Archive for March, 2006

liberals are going extinct

March 15, 2006
my conservative friends want to kill me. (see when conservatives populate the earth, also [here]).

despite what you might think, i don’t object to conservatives. i object to stupid. i expect people to think. preferably prior to inflicting their partially digested bile upon the world.

this time, the author points to seattle and salt lake city, to infer that republicans outbreed democrats. salt lake city has a large mormon population (duh). mormon families tend to have more children than any other demographic, and tend to be republican. but – i could just as easily observe that swarthmore (republican) has low fertility rates, while albuquerque, new mexico (deep dem) has higher ones, and make the opposite inference. its true, fertility correlates with religion, which correlates with political affiliation. (all of which correlate with economic class, btw).

the issue is (among many other things, including the most laughably bad understanding of patriarchy since rush) a misunderstanding of correlation. all the factors above are listed as weak predictors by the general social survey (r-squared

Advertisements

one monkey, one typewritier, and 15 minutes…

March 15, 2006
could write better than the WaPo today.

*slow clap*. i know its an op-ed in the washington post, but that has to be the poorest excuse for “thought” i’ve read in ages. he made a straw-man argument based on stereotypes and debunked it by citing one of the worst papers in the field, but because it has a fetch title.

does the author want a cookie?

** * **

i can do the same: watch.

stereotypes:
republicans are a party of faith and god
democrats are atheists

in montana, faith is not a significant predictor of party affiliation or voting outcomes {cite study because it makes me look smrt/hip. refer to paper as “meterosexual”. comment about author’s shoes. disregard that undergraduates writing the paper would be flunked from an introductory statistics course}

proceed to ignore vast literature on topic. disregard influence of race, education, immigrant status… the leaders of the civil rights movement… accurate journalism just never won a pulitzer

rather than make an interesting point about the psychology of politics (or of the right-wing noise machine, or the historical influence of the heritage foundation)… scapegoat time! convienient target: the media! {ignore irony that this is an op-ed piece}

consult crystal ball. insert vague predictions about 2008