« Heywood and Giffords | Main | President Romney? Part I »

January 11, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

One wonders whether Carl Mathusen's retirement had a negative impact on KJZZ. I always thought he was a stalwart. Certainly the Republicans would like to de-fund public radio.

"Certainly the Republicans would like to de-fund public radio."

I tried to add a comment to the previous thread in response to a related question asked by a commenter. Mr. Talton will no doubt post it there in due course.

Meanwhile, there's this, from a Wall Street Journal article, "Americans Stumble on Math of Big Issues". Excerpts:

* * *

Take a poll last year that found Americans overestimated federal spending on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by a factor of at least 100. Arthur Lupia, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, says while Americans were far off the mark, the average response of 1% to 5% signals "that lots of people know that the amount spent is a small number." CPB was budgeted $430 million last year, 0.01% of federal outlays.

Americans vastly overestimate the percentage of fellow residents who are foreign-born, by more than a factor of two, and the percentage who are in the country illegally, by a factor of six or seven. They overestimate spending on foreign aid by a factor of 25, according to a 2010 survey. And more than two-thirds of those who responded to a 2010 Zogby online poll underestimated the part of the federal budget that goes to Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid.

"It's pretty apparent that Americans routinely don't know objective facts about the government," says Joshua Clinton, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University.

"More than 60% (of Illinois residents polled) supplied an estimate of the percentage of U.S. families on welfare that was more than double the correct proportion, among other misfires. Those most misinformed were most confident in their estimates, according to the 2000 paper. And a subgroup supplied with the right numbers didn't change their views in a meaningful way.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577144632919979666.html

Another Wall Street Journal article from the same issue, "Why Ignorance Is Democracy's Bliss" seeks to justify this kind of engineered ignorance; but not before divulging some illustrative facts. Excerpts:

* * *

The Iowa caucuses marked the official beginning of the presidential election cycle. For the next 10 months or so, the American public will endure polls, pundits, canned stump speeches and negative ads—the media circus that passes for 21st-century democracy.

Despite this flood of coverage, one troubling feature of our elections will go largely unmentioned: The typical American voter is uninformed about political basics. Consider these facts:

* The vast majority of voters can't name their congressman or a single congressional candidate.

* 45% of adults don't know that each state elects two senators.

* 40% of Americans can't name the vice president.

* 63% can't name the chief justice of the U.S.

This isn't a recent phenomenon. In 1964, at the height of the Cold War, only 38% of Americans knew that the Soviet Union wasn't part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In December 1994, a month after the Republican takeover of Congress, 57% of Americans had never heard of Newt Gingrich.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140713653796308.html

And almost 100% have heard of Emil Pulsifer, the Pontificator.

In Emil we trust! Who cares about the others, the names are different but the results are the same.

Thanks Emil, god stats.
Does this mean we should have a KING?
Or we could put GOD in charge?
I think we may do that next election.
The US may be close to it's last election, anyway.
And I heard god is RED!

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/01/downtown-detroits-big-booster/932/

This interview suggests how civic stewards are vital for a city's resurgence. If only Phoenix had one of this caliber!

It has been determined that 80% of the time, 79% of the people are 67% sure that they understand 78% of the issues, however, 43% of the time they feel that 23% of their representatives are corrupt, thus resulting in 99% of the time the feel that they are getting 99% of the shaft stuck 110% up their koehole with no other choice but to try to put a smile on their face at least 33% of the time.

I just love statistics, 1% of the time.

(;-(

Lies, damn lies, and statistics!

Just a thought:

I'm not sure I'd be particularly comfortable in a culture where everyone was hyper-aware of the doings of Washington, D.C.

I know that's kind of heretical - Jefferson's "informed electorate" and all - but as one who peeks in more often than most on Foggy Bottom (ref. Emil's stats), I find even my overly-concerned self suffering gaps in "vital" political information.

Sometimes a sunrise, or the doings of the people I'm actually around, eclipses such attentions.

Not that the numbers above on many points aren't appalling.

Welcome to the Human race!

Regarding Dave Boz post on Heywood and Gifford.

Dave, welcome aboard. I am one of those folks that you may think is a pet commenter of Talton's but while we agree on a number of subjects we also tend to disagree on some. Like I would rather plant Saguaros than buildings.

Regarding Loughner I believe he was going to kill someone sooner or later. If not the Gifford’s shooing he would have found another target. I believe his target could have easily been a liberal or conservative student or a professor or administrator at Pima College. It could have been his parents or his neighbors.
I think the right wing theory and Loughner have been stretched too far by some including Tom Zollner in his book “A Safeway in Arizona.”

Loughner like the Marine that recently killed three people including a MSCO deputy was seriously mentally ill. And even though there were a lot of signs that might have been responded too I don’t see society stepping up and working on those kinds of indications.

These events will continue and we will react as we usually do with a lot of diatribe and very little positive action. I am not even sure society can ever put in place safeguards to keep many of these events from happening. How much liberty do you want to give up?

I like your comparison of Dupnik and Arpaio. I was asked by some folks to take a look at the last big fiasco shooting by Dupnik and troops. Not pretty! Also I have had a few cases where the Pima County sheriff’s Office might have done better.

However in my 62 years in Arizona the current problems at Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Jail are way beyond anything I have seen in the past in Arizona.

A few years ago I wrote piece that was posted here, called Gunslingers. It probably needs to be updated but my bottom line was that overall the public in my opinion ends up with overall better service from Law Enforcement when the head person is appointed, not elected. Most politicians quickly come to conclusion that the only thing that matters is how much money or votes you can bring them.

Regarding Civility, I personally know a number of the bloggers here and believe they are fairly civil folks that one can interact with and not get shot verbally or physically.

That said overall I don’t see a lot of civility on the planet earth just a rapidly expanding hostile human population attempting to destroy the planet.

Thanks for the post Dave, Keep coming back.

Interesting that a few simple observations regarding uninformed voters should result in such a backlash. I don't see anyone arguing with the statistics, just making strange personal comments and generalizations.

The point was not to position myself as particularly well-informed: I have my lacunae and some of them are embarrassing.

But it's important to note that many of those arguing most vehemently against "the welfare state" or the effects of immigration (legal OR illegal) on American society, or the "waste of resources" on foreign aid or public broadcasting, aren't arguing from facts or even a realistic model. You simply can't ignore this if you wish to analyze American politics, since these are many of the individuals who, directly or indirectly, determine policy.

Regarding Cal's comment to Dave Boz, he has the wrong thread. I've already addressed Mr. Boz's propaganda ploy in the previous thread, where it belongs.

Emil, you are logical in an illogical world.

With the possibility of billions upon billions of planets out there, you landed on the wrong one.

Better luck next time.

Thanks Emil I don’t know how I survived so long without your Supreme guidance. Kinda reminds me of a couple of wives I once knew.
I knew what THREAD (Boz) it was on. But I made a conscious decision to put it on this thread.
U can call that right or wrong but for me it doesn’t matter. I think most of the folks here are capable of sorting it out.

I did note your comment was 16 minutes after I posted my comment on Boz over here on the WRONG THREAD. I’ll try and be more patient in the future and not comment until I am sure your finished.

Where the hell is my thimble I just stuck myself with the damn needle again. From Taltons sewing club weaving a pattern for the world,

Cal Lash wrote:

"Regarding Loughner I believe he was going to kill someone sooner or later. If not the Gifford’s shooing he would have found another target. I believe his target could have easily been a liberal or conservative student or a professor or administrator at Pima College. It could have been his parents or his neighbors."

He might have: someone willing to commit politically motivated mass murder might not balk at simple personal vengeance.

But he didn't. The attack was neither personal nor random. His YouTube rants and writings, which give insights into the obsessions motivating him, are not typified by personal animus toward Gabrielle Giffords, much less her staff and the citizen well-wishers who were also methodically stalked and targeted at a political event: Loughner brought a whole lot of ammunition with him, and was interrupted only when he tried reloading a new (high capacity) clip.

What they ARE full of is right-wing, anti-government tirades against "unconstitutional" laws and the "treasonous" politicians who vote for them, as well as screeds against the Federal Reserve and paper money: all hallmarks of right-wing politics, particularly when taken in combination.

They also feature conspiracy theories about government political control via language, strongly reminiscent of the writings of right-wing tax protester David Wynn Miller and more broadly of the so-called "soverign citizen" movement, whose members flood courts with civil lawsuits written using a bizarre personal grammar and punctuation designed to foil federal and state legal constructs.

Giffords had been the subject of hundreds of threats and slurs, not to mention vandalism, by "tea party" protesters who considered "Obamacare" to be unconstitutional, and labeled politicians (like Giffords) who voted for it as "treasonous". This was not mere rhetoric: they meant it. Loughner may well have been influenced in his final choice of target and venue by this high-profile campaign of harassment.

"Loughner like the Marine that recently killed three people including a MSCO deputy was seriously mentally ill."

A better comparison would be right-wing Norweigian mass murderer Anders Breivik, who has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. Do you deny his political motivations?

Even granting the diagnoses in both cases as a working premise, "mental illness" and politically motivated violence are not mutually exclusive. The former may well dispose someone possessing the latter to take actions that commonly would be regarded as heinous and unbalanced. "Mental illness" may also make someone more vulnerable to the kind of rhetoric and conspiracy theories which characterize right-wing fringe politics, allowing seeds of hate to germinate and blossom wildly, without the impulse control that governs most others.

The marine in has been linked by ballistics analysis to the murders of two tourists: there is no known motive. The shooting of armed police (with backup) making a late-night and unsolicited visit to his trailer is easier to explain, given the fact that the earlier shooting had already occurred and that expectations of imminent arrest may have colored his perspective.

His reported notions about UFOs and Mayan calenders (the end of the world in 2012) are common New Age interpretations and are not commonly regarded as evidence of mental illness in themselves.

More on this issue to follow shortly.

Cal Lash wrote:

"Thanks for the post Dave, Keep coming back."

I'll be glad to see this too: he makes an excellent fencing target. (Perhaps I should point out for the benefit of Dave Boz, who has a weak grasp of the distinction between literal and figurative, that this is not a threat.)

The problem with most arch-conservatives is that they don't get out often enough. Like members of a terrorist cell brooding over mimeographed copies of one anothers' screeds, they write both sides of what is supposed to be a dialogue, putting words in the mouths of their opponents and essentially conducting arguments with imaginary figures in their heads. This exacerbates their already existing delusional views.

Incidentally, "Boz" is the alias of a journalist -- originally Charles Dickens. That the nom de plume of a progressive should be perversely adapted to the sclerotic needs of a reactionary, without a conscious trace of irony, is truly disturbing. Most individuals choose aliases close to their actual names, e.g., Dave instead of Doug.

By a wild coincidence, Arizona Republic pundit Doug MacEachern, for whom Left "hypocrisy" and the issue of Loughner's political motivations are both bees in his bonnet, had a "Quick Hit" editorial published just days ago, criticizing Tom Zoellner's tepid editorial in which he gently tiptoed around the touchy subject of Loughner's politics. (Even progressives can be cowed by conservative bullying when they depend for their supper on scraps from the Master's table.)

MacEachern, citing the opinions of high-school mates (from a time long preceding Loughner's later political awakening and lone-wolf tendencies), assures us -- contrary to Loughner's own subsequent words -- that he was "apolitical".

He also writes that Loughner's "obsession with" Giffords existed "long before the tea party"; as if tea-party rhetoric and hatefulness didn't exist before the squalid collection of gun nuts, tax cheats, "soverign citizen" crazies, militia members, and anti-federalists who make up its ranks, brought it into a newly designated Party for crackpots.

Insulting and ignorant, indeed, Mr. MacEachern.

Emil, you are becoming insufferable.

Great posts Emil!

OK which is it, insufferable or Great??

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz