US politics challenge

[PassedOut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Christian_Century

It seems these guys really are Christians. That explains it.

...advocating higher criticism of the Bible, as well as the Social Gospel, which included concerns about child labor, women's suffrage, racism, war and pacifism, alcoholism and prohibition, environmentalism and many other political and social issues. The magazine was a common target for criticism by fundamentalists during the Fundamentalist - Modernist debate of the early 20th century.

Don't know the Christian Century magazine, but I do know other ethical Christians who work to put Jesus' teachings into actual practice. Many years ago, a Catholic classmate from San Lucia introduced me to a nearby commune of Catholic Worker folks. Before that I had never even heard of Dorothy Day, but I saw that the Catholic Worker people worked hard every day to live the way Jesus taught. And those I met were among the warmest, most welcoming folks I've ever known -- even to those of us who disagreed with them on certain issues.

 

But we all know that religious beliefs and ethical behavior don't always go hand in hand. On the contrary: Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

 

On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

Seems strange, but I'm sure most of us have observed that to be true. Probably has to do with a religious tendency to accept positions without thinking them through.

[kenberg]

I forget where I first heard the advice that if a house guest starts talking about morality you should lock up the silver and keep a close watch on your daughter.

 

I read that piece about atheists in the paper. I really don't want to think of myself as a member of some silly minority group struggling for proper respect. There's enough of that going around already.

[PassedOut]

I forget where I first heard the advice that if a house guest starts talking about morality you should lock up the silver and keep a close watch on your daughter.

 

I read that piece about atheists in the paper. I really don't want to think of myself as a member of some silly minority group struggling for proper respect. There's enough of that going around already.

I think it's useful to put forward non-strident information that tends to undercut religions. Part of the age-old atheist conspiracy.

[PassedOut]

On the other hand, students who believe in an angry, punishing god are less likely to cheat on math tests: Mean Gods Make Good People: Different Views of God Predict Cheating Behavior

 

Fear of supernatural punishment may serve as a deterrent to counternormative behavior, even in anonymous situations free from human social monitoring. The authors conducted two studies to test this hypothesis, examining the relationship between cheating behavior in an anonymous setting and views of God as loving and compassionate, or as an angry and punishing agent. Overall levels of religious devotion or belief in God did not directly predict cheating. However, viewing God as a more punishing, less loving figure was reliably associated with lower levels of cheating. This relationship remained after controlling for relevant personality dimensions, ethnicity, religious affiliation, and gender.

So fire and brimstone has its uses.

[kenberg]

From the study:

 

Neither religious devotion nor ethnicity had an effect on likelihood of cheating, but a sex difference was found showing higher cheating behavior among women

[/Quote]

 

I always suspected this!

[Winstonm]

On the other hand, students who believe in an angry, punishing god are less likely to cheat on math tests: Mean Gods Make Good People: Different Views of God Predict Cheating Behavior

 

 

So fire and brimstone has its uses.

 

Threat has its uses. Fear has its uses. Fear-inducing threat captures the best of both worlds.

[kenberg]

This threat thing is a bit unpredictable. I shucked off religion in my early teens, and, as I remember my reasons, my resistance to being threatened (my minister was big on Hell) had more to do with it than logic.

 

 

To bring this back to politics, this may apply to the threat to not raise the debt ceiling. It's a really bad idea to issue a threat unless you intend to follow through. So are the Republicans really planning to not raise the debt limit? If yes, they are fools. If it is a threat where they assume it will not require follow through, they are dangerous fools.The thug's lament after his victim dies: No one was supposed to get hurt, I thought he would do as I told him to do.

[PassedOut]

From the study:

 

Neither religious devotion nor ethnicity had an effect on likelihood of cheating, but a sex difference was found showing higher cheating behavior among women

I always suspected this!

In the UP we don't ever kid around in that way...

:rolleyes:

[kenberg]

It's true that I wasn't taking the whole study very seriously. But here is an expansion of what they say:

 

 

We controlled for religion devotion, as well as sex and ethnicity, both

of which predicted cheating behavior in our previous studies (with East Asians and women

cheating more). Consistent with predictions, higher God Negativity Scores were associated with

lower levels of cheating (Wald=- 4.16, odds ratio = .95, p = .04; see footnote 3). Neither

religious devotion nor ethnicity had an effect on likelihood of cheating, but a sex difference

was found showing higher cheating behavior among women (see Table 1).

[/Quote]

 

They cite a Wald of -4.16 for those with high God Negativity scores but in fact the Wald from Table 1 for sex is 4.57. Now I actually have no idea what this means, but they seem to think it proves something. I suppose high numbers indicate that some effect is going on. Belief in a punishing God, or simply being male, are two items associated with less cheating. And for the sex angle, apparently this is consistent with previous studies that they have done.

 

Maybe one shouldn't joke about it, but I don't plan on taking it seriously.

[y66]

Why Are Libertarians Inflation Hawks? via Krugman

Jul. 21 2011 - 10:49 am

by Timothy B Lee

 

Two years ago, my friend Matt Yglesias wrote this post about what he sarcastically dubbed “the inflation people,” including some of my colleagues at the Cato Institute, who worried about the dangers of future inflation even as the economy was in the depths of a recession. I was irritated by the post and made a note to myself to check back in a few years and see how things turned out. Two years later, here’s how things look:

 

Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers, 12-Month Percent Change

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/CUUR0000SA0_59742_1311382515672.gif

I don’t think we have enough data yet to reach a decisive verdict. It’s possible that that the most recent measurement of 3.6 percent inflation portends a major price rise over the next few months—though the “core” inflation rate of just 1.6 percent suggests otherwise. At a minimum, we can say that Ben Bernanke’s most hawkish critics haven’t been proven right so far. And I’m becoming increasingly skeptical that they will be.

 

This has gotten me thinking about the broader connection between peoples’ views on monetary policy and their broader ideological worldviews. With the lonely exception of Scott Sumner, virtually every libertarian or conservative who has expressed a strong opinion about monetary policy has come down on the side of the inflation hawks. Over the last three years, a wide variety of fiscally conservative Republican politicians have attacked the Federal Reserve for its unduly expansionary monetary policy. I can’t think of a single Republican on the other side.

 

Yet it’s not obvious why this should be. more.

[cherdano]

Uh, I think it's obvious why Republicans are inflation hawks right now. Higher inflation = faster economic recovery = more likely that Obama will win a second term. Obviously most Republicans aren't that cynical, but some are, and a few others are pushed the same way subconciously, throw in the current Republican group think and you have uniform opposition to any stimulative measures.

[hrothgar]

Uh, I think it's obvious why Republicans are inflation hawks right now. Higher inflation = faster economic recovery = more likely that Obama will win a second term. Obviously most Republicans aren't that cynical, but some are, and a few others are pushed the same way subconciously, throw in the current Republican group think and you have uniform opposition to any stimulative measures.

 

Nate Silver's 538 blog on the New York Times web site has a couple very articles that explain the intransigence of the Republican Party.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/why-the-g-o-p-cannot-compromise/

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/g-o-p-governors-swing-right-leaving-voters-behind/

 

Simply put, the inmates are running the asylumn.

 

The Republicans have spent decades courting/creating an incredibly ill informed segment of the American public. At this point in time, their entire electoral strategy boils down to mobilizing said "base" and trying to make sure that the Democrats don't show up at the polls.

[luke warm]

At this point in time, their entire electoral strategy boils down to mobilizing said "base" and trying to make sure that the Democrats don't show up at the polls.

surely nobody would be so idiotic as to allow that to happen - again... eh?

[Bbradley62]

surely nobody would be so idiotic as to allow that to happen - again... eh?

Was that sentiment from 2004?

[luke warm]

no, it was more along the lines of "who do you blame for that?"

[y66]

The anti-inflation club includes quite a few European politicians, not just U.S. Republicans. So, I don't think this is about sabotaging the U.S. economy in order to win the next U.S. presidential election. I think it's about doing whatever it takes to protect the interests of wealthy bondholders. If the consequences include a sabotaged economy or two, too bad.

 

Quiz: What percent of all financial securities held by Americans in 2007 were held by the wealthiest top 10 percent of Americans?

 

 

98.5

 

Source: Edward N. Wolff in Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007 (pdf) via Krugman

[awm]

While he is not exactly a columnist, I will mention that I find Michael Steele to be hilarious. He works for MSNBC now.

[Winstonm]

Two long term trends are most likely responsible for most of the U.S. ills: the dumbing down of the population and the increasing disparity between wealthy and poor.

 

An uneducated poor populace is sure to turn to magical thinking in order to find hope, and propagandists are quick to offer alluring stories of magical no-pain economic growth from tax cuts and the magical powers of unfettered business operations as a Messianic solution to save our country.

 

States like Texas are especially hard hit - not only with drought but with the stupid tree: (emphatic snark added)

 

In Texas, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently designated all 254 counties in the state natural disaster areas. Concidentally, at the same time so did the Department of Education. B-)

[blackshoe]

I would think that putting something like that in a quote box, without attribution, is pretty much equivalent to "I made it up", unless it's clear from other things in your post who you're quoting, which is not the case here.

[Winstonm]

I would think that putting something like that in a quote box, without attribution, is pretty much equivalent to "I made it up", unless it's clear from other things in your post who you're quoting, which is not the case here.

 

That's because I did make up the part in italics - I thought you might have guessed that by the "(emphatic snark added)" disclaimer I stated.

 

The idea of the Dept. of Education declaring Texas a disaster struck me as a humorous addition to the real headline that was not put in italics. I didn't quote anyone because I didn't want anyone to think it was anything other than a joke.

 

Nevertheless, thanks for playing, do you or do you not have a sense of humor? ;)

[luke warm]

Two long term trends are most likely responsible for most of the U.S. ills: the dumbing down of the population and the increasing disparity between wealthy and poor.

 

An uneducated poor populace is sure to turn to magical thinking in order to find hope, and propagandists are quick to offer alluring stories of magical no-pain economic growth from tax cuts and the magical powers of unfettered business operations as a Messianic solution to save our country.

let's check that out, do you mind? these charts seem to show that those who haven't graduated high school vote demographic more often than not... are these the uneducated poor you're speaking of, the ones that turn to magical no-pain economic growth schemes? granted these are 2004 numbers, and i'm not sure exactly what you're trying to show, but unless you mean you're describing democratic voters i don't think the stats bear you out

[blackshoe]

That's because I did make up the part in italics - I thought you might have guessed that by the "(emphatic snark added)" disclaimer I stated.

 

The idea of the Dept. of Education declaring Texas a disaster struck me as a humorous addition to the real headline that was not put in italics. I didn't quote anyone because I didn't want anyone to think it was anything other than a joke.

 

Nevertheless, thanks for playing, do you or do you not have a sense of humor? ;)

 

I do, and yes, the juxtaposition was kind of funny. It wasn't clear to me, though, whether the first part was also made up, which is why I posted.

[Winstonm]

are these the uneducated poor you're speaking of,

 

No, I was thinking more along the lines of the guys and gals I grew up with, who make $20-50K a year, who sit in front of Fox News at night, drinking beer and nodding when Bill O'Reilly says, "Turn off his mike," who got school loans to go the local Junior College for two years because university cost too much, and who have been on unemployment benefits three times in the last 20 years, who have modest homes financed by Fannie Mae, ride the city bus to work and ride Amtrak to the ballpark on weekends, who like to fish on the reservoir created and maintained by the Corp of Engineers, who work for and own hospices that are Medicare funded and who then turn around and go on vacation to Washington, D.C. to Glenn Beck's Tea Party "Stop Big Government" rally while saying, "The government has never done anything for me."

 

Maybe I meant ignorant lower middle class instead of poor. ;)

 

(Btw, I know the person described. And yes, she did use her personal vacation time to go to Beck's rally, and yes she was employed by hospice.)

[kenberg]

let's check that out, do you mind? these charts seem to show that those who haven't graduated high school vote demographic more often than not... are these the uneducated poor you're speaking of, the ones that turn to magical no-pain economic growth schemes? granted these are 2004 numbers, and i'm not sure exactly what you're trying to show, but unless you mean you're describing democratic voters i don't think the stats bear you out

I like the stats. Apparently Ph.D.s (for example me) as well as those who never attended high school (for example my father) vote Democratic. In between they vote for Republicans. What's the old saying? Oh yes. A little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring. Whatever a Pierian spring might be.

 

Kidding, guys, kidding.

[hrothgar]

let's check that out, do you mind? these charts seem to show that those who haven't graduated high school vote demographic more often than not... are these the uneducated poor you're speaking of, the ones that turn to magical no-pain economic growth schemes? granted these are 2004 numbers, and i'm not sure exactly what you're trying to show, but unless you mean you're describing democratic voters i don't think the stats bear you out

 

If folks are interested in this topic, Red State, Blue State by Gelman is mandatory reading

 

http://www.amazon.com/Red-State-Blue-Rich-Poor/dp/069113927X

 

An earlier academic paper is available at http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/rb_qjps.pdf