U.S. Politics, 6

[BloodRider]

He's been a scumbag for well over 20 years.

I believe he said in this context.

You seem to think that a rational person's objections with Beck are against him as a person. You are wrong. It is against the thing he says and the things he does. What Lord Caspen is asking is, what was objectionable about Sharpton's behavior in this particular context.

And do you believe in someone getting a second chance - changing their ways and all that. Because if you take him at his word, Sharpton seems to have changed.

"They're stomping on the president, saying because he's black he ought to do what we've never asked any other president to do," Mr. Sharpton said. "Bill Clinton had a poverty tour, but we never demanded that he have a black agenda tour."

Mr. Sharpton, who is 55, has begun working with Republicans, as well. He and Newt Gingrich, former House speaker, toured schools in several cities last year with Mr. Duncan, the education secretary, to promote programs to close the racial achievement gap.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Now I wouldn't give him a clean slate just yet, but until you ask Newt and Hannity to refudiate Sharpton as well, then your double standard is showing.

A lot of people in New York would argue in 1991. He was generally an interesting character and a lot of what he organized could be portrayed as defending his community, but IMO, Crown Heights was when he went too far.

Yes - that was some wrong headed stuff there. I still recall the L&O episode that wasn't based on that incident.

[jurble]

Thanks. The spelling issue doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me because Americans might pronounce those spellings the same. But pronunciation -- THAT's useful.

People in my state are horrible at pronouncing foreign names correctly. Some examples:

Lima, Ohio? Pronounced with a long "i", like in lime.

Medina, Ohio? Same thing. Long I.

Berlin, Ohio? Emphasis is on the first syllable, not the second.

I've left some out, but the worst of them all....

Versailles. Pronounced Ver-say-ills.

Amazing.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Altherion

Say what? Your last statement is not true (the probability of the tenth toss being a tail is exactly 50%, of course), but what the devil does it have to do with what I said? I never said anything about about the arson occurring at a specific point. I stated an interval (15 days) and said that within that interval, there is almost certainly going to be at least 1 arson in the general vicinity of a mosque.

Well, I don't know how else to explain it to you then. So I'll just leave you with the wiki entry: Law of Averages.

Yes. This is why I said "arson should be fairly randomly with houses of worship getting a larger share (people are more likely to go after them than, say, a water treatment plant)". They are done for all of those reasons, but the point is, with a nationwide sample, you will have a hundred or so every day and after 15 days the distribution will be fairly random with certain locations (e.g. houses of worship) more likely to be attacked.

And you don't see a contradiction in your statement? That is, that it is fairly (and what is "fairly" here, anyway?) random, but some places are more likely to be attacked? Coin toss results are fairly random, but we are more likely to get a coin landing on its tail?

Re: Email from Dept. Ed.

Yeah, if the report is accurate, I'd say that's an inappropriate use of the email in a workplace.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah, if the report is accurate, I'd say that's an inappropriate use of the email in a workplace.

Ok, assume it had only been distributed to political appointees. Are you comfortable with the Secretary of Education attending a Sharpton rally?

I ask this because I inferred from your prior post that you think supporting Beck is bad because he previously accused the President of being racist. Or at least, it's a factor that should reflect negatively on Beck to decent folk. Beck didn't make such statements at the rally, so it's based on prior statements made by him. By that standard, I can't really fathom anyone respectable associating with Sharpton. It's like he gets this weird free pass or something for all the horrible stuff he's said/done in the past, despite neither apologizing for nor retracting any of it.

[TerraPrime]

Ok, assume it had only been distributed to political appointees. Are you comfortable with the Secretary of Education attending a Sharpton rally?

I would find it inappropriate if it's sent out, and to, people's work email, regardless of the appointment status of the person.

As far as the Secretary of Education himself attending a rally, I think the line is a bit fuzzy here. This is an event that is billed as a way to honor the memory and legacy of MLK Jr., so no, I don't think this is an issue.

I ask this because I inferred from your prior post that you think supporting Beck is bad because he previously accused the President of being racist.

That, and more. Beck has never come across to me as someone too mindful of truth or facts.

Beck didn't make such statements at the rally, so it's based on prior statements made by him. By that standard, I can't really fathom anyone respectable associating with Sharpton. It's like he gets this weird free pass or something for all the horrible stuff he's said/done in the past, despite neither apologizing for nor retracting any of it.

I personally wouldn't attend a rally by Al Sharpton. I might go, however, if he's but one of many speakers. Also, in this particular case, Sharpton was reacting to Beck's rally, so I cut him some slacks on this event.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I personally wouldn't attend a rally by Al Sharpton.

Do you think the Secretary of Education should have? And do you think the President should distance himself from Sharpton in the same way you'd expect a Republican candidate to distance himself from Beck?

[Altherion]

Well, I don't know how else to explain it to you then. So I'll just leave you with the wiki entry: Law of Averages.

This is exactly the same thing as you said before and it does not apply here. I am relying on very simple probability theory and not any "law of averages". Over the course of 15 days, there will be on the order of 1200 arsons in various parts of the USA (it could be a little less or a little more -- doesn't matter). Note that 1200 is way, way outside the realm of small statistics (which your link deals with), but it doesn't actually matter here. For any given arson, there is some probability (call it p) that it will be near a mosque and my assumption was simply that this probability is not very small. I'm fairly confident in that primarily because a mosque is a house of worship (note what happens to churches), but, yes, also because Mr. Rauf et al have made what is preached there more hated than it has been in quite some time. The probability that not a single one of the arsons will be near a mosque is then around (1-p)¹²⁰⁰ and thus the probability that at least one arson will be near a mosque is 1 - (1-p)¹²⁰⁰. As long as p is not very close to zero, that is going to be very close to 1. Of course, I could have overestimated p (I didn't bother looking it up) in which case the probability of at least one arson is not that large, but I don't think so.

And you don't see a contradiction in your statement? That is, that it is fairly (and what is "fairly" here, anyway?) random, but some places are more likely to be attacked? Coin toss results are fairly random, but we are more likely to get a coin landing on its tail?

No, not at all. I'm using fairly in the sense of "moderately". What I mean by this is that the distribution is not pathological. For example, 29000 of the arsons don't happen in Wisconsin leaving the rest of the country with only 1000 and nor do 15000 of them occur exclusively within the month of June. Beyond that, there are of course going to be significant variations. For example, I'd bet that arson is less likely in affluent communities than poor ones and some locations (e.g. houses of worship) are going to get hit more than others, but it doesn't affect the argument except for determining p where it helps raise it.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Altherion

Over the course of 15 days, there will be on the order of 1200 arsons in various parts of the USA (it could be a little less or a little more -- doesn't matter).

*sighs*

This, right here, is wrong. The fact that you don't see it, is the key.

If you say, based on last year's data, there were an average of 1200 arsons over any period of 15 days, that'd be correct.

When you say, however, that because that has been about 1200 arsons over periods of 15 days in the past, therefore, there will be (or would have been) about 1200 arsons in the next 15 day period, then it's wrong.

Note that 1200 is way, way outside the realm of small statistics (which your link deals with), but it doesn't actually matter here.

It is small, compare to the 300,000 cases of arsons.

For any given arson, there is some probability (call it p) that it will be near a mosque and my assumption was simply that this probability is not very small.

This is just sloppy logic.

First, the arson in question is AT the mosque construction site, not NEAR a mosque.

Second, you are not defining what is "near" - 0.1 mile radius? 0.5 mile radios? 10 mil radius?

Third, you're assuming that the distribution of arsons matches the distribution of mosques. We know, for a fact, that the distribution of mosques is highly dependent on local population. In the metro Detroit area, where there's a high percentage of Muslims, you would expect to see more mosques. However, you would not expect that arsons to be more frequent in metro Detroit than, say, in metro Kansas City.

... also because Mr. Rauf et al have made what is preached there more hated than it has been in quite some time.

I think you are just taking the cake to lay the on-going media attention and the anti-Muslim sentiment at the doorstep of Rauf, instead of at the feet of the reactionary right-wingers. Blaming the victim might seem rational to you, but many of us are not finding it remotely acceptable.

But beyond that, if you believe, though for the wrong reasons (such as they are), that the arson is related to the current on-going controversy over the Park51 project, then why did you find fault in media report that associates the incident with the current political atmosphere? How is it that they're manipulating the story if you yourself state that the event is topical in the current political discourse?

No, not at all. I'm using fairly in the sense of "moderately". What I mean by this is that the distribution is not pathological. For example, 29000 of the arsons don't happen in Wisconsin leaving the rest of the country with only 1000 and nor do 15000 of them occur exclusively within the month of June. Beyond that, there are of course going to be significant variations. For example, I'd bet that arson is less likely in affluent communities than poor ones and some locations (e.g. houses of worship) are going to get hit more than others, but it doesn't affect the argument except for determining p where it helps raise it.

So... it's more or less random, except when it's not random. Okay, then.

[Altherion]

The Republican opinion of Obama is becoming rather amusing:

No matter what President Obama says about his religion, the debate over whether he is secretly Muslim continues to rage within the GOP. And a new poll finds that Republicans are now taking that rumor one step further. A Newsweek survey released Monday found that a majority of Republicans believe that Obama "sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world."

According to the poll, 14 percent of Republicans said that from what they knew of Obama, they thought such allegations were "definitely true"; 38 percent thought the allegations were "probably true." Meanwhile, 33 percent of Republicans thought they were "probably not true" and 7 percent thought they were "definitely not true." Asked whether Obama favors the interests of Muslim Americans over other groups of Americans, 59 percent Republicans said yes, whereas 34 percent said he has "generally been evenhanded."

Link.

When the more radical elements of the party tried to do this last election, McCain shut them down, but I don't think any of the current GOP leaders is that honorable.

[Trebla]

The Republican opinion of Obama is becoming rather amusing:

Link.

When the more radical elements of the party tried to do this last election, McCain shut them down, but I don't think any of the current GOP leaders is that honorable.

I recall he got booed at his own rally when he tried to repudiate those claims.

On the same vein, 2 patriotic souls were picketing a local post office with signs that said "IMPEACH OBAMA!" Remember the good ol' days when picketers were crazy hippy liberals. Or at least people like those picketers though so. :P

[TerraPrime]

Do you think the Secretary of Education should have? And do you think the President should distance himself from Sharpton in the same way you'd expect a Republican candidate to distance himself from Beck?

As far as the Secretary of Education himself attending a rally, I think the line is a bit fuzzy here. This is an event that is billed as a way to honor the memory and legacy of MLK Jr., so no, I don't think this is an issue.

As to your second question, I think the context is important. If they're campaigning, then I expect the politician to buddy up to some people to gain credibility with segments of the audience, but over all, I'd rather that none of our politicians associate themselves with other public figures who are known for their biases and bigotry. So, in that sense, yes, I would hope that Obama and others will have the fortitude to not involve Sharpton* in their work just as I'd prefer that the GOP leaders would distance themselves from the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.

* I actually looked around the wiki page for Sharpton and I couldn't find good links for evidence of his racism. He's certainly guilty of some of the common ailments of famous, limelight-catching figures, like tax issues. Are there specific things that Sharpton did to bring to light his racism? As far as homophobia, Sharpton has since recanted the word choices and has supported legal gay marriages.

[Lord Mord]

Altherion,

The Republican opinion of Obama is becoming rather amusing:

Link.

When the more radical elements of the party tried to do this last election, McCain shut them down, but I don't think any of the current GOP leaders is that honorable.

I have serious doubts that McCain is any longer that honorable.

[Altherion]

This, right here, is wrong. The fact that you don't see it, is the key.

If you say, based on last year's data, there were an average of 1200 arsons over any period of 15 days, that'd be correct.

When you say, however, that because that has been about 1200 arsons over periods of 15 days in the past, therefore, there will be (or would have been) about 1200 arsons in the next 15 day period, then it's wrong.

I am saying that based on the data from 1999 to 2008, there are an average of around 1200 arsons over any given period of 15 days. Why would I be saying anything about periods of 15 days in the past? 15 days is just a number I made up to get around 1000 fires -- I don't think anyone would collect data in that kind of interval.

It is small, compare to the 300,000 cases of arsons.

:bang: First, I don't know what 300,000 has to do with anything (there are 30,000 arsons per year if that's what you meant) and second, the 30,000 doesn't matter. Small statistics refers to the scale of the law of large numbers -- for all but the most pathological scenarios, 100 is generally large enough and 1000 is overkill.

This is just sloppy logic.

Yes, it is. I'm writing a message board post, not a research paper. I only put enough effort into it for it to be plausible to me. I think it is a good deal more likely to be correct than not.

First, the arson in question is AT the mosque construction site, not NEAR a mosque.

Second, you are not defining what is "near" - 0.1 mile radius? 0.5 mile radios? 10 mil radius?

Close enough for law enforcement to consider it under the house of worship law and therefore for the media to make an issue of it.

Third, you're assuming that the distribution of arsons matches the distribution of mosques. We know, for a fact, that the distribution of mosques is highly dependent on local population. In the metro Detroit area, where there's a high percentage of Muslims, you would expect to see more mosques. However, you would not expect that arsons to be more frequent in metro Detroit than, say, in metro Kansas City.

:lol: You could have chosen better examples for your last sentence, but the point is valid. Yes, I'm assuming there are not too many places where there is a large concentration of people, but not enough Muslims to have a mosque.

I think you are just taking the cake to lay the on-going media attention and the anti-Muslim sentiment at the doorstep of Rauf, instead of at the feet of the reactionary right-wingers.

The reactionary right wingers (as well as Obama, who gave this issue far more publicity than it would have had without him) are included under "et al". And it is really bizarre to hear Rauf characterized as a victim. He added insult to injury and it's not surprising at all that this angered people.

But beyond that, if you believe, though for the wrong reasons (such as they are), that the arson is related to the current on-going controversy over the Park51 project, then why did you find fault in media report that associates the incident with the current political atmosphere? How is it that they're manipulating the story if you yourself state that the event is topical in the current political discourse?

Because the ground zero mosque is a second order effect. This is mainly driven by local tensions (as Shryke pointed out, there's been opposition to this mosque for quite some time).

So... it's more or less random, except when it's not random. Okay, then.

It's a weighted random distribution. Is that really so hard to understand?

[Altherion]

I have serious doubts that McCain is any longer that honorable.

It wouldn't matter -- he no longer has that kind of authority.

[awesome possum]

So, are you on Team Stupid or Team Evil? I actually think it was a bit of a false choice. I think it's Team Stupid when discussing the viewers and the hosts, and Team Evil when it comes to the actual owners and administrators of the station.

I'd put Beck on the Team Evil list. O'Reilly dabbles in evil (when he ignores his own hypocrisy) but likes to stay on Team Stupid even though he's not the captain anymore. Hannity is Team Stupid all the way and Beck has taken over the captaincy from O'Reilly, though honestly I think he's more Team Evil. The guy absolutely knows that he spouts off filth and lies but does it anyway. Whereas O'Reilly and Hannity seem too caught up in their own clouds of noxious smug to really partake of the Team Evil antics.

The higher ups are most certainly fully fledged members of Team Evil.

But hey, times have changed, the President needs to rally his base, and Sharpton can do that. So I guess the race-baiting, jew-hating, and gay-bashing is not that important anymore.

Yeah, how dare the Democrats delve into Republican territory! The nerve of those assholes!

[Smashing Young Man]

What's with all this "evil" talk? I thought you lefties didn't believe in the concept of evil. Everything is relative; it's all in where you stand; no culture or belief system is innately better than the other; egalitarianism in all things.

I see the above sentiments expressed time and again by lefties, despite their never-ending righteous crusade against all things right-of-center. There is no creature on the face of this Earth that is as hypocritical as a lefty who preaches the former out of one side of their mouth, yet rants about the evils of the right out the other.

[DanteGabriel]

:commie:

[Lord Mord]

SYM,

I see the above sentiments expressed time and again by lefties, despite their never-ending righteous crusade against all things right-of-center. There is no creature on the face of this Earth that is as hypocritical as a lefty who preaches the former out of one side of their mouth, yet rants about the evils of the right out the other.

Well, except for the fact that it's bullshit and has no connection to reality, I'd think this post was interesting. The main problem you're facing is that you are conflating your image of liberals with all the liberals on this board. If you can realize that you fucked up there, first, then maybe you can walk this back and get yourself straightened out and make a credible attack of some kind.

[alguien]

What's with all this "evil" talk? I thought you lefties didn't believe in the concept of evil. Everything is relative; it's all in where you stand; no culture or belief system is innately better than the other; egalitarianism in all things.

I see the above sentiments expressed time and again by lefties, despite their never-ending righteous crusade against all things right-of-center. There is no creature on the face of this Earth that is as hypocritical as a lefty who preaches the former out of one side of their mouth, yet rants about the evils of the right out the other.

After reading this, I"m kinda leaning toward Team Stupid...

[awesome possum]

What's with all this "evil" talk? I thought you lefties didn't believe in the concept of evil. Everything is relative; it's all in where you stand; no culture or belief system is innately better than the other; egalitarianism in all things.

I see the above sentiments expressed time and again by lefties, despite their never-ending righteous crusade against all things right-of-center. There is no creature on the face of this Earth that is as hypocritical as a lefty who preaches the former out of one side of their mouth, yet rants about the evils of the right out the other.

You have no idea what you're talking about, but that's really par for the course. Watch the link Trisk posted and then come back and continue your inane rambling if you need. Or, as always, feel free to show back up in a few days to troll and run. It's what SYM's do best!