Voting with a Mouse
October 30th, 2006 – 1:11 AM by Eric BlackPardon the self-promotion. I’ll be moderating and briefly speaking at an panel discussion at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute this (Monday) noon, titled “Voting with a Mouse: How Bloggers Altered the Political Landscape.” It’s free and open to the public and starts at noon. It’s supposed to be done by 1:30.
The keynoter is David Carr of the New York Times (and, for those didn’t know him back then, formerly of the Twin Cities Reader). Republican blogger Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed and Democratic blogger Joe Bodell of MN Campaign Report are the other panelists.
Other than moderatorly telling the others when their time is up, here’s what I plan to say in my five minutes:
The blogosphere is wonderful. Breaking the monopoly of professional journalists on the eyeballs of the news-consuming public does much more good than harm. And for me personally, blogging has provided a welcome liberation from some of the constraints of writing for the paper that had been driving me increasingly cranky over the last 10 or more years of my ink-stained wretchedness.
But I am increasingly concerned about the lack of fairness, open-mindedness and intellectual honesty in most of the blogosphere.
Minnesota Democrats Exposed and MN Campaign Report bring information into public view that might otherwise not get there. That’s good.
Michael and Joe are both open about their opposing biases, which gives them an advantage over a so-called objective newspaper reporter who is sometimes so worried about being accused of bias that he says nothing and fills up his allotted space with offsetting half-truths of the he-said she-said variety.
But I’m worried about readers who rely too heavily on sources that make little effort to see past their bias.
I’m worried about a form of bias that’s much bigger and more dangerous than either left or right bias. It’s confirmation bias, which is a bias in favor of facts and arguments that confirm what you already believe.
It’s generally coupled with an unwillingness to credit or even acknowledge the existence of facts that contradict what you want to continue believing.
So as we move forward into the post-newspaper age, I’m looking for something that combines the advantages of the blogosphere with the advantages of the journalistic method, specifically those norms of journalism that encourage reporters to see and think and write in ways that get past the bias of the writer.
And I’m looking for readers who are looking for that same thing. And I’m wanting to believe there are enough of them out there to make a difference and maybe even break the grip of the polarization that is such an impediment to our current political discourse.
117 Responses to "Voting with a Mouse"
Eric, I think that’s a noble goal and I wish you luck on the journey.
“But I’m worried about readers who rely too heavily on sources that make little effort to see past their bias.”
This should be a tobacco-like warning posted above the Editorial Section of this newspaper.
Chris -
Funny.
To give some credit, though, the editorial section itself has gotten better in the past year or so, with regard to selection of outside columnists. While none of my partiular favorites are in there, at least there’s a few they publish trying to say what needs saying from the non-liberal side.
But above their own editorials and above the letters section – yes.
I’m not slamming the letters editor with that particular comment. I’m slamming the letter-writers, the overwhelmingly liberal letter writers.
What a relief it would be to see an end to the interminable ax-grinding, whether in blogs or in the paper!
Perhaps you could have a separate blog called “Just the Facts, All the Facts, and Nothing But the Facts,Please” with limits on how many times one writer could speak to any one issue?
Assuming no one writer would have all the facts, the assembly of info from many sources would help present a more total insight into a situation.
Citation of sources would be important.
Blogs proven false should be removed or marked “Found to be untrue.”
I’m amazed that somebody over at the Star doesn’t look at the editorial page and say “you know what, we seem to have a lot of the same columns day after day…you don’t suppose we have a problem with diversity of thought do you?”
You’re slamming the liberal letter writers? That makes no sense.
I doubt EB was referring to the editorial page, an opinion page, in the comment that Chris quoted.
The “Slamming” term not withstanding, I think Paul S was extending the notion that some of the writers printed on that page seem to be venomous in their letters and tenacious in their approach. Perhaps then, they should not be used as a great reference for information.
I, for one, never read the letters page so I don’t know much about it.
Eric, I never thought I’d say this, but I agree with you.
Right now, a citizen must navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis (spelling?) of corporate-controlled conventional newspapers like the StarTribune and the crazy echo chambers found on the Internet. So far, neither is doing much to improve the quality of American political leadership, something our nation needs desperately.
So, good luck to you, Eric! I hope you find a constructive passage between the two dangers.
I would like to go on the record here predicting that Republicans will wake up on November 8 having retained control of both the House and the Senate.
I will find such a result deplorable, but I have a strong hunch that’s were the nation’s headed: our millions of ignorant masochists will turn out on November 7 to hand victory to the sadistic Republican leadership, and the USA will continue to unravel at the seams.
Eric Black says “I’m looking for something that combines the advantages of the blogosphere with the advantages of the journalistic method, specifically those norms of journalism that encourage reporters to see and think and write in ways that get past the bias of the writer. ”
Good luck with that. And I mean that in a non-sarcastic way. One problem, though, is that it seems like most readers with an interest in politics and the issues swirling around politics, have already aligned themselves with one side or the other, and thus fall into the trap you call ‘confirmation bias.’ The loudest voices, whether in blogs, magazines, or on the radio, tend to be pretty one-sided. I’m not sure how a person gets past this ingrained mentality – clearly we’re seeing that 3rd party candidates have an extremely difficult time doing so.
Not every day, but most days, there is at least one letter from a liberal that displays what Eric B is talking about: no awareness of the perspective and details on the other side of the question.
There would be more from conservatives, I’m sure, but it’s a self-selected letters column, mostly. Tim O’Brien the letters editor has said he wishes they’d get more letters from conservatives.
I don’t automatically believe him, in that wish I mean, but I assume he’s stating the fact accurately that the letters are mostly from liberals.
Oh please. There are plenty of letters from conservatives exhibiting the bias that EB talks about. Perhaps conservatives don’t write as many letters, I’ve never compared the numbers but I’ve never seen a day that didn’t have conservative letter writers.
MB, there are many people who are still working hard to change that. I certainly hope you’re doing something to help.
They have conservative letter writers, of course. And for some reason they tend to be bad ones. I’ve always wondered what that’s about.
Although I’d be surprised if many of them displayed the same general ignorance of liberal ideas that I see in the other direction. It’s almost impossible to go through life and not know those ideas.
But what amazes me about the liberal ones is that given how far they outnumber the conservatives, on most issues, I’m amazed so few of them rise to some higher level of debate. They primarily repeat the same old stuff, replete with the same old half-conscious ideas about the facts and occasionally even an outright falsity that you know the writer believes is Absolute Truth.
Always morally high-toned, too. “I’m saddened by” and “I think not” should both be forbidden for a while.
Still time to for somebody at the Strib to write about Bachmann’s PRT boondoggle… PRT is an issue for Stenglein also:
Also, I’m willing to reveal what I know about “Jamie”:
The Truth About “Jamie” and How I Got the Living Word Videos of Michele Bachmann
According to a transcript on the BvW blog, Michele Bachmann told a radio audience that she knows who made the videos at the Living Word Church:
Michele Bachmann: “It was Democrats. There’s a fellow who came up to me afterwards, at Living Word, he identified himself as working for the Democrat Party. He told me his name, he told me where he was from–…Well, should I say? He told me his name is Jamie and that he works for the Democrat Party, and that he was there to video tape me, and that was after it was done, and he was very proud of it.”
Jeff Kouba asks:
“Avidor, did you get a tape from this Jamie person?”
Here’s my answer to Jeff Kouba:
I was interviewed by a Star Tribune reporter who wrote an article that included a short description of how I had posted the videos on You Tube. I gave the reporter a great deal of information that didn’t get into the article.
I will answer questions on everything regarding the videos only on radio or television. I am prepared to reveal everything I know… from the moment I received the tip to when I uploaded the videos to You Tube. I will also reveal everything I know about the person Michele Bachmann refers to as “Jamie”.
Jeff Kouba knows people with radio shows so it shouldn’t be a problem to get me on the air.
[...] gtime journalist and editor, will lead a discussion on blogs and American elections. Eric Black, reporter and author of The Big Question blog for the Star Tribune, will moderate. [...]
Here is a matter that must be addressed by the public and by the StarTribune editorial board:
Karl Rove clearly functions as a private political operative (see his recent comments below), so why does he reserve a federal salary at the White House? It’s a huge scam. Since Rove is not a public servant, he should receive no public funds. Where is the taxpayer outcry?
‘”I look at the individual races as clear-eyed as I can every single day, knowing what we are doing and knowing that we have the capacity to move the resources in if we need to do more,” Rove said in a brief telephone interview from the road last week. “Incumbents are hard to defeat. Our candidates by and large have significantly more resources than they have. And we have succeeded in making these races choices between two local candidates.”‘
Paul S. says: Although I’d be surprised if many of them [conservative letter writers] displayed the same general ignorance of liberal ideas that I see in the other direction
They [liberal letter writers] primarily repeat the same old stuff, replete with the same old half-conscious ideas about the facts and occasionally even an outright falsity that you know the writer believes is Absolute Truth.
Both of these statements display your own “confirmation bias”.
You might have some credibility on this if you’d acknowledge that it goes both ways. Otherwise, you’re just repeating your own “outright falsity” that you “believe is the Absolute Truth”. Trying the ‘liberals do it more’ canard is ridiculous.
Dora-
I would say the Editorial section is proportionate to these blogs, 3-4 Liberals per Conservative. Which makes complete sense based on the overriding left slant of the StarTrib.
I don’t read the Editorial page because, in my opinion, it is way to liberal and they don’t counter balance with legitimate conservative views. But, past observations are 3/4 to 1.
And please spare the “that’s because there are none. hahaha”.
jeffs said: And please spare the “that’s because there are none. hahahaâ€Â.
Since your post is directed to me and you put this in quotes you must be implying that I’ve said something like that since that’s what a quotation means. Which of course, as you know, is false.
You don’t read the Editorial pages but your past observations show more liberals to conservatives. Maybe you should base your comment on current observations. Oh wait, if you don’t read it then you don’t have a current observation.
ERIC BLACK: “…break the grip of the polarization that is such an impediment to our current political discourse.”
What the hell impediment is Black talking about?! He sounds like the quacks on CNN proclaiming “Broken Government.”
There’s more political discourse now than there’s ever been.
One does not measure government by its prowess in passing legislation. Why can’t liberals understand that?
Dora.
“You don’t read the Editorial pages but your past observations show more liberals to conservatives. Maybe you should base your comment on current observations. Oh wait, if you don’t read it then you don’t have a current observation.”
Wow, didn’t expect that original thought from you? I’ll get Sundays paper, put on a mask and report back to you.
The paper is tough enough to digest without looking at the op-ed. Do me a favor, go back 10 years with the StarTrib and calculate all of their endorsements for political office. This should be a good indication as to whether the paper leans one way or the other????
I don’t accept the “it’s on both sides” equation, Dora. I won’t deny that. And actually, I don’t think you do either. You just think it’s way more on the conservative side, I would suspect.
My reasons for not accepting the equation aren’t just perceptions of who’s being more rational now.
When a lot of us here grew up, back in the previous tumultuous times, I think we liberals took it as a given that we were the rational, correct, moral and honest side. We didn’t believe that hateful, dishonest politics was “on both sides” then.
And in a lot of ways, we were right. The conservative side for a while – basically, most of the New Deal era – was stuck in a mode of not seeing its own warts very well, and our own country’s warts, of not rising to certain moral imperatives with enthusiasm: making the economy work for more people, civil rights, pollution, being honest about the Viet Nam situation, and so on.
Obviously, in all of those there were examples of Republicans acting liberal and Democrats acting conservative. I don’t think that changes the basic definitions of what the liberal and conservative perspectives were.
Here’s what I think: at any point in American politics, for a number of reasons having to do with change and resistance to change, one basic side is more honest and more rational and more genuinely probing for answers than the other. And sometimes that shifts.
I obviously am in no position to assert how many liberals are here compared to conservatives, but this is the Minneapolis newspaper. What is the liberal/conservative ratio in our city?
The tone of the paper’s editorial staff doesn’t determine who will read and write to the letters section. Those who regularly write to the paper show a high level of civic participation – letter writing has long been used as a way to measure social capital (see Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone).
People who live in cities are more likely to participate in this kind of civic participation than they are to participate in other ways. City dwellers, especially denziens of Minneapolis, tend to be liberal more frequently than they tend to be conservative.
So come on. There is no left-wing conspiracy among Mr. Obrien, the editorial staff, and the owners of the paper. There just happen to be more liberal readers of this paper – not because it’s a liberal paper, but because there are geographically a lot of liberals in this city.
Jeffs, did you get a chance to look into Adam Smith and progressive taxation?
Those on the right have often been known to cite “conservative” political philosophers like Smith, JS Mill, and Locke to support the view that anyone who supports progressive taxation is a Marxist.
Fact of the matter is, virtually every economic theorist, includling Marx, agreed that taxes should be levied according to ability to pay.
Marx departs from the conservatives not on taxes but on spending. It is “to each according to his need” that is original in Marx’s thought.
But not quite original. Mr. Locke, in fact, established a doctrine aquessing to “according to need,” when he places preservation ahead of property rights in the 2nd treatsie – at least in so far as basic human needs are concerned.
Mr. Locke, too, has a much better understanding of the obligation we all have to our state than many modern conservatives. Mr. Locke argues that in a state of nature, any labor we exert on the fruits of the earth, put there by god, creates property for us, but that when any part of any other person’s labor is attached to that property, we can’t call it our own.
In a civil society, unlike in a state of nature, the state has a part of the labor attached to every economic transaction. Business couldn’t exist without coinage or a stable markets, without roads and publicly educated employees.
I just hope that activists on all sides who cite the great works of philosophy would take a chance to actually read and think about them. Nobody benefits when the ideas of these great thinkers are perverted and misrepresented.
Eric Black criticized some bloggers for: “an unwillingness to credit or even acknowledge the existence of facts that contradict what you want to continue believing.â€Â
I think it takes a lot of nerve for Mr. Black to make that particular criticism of the blogging world– when he himself has categorically refused to print, cover, or comment on the documented facts about candidate Michele Bachmann’s extremism.
Black and his editors have spiked itâ€â€all of the facts, all the quotes, all the hate rhetoric is unreported in the Stribâ€â€even though they know it’s true, even where it’s documented, even where they can go directly to the original documents and recordings with ease.
But these are professional journalists. Why would people who are interested in politics and current events turning to the blogs and abandoning the news professionals? There are many reasons, including the one that Black cites (partisan people want partisan news). But one of the most important reasons readers are abandoning the professionals is a reason that Black won’t address: as evidenced in the conduct of the Strib in its coverage of Bachmann’s candidacy, the professional journalists and editors believe job their job is not to *report* all the relevant facts about a candidate, but to *suppress* relevant and even alarming facts about a candidateâ€â€if acquainting the voters with those facts will “get them in trouble.
Bachmann’s record of extremism and hatemongering and pseudo-Christian politicking stretch back six yearsâ€â€but it took out-of-state national news coverage and the release of video to get the local dailies to even acknowledge the pseudo-religious nature of her candidacy. And even then they waited until two weeks before the campaign, when most voters have made up their minds.
The papers did a rotten, cowardly job of covering this candidate and informing the voters, and Bachmann should thank them. And for all I know, their miserable coverage of the Bachmann record is only the tip of the iceberg: if they wouldn’t tell the whole truth about Bachmann even after it was laid in their laps–what other stories are they spiking? It’s true that the news on the blogs is inherently untrustworthy because it’s “unfiltered.†But it’s also true that people will go to the blogs first *because* the stories are “unfilteredâ€Ââ€â€it appears on the internet without the interference of a committee of cowardly reporters and editors who would refuse to print important facts if those facts would alienate their bosses, readers, advertisers or owners.
The only reason that anyone should take the papers seriously anymore is the reason that I submit posts here and other places. The papers continue to influence a residual readership, and that readership is still politically active. They’re worth reaching, so it’s worth reminding them that the papers they rely on for information are actively suppressing documented factsâ€â€it’s not the blogs that suppress the facts, it’s the big dailies. To paraphrase Mr. Black, the people on the daily newspapers have “an unwillingness to credit or even acknowledge the existence of facts†that might compromise their careers.
Jeffs-
Again, I believe the editorial staff basically acknowledges the problem of self-selection of readers and writers of letters.
There are more liberals in the core cities, but there are not way more liberals in either the larger metro area in total or statewide, both of which the Strib serves enthusiastically.
I have written to Kate Perry, the Trib’s readr rep. The letter office receives 75% of their mail from Liberals and 25% Conservative. The two main editors both consider themselves liberal. They would welcome more opinions from the right but the numbers just are not there. Plus, you can have only one letter published per month.
Paul S. says And actually, I don’t think you do either. You just think it’s way more on the conservative side, I would suspect.
Speak for yourself and don’t put words in my mouth. You are trying to move off the subject of LTE’s. You do this often. Start with a specific statement and then slowly broaden it in subsequent posts.
jeffs said: Wow, didn’t expect that original thought from you?
I have no idea what you’re referring to. It’s your observation, you back it up.
Oh and BTW jeffs, I wasn’t referring to editorial endorsements I’ve been referring to LTE’s based on Paul’s “observations”. Try to keep up, otherwise your comments are meaningless.
“Newt Jr. says:
October 30th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
One does not measure government by its prowess in passing legislation. Why can’t liberals understand that?”
What the whole nation should understand is that government ought to be measured in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and honesty.
And the current regime, by these yardsticks, is a colossal failure. Probably the worst in the US since the 19th century.
Paul S says “Here’s what I think: at any point in American politics, for a number of reasons having to do with change and resistance to change, one basic side is more honest and more rational and more genuinely probing for answers than the other. And sometimes that shifts.”
And right now, the Republicans (they are not conservatives) are not that side. There’s a good read in the Washington Post today by Dick Armey. Its called “Where We Went Wrong,” referring to the current state of the Republican party vs. the goals espoused by Armey, Gingrich, et al when they took over the House in 1994. Its a good read.
Dick Armey on Where We Went Wrong
I READ the Editorial page== These people seem to know what they are doing.
They endorse people that want to serve all the citizens,not just themselves
Justin-
I agree with most of what you said in the first couple of paragraphs, but didn’t mention a left wing conspiracy.
Regarding Adam Smith and being a proponent of progressive taxation….Smith may have been implying that everyone pay taxes, not just the poor and middle class (that the rich should pay taxes as well). I don’t know that you will find a lot more from Smith (or Friedman, Hayak, Sowell for that matter) to support Progressive taxation in the same light as Marx.
This doesn’t mean I support everyone pays the same amount for taxes, but the burden is already steaped heavily on those with the highest wages/worth.
I’m for a more classical definition of what our goverment was intended to provide….defense, infrastructure, education.
“Mr. Locke, too, has a much better understanding of the obligation we all have to our state than many modern conservatives. ”
Then what is the POOR’s obligation to the state? What do they contribute?
When we criticize the “rich” and talk about their lack of obligation, all the time taking 40% or more of their money they make.
It is time we criticize the poor for their lack of participation in the system. But, in the modern PC climate we ignore their lack of contribution.
“It is time we criticize the poor for their lack of participation in the system. But, in the modern PC climate we ignore their lack of contribution. ”
Lack of contribution? Being available as cheap labor is a huge contribution. Though of course, the poor in the rest of the world will work for even less, so the poor here don’t get to ‘contribute’ as much as they might like.
Armey’s article is interesting but the fact is that everything is political in Washington, DC. To say that the Republicans put “politics” in the way of spending is easy for someone out of office to state. The fact is, that if the Republicans would have forced the “balancuing” of the budget on the spending side they would have lost their majority in the House 1996.
All of the political theories are meaningless if you do not have political power.
The fact is that for the past 25 years the public has favored a slight right of center political coalition that delivers the spending programs they want with low taxes and Republican management of monetary policy.
The debate on if this is appropriate economic policy is meaningless. This is the political balance that existed even when Dick Armey was in power.
And, the Republicans are not going to lose seats in the House and Senate because of any of the issues Armey states. They are losing because of Iraq and scandals.
If things go as I predict the reason teh Republicans will lose control of the House is because they will lose 4-5 seats because the incumbenet candidate was boinking a staffer, was IM’ing an underage page, or was involved in other scandal. FL-16, TX-22, OH-18, PA-7, and PA-18 are solid Republican seats that will be lost on 2006 because of the conduct of the incumbent.
The challenge for the Democrats is to hold onto these 5 seats for more than one term.
jeffs says “I’m for a more classical definition of what our goverment was intended to provide….defense, infrastructure, education. ”
Sounds pretty Libertarian. So, given today’s political climate, who do you vote for?
Or, maybe its smarter to pare the subject down a bit; on infrastructure, what’s the best source of funding? Options are: toll roads, gas taxes, general funds, vehicle sales taxes, other?
Given your response to the above, who do you vote for?
“Lack of contribution?”
They pay nothing in taxes and contribute nothing to the common government. All the complaining about the rich masks this fact.
The adage is those that can pay with gold should pay with gold, those that can pay with commodities should pay with commodities, and those that can pay with the shovel should pay with the shovel.
“Sounds pretty Libertarian. So, given today’s political climate, who do you vote for? ”
Clearly you cannot vote for a Democrat if you have any type of libertarian leanings. Democrats support more powerful government. Take a look at how the liberal Supreme Court justices voted on such measures as Kelo on takings and the California Medical Marijuana laws.
The liberals will consitently vote to grant more power to government and less to the people on all matters.
That’s some pretty selective memory there Mark. When Dick Armey was in power, a Repub Congress had to deal with a Dem President. Kindof like when Reagan was in power, he had to deal with a Dem congress. Isn’t it interesting how when the two parties have to compromise, things get done, but when one party holds all the power, the budget doesn’t get balanced, spending gets out of hand, etc?
“but when one party holds all the power, the budget doesn’t get balanced, spending gets out of hand, etc? ”
But Congress did nothing to balance the budget. The reason why the budget “balanced” in 1999-2000 was ecause defense spending decreased from more than 5.0% of GDP during the Cold War to 3.0% of GDP in 1999 and 2000. Even then, the one year of On-Budget surplus would nto have happened except for the massive capital gains tax revenues redeemed during the Internet Stock Bubble.
Mark says “[The poor] pay nothing in taxes and contribute nothing to the common government. All the complaining about the rich masks this fact.”
First of all, who’s ‘complaining’ about the rich? The argument is that the people (the rich) that benefit the most from living in the US should contribute more of those gains back to the society that enables those gains. Secondly, should we perpetuate a cycle of poverty, or should we promote social mobility and move people onto the tax rolls that aren’t there now?
If we take a random, generic kid living in poverty, chances are real high that they’re either going to go to jail, live on welfare or work a low-paying job because they didn’t finish high school. Only a small percentage will end up going to college and moving onto the tax rolls. So the question is, is it worth it for society – for the rest of us – to invest in these kids in order to reduce the likelihood that the go to jail or end up on welfare? How much money can we save in the long term, if we can get them out of high school and into a halfway decent job, whether semi-skilled factory work or in the trades? Seems to me like we’ll reap back our investment many, many times over if we put a couple grand into a kid early in life that will put them on track to later pay taxes, rather than costing us money in prison or on welfare.
As for complaining, read many of the above posts or listen to the Democratic campaign commercials. Their theme is “we will get the evil top 1%”.
“Seems to me like we’ll reap back our investment many, many times over if we put a couple grand”
Minneapolis public schools spend more per pupil than any other school district in the state, more than $11,000 per student. And how effective is this spending? The fact is, that more spending has shown to be totally ineffective.
“If we take a random, generic kid living in poverty, chances are real high that they’re either going to go to jail, live on welfare or work a low-paying job because they didn’t finish high school. ”
As I have pointed out, all of these problems you are pointing out are caused by an individual’s decision to drop out of high school (or other bad decisions).
We can agree as to what the cause is (a very good start) but we cannot agree to what the proper way of combating the problem. Clearly, here is a valid point about school choice. Allowing the parent to decide where to send their children is a major policy intiiative just waiting there to help students and the problems you discuss.
Maybe, the issue is as simple as a parent wanting to send their child to a school that enforces discipline, has a school uniform, and maybe even some religious instruction. By actively allowing the parent a major role in this choice we are creating a tremendous multiplier in keeping the child from dropping out because clearly in most cases it is also the PARENT that is involved in the choice to drop out.
Not all of education is “edcutation”. It is safety and conduct. It is being in a respectful enviroment. THE RANDOM POOR PERSON you discuss is not being well served by the inner city public schools.
Remember the days when people used to joke about how dangerous Washington DC was? It was always pretty ironic that the Nation’s capital was one of the most dangerous cities in the country. Well not anymore. Thanks to Amy Klobuchar’s 8 years as the Chief Prosecutor of Hennepin County which encompasses Minneapolis.
Minneapolis is now more dangerous than New York and Washington DC. And the law enforcement communities have noticed. Kennedy picked up another law enforcement endorsement.
(St. Paul, Minnesota) – As Mark Kennedy mentioned during the U.S. Senate candidate debate last night, Amy Klobuchar has failed to take any accountability for the out-of-control crime in Minneapolis. Today, Minneapolis is listed as the 23rd most dangerous city in America, ahead of notoriously violent cities like Washington, D.C. and New York. The violent crime rate in Minneapolis is 3 times the national average. http://www.morganquitno.com/cit05a.pdf
In addition to receiving the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and being named the Congressman of the Year from the National Narcotics Officers Coalition, Mark has also earned the full support of the Minnesota Police Alliance.
“Mark says:
October 30th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
But Congress did nothing to balance the budget.”
Not true. Taxes were raised, “pay-go” funding rules in Congress were established, and — as you yourself point out — military spending as a percentage of GDP fell dramatically.
Confidence in our nation’s economic management went through the roof, along with investment; growth rates reached 5% per annum; all socioeconomic groups saw income gains; the stock market went up and up and up; and unemployment reached a forty-year low of 3.8%.
It’s always mytified me why anyone was dissatisfied with that. But I think the answer is insatiable hunger for raw political power, even if it meant upsetting the whole apple cart. Now nearly everyone, except perhpas the top 1% of income earners, is worse off.
Repbulicans cut off their nose to spite their face.
bsimon: Your comments make excellent sense. Thanks for helping keep this board on an even keel.
bsimon-
I’ll vote republican. Not happy with the direction of our government (getting bigger) under Rep leadership, but as Mark pointed out, can’t vote for the side that wants to make decisions for me. Hopefully we can keep Bush’s tax cut, not cut and run in Iraq, maybe get some social responsibility, etc. I like Mark’s point on what the poor contribute.
I don’t hear many ideas from the other side. They have a Utopian view (great humanitarians), but it has little place in the advancement of our Nation.
“Confidence in our nation’s economic management went through the roof,”
And then it came down in a recession in 2000. The end of this economic period had nothing to do with the political transition.
The fact is that the late 1990s were a unique combination of events; The Cold War ending giving the “peace” dividend, the internet stock boom, and other unique factors in the labor market. If you notice, not one of these events was caused by the political activities in Washington, DC. To their credit, Bill Clinton and hte Republican Congress did nothing to screw it up even thought they had the opportunity.
“Any time you have an opportunity to make a difference in this world and you don’t, then you are wasting your time on Earth.”
- Roberto Clemente
“Those who hate the poor must be the most miserable souls on the planet.”
-Michael Blaine
Well, Mark, the way I see it, its not just about schools and its not just about inner-city kids. There’s plenty of rural poverty out there too. Anyway, you talk about holding people accountable, but then you talk about letting the parents off the hook, because the schools aren’t enforcing discipline? Huh? As far as “school choice” goes, I’m against spending public dollars on private schools, unless those schools have to follow the same rules as public schools, like accepting special-needs students, meeting test score requirements, etc. That might rule out any school that prays though.
Mark says “To their credit, Bill Clinton and hte Republican Congress did nothing to screw it up even thought they had the opportunity.”
That is exactly my point. They were forced to compromise. If the Dems pick up the House & Senate, we just might see some fiscal sanity out of Washington for the last two years of Bush’s term.
Rod, I thought you said you went to graduate school. It must have not been for Criminal Justice because then you would know that the violent crime rate in the UCR is susceptible to fluctuation from reporting and recording patterns. It’s ironic that this thread is about confirmation bias because just a month or so ago, I explained to you why the homicide rate is a far better measure.
Yes, the homicide rate in Minneapolis is higher than NYC. It is also lower than DC, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Los Angeles…and the list goes on.
“some fiscal sanity out of Washington for the last two years of Bush’s term.”
Fiscal sanity? Other than defense spending, is there ONE program that the Democrats believe that Bush spent enough money on? Give me a break.
“They were forced to compromise”
And on what subjects did they compromise on? Welfare Reform, uh, no. That was forced down Clinton’s throat.
And, I seem to remember the government shut downs and other stalemates that occured.
You overrate “balanced” government.
Good Lord, the Hugh Hewitts and Joe Soucherays and Jason Lewises and all the 1280-AM hate-radio gorgons never give up, do they? The whole “liberal Strib” myth was debunked ages ago. Whatever progressiveness is shown by the editors is more than outweighed by a) how easily cowed the publisher is (why else are Lileks and Kersten employed there, and why else does the disinfotaing Mallard Fillmore stain its pages? At least Jeff MacNelly’s Shoe was actually funny), and b) the fact that archconservative Doug Tice runs the Strib’s political newsroom.
” I’m against spending public dollars on private schools, unless those schools have to follow the same rules as public schools, like accepting special-needs students, meeting test score requirements, etc.”
So, the same failings of the public school will be continued. The fact is that the inner city public schools fail their students. We need something different. More money has been the Democrat and teacher union’s solution for decades and more money has not worked. In fact, more money is only correlated with more failure.
We need to have the parents pick the educational opportunity they know will work for their own children. Maybe that means praying.
What you propose is that we not let children prosper because rules are not being followed. God forbid that we let some schools “break those rules” even though they will educate children better, and often less expensively.
As far as special needs students, these are the students that need school choice the most.
Regardless, it is time we stop measuring our schools by the least common denominator. Thousands of dollars are spent on “special needs” students for each dollar spent on gifted children. Lets make sure we understand that.
You underrate balanced government. You overrate the Republicans’ ability to control themselves when they’re in power. Look at the pork they’ve delivered. Its way out of hand. Regarding welfare reform, Clinton sent it back twice, via veto, until they delivered a bill he’d sign. Likewise with the gov’t shutdown; sure it was ugly, but he forced Newt & friends to produce a bill he’d sign. Compare that to the bloated bills this Congress has delivered. They’ve banned the sale of horsemeat and expounded on the medical condition of Ms. Schiavo, but haven’t done jack to reform social security, or the tax laws, or health care, beyond the Part D giveaway to drug companies. Compare that to the 1986 Dem Congress working with Reagan to reform taxes or the years where Newt & Clinton butted heads. One party control produces bloat.
Because private schools work so much better…
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006461.pdf
Mark says “We need to have the parents pick the educational opportunity they know will work for their own children. Maybe that means praying.”
Maybe then they should pray for a scholarship rather than expecting the gov’t to pay for a religious education.
steve you are so right. that amy- she is doing a heck of a job, kloby! too bad we won’t really know though since her office will not release any records- what is she hiding? she is hiding exactly what i have been railing on this whole time. i am an insider.
“One party control produces bloat.”
The bloat is there regardless of one or two party control. It does not matter.
Rod-I said nothing to attribute the rate to Kobuchar. I was just pointing out that you were making an obvious mistake, again.
“Maybe then they should pray for a scholarship rather than expecting the gov’t to pay for a religious education. ”
Governemnt pays for religious education all the time. THe only difference is that in that sector the instructors are not unionized and there is more competition. In this sector the government supports PRIVATE school choice.
In this market the students and parents are free to select the schools they are most interested in. In this market thousands of foreigners send their students to the United States for the opportunity. Most people consider this sector to be one of the saving graces of US education.
Which sector is it?
Steve,
Hold the phone, you expect us consider a study put out by the Dept of Education analyzing the private schools???
That’s like asking Pelosi to assess the job of Bush.
The biggest enemy of Public Education is the ever increasing private schools.
What next, do I get to direct my tax dollars towards repairing my driveway instead of the street? Can I get a gov’t supplied security system instead of cops on the street?
steve, you cannot claim the good news unless you are prepared to be responsible for the bad news. old saying- cant remember who said it.
also- i just read that the foley and delay seats are running 50-50. i am feeling better all the time about next tuesday. if any spots were going to go dem, it would have been them.
I’ve said this before, there are very very few things that the government can do better than the private sector. Free enterprise and competition, let the consumers decide.
In education, they are.
Jeffs, says “I’ve said this before, there are very very few things that the government can do better than the private sector. Free enterprise and competition, let the consumers decide.
In education, they are. ”
jeffs, if what you say were true, wouldn’t the private schools all be opening up in the markets where the worst public schools are? i.e. in the inner cities and sparsely-populated rural areas? I could be wrong, but I think most private schools are in the more affluent neighborhoods and suburbs.
“What next, do I get to direct my tax dollars towards repairing my driveway instead of the street? Can I get a gov’t supplied security system instead of cops on the street? ”
That is hyperbole. Why does government allow choice in ONE sector of the educaiton market but then forces a monopoly on another?
Mark says “So, the same failings of the public school will be continued. ”
The fallacy of your strawman argument is that you assume I’m arguing for the status quo. I am not. I am all for reforming public education. All I am against is diverting public dollars to private schools. I disagree with the premise that starving public schools of dollars will result in better public schools.
“Why does government allow choice in ONE sector of the educaiton market but then forces a monopoly on another? ”
Speaking of hyperbole…
Education, health care, national defense, natural resource management, transportation infrastructure, and emergency management are all critical tasks of a government. Putting these tasks under the control of those who seek to limit costs and maximize profit is a recipe for disaster.
The private sector working in these areas as subcontractors? Of course, we need them to get competitively priced bids. But to have them lobby and determine national policy? No. This is the basis of much of the pork, waste, and large-scale debacles we are seeing on the national stage.
“jeffs, if what you say were true, wouldn’t the private schools all be opening up in the markets where the worst public schools are? i.e. in the inner cities and sparsely-populated rural areas? I could be wrong, but I think most private schools are in the more affluent neighborhoods and suburbs. ”
Duh, because only the affluent can afford private education for their children.
” But to have them lobby and determine national policy?”
But if people made their own choices about education and health care there would not be a need for national policy. The consumers will determine what htey need, not some faceless bureacrats in Washington DC and other places of political influence.
WHy does McDonalds serve the products they serve? Is it because of policy guildelines from the federal governemnt? No, it is in response to the needs and wants of its consumers. McDonalds serves tasty burgers at an efficient price.
““Why does government allow choice in ONE sector of the educaiton market but then forces a monopoly on another? â€Â
“Speaking of hyperbole…”
Well, since you will not play the game, I will fill in the blanks for ya.
WHY DOES GOVERNMENT ALLOW SCHOOL CHOICE FOR COLLEGES AND NOT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS? Billions of governemnt dollars are spent on college education programs. The student is allowed to select their choice of college and then bring whatever government financial support with them to that school. That is, if you wanted to attend the University of Minnesota you would receive the same direct government aid if you attended the University of Wisconsin.
You will receive Pell Grants, Guaranteed Student Loans, and other public benefits if you attend a Methodist school like Hamline University, a Catholic school like St. Johns, or a public school like Winona St.
The only difference in these situations is that the college professors are not an entrenched union that is in the pocket of the Democratic party.
“Duh, because only the affluent can afford private education for their children. ”
So the free market does not provide equally for everyone?
Wait, if anyone should be able to take their ‘share’ of public school dollars to go to private school instead, shouldn’t the people without health care waiting for hour after hour at the emergency room be given a voucher to go to private hospitals instead? Sure, it’ll take some public dollars from the county hospitals, but a little competition will be good for them. Right?
“The only difference in these situations is that the college professors are not an entrenched union that is in the pocket of the Democratic party.”
BZZT!!! Another difference is that the gov’t has not guaranteed a college education for everyone. Also, many of those instruments you mention are loans, not grants, or gifts, or scholarships. In other words, they are paid back by the student. Yes, the rate is guaranteed, or in some cases, subsidized, but in the end, it is not a valid comparison – until the gov’t decides to provide a guaranteed college eduction for everyone who wants one.
“emergency room be given a voucher to go to private hospitals instead? Sure, it’ll take some public dollars from the county hospitals, but a little competition will be good for them. Right? ”
Sure. I do not see any problems with that, except for the fact that there might be incremental costs associated with their decision. That is, the voucher would not be guaranteed to pay the entire bill.
The same is true for school choice.
So, Dora – you categorically deny that you would say there is more dishonesty and venom on the right? Okay, good. Wonderful to hear. And I believe you, too.
“Another difference is that the gov’t has not guaranteed a college education for everyone”
So, if you apply for a college/vocational school financial aid they will say too bad you are not guaranteed a college education?
The “guarantee” issue is nto a factor in the main argument: The government supports choice in college, regardless of religious affiliation and location, that it does nto support for primary education.
“So the free market does not provide equally for everyone?”
Of course not. The free market has pricing factors and does not provide equally for everyone. No one requires that the market, for education or hamburgers, provides equally for the benefits of the free market to manifest themselves.
By the way: Business does better overall under Democrats than under Republicans.
By the way: Business overall does better under Democrats than Republicans. (Cites for this are here, here and here.)
And if my first cite for that wasn’t good enough, here’s another one showing that Democrats are better for business and the economy than Republicans.
Paul, we were only talking about LTE and you know that. I agree with bsimon’s response to your broadening of the topic.
jeffs if you don’t want to vote for the party that wants to tell you what to do then you shouldn’t be voting for Republicans. They are trying to dictate your end of life health care decisions and are trying to change the consititution to reflect their religious views. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial. That is telling you what to do. The entire conservative view of keeping the government out of your personal life is gone in today’s Republican Party. Just like fiscal conservatism is gone from it.
Of course the national economy does better under the contemporary brand of Democrat: they believe in fiscal responsibility, reductions in the deadweight of the military, and investment in people.
You’re right, Dora: Anyone who’s paid attention knows that the Republican Party is dangerously radical: radical on foreign policy, radical on spending, radical on abridging civil rights, and radical on tampering with the Constitution. They’re almost like the French Revolution’s Robespierre!
That’s why Dwight Eisenhower’s grandson disgustedly quit the party in ’04.
Hey, Ramrod: “Gitmo” is not a place; it’s called Guantanamo.
Or is that too many syllables for the simple-minded?
I think what everyone is missing is that Eric Black just confirmed the existence of a post-newspaper age.
Heavy.
Bloggers and journalists: together at last (Part 1)
I just got back from the Voting with a Mouse: How Bloggers Altered the Political Landscape event at the Humphrey Center.
The forum began with a Power Point from David Karr of the New York times. Karr used to write for various publications and alterati…
Posting here can be like talking to teenagers. You have to be careful what you say because the other side will argue against it no matter what. It seems like there are a lot more people into the team sport mentality of winning or losing than there are people who want to exchange ideas and information. Go figure.
“It’s confirmation bias, which is a bias in favor of facts and arguments that confirm what you already believe.
It’s generally coupled with an unwillingness to credit or even acknowledge the existence of facts that contradict what you want to continue believing.”
Thank you, Mr. Black, for the correct diagnosis of the malady suffered by President Bush and the Republicans.
michael, your beret must be tilted incorrectly, becuase i have not mentioned gitmo, or guantanamo at all.
anyone who would like to read about some voter fraud, try this out:
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/NEWS05/610290334/1021
or read this one, http://tinyurl.com/wra92, on votes being cast for Democrats coming up as votes for Republicans on the summary screen. Where? Florida. Where else.
so, there was a glitch and they correct it. problem solved. not a very good comparison, dora. my story has a large amount of dead people voting.
also, when the site has a picture of bush appearing with a baboob like look on his face, my bs detector goes off.
the site is the Miami Herald. A glitch that seems to happen over again and in more than one county. And not just with one machine. So problem not solved. And in Broward county they don’t even log the complaints. Wonder what it will look like on election day with many more people than a few voting?
And here’s another from the LA Times:
The Orange County district attorney’s office has charged 11 people with fraudulent voter registration stemming from a Republican registration drive this year.
The case has been an embarrassment for the Orange County Republican Party since it first became known in February.
The charges come as the party finds itself reeling from a letter linked to GOP congressional candidate Tan Nguyen that was sent to Latino voters this month in what has been described as an effort to keep them from the polls in next month’s election.
The voter registration charges cover at least 37 instances in which Democratic and Green Party voters and even one noncitizen were registered as Republicans.
a florida problem concerns you and you poo-poo the 32 documented voter fraud submittals here in hennepin county.
the tan nguyen thing was taken care of already- they fired the employee who was responsible. don’t try to implicate the campaign because of a single volunteer or you may open up yourself to a lot of fingers pointing here in minnesota with your dems.
The GOP called for Nguyen to drop out b/c they found that the candidate himself was involved but he refused. You can’t push this off to a volunteer. Why are you so concerned with voter fraud in NY?
dora, you are making that up. the gop asked him to step down for appearance of scandal not the actual act.
about ny, not a big concern to me- i just found the story interesting
nope, you’re wrong.
I agree with Prendergast. The single most crucial editorial decision is what to print as “news” and what to put a lid on.
That dwarfs all the hand-wringing about separation of the “news” coverage from the “editorial page.”
STRIB did NOT cover the Bachmann Living Word second face [the one she presents zealots while saying the cut taxes mantra to the general public] until the AP had taken the story because Mac Hammond crossed the line of proper conduct in a way that compromised Living Word’s tax exempt status. The story was known to Black before then, but was sat on. Now, DAILY KOS has printed the question about Bachmann’s WELS synod believing the papacy is the Antichrist; and it’s potential impact upon Catholic voters in the St. Cloud area, and again, a total blackout of this issue. If STRIB does not like a batch of facts, it simply denies they exist as news, when they are news. City Pages is a better source of information about who Michele Bachmann is and that paper has a small fraction of the resources STRIB has.
So, Eric Black, what about that “Jamie” story Avidor says he will talk about after Michele Bachmann interjected that name and her beliefs about it into public attention?
Avidor will discuss it and its relation to the Living Word video record; which STRIB grudgingly acknolwedged existed only after it became a first broken story by AP, out of DC. Where’s the quality of the print paper, EB, before criticizing blogging’s being directed and not FALSELY holding itself out as objective and wanting to print all the news that’s fit to print. What was unfit about the Living Word Bachmann act, Bachmannian high theater, in the direction that mainstream voters should have waited days to see STRIB handle the story????
Both the KOS-caused Antichrist ripple news, and the “Jamie” story are being blogged at anti-Bachmann website, dumpbachmann.com, and the pro-Bachmann site, Bachmann v. Wetterling, yet are being ignored elsewhere. When there is a voice and a counter-voice, there is a spectrum of coverage readers can weigh; whereas STRIB likes only one voice, its voice, silent as it often is about news until the lid’s off via other channels.
What’s the defense of this editorializing via deciding which stories to carry or bury?????????
Phoenix Woman – Oct 20, 4:39 pm.
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
I suspect it is this Doug Tice that is cause for incomplete coverage of the Michele Bachmann candidacy. And PW I know you are dissatisfied with STRIB coverage of the Ellison candidacy but I am less familiar with facts about it.
I recall that the Attorney General had a publicized complaint about STRIB and in it he mentioned Mr. Tice and his likely influence on slanting what’s news and what’s not.
So, EB, and Doug Tice; what’s “wrong” with blogging – and nonsinners, only, throw the first stone, eh?
Mark says “So, if you apply for a college/vocational school financial aid they will say too bad you are not guaranteed a college education?”
yes. If your grades suck, or you don’t have a high school diploma/GED, they might not let you in. Surely you knew this?
“The “guarantee†issue is nto a factor in the main argument: The government supports choice in college, regardless of religious affiliation and location, that it does nto support for primary education. ”
Of course it’s a factor. The government is providing a free education, through high school, for all US citizens. College is not free and it is not provided by the gov’t. The gov’t encourages people to attend college by guaranteeing loans – but a loan is a far different thing from a free education. Surely you can see this difference?
EB – Will the Humphry Institute thing be a strictly talking heads presentation or will questions from the audience be at the end? In other words, will it be a panel love-in, or something where there is at least a chance at a controversial view or idea entering?
Dora says:
October 31st, 2006 at 8:58 am
nope, you’re wrong.
well, don’t i feel stupid now. how could i not be wholly astounded by your evidence you present.
heh. You never present any evidence. The LA Times said that he personally bought the Dem list that the letter went to. He said he fired a female staffer who sent it but he never had a female staffer.
Ramrod: You did indeed use the term you deny having used (citation below.)
Again, it’s Guantanamo for those of us who like to call places by their correct names.
“Team Ramrod says:
October 30th, 2006 at 9:17 am
the first 100 Days of Nancy Pelosi’s America. Day 1: Party like it’s 1992; citizenship for all Gitmo detainees.”
Is there a liberal bias because they favor liberals? Or are liberal articles better supported? For example, evolution has a strong backing in science (Peer-review articles and the like) that get cited. Not many conservatives give citations to peer review science sources support creationism. While “Support our troops” is a powerful statement “We need to come up with money for a war because we are short cash” resonates with facts.
I suppose the press is inherently biased “liberally” because it questions the government. That’s what it’s there for.
“Of course it’s a factor. The government is providing a free education, through high school, for all US citizens”
But it is not a factor in the question of the separation of church and state, and how government funds individual choices in education.
The fact that a primary education is “guaranteed” is a meaningless factor in the funding debate. This just means that the government will provide funding. There is no caveat to this guarantee that requires the government only to support a government run monopoly school.
And, as far as the liberal bias of the “Main Stream Media” to argue against it is just ludicrous. Anyone who disclaims the liberal bias of the Star Tribune has their heads in the sand.
Bias in the MSM is not that important or a problem. WHat is the main problem is the lack of acknowledgement of the bias. Rush Limbaugh for example, proclaims his bias. The reporters for the Minneapolis Star-Hammer and Sickle pretend to objectivity.
“But it is not a factor in the question of the separation of church and state, and how government funds individual choices in education.”
Why should the gov’t fund individual choice in education? The gov’t is funding public education & saying ‘take it or leave it.’ If you don’t like what they offer, go to school somewhere else, or explore homeschooling. Its not at all a monopoly – you have choice. It might cost you money to exercise that choice, but you still have choice.
Fillmore Ink
Pardon the self-promotion. I’ll be moderating and briefly speaking at an panel discussion at t [...]http://inkjetinksaleshop.info/?p=425 [...]
College Soccer Forum
John
âûâîç ñòðîèòåëüíîãî ìóñîðà
òðàíñïîðòíûå óñëóãè
This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.
We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Subscribe to The Big Question
Learn more about RSS
Politically Connected Blogs
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
Categories
- 1st District (3)
- 2nd District (2)
- 3rd District (9)
- 4th District (2)
- 5th District (5)
- 6th District (1)
- Al Franken (27)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Barack Obama (7)
- Collin Peterson (1)
- Conventions (7)
- economy (9)
- Erik Paulsen (2)
- Fred Thompson (2)
- health care (15)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (6)
- House (3)
- In Congress (1)
- Iraq (14)
- John Edwards (3)
- John Kline (2)
- John McCain (11)
- Keith Ellison (1)
- Main (1184)
- Michele Bachmann (22)
- Mike Ciresi (10)
- Mike Huckabee (1)
- Mitt Romney (3)
- Norm Coleman (33)
- Presidential (26)
- Presidential Democratic (16)
- Presidential Republican (19)
- Ron Paul (4)
- Rudy Giuliani (2)
- San Brownback (1)
- Senate (17)
- State (11)
- Tim Pawlenty (13)
- Tim Walz (1)
- Tom Tancredo (1)