land a body blow to Kyl’s campaign– and after that, any further negative ads by Kyl would not be taken very seriously by a lot of people.
May 16th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Nice try eli. Now for a reality check. New Mexico is a Democratic state. As of April 18, 2006 the state was 49% Democrat to 33% Republican. Big shock, a Democrat won the senate race.
As of March 1, 2006 Arizona was 40% Republican to 34% Democrat. Please keep Jim in the race. It is that many fewer resources for Janet and Terry.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:46 am
Liz,
Actually, you are not correct. The co-founder of planned parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was very pro abortion. She was an unapologetic eugenicist who intended to abort as many black babies as possible. Judging by the statistics, her plan has worked out as intended. By the way, we were talking earlier about intentions being defined by results. Ted refuses to post a correction about Arpio until he arrests a smuggler. What does that mean for those who support abortion?
May 16th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Phx Kid,
You have no idea about New Mexico politics. Though registration favors dems it does not mean that it is a democratic state. It has not been a solid democratic state in years. The “Texans” that live along the eastern area of our border are DINO’s and have been for some time now. That is how Representative Pierce has won overwhelming victories in District 2. Lets not also forget Heather Wilson has won in District 1 consistently.
I dont how you can call any state Democratic when 2 out of its three congressional seats are in Republican hands. Also before you site the fact the Bill Richardson won by a decent margin remember that so did Gov. Brian Swietzer. I am not crazy enoughto call Montana a blue state. BTW if I remember correctly Bush won NM in 2004? Sounds like democratic mecca to you?
May 16th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Morg, I have not researched Emily’s List, but I would certainly feel if Ms. Sanger was, indeed, “an unapologetic eugenicist” she would also qualify as anti-social.
Arguing the merits of an issue purely on the (selective) results would tend to mean you should favor gun control (which, for all I know, you may, but I believe most conservative voters do not).
May 16th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Ruben you make some good points and I can tell that you know NM better than I do. But I still stand by my assertion that it is a Democratic state.
Bush beat Kerry by 50/49, a very slim margin of 6,000 votes. Kerry is the last person I would pick to win in NM. A stiff, aloof easterner uncomfortable with regular people. When the Democrats get a decent presidential candidate look for NM to turn blue again.
Their legislature looks to be set up differently that Arizona’s. There are 70 seats in the NM State House of Representatives. The ratio is 42 Democrats to 28 Republicans. Their senate has 42 members with a ratio of 24/18. I am sure some of those Democrats lean a little conservative and I bet some of those Republicans votes toward the middle. It still looks like a Democratic state to me.
May 16th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Phx Kid,
I know the State Legislature looks very Democratic. But the inside politics unfortunately isn’t so. The aloof ness factor of Kerry may have had a factor in Bush winning, but that would only be true if turn out in traditional Dem areas was less than normal, or the vote in those areas went more towars Bush then 2000. If you look at the returns and unfortunately I had to for my job, we lost because Republicans turned out more voters then we did. They (Republicans) did a great job energizing their base. I just think that in this case the only thing to safely say is that this state is truly a purple state. If I had to pick a trendline though it is starting to go more republican due to huge population growth in its suburbs.
Hey morg if you are reading this what unit were you in? I just got back from the sandbox myself.
May 16th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Tedski says, “prior to becoming party chairman, Pederson funded the “Fair District” initiative which ended up solidifying our gerrymandered hard right majority in the legislature, and the “Clean Elections” initiative, which made the activist-conservative candidacy of Len Munsil [and other right wing nuts] possible. ”
But elizabeth says, “we like clean elections and want to keep it.”
Nothing quite like masochism, is there? It’s no wonder the Democratic Party will never get anywhere in this state.
May 16th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
PhxKid: Intact dilation and extraction is generally done in extreme cases in the third trimester and per Roe v Wade: (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. A ban on the procedure that does not include these two exceptions is unconstitutional and why I, for one, happen to be against the medically inaccurate Partial Birth Abortion Ban. As you should know, I dislike abortions but feel that I have no right to tell another woman how to live her life or her has to bear a child she does not want. As for other Dems who are pro-choice, ask them why they support a woman’s choice to have or not have a child at any given point in her life.
Also my point about housework pay is that a woman who does housework might not be paid a salary like you are at your outside the house job, but she works none the less and so would presumably get some compensation for that from a spouse. Part of that compensation could be money that she choses to spend on candidates.
Morg, my prefered name derivitive is Beth or Lizzy.
As for Margaret Sanger being a pro-abortion person, she actually was anti-abortion out of concern for the mother after seeing the result of botched illegal ones as a midwife. She also believed that to reduce abortions, women should have full access to birth control methods such as diaphrams and eventually the pill.
She was however a strong advocate of Eugenics to remove the chances of children born who would lead disadvantaged lives (in other words the handicapped) or in her words in 1932: “A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” As such she has been repeatedly taken out of context to prove that she was pro-abortion/racist by the anti-choice movement.
She was responsible for the first clinic to be opened in Harlem to serve black women with proper medical care and was recognized by various figures of the Civil Rights movement to have been a help rather then someone who was trying to prevent blacks from achiving equality in America.
May 16th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Hey Bored, everyone in D17 likes Clean Elections…in fact both sides are using it!
May 16th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Sirocco, Sanger was only “antisocial” in the sense that she rejected the established order on birth control and abortion. Eugenics was not such a dirty word as it is now. Her legacy, Planned Parenthood, is achieving her goals beyond her wildest dreams. So, are you saying Planned Parenthood is anti-social?
It was Ted who suggested results are the only things that count as opposed to stated intent. I’m agnostic on the point. But, you libs need to huddle and be consistent for credibility sake.
I absolutely am against gun control. The results of gun control are negative. Have you not read the work of John Lott, Law Prof at Yale (no less) author or “More Guns, Less Crime”?
Ruben, most recently, I was the Executive Officer of the 5th EAMS at Al Mubarak.
Lizzy, do you agree that partial birth abortion is simply infanticide? Is that really better than adoption? Margaret Sanger would be proud of your defense of her eugenic ideals and even segregation. So, count Lizzy as a eugenics/segregation advocate. Any of you other Dems want to fess up? By the way Sanger also said blacks were like weeds and had a “Harlem Project” and a “Negro Project”. She specifically targeted them along with Eastern Europeans like Ted.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Morg: Ask the women who get intact dilation and extractions. *I* cannot decide for ANY woman what to do about her life or her pregnancy. That is not my right, nor for that matter yours. But I am sure you would have no issue demanding an answer out of a woman who had one regardless of her feelings on the matter.
And pointing out that yes Margaret Sanger was a Eugencist and quoting her exact words (and the year said) does not indicate endorsement of such ideals. It does however show a respect for the truth that you unfortunately do not seem to have.
Please do not impose beliefs on me that I have not stated I have. Thank you.
May 16th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Now I dont know much about Marget Sanger and I am not well versed on the feminine Mystique but I still think that being Pro Choice is generally a good policy. I mean it gives choices for difficult situations that we can not account for such as rape, health reasons, who knows what else. The “choice” is not always abortion, the choice I am sure is more often then not is going through with the pregnancy.
Abortion should not be used as a contraceptive, but should be available as a last resort.
As for Planned Parenthood does anyone really think here that we should not have the pill available for women to use? That is the next target after abortion. Planned Parenthood in some areas is the only distributor of the pill. If some women do not get the pill and get pregnant aren’t we increasing the possibility that an abortion may take place?
Marget Sanger may have been a heinous bitch and her goals may have been even worse, but that should not taint the resultant organization. If that was true then there are many organizations that we would have to discount today.
Thanks all
May 17th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Morg,
I am aware the term eugenics didn’t have the same negative context pre-WW2 it has obtained post-WW2. Regardless, in modern context (and we are talking modern context, correct? We’re not making political decisions based on the era of the 1930’s?) anyone arguing seriously in favor of eugenics would be deemed anti-social.
Concerning the use of selective results as the sole means of determining a policy’s value, I certainly wouldn’t use this standard. Regardless of your agnosticism on the subject, you attempted to appply it to the argument in question, and are incorrect in doing so.
(I feel no need to huddle with anyone on the matter, liberal or otherwise — selecting some subset of data and drawing conclusions solely based upon that supset is incorrect by any standard).
Finally I havem in fact, read More Guns, Less Crime. The model the author’s used for their study was so deeply flawed as to make their results completely meaningless.
If I recall corrctly (it’s been some years), the model predicted the means by which most significantly decrease the homicide rate was to decrease the number of older (50+?) black women in a neighborhood. Such a conclusion is laughable on the face of it, and is simply one piece of evidence of the model’s flaws. I am sure detailed analysis of it can be easily found.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
sirocco,
I agree. The eugenicist, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was anti-social in both her own historical context as well as ours for different reasons. Planned Parenthood delivers on her anti-social eugenic goals without stating overtly that they favor such outcomes. They simply quietly go on aborting an extremely disproportionate number of black babies while liberals provide all the political protection they need.
Also, you misunderstood the discussion. It was Ted who asserted that results are the only valid gage of intention as opposed to rhetoric. “Selective results” never entered into it. Again, I call for a liberal huddle.
A liberal huddle is necessary because on both points you think you are refuting me without realizing you are reinforcing me. It shows that my conservative label is your only concern and that’s consistent with liberals across the board.
I’ll take your word that you read “More Guns Less Crime”. However, you obviously lost all the data. I recommend you re-read it as your assessment of it is on Pluto.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Lizzy,
I guess I am at a loss for why you are now upset with me. You just agreed that Margaret Sanger is a eugenicist. Your own post was offered as proof of her good intentions. I don’t dispute your quote. It simply says that, like Hitler, Ms Sanger wanted the rest of the gene pool to benefit from the extermination of a minority group. The fact that you posted the quote can only be taken to mean that you are sympathetic and are helping me understand why. Otherwise you would have simply joined me in condemning her and Planned Parenthood. No?
As for Partial Birth abortion, I would never demand anything of a mother who chose to abort her baby. I would say that killing infants is a shocking and obviously immoral thing to do and it ought to be a crime even if their feet are still in the birth canal.
Why is it that you have no sympathy for the individual who is murdered? Bear in mind, this question is only applicable to partial birth abortion. I take no position beyond that procedure.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
ruben, my brother in arms, I sense there is a Republican in you fighting to get out. COME TOWARD THE LIGHT RUBEN! COME TOWARD THE LIGHT!
You have obviously bought into the leftwing propaganda. It’s understandable. It’s on every broadcast news channel. Here is the deal: birth control is never going to be taken away. Only a tiny minority wants that and half of them are liberal Catholics. Also, abortion in the case of rape and incest is ok with 95% of the American people as a whole and probably 90% of Republicans.
Now ask yourself this: Do you really want to affiliate yourself with poeple who think it’s a good thing that 1 in 4 pregnancies is aborted and those abortions are disproportionately minority babies? Aborting and preventing minority babies was the stated goal of the founder of Planned Parenthood, the primary abortion provider? Do you know what partial birth abortion is?
Ask yourself this: will the pool of unskilled, uneducated, minority laborers in the country be better off if the market is flooded with cheap labor from Mexico? Who is trying to slow the flow? It ain’t Democrats my friend. They need poor minorities to stay that way so that they can become dependent on the state and vote reliably for Democrats who will keep giving them handouts enough to stay poor and dependent.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Ruben, you are right, the attack is on Griswald v CT because apparently even married couples cannot make private family decisions.
And not every woman can take the pill, it has some nasty side affects. That said, women AND men should be responsible regarding sex and if a woman has unprotected sex she should have access to OTC Plan B.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Actually Morg, you accused me of being something I am not simply because I was pointing out exactly what Ms. Sanger actually said and the context of her statements. Telling the truth does not indicate an endorsement of anyone else’s ideas. It means that I refuse to let someone twist words into lies. I would do the same with George W. Bush and would expect you to not accuse me of being a non-rich white person hating warmongering neo-con who favors incompetence.
You also are overreacting to my polite way of asking you to not impose beliefs on me that I have not stated. Per Ted’s request that we be nice to you, I am being polite.
As for the individual, I do support the individual-the woman. I trust that she is making the right decision since *I* again, do not have to deal with the results of her pregnancy. I never said I liked it and in fact have stated I dislike abortion.
Also, you are imposing beliefs on others with your claim that all Dems/Liberals are happy with 1 in 4 pregnancies (which based on the recent stats from the CDC is more like 1 in 6) ending in abortion. Women do not have access to contraception in the same way that men do (you can just put on a condom) nor is ours always covered by medical plans. In addition, Hillary Clinton (who you may or may not hate for reasons that you should explain if you do hate her) and Harry Reid both have sponsered legislation that would require medical insurance plans to cover birth control pills (for those women who are lucky enough to be able to stand it) the same way that they cover Viagra.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Lizzy,
So you were offering me the quote as a correction to my misquote? What makes you think I had that quote in mind? In case you didn’t know, there is more than one quote that makes Sanger a eugenicist.
So, once and for all, you seem to agree that Sanger was a eugenicist who founded Planned Parenthood in order to limit the propagation of the black race. Do you also agree that the abortions provided by Planned Parenthood are disproportionately targeting black babies?
Why do you totally disregard the life of the child in partial birth abortion? You seem unwilling to even mention it in your posts. That’s very interesting to me. What could that mean?
As far as imposing beliefs on you, I am doing no such thing. We are having a discussion. Those who keep partial birth abortion legal are permitting the imposition of beliefs and the act of murder. I may “attribute” beliefs to you by deduction from your statements that you may not hold . It is up to you to explain what is accurate. You cannot simply dismiss my deduction by claiming, wrongly, that I “impose” anything on you.
If you rebut my assertion that Sanger is a eugenicist, I naturally deduce that you either don’t have a problem with it or you don’t believe it to be true. Neither of these outcomes constitutes an imposition of belief on you.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Lizzy,
Why do we impose our values on someone when they kill a baby that is 3 days past birth? Maybe we should not force them to raise the child. Have you ever raised a child? I have a 3 year old and let me tell you it is a lot of work. Maybe we should not force that on people if the do not want it and let them just kill the kid in the name of personal choice and convenience. What is the difference between that and pulling a little girl out of the womb by her feet, piercing her scull with scissors, and then sucking out her brains? I am sorry I am just missing the distinction.
Why are drugs illegal? Why is the speed limit set the way it is?
Why is it that so many Democrats want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens but are all for freedom of choice when it comes to killing babies in the womb?
May 17th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Morg,
Sorry I have seen the dark side. Six years in the infantry and lots of attempts of indoctrination by biased officers did not work then nor will anything work now.
As for aligning myself with “people who think it is good to kill 1 in 4 children” That is way off base. Abortion is a horrible thing, and as a Catholic I consider it to be a grave sin. Democrats do not “like” abortion we are realistic in understanding that it is unfortunately necessary at times. In regards to life and death late term abortions they should be illegal unless the life and health of a woman is at risk.
Contraceptives may are the next targets of the
christian radical right. The proof can be seen in how they have stacked the FDA with idealogues who ignore science to call the pill dangerous.
More importantly what makes me a Democrat is taking care of the “unskilled labor pool” in this country. Immigration right now is just the latest straw man put up by Republicans. If they wanted to fix it they could. They are in charge of the Senate, House, and the Presidency. It wont change because at the end of the day the Republican party will always go back to its mistress the business lobby. They run the show now and always have been. How else does one explaining the bi polar policy we have towards Cuba and China. We impose barriers on countries that do not have religious freedoms but the worst offender China who has jailed and executed Christians we continue to ship our jobs to. Not only do we let them have our jobs but we have a tax incentive to ship jobs overseas. Yep definetly not crossing over to the dark side. Thanks for the invite though.
Semper Fi,
May 18th, 2006 at 2:40 am
ruben, open your mind brother, just for a moment. You are right that many Republicans are too single minded about supporting business. You should recognize though that this support is to the benefit of the working underclass in most cases. Growing the economy is the best way to give every poor person a chance to work and pay their bills. Democrats want you to be dependent on their handouts and become in the process a reliable Dem voter. Republicans want you to work and take care of yourself and be free owing nothing to anyone. This is what they mean when they say “ownership society”. The Dem version is simply modern slavery. The Republican version is freedom.
I say “happy” with abortion because such a large segment of abortions go to married middle class couples. There is no restriction on it. There is no reason to have third trimester abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake. The reason the “health” of the mother is too big a loophole for many Republicans is because in states where limits are placed on late abortions, they are ineffective. The number one reason cited for these late term abortions is “depression”.
May 18th, 2006 at 6:20 am
Morg,
I haven’t researched the stats, so I will stipulate to their being a disproportionate number of minority abortions as opposed to white. While this may have the effect of seeming to promote Ms. Sanger’s original eugenic notions, I would imagine it’s a statistical side-effect, explainable by other variables (such as, a disproportionate number of minorities suffering from poverty are poor, or a disproportionate number of teen-age minorities are having children).
As to the question of results being the only true measure of rhetoric, regardless of who originated the idea, you apply it when implying Planned Parenthood somehow supports a eugenic agenda.
Finally, regarding “more Guns, Less Crime”, the interpretation of the data is not original to me. A number of critiques at the time pointed out devastating statisical flaws in the model the authors used, and the example I gave was one of the logical outcomes of the model.
The reason the one example I gave sticks in my mind was I found it interesting enough to actually work through the math myself — their model really _did_ imply the means to achieve the greatest reduction in violent crime was to lower the number of older black women in a neighborhood. There were a number of other major issues as well.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Morg,
I did take the time to do a little poking around to try to find references to the original critiques I read. I couldn’t find them, but did find some new ones:
Summarizing the high points:
Using Lott’s model, but extending the data through to 2000, a pair of researchers showed no statistical decrease in violent crime, and an increase in proprtyy crime, in states with “shall issue” laws.
Lott later claimed the new data actually supported his initial claims, but this was achieved only by his changing the model.
The same researchers pointed out numerous coding errors in Lott’s data, which he initially denied, but later admitted. Including the corrected codes, Lott’s initial claims were invalidated. He was able to restore his results only by changing the model (see above).
He may have committed academic fraud by making reference to a survey which was never actually completed.
For the above and other stuff, reference:
http://timlambert.org/lott/
Further, the entire concept of econometric modeling as a means of considering social issues is in increasing disrepute among social scientists. For a brief summary as to why, you might see:
http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm
The views of the author seem admittedly liberal, but his analysis of the problems of econometric models in general, and the Lott and Mustard model in particular, are entirely correct.
You can find the original Ayers and Donohue 2002 counter-study at:
http://www.guncite.com/lott_more_papers.html
(There is also a Lott response to an earier review by Ayers and Donahue, as well as a number of other academic papers on the matter, both for and against the Lott analysis. The majority of later papers, using extended data, conclude the original analysis by Lott and Mustard is flawed. Note I have only read the abstracts so far.).
Finally, the following:
http://timlambert.org/2003/07/0728/
Has links to a number of articles (including many of the same ones) nicely organized to indicate those which support Lott’s original findings, and those which seem to indicate against it. In particular, it includes the 2002 Ayers/Donohue study, Lott’s 2003 response, and the Ayers/Donohue counter-response. I have only just skimmed these three, but the 2003 Ayer/Donohue paper is pretty convincing at first glance.
Anyhow, if “More Guns, Less Crime” is the basis of your belief that increasing gun access decreases violent crime, it’s a poor foundation to rely on.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Morg,
I agree with you hand outs are bad. Please tell the Republicans to stop the welfare checks to the oil business, Halliburton, and many other groups. I like the idea of an expanding economy and more jobs for the poor. Welfare never lifts anyone out of poverty, but the poor did the best under Clinton. Our economy is not doing well today. Working men and women, your middle class America can barely make ends meet. These tax cuts have not helped middle america. Shipping job overseas does not help middle America.
More importantly to me I am a Union Democrat. The Republicans have always tried to destroy Unions. A union job is the only way a decent hard working man or woman could have honorable pay for hardwork. Since moving to this state, and looking at the poor craftmanship of the housing I would highly recommend going union. Besides a strong union would keep out all those scary brown people that are clamoring to our shores for the bountiful welfare state that we have set up here.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
sirocco,
So, you seem to be agreeing with me that Ted should post a correction to his suggestion that Arpio only wants to imprison “migrants” and not smugglers simply because he has not yet arrested a smuggler. Great!
With regard to Lott’s analysis, you’re attempt to represent your understanding of the statistical methods he used is very poor. I am quite embarrassed for you. Your translation of the wikipedia entry could not have been more transparent. You worked through the math yourself to untangle Lott’s multifactorial regression analysis??? OK pal. Had you done that in fact, you would not have produced such an incoherent representation of what you read in wikipedia.
I’ll tell you what. Post your work on that and I’ll take a look at it. If it jibes, I’ll post a retraction.
It’s time for you to do some soul searching my friend. If you find that you have to fib to dispose of an argument, maybe there is a problem with your beliefs…why is the Dem party so riddled with dishonesty? That should really give you pause.
Ordinarily, I would not be so blunt. Unfortunately, you leave me no alternative.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Ruben,
I want to help you man…help me help you!
Do you see GM and Ford? They have been killed by unions. Is their death good for workers? Hardly.
Lower the cost of doing business and business grows. More demand means higher wages. More supply (immigration) means lower wages.
Don’t get so hung up on labels. That is the propaganda of the fat-cats manipulating you into being “union” or “democrat”. Take a second and realize that the “enemy” “conservatives” actually want what is best for the little guy and business together. Libs want dependents.
Malcom X said that welfare was “heroine”. He was right. Read Booker T. Washington’s philosophy. He was a conservative through and through.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Morg,
I hadn’t seen the Wiki entry, thanks for pointing it out. I gathered all my references off Google searches this morning, and nicely pointed them out to you for your own perusal and evaluation.
Before this morning, I was recalling things from memory. The article I initially read sometime in 1999 or 2000 was in a Journal, but I don’t recall where.
As for the math, at the time I was working on some statistical modeling software for a research lab at UMC, so I had enough background in it to work through the calculations made by others — I already noted the critiques were not original to me.
If you can’t answer the criticisms made in the various links I gave you, or if you are incapable of following the papers therein, please don’t resort to accusing me of prevarication. Please read them (particulary the 2003 Ayers/Donohue article) and then provide support for Lott’s argument. I have not found anything printed after that article which provides substantial support for Lott’s position.
Regardless of my personal capabilities (or lack thereof), others, who understand the data far better than either you or I, have done a pretty good job of pointing out the flaws in Lott’s model.
You, sir, are behaving like an ass. Ordinarily I would not be so blunt. Unfortunately, you leave me no alternative.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Ahhh … having now read the Wiki article, I see where your thoughts come from. It references the same example I gave (although apparently it’s black woman 40+, not 50+, so memory was slightly off), and also points out another significant predictive flaw in Lott’s model (that if you both raise the level of unemployment and reduce income you get a reduction in the violent crime rate).
I do see the link to the Dec. 1998 New England Journal of Medicine summary, but that’s not what I recall reading. There was a more scholarly analysis which pointed out several predictions which logically followed from the model, but which were clearly not supported by real world data.
You’re still an ass.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Morg,
As a final P.S., yes, I do agree it’s too much to claim Arpio only wishes to arrest migrants and not smugglers, as I do not believe enough data points exist yet.
If a fair bit of time passes and migrants continue to be arrested while smugglers are not, then that conclusion might be inferred. Currently, it’s too soon to do so, IMO.
You, of course, are equally free to retract your (incorrect) inference that Planned Parenthood implements a eugenic agenda. Not that I expect you to do so.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Guys…could we keep it civil…this is getting almost as bad as the “Anyone that doesn’t support my CD8 Candidate is a Fascist” arguments.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Tedski,
My sincere apologies, to both you and Morg. I should not have allowed myself to be provoked so childishly.
Anyone who doesn’t support Giffords in CD8 is a Fascist! (joke! joke!)
May 19th, 2006 at 2:57 am
sure, I’m sorry too.
Tell me, what is the ratio of black abortions in this country to that of white abortions as a percentage of their respective populations? You have brought us back full circle. And are about to demonstrate for me Dem hipocracy. Either Ted posts a retraction about Arpio or you Dems admit to PP eugenic goals. The linkage was Ted’s.
You guys go huddle. I’ll be over here.
May 19th, 2006 at 7:22 am
Morg,
First, you make a logical fallacy in stating either Ted must print a retraction, or I have to admit PP is eugenic. Ted is, of course, free to apply his model to Arpio’s actions, and apparently his model predicts Arpio’s arrest pattern will significantly under-represent smugglers. We’ll have to see what actually happens to see how accurate the prediction is.
Doing more research for you in some limited time, I sound the following informative paper:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3422602.html
The upshot, relying on fairly recent data, the authors find the following abortion rates:
Black 49/1000
Hispanic 33/1000
Asian 31/1000
White 13/1000
A pretty significant difference. A large part of this seems to be accountable via poverty (the poor have far higher abortion rates, and more blacks are poor; however, the authors do note blacks have a higher abortion rate across the income spectrum). Also, blacks have far higher pregnancy rate:
Black 115/1000
White 73/1000
Anyhow, looking at table 3 some more, and applying some basic math, we get the following for pregnancies carried to term:
Black 74/1000
White 60/1000
Which implies if the Planned Parenthood “eugenic agenda” is to “promote the master race” it’s failing, as blacks are increasing their numbers as a percentage of their base population at a faster rate than whites are.
This conclusion is supported by raw data found here:
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Journalists/FAQ/Questions/U_S__Birth_Rates.htm
Which clearly shows a greater percentage of black women are carrying their pregnancies than white woman are. (Table, pg. 13)
I suppose one could still argue PP does have eugenic intent, it’s simply incompetent at it.
I eagerly await the retraction of your implication PP practices eugenics.
Oh, in poking around this morning I also stumbled on the following 1992 American Spectator article:
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/american-spectator_eugenics.html
Which discusses Sanger and her eugenic ideas. I suspect you have already read it, but if not I thought you might be interested.
Finally, since you fail to address either the predictive issues in Lott’s models or Lott’s on personal credibility issues which have come to light since 2000 (all referenced through the links I provided), I am presuming you are no longer relying on Lott as the definitive and final source for all data regarding gun-related issues.
By the way, one concession to Lott — his data does apparently show (and Ayers and Donohue, as well as other researchers, independently confirm) that, contrary to the expections of gun-control proponents (certainly contrary to my expectations) that making concealed-gun permits more available does NOT lead to any statistically significant increase in violent crime either. (Of course, Lott’s claim was it DID lead to significant reduction of violent crime, which is appaarently not the actual case).
… and I think that’s it. I have spent way too much time yesterday and this morning looking this stuff up … although to be fair, a lot of the Lott stuff was actually kind of funny, in a sad sort of way.
May 20th, 2006 at 4:51 am
sirocco,
So, you don’t think you would be inconsistent to support Ted for using Arpio’s results as a means of gauging his intentions while criticizing me for doing the exact same with Planned Parenthood? It’s logic like this that makes you a Democrat my friend.
Furthermore, you are again exposing yourself as a pure partisan with no connection to facts, logic and honesty when you assert that I put Lott to you as “the definitive and final source for all data regarding gun-related issues”.
This is a symptom of the Democrat disease. Do anything to win. If you go in with the A priori belief that you hold the moral high ground in all cases, then facts, data, logic and intellectual honesty are dispensable tools on the way to achieving the greatest good of acquiring power. This is why Dems rallied to Clinton but Reps sacrificed Lott. This is why Dems see no problem with Ray Nagen but Reps sacrificed Newt. This is why Jackson and Sharpton are taken seriously by the left but David Duke is an outcast on the right.
You earned an ounce of respect when you admitted that the Lott data showed no increase in violent crime. I am re-evaluating the data for myself, but it will take time. I’m not just going to list links from my google search…ahem. Show me that you are an open minded person and I will continue the debate with you.
While I look for more information on the Lott data. Why don’t you explain to me why my wife should be denied the ability to defend herself against a rapist as she leaves work after dark. Does she have the right not to be raped? Remember, open mindedness and intellectual honesty are the only things that can move me to your side of the argument. If your argument is logical, I have no problem giving you props.
May 20th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Sirocco,
Please address the below information. As you can see from the summary, Black and Nagin are effectively dealt with. Don’t be fooled by the volume of disagreement on the net. Focus on the quality. Lott’s work has generated a firestorm because it undermines the conventional wisdom on guns. Also, one of the ways people like Lott are silenced is by talking over him. Whether on a talk-show or in volume of poorly done academic studies, the tactic is the same.
So, show me your open-mindedness and intellectual honesty in your response to the below. Ask yourself, why did the Wiki entry only make reference to the “older black woman” finding and not to the fact that it required the authors discard the vast majority of available data in order to arrive at it. Could it be the disease that causes people to discard truth for the sake of a partisan win?
http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html
Debate between Lott and Douglas Weil of Handgun Control Inc.
Lott points out that Black and Nagin excluded from their test any county of population <100,000 which is 86% of the US. They then went even further when they found the case un-weakened and excluded the entire state of Florida, a concealed carry state.
http://reason.com/9808/bk.polsby.shtml
Daniel D. Polsby is Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law at Northwestern University.
Polsby does a great job of making no prediction as to the final outcome of the debate but states that Lott’s thoroughness is a model for academic debate and wishes his critics would be as thorough and detailed in their responses. His final statements actually suggests the OK Corral scenario that makes common gun ownership unacceptable may be around the corner. To me this indicates he is on the left side of the debate but is intellectually honest enough to admit that Lott’s numbers and conclusions are sound at this point in time.
http://reason.com/0108/fe.re.the.shtml
Written debate between Lott and Robert Ehrlich George Mason University Physicist. Ehrlich is knowledgeable of Black and Nagin’s work, referring to it but fails to reinforce it or endorse it as part of his own assault. Lott effectively and compellingly deals with all of Ehrlich’s statistical criticisms.
May 20th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Morg,
I can criticize you for the PP attack as you have disavowed the method, yet still chosen to use it. Ted has not disavowed the method. You are trying to have it both ways.
Ted is not.
I did exagerrate your mention of Lott, primarily since you had not yet responded to the matter. It remains true, however, he was the only source you provided, and his work is no longer largely credited academically.
Concerning your wife, you posit a false delimma — assuming your spouse is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal past, there is nothing even under proposed gun-control laws which would prevent her from getting a permit to carry a gun, or even (in most states) from getting a concealed-weapon permit. It simply wouldn’t be quite as easy as it is now for any Tom, Dick or Harry to get a gun on the spur of the moment, at a gun show for example.
Regarding the articles you present — first, thanks for taking the time to look them up, I appreciate he references. However, I think there is a misunderstanding about the timeline.
The Lott-Weil debates dates to July 1, 1998.
The Polsby article dates to the Aug./Sep. 1998 issue of Reason magazine.
The Lott-Ehrlich debate dates to Aug./Sep. 2001 issue of Reason magazine.
Remember, in 1998 Lott’s book had just come out, debate had sprung up and his data and model really hadn’t been thoroughly reviewed yet.
By 2001 there were already critiques of his data, and another model had been created with explained the same data trends without finding any linkage to more liberalized concealed weapon permits. However, at this time Lott’s model was as good as any other theory out there.
Without doing a lot more reading than I plan to do I can’t comment seriously on the Lott-Ehrlich papers. Given that, I will stipulate that Lott is correct in all points there, although I will comment that seems extremely unlikely, since even in my fast overview I see in the section where Lott discusses Ehrlich’s claim “Overall, averaging the 10 states, there is a small but not statistically significant increase in the robbery rate at t=0, certainly not the dramatic decrease Lott’s fits show.”, subsequent later studies have borne out Ehrlich rather than Lott.
Regardless, as late as 2001 Lott’s model was still the leading edge of research, as far as I can tell.
The real damage to Lott’s thesis came in a series of papers from 2002-2003, in which studies using data extended through 2000 found no statistically significant evidence to support Lott’s central claim that liberalizing concealed-weapons permits. Lott made several attempts to incorporate the new data sets into his model, but has not been unable to do so successfully in any paper I have seen.
There is one subsequent paper out, by Lott himself, titled:
Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs
which I would like to read. It dates from 2004, and from the abstract is a response to the criticisms people raised about his work. Unforunately, I haven’t found a freely available copy of it yet, although I’ll keep poking around a bit.
Anyhow, yes, in 1998-2001, the time period from which everything note dates from, Lott’s work was still well-considered, if controversial. From 2003 to present, it appears aceptace of his model has generally waned, and it is no longer even particularly controverisal.
The current consensus seems to be that if you take Lott’s model, and apply it to other data sets, it certainly doesn’t work (which means it is not robust or predictive).
May 21st, 2006 at 4:23 am
No, actually I don’t think outcomes are the only validator of intentions. PP is simply a very good way of illustrating that point. As to whether PP has an actual eugenic agenda, I’m sure that it has never come up at a meeting post WWII. Of course there are people who support and work in the organization who do it for ugly reasons. I buy your back of the envelope analysis on the number breakout and I buy the rationales you used for the statistical outcomes showing disproportionate black representation.
Here’s the thing, Ted and Democrats generally, take statistical outcomes that show negative outcomes for minorities as proof positive of other people’s and institution’s racism. Whether it’s affirmative action or discrimination litigation in employment or banking or sheriff Arpio’s posse, liberals pin nefarious motives to any negative statistical outcome. It is one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. It is why liberals tend to be supportive of institutional racism like affirmative action and conservatives are not. It is why socialism/communism is still strongly supported by liberals. Negative outcomes are something that liberals want to eliminate. Fairness to a liberal is equal outcome not equal opportunity. So, I’ve been simply illustrating the absurdity of this position by staking out the same territory on a liberal sacred cow.
So, can I count on you to fight against affirmative action and all the litigation nonsense in employment and banking etc. where liberals trumpet disproportionate statistical outcomes as justification?
May 21st, 2006 at 5:19 am
Sirocco,
Your last post was excellent. I felt you really strove to stay within the bounds of what is reasonable and honest. Thanks for that.
I think with regard to the specific statistical problem you mentioned from the Ehrlich debate you should find Lott’s rebuttal satisfactory. He details the fact that he used a more comprehensive data set and appropriately compared it to non-carry states. This produces twice as much positive impact than without comparison to non-carry states as with Ehrlich’s approach.
I understand your impression of the timeline of the debate and your feeling that it’s outcome does not favor Lott in later years. However, look at it through the eyes of a conservative. There are a hundred cheesy politically motivated academic studies to every one rigorous study. The true test of a supposedly debunking study is to allow both authors to debate and defend their numbers. Hence my links to two debates. In a vacuum any study author can claim virtually any results, as you know, by being deceptive and selective with their numbers and methods. The truth however is somewhere in those numbers.
So, to convince me that Lott’s numbers and conclusions are bad. You must show me the specific contradicting study and give Lott an opportunity to defend himself against it.
I’ll settle for specific reference to the study you believe best debunks Lott. I think you can agree at this point that Black and Nagin can’t cut the Mustard at this point…get it? Mustard! I crack myself up.
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:06 am
Morg,
I have already published the links you ask for. The academic exchange between Ayers/Donohue and Lott in 2002-03, particuarly the final paper by Ayers/Donohue, punches pretty gaping holes in the Lott/Mustard model.
Lott has had several years to respond, but has not done so in any academic manner. Given his history of fast response to criticism, that speaks volumes in itself. (Note: He certainly has defended his findings in op-ed pieces, on his personal web-site, etc., but as there a no standards of evidence applied here, your comment about results in a vacuum really does apply).
Further, a detailed 2004 NRC study by some of the leading experts in econometrics found no statistically significant data to indicate concealed-cary laws influenced violent crime rates in either direction. This specifically contradicts Lott/Mustard’s findings, but agrees with Donohue/Ayers.
Side note - one member of the panel did have a limited dissent with this finding. Dr. James Wilson of UCLA felt there was evidence of lowering of murder rates, butnot any other formof violent crime. This still largely refutes the Lott/Mustard findings, although lowering murder rates can’t be a bad thing. However, the other 15 panel members didn’t even agree with this limited finding.
The full NRC paper (Chapter 6 is the most relevant) is at:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/
It’s quite long and detailed. If you prefer, you can find a brief summary here:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091241?OpenDocument
Note Lott, as well as others, was allowed to make a presentation to the panel during it’s research, so he certainly had a chance to present and defend his work.
It should also be noted twice in this period, once in his response to Ayers/Donohue and again in his presentation to the NRC panel, Lott presented data which he purpoted supported his claim liberalizing concealed-carry laws lessened the incidence of violent crime. Both times his data was found to include hundreds of coding errors which, when fixed, caused his findings to disappear (i.e., they became statistically meaningless).
Finally, if you really believe only public debate settles academic questions, then you must also feel the earth is flat, the sun travels around the earth (actually, for this one there _was_ public debate, and Galileo lost), that an atom can’t be split, and a host of other incorrect beliefs.
The most common form of academic debate comes from an exchange of papers and the analysis of data sets and methods. In this forum, Lott has certinaly lost the debate.
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:49 am
Sirocco,
You were doing so well. Why did you have to go and get all snotty again?
So, the world’s not flat? Then how come we don’t fall off, if you’re so smart?!
When I said:
“The true test of a supposedly debunking study is to allow both authors to debate and defend their numbers.”
You read:
“The ONLY valid way to debunk a study is a public debate…” and called me names. Hmmm.
Very well, I’ll get back to you on Ayers Donohue.
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:06 am
Sirocco,
Soooooo, one more time, can I count on you to fight against affirmative action and all the litigation nonsense in employment and banking etc. where liberals trumpet disproportionate statistical outcomes as justification?
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:12 am
Sirocco,
Oh by the way, a “debate” is not necessarily two people standing behind a podium. It is also what your described as an academic exchange / peer review. Had you read my linked material at reason was just such a “debate”. Only the Time stuff was the other form…
May 23rd, 2006 at 6:38 am
Morg,
I did read your linked material. That’s how I noted the one Lott response to Ehrlich which has since clearly been shown to be incorrect.
Anyhow, my point was most academic matters aren’t resolved in a debate even in that sense, where both sides are requested to submit papers to the same journal. Generally they are resolved through a proponderance of research over time. The point remains — if your standard to be convinced is some form of public debate (and by public debate I was including papers such as those you linked too), that’s a standard which rarely applies. I was trying to point out the silliness of it. Obviously I don’t think you hold either of those views.
While looking at Ayers/Donohue, you should look at the NRC report too. It’s lengthy, detailed, and seems right now to be the definitive set of findings in the field.