Let's Privatize the Fire Department and Police Department

[quote name='mykevermin']if health care in this country is a privilege and not a right, then why is protection from fires and protection from crime?[/QUOTE]


I think you missed your own argument myke. If you want to know what I'm arguing about, re-read your OP. Not only is healthcare not a right, neither is police and fire protection.

They are free rider programs, community priviledges, instituted among communities by democratically elected proposals. Perhaps you haven't yet had the opportunity to approve a police or fire millage in your community or footed the bill by being a property owner. Isn't democracy great? It's the closest thing we have to socialism. You should be happy about that.
 
I swear mulligan the day you give/use that Franklin quote correctly is the day Bush start pronouncing his words right. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". You tell me how its an Essential liberty and how its Temporary safety and then we can talk.


Ohh and Ben set up one of the first fire companies in the colonies. So I think thats a poor person to quote.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Isn't democracy great? It's the closest thing we have to socialism. You should be happy about that.[/QUOTE]

Is anyone capable of putting a number on the amount of people "happy about that"? My guess 95% if not more.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I swear mulligan the day you give/use that Franklin quote correctly is the day Bush start pronouncing his words right. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". You tell me how its an Essential liberty and how its Temporary safety and then we can talk.


Ohh and Ben set up one of the first fire companies in the colonies. So I think thats a poor person to quote.[/QUOTE]

The 'essential liberty' is the freedom, i.e., responsibility, to protect yourself. The 'temporary safety' is the illusion that police presence will protect your life. And, when you wholly transfer the responsibility of personal protection to the 'government', don't be surprised when the government starts monitoring your every action in the name of preventing crime.

So, to reiterate for those who may have perverted versions of liberty and responsibility:

Give up your right to protect yourself - get martial law in return.
 
Doesn't police "protection" come into play when they bust the drunk or the rapist before they hurt someone else? Sure, it may have been a realized crime that got them moving in the first place, but I think we'd be hard pressed to say they don't protect people.
 
[quote name='daroga']Doesn't police "protection" come into play when they bust the drunk or the rapist before they hurt someone else? Sure, it may have been a realized crime that got them moving in the first place, but I think we'd be hard pressed to say they don't protect people.[/QUOTE]

The police are agents of the public. The public pass the laws, the police bring offenders to a judge to account for their crimes. The judges rules on the evidence presented and his interpretation of the laws that governs his decisions. If anyone is protecting us from future crimes of an indiidual, it's the judges, the laws, and the people. The police are just proxies. You can't, and shouldn't, think of them as arbiters of justice or a protection squad.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The police are agents of the public. The public pass the laws, the police bring offenders to a judge to account for their crimes. The judges rules on the evidence presented and his interpretation of the laws that governs his decisions. If anyone is protecting us
from future crimes of an indiidual, it's the judges, the laws, and the people. The police are just proxies. You can't, and shouldn't, think of them as arbiters of justice or a protection squad.[/quote]So the cop who throws the drunk in jail hasn't protected any one else on the road that night?

Service and protection are not mutually exclusive of one another.
 
[quote name='daroga']So the cop who throws the drunk in jail hasn't protected any one else on the road that night?

Service and protection are not mutually exclusive of one another.[/quote]

If somebody tries to punch you in the nose, the cop can allow it until contact is made whereas the bodyguard can't allow contact to be attempted.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If somebody tries to punch you in the nose, the cop can allow it until contact is made whereas the bodyguard can't allow contact to be attempted.[/quote]Sure. But the cop will step in before he beats the tar out of me.

A police officer isn't my personal body guard, sure, but I think it's kinda foolish to say "Police don't protect people!" I guess there's a difference between protection and keeping you safe from all forms of bodily danger 100% of the time.
 
[quote name='daroga']Sure. But the cop will step in before he beats the tar out of me.[/quote]

That's the difference between an assault charge and an assault and battery charge.

A police officer isn't my personal body guard, sure, but I think it's kinda foolish to say "Police don't protect people!" I guess there's a difference between protection and keeping you safe from all forms of bodily danger 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

I've done what I can to show that "protection" means more than police actively stopping crime - that when the perception of police presence is there, crime rates decline - thus, a small, indirect effect of police on "preventing crime." Those who would disagree are too mired in their false libertarian philosophies of the world, and too mired in their phraseology (imagine me saying that!) of "agents of the public" to even begin to wrangle with actual, factual changes in crime rates.
 
I just watched like 3 episodes of the Simpsons from season 6. It seems like there were at least 1/2 a dozen quotes to put here, but I can't remember any of them. I blame... the police.

EDIT: Here's a favorite that's not fitting at all. "Let's burn down the observatory so this never happens again!"
 
I can't help but look at the world and administration of governance, see the pros and cons of each approach, and then come to the conclusion that ours is lacking (relating back and speaking to the OP's real point). The libertarian view of a utopian state of liberty and freedom (which can't be tired enough, as people seem to turn 19 and read Atlas Shrugged every single day) are far too often the stifling agents, for all their whining about being on the back burner. I'm tired of hearing about how the free market is the natural state and therefore desirable, all the while cinching tight the blindfold that prevents them from seeing the natural state of political organization and results.

That Onion story is so funny it's sad. And yet the whoosh of reality just rushes right on past.
 
Couldn't we try out universal health care for about 5 years and see if it works for us? If not, then just switch back to the old system?
 
[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx']Couldn't we try out universal health care for about 5 years and see if it works for us? If not, then just switch back to the old system?[/QUOTE]

We already have a form of limited universal health care, Medicare and the government can't even manage that properly. They "cut costs" by only covering visits for specific diangoses, but will refuse to cover routine health maintenance visits. So patients end up waiting until they get sick before seeing the doctor, which drives up costs for everyone. For me as a health care professional, the idea of the government overseeing everyone's health care is frightening.

Has the government proven that it can manage anything effectively and efficiently?
 
Police and fire station must belong to the state, otherwise smaller towns would have their houses left burning because they can't afford firemen. I don't think contractors would do the perfect policemen neither. Not to enforce the rogue military contractor stereotype, but these aren't the nicest guys around.

As for healthcare, I support the 2-speed system. This means there is the free healthcare for everyone that is clogged by idiots going to the hospital only for reading magazines (it's almost true in Canada) or the costly but fast private healthcare for those who can afford it.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I can't help but look at the world and administration of governance, see the pros and cons of each approach, and then come to the conclusion that ours is lacking (relating back and speaking to the OP's real point). The libertarian view of a utopian state of liberty and freedom (which can't be tired enough, as people seem to turn 19 and read Atlas Shrugged every single day) are far too often the stifling agents, for all their whining about being on the back burner. I'm tired of hearing about how the free market is the natural state and therefore desirable, all the while cinching tight the blindfold that prevents them from seeing the natural state of political organization and results.

That Onion story is so funny it's sad. And yet the whoosh of reality just rushes right on past.[/QUOTE]

I see things how they are and consider myself an Old School Libertarian, or at least for the closest political viewpoint that makes sense.
Honestly I don't trust Big Business or Big Government. They both will stab you in the back readily. I won't disagree some things MAY work best socially. Most common things WON'T though. Also privatizing Utilities, especially Water, is moronic unless you mean to a not for profirt company. Bottom line in most cases passing these types of services to a not for profit corporation is truly the cheapest option. I know there's the idea passing it off to a regular corporation will make it cheaper but even if that were the case it wouldn't be up to the standards of the government one. The government one would be too expensive because of the redundancy of people hired, the corporation idea would be an issue as the costs would be cut TOO much, be too threadbare to make sure they make a nice tidy profit. If this isn't the case what would happen is it would end up MORE expensive in the end after everyone gets their cut.
Frankly I don't WANT Socialized Medicine because I'm Hollistic and I believe doing this would be gifting some of my tax money to Big Pharma in general which I'm utterly opposed to. Obama's plan frightens me because what will come with Health Care for children being mandatory? If I have a kid and I am FORCED to take them to see a Psychiatrist based on a teacher's recommendation what comes next? My concern is they will be forced to take drugs, even on my objection. Already look how it's believed kid's were overprescribed Ritalin. Some of these doctors do overstep their bounds at times. They must realize some of their patient's parents might be adequately or even more so in terms of education.
Let me add what about Hollistics? Yeah I don't believe that would see any money, what with Pharma trying to minimize them since they can't patent those plants and so on. I pray that Western culture NEVER wins out over Far East there or we may lose the talk in society about this type of healing.
 
So are we pretty much screwed here? All I've seen in this thread is that if the government takes it over, you'll have to wait forever and pay a lot of taxes. If we continue in the current system then there will continue to be a huge amount of people who can't afford health care, and those who do have health insurance aren't exactly guaranteed treatment (some girl died because she was denied a liver or something a little while ago), simply because the company is trying to maximize profits at every turn.

So what the hell is there to do?
 
[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx']So are we pretty much screwed here? All I've seen in this thread is that if the government takes it over, you'll have to wait forever and pay a lot of taxes. If we continue in the current system then there will continue to be a huge amount of people who can't afford health care, and those who do have health insurance aren't exactly guaranteed treatment (some girl died because she was denied a liver or something a little while ago), simply because the company is trying to maximize profits at every turn.

So what the hell is there to do?[/QUOTE]

Eventually there will be Universal Healthcare in this country if for no other reason than other large corporations are getting sick of footing the bill for the increased healthcare costs.

We spend more in this country on healthcare than those countries that do have universal healthcare so even if taxes go up because of a single payer system people will probably still be paying less.

Paul Krugman basically lays out a ton of facts and arguments in his book Conscience of a Liberal. Michael Moore's Sicko does an excellent job of contrasting the state of healthcare in the US with other countries even if you do not agree with him politically.
 
[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx']So are we pretty much screwed here? All I've seen in this thread is that if the government takes it over, you'll have to wait forever and pay a lot of taxes. If we continue in the current system then there will continue to be a huge amount of people who can't afford health care, and those who do have health insurance aren't exactly guaranteed treatment (some girl died because she was denied a liver or something a little while ago), simply because the company is trying to maximize profits at every turn.

So what the hell is there to do?[/QUOTE]

There are lots of things we can do.

Health Savings accounts so people can can save up for medical care costs by putting away pre-tax in come into treasury bills. The government can also encourage this by matching up to a certain percentage. Allow people to withdraw funds tax free to pay for medical expenses.

Encourage preventative medical care by Medicare paying 100% for routine doctor visits for elderly patients. For younger patients, make any out of pocket expense for annual physicals 100% tax deductible.

Malpractice tort reform.

A lot of it is simply changing the mindset of Americans to health care. Many of the uninsured can afford health care but choose not to purchase it until it's too late. We need to give incentives for people to see their doctors before a problem comes up rather than wait until something happens which it easily could have been preventable.
 
[quote name='dopa345']

Malpractice tort reform.

A lot of it is simply changing the mindset of Americans to health care. Many of the uninsured can afford health care but choose not to purchase it until it's too late. We need to give incentives for people to see their doctors before a problem comes up rather than wait until something happens which it easily could have been preventable.[/quote]


ha ha ha, thats just a joke. Try being sick without insurance doctors can charge whatever the hell they want. You really can just try to blame everyone but the businesses, when in reality its everyone's fault. Insurance companies, Drug Companies, Doctors and yes the Lawyers too. Everyone is making money, which is not inheritantly a bad thing, but to make it off people that can't afford it is atrocious. Like a medicine that would cost 130 dollars without insurance costing 8 dollars with insurance. That just doesn't make sense. You also naively believe that people have all this money and don't want to spend it on health insurance. People on low incomes either can't afford it or they don't really see the point in putting a preventive measure over food on the table. Insurance isnt cheap especially for a family, and don't get me started if someone in the family has a preexisting condition.
 
[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx']Couldn't we try out universal health care for about 5 years and see if it works for us? If not, then just switch back to the old system?[/QUOTE]

Once people get used to someone else wiping their ass for them, why would they ever want to do it themselves again?
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']ha ha ha, thats just a joke. Try being sick without insurance doctors can charge whatever the hell they want. You really can just try to blame everyone but the businesses, when in reality its everyone's fault. Insurance companies, Drug Companies, Doctors and yes the Lawyers too. Everyone is making money, which is not inheritantly a bad thing, but to make it off people that can't afford it is atrocious. Like a medicine that would cost 130 dollars without insurance costing 8 dollars with insurance. That just doesn't make sense. You also naively believe that people have all this money and don't want to spend it on health insurance. People on low incomes either can't afford it or they don't really see the point in putting a preventive measure over food on the table. Insurance isnt cheap especially for a family, and don't get me started if someone in the family has a preexisting condition.[/QUOTE]

I'm not naive at all. I have an MBA in health care administration as well as being a practicing physician so I think I have some insight into the situation. I'm not saying there is a large population of uninsured that can't afford it. I'm saying that a large part of the uninsured can afford it but choose not to. When people are healthy, health insurance falls low on their priority list until they actually do get sick then it's too late. As a rule, the government, like more individuals, is too short-sighted to invest resources to prevent something from happening and perfers to react to problems rather than being proactive in preventing them.
 
Throwing this out here: seeing as doctors have to pay premiums to cover their asses from malpractices suits, what effect does this have on the health care coverage to the people? Are we footing the bill for this? I assume so.

Secondly, is their anyway to minimize this cost to doctors so that the reduced costs are passed on to the consumer?
 
My biggest problem with any insurance is how much of a racket it turns out to be. Those who need it never have enough and those who don't need it end up paying through the nose for it "just in case".
 
[quote name='davo1224']My biggest problem with any insurance is how much of a racket it turns out to be. Those who need it never have enough and those who don't need it end up paying through the nose for it "just in case".[/quote]

So really, all of of these problems stem from economic inequality...right?
 
[quote name='omgu8myrice']*It's Bush's fault*

/ thread[/quote]

:roll:

Not this time.

The problem with health care is the lack of choice and lack of transparency in prices.

Also, the problem has been going on for decades.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I've done what I can to show that "protection" means more than police actively stopping crime - that when the perception of police presence is there, crime rates decline - thus, a small, indirect effect of police on "preventing crime." Those who would disagree are too mired in their false libertarian philosophies of the world, and too mired in their phraseology (imagine me saying that!) of "agents of the public" to even begin to wrangle with actual, factual changes in crime rates.[/QUOTE]


Of course when criminals think someone is watching, they're not going to commit a crime - until they figure out how to hide their crime or obscure their commission of one. They're still going to commit crimes sooner or later. All your crime rate statistics are garbage. They are either based on conviction rates or reported crimes which can change depending on how many judges, courtrooms, and police are picking up criminals. Or they probably "estimate" non-reported crimes, which is laughable on principle. You need to stop living behind your statistical dreamworld and see the real world, myke. You know, there are actual people out here.

Here's a fact, myke, you probably have no concept of: Police departments are funded by property owners. Their very existence depends on the millage approved by a vote of the people. It's not one of your false socialist programs instituted by the local party representative to ensure compliance with the state. We have recourse at a local level, it's called democracy.

And just like police departments don't protect people from crime, a socialist healthcare system won't protect people from disease and death. Unfortunately, we won't have any recourse once that socialist beast is thrust upon us.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Of course when criminals think someone is watching, they're not going to commit a crime - until they figure out how to hide their crime or obscure their commission of one. They're still going to commit crimes sooner or later. All your crime rate statistics are garbage. They are either based on conviction rates or reported crimes which can change depending on how many judges, courtrooms, and police are picking up criminals. Or they probably "estimate" non-reported crimes, which is laughable on principle. You need to stop living behind your statistical dreamworld and see the real world, myke. You know, there are actual people out here.[/quote]

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. I don't trust it.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']All your crime rate statistics are garbage.[/QUOTE]

I'll let the FBI and Department of Justice know that.

Well, that's not the first time I've been told I'm not an expert on crime. But it is the first time that I've been told the entire field of criminological researchers, theorists, and the work they produce is.

Say what you want about me. That's fine. It's clearly indicative of some kind of peculiar hatred for myself as a person, merely for having ideas (and a self-righteous attitude, yes, I know). A hatred so irrational that anything I type is considered a possible point of contention for them.

The sky is blue.
Your CAG username is bmulligan.
Xbox 360 is the console that gets RRoD.
The president is George W. Bush.
Coffee is a bean and a drink.
Wolf Blizter is on CNN.

Think about the fact that you slowly drew your eyes over those sentences looking for something to pinpoint and argue (or that you have actually argued one of those things!). What does that say about you?

So, anyway, don't like me, disagree with me and any data I report simply because they come from me. That's fine. I get it. But you've delved into a world of such stark idiocy and naivete as a result of your perpetual need to argue anything I say that you're continuing to argue that police do not prevent crime (except when they do, as you imply in your first sentence ;)).

Moreover, you both incorrectly state that property taxes and individual votes are what determine the presence and funding level of PDs (neither is very true, though both may be selectively, if insignificantly - since more funding comes from elsewhere and the decisions are rarely made by voters the way they are for, say, schools levees). So the ultimate irony is that you, the champion of individual liberty, try to act as if the public have a viable ability to determine who their police are and how much they are funded - when the reality is that, if you really think that, you're perpetuating a giant myth and allowing the control of police to remain in the hands of government while lying to the people that they can make changes on their own. Pitiful.

Also, find me a location in the US where the people have voted away a PD, or brought in a new one.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Also, find me a location in the US where the people have voted away a PD, or brought in a new one.[/quote]

New Rome, Ohio
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Also, find me a location in the US where the people have voted away a PD, or brought in a new one.[/quote]

San Francisco. I thought there was a Christian Slater movie about it.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']San Francisco. I thought there was a Christian Slater movie about it.[/QUOTE]

Kuffs?

I'll look into New Rome, sf60. Thanks.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll let the FBI and Department of Justice know that.

Well, that's not the first time I've been told I'm not an expert on crime. But it is the first time that I've been told the entire field of criminological researchers, theorists, and the work they produce is.

Say what you want about me. That's fine. It's clearly indicative of some kind of peculiar hatred for myself as a person, merely for having ideas (and a self-righteous attitude, yes, I know). A hatred so irrational that anything I type is considered a possible point of contention for them.[/quote]

It's interesting that your own naivete would allow you to believe there are no politics behind a government bureau's statistical analysis of it's own job performance. This has nothing to do with you, personally, save for the fact that you are the one delivering the "facts." The sky may be blue, I may be crazy, but to believe without question that statistics don't lie is as unreasonable as believing in miracles. Do you roll dice to see which government department is trustworthy this week? It always seems to change with you depending on your agenda. One day the government is corruptingly corporate, the next we believe they're the bastion for fairness and utopia.

I know you can't trust them when a republican is president, but Pelosi said dems were to make government transparent. Did that happen yet? It must have for you to bathe your baby in that bathwater.

Moreover, you both incorrectly state that property taxes and individual votes are what determine the presence and funding level of PDs (neither is very true, though both may be selectively, if insignificantly - since more funding comes from elsewhere and the decisions are rarely made by voters the way they are for, say, schools levees). So the ultimate irony is that you, the champion of individual liberty, try to act as if the public have a viable ability to determine who their police are and how much they are funded - when the reality is that, if you really think that, you're perpetuating a giant myth and allowing the control of police to remain in the hands of government while lying to the people that they can make changes on their own. Pitiful.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you so indirectly acknowledge your disdain for individual liberty. For someone like you, it must represent the most frightening concept you've ever NOT had to face and prefer to attack from your safe haven socialist utopia known as Academia.

It's also funny how your "facts" seem to fade into the obtuse when you have no idea what you're talking about. My community police force is directly funded by my property taxes that I pay twice a year along with all the other property owners in the township. I'm so sorry you weren't at the township meetings where we debated the merits of the millage proposals and questioned our police chief and twp supervisor to justify the increases. Then, low and behold, we didn't see fit to give them a new police station and hire 10 new officers.

You really have no concept of how the world works except for your pre-printed propaganda you consume and consider reality, do you myke ? This is my problem with you, no more, no less. It's not personal, it's the fact that you assume statistics and "fact" sheets are a substitute for life experience. They're not.

Also, find me a location in the US where the people have voted away a PD, or brought in a new one.
Click to expand...
The point is that we have the FREEDOM to disband one should we choose. I know it goes against your principles to engender or even acknowledge individual liberty as as an essential component of a free society, but you don't trust individuals in a free society, do you? That's rhetorical, myke, you've already answered it many times over.
 
I wasn't aware that the Bureau of Justice Statistics was beaming with pride over its finding that prisons are overcrowded, underfunded (and yet simulataneously BOOMING in expenditures), and end up with 2 out of every 3 released prisoners being rearrested within 3 years of release.

I'll send them a "way to go, tiger!" ego-boosting congratulations card for that.

Are you *that* fucking paranoid and suspicious that you want to disregard facts based on who you THINK does the data gathering? I'll be sure to be wary of my own current research project, which started with basic demographic data that are gathered on *EVERY* arrested person in the particular area that I'm researching. Just fuckin' TEEMING with bias, that must be. :roll:
 
Mykevermin, why is it that every other post of yours somehow finds a way to talk about the prison system? Are you an aspiring prisoner or do you have a soft spot for criminals? If so, do you work for the ACLU?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I wasn't aware that the Bureau of Justice Statistics was beaming with pride over its finding that prisons are overcrowded, underfunded (and yet simulataneously BOOMING in expenditures), and end up with 2 out of every 3 released prisoners being rearrested within 3 years of release.[/quote]I'm not going to get in the middle of this little debate, but it seems pretty reasonable to me to provide self-deprecating numbers in a pull to get more funding. Public school systems do it all the time. It runs the risk of pulling at heart strings vs. alienating people who think they should be "smarter with the money they have."

I have no idea nor do I care to debate if that's the case with the DoJ. Just saying that negative numbers doesn't automatically equate with no-spin.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Are you *that* fucking paranoid and suspicious that you want to disregard facts based on who you THINK does the data gathering? [/QUOTE]

Um...yes. I'm always suspicious about WHO is gathering the "facts" and WHO is reporting their analysis. I'd say they are two very important parts of the equation in order to judge objectivity. C'mon, myke, you don't really expect anyone to believe that numbers can't be made to tell untruths? I'm sure your department has an entire doctoral program in that field.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Um...yes. I'm always suspicious about WHO is gathering the "facts" and WHO is reporting their analysis. I'd say they are two very important parts of the equation in order to judge objectivity. C'mon, myke, you don't really expect anyone to believe that numbers can't be made to tell untruths? I'm sure your department has an entire doctoral program in that field.[/quote]

OK, let's assume myke's findings are crap.

Where is the data countering his findings?

Data is never perfect, but you work with the best you have OR work even harder to find a new data set that disproves the first data set..
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']OK, let's assume myke's findings are crap.

Where is the data countering his findings?

Data is never perfect, but you work with the best you have OR work even harder to find a new data set that disproves the first data set..[/QUOTE]

Sorry, this is a grammatical sticking point for me: data is a plural word (datum is the singular; I s'pose we culled this shit over straight from Latin - or to use gaming vernacular, it's just a "straight port").

So it's "Where are the data countering..." and "Data are never perfect..."

But, yeah, anyway, you're not going to get anything out of bmulligan. He's like those other cats who can complain about data funding and influence all they want (check out the NYT front page for a timely story as well), but will NEVER offer anything in response outside of discovering the one thing they need to do to confirm their bias that they shouldn't trust anything that doesn't verify what they already believe about the world. It's the same sort of thrustbucket "Oh, I don't trust any of this science crap myke keeps pointing out, while I'll agree with a single allusion to "theory" (with no single source or citation, mind you) that someone else puts out there" approach he had in another thread. Thanks for trying, though.

I wonder what some of these folks think about the validity and reliability of public school standards testing (the "accountability" element) that was part of the NCLB bill. After all, since we are suspicious of any and all data gathering, we should be very suspicious of that particular provision, no?

Ultimately, I'm not angry about these attitudes; I'm disappointed that people are so frightened of confronting facts that run contrary to their worldview that they immediately delve into attacking the source. Me? I've read bad research. In fact, I think I hit a whole new threshold yesterday; my exact reaction to a paper I read was "well, I don't know what the fuck I just read, but I read somethin'." It won't ever be published in a refereed journal, so I'm not concerned about it polluting the popular discourse. That said, I do read bad/not very good published and refereed research. I confront the data, ask about its limitations, the poor use of proxy data, sloppily applied theoretical reasoning for the project, lousy research methods/statistical tests, or qualitative work that I have little patience for (content analysis can suck a big one, for the record).

But, what it comes down to is something I share in common with people like bmulligan and thrustbucket: we both believe that there are some things not even worth discussing in politics. IMO, there are a number of folks who simply don't deserve to have their points acknowledged: this includes the "pro wrestlers" of the political world (in terms of their substance and style): Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, god only knows how many millions of bloggers on the right and left, etc. Others straddle the line between "newz-ertainment" and having ideas worth debating; I think Neal Boortz is one of those folks, and his consumption tax is a debate worth having. Even bad ideas deserve a seat at the table, while vitriol, screaming, selective truths and "gotcha!" moments do not. So in the end, we agree that there are some things that aren't worth discussing: for me, it's pop-politics. For them, it's science and facts that disagree with their worldview that they are frightened and unprepared to confront. Not exactly a "six of one, half-dozen of the other" scenario, but hey...

soonersfan, do you have a viable resource for more information on New Rome? The wiki entry gives some of the story (like the village leader's group falling apart, the chief resigning and then the police being disbanded - all preceding the village being dissolved into another part of Columbus, OH); but it's told in such a way that it's very hard to really identify the order and causation of each incident (particularly because overt corruption seems to seep through all of it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sorry, this is a grammatical sticking point for me: data is a plural word (datum is the singular; I s'pose we culled this shit over straight from Latin - or to use gaming vernacular, it's just a "straight port").

So it's "Where are the data countering..." and "Data are never perfect..."[/quote]It can be, but it can also be a collective noun referring to a collection of information, for which you'd use a singular verb.
 
Actually myke, according to Star Trek, you're wrong.

Data was just one dude...singular. If what you say is true, his name would have been "Datum"

I too was wondering about Thrustbucket's query (even though he is a conservative).

I also agree w/ Bmull's last post, about being critical of the source of your statistics. My dad has this saying about statistics that I just love:

"If the statistics don't support your position...you need to find some more statistics." Still, Fatherofcaitlyn correctly points out that biased or untrustworthy data beats out NO data at all. (Well, except when considering whether to invade Iraq; there it would have been better to have no data at all.)
 
Being critical of statistics involves understanding the data collection technique, the actual data gathered, and the methods used to determine the lil' numbers. It's a complex understanding indeed to identify potential sources bias and problems in the data.

It's criticizing how it is performed from start to finish.

Being critical of statistics is not simply wishing them away or disregarding them on the *presumption* that they come from biased sources; moreover, if we agree with daroga, then the conspiracy circle is complete, as these agencies are prone to simply making up data that make them look good (in order to stay relevant and appreciated) and also data that make them look bad (to bolster their claims for urgent action). It's lazy, and it's attacking the source instead of the information.

As for your father's pithy saying, that's what lazy people who are too unimportant for their own good say about statistics. It's what people who don't know shit about statistics say about statistics. It's a cute phrase for a bumper sticker, but one that won't wash in the real world. It's a naive, ignorant, defeatist, "I don't wanna know it, and I don't wanna like it" phrase.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sorry, this is a grammatical sticking point for me: data is a plural word (datum is the singular; I s'pose we culled this shit over straight from Latin - or to use gaming vernacular, it's just a "straight port").

So it's "Where are the data countering..." and "Data are never perfect..."
[/quote]

Thanks for pointing this out (data = plural). It's a pet peeve of mine. However, since we're on the topic of grammar and usage, I have to point this out:

Say what you want about me. That's fine. It's clearly indicative of some kind of peculiar hatred for myself as a person, merely for having ideas (and a self-righteous attitude, yes, I know).
Click to expand...

Sorry, another pet peeve of mine is that people incorrectly overuse myself or I, when me is the more appropriate word choice. Myself is a reflexive pronoun and should not be used in place of a simple pronoun. By using the word, myself, you imply that you are the one hating yourself. Only I can do something to myself and only you can do something to yourself. Other people can do something to you or me.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']soonersfan, do you have a viable resource for more information on New Rome? The wiki entry gives some of the story (like the village leader's group falling apart, the chief resigning and then the police being disbanded - all preceding the village being dissolved into another part of Columbus, OH); but it's told in such a way that it's very hard to really identify the order and causation of each incident (particularly because overt corruption seems to seep through all of it.[/quote]

It was awhile ago, but had been a hot topic around here in Columbus for a number of years. The Wiki story has some of the basics, but there were actually several events leading up to it that are left out. Some of the more interesting tidbits are the votes that went back and forth to keep the police, disband the police, vote in this mayor/council, etc. At one point there were more than one recognized mayor/council depending on who you talked to. Yes, corruption was involved, but it was funny how many people just ignored votes that they didn't agree with. And there were actually votes to disband the current police force (which were ignored). It is not completely analogous to your discussion, but I thought it would be fun to stir it up a bit...
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']OK, let's assume myke's findings are crap.

Where is the data countering his findings?

Data is never perfect, but you work with the best you have OR work even harder to find a new data set that disproves the first data set..[/QUOTE]

There is no data countering mykes 'findings' because there are none. There is only his opinion about some social situation. You see, this is Myke's recipe for debate on CAG. He'll begin by professing an erroneous premise:


if health care in this country is a privilege and not a right, then why is protection from fires and protection from crime

The implication is that heathcare should be a right, just like police and fire protection are. When someone counters his argument, pointing out that the premise is faulty - police protection is not even really 'protection', he immediately launches into statistics claiming police presence lowers crime which has nothing to do with his first statement, or backs his supposition that police protection is a right because a peaceful society cannot exist without one, or something equally insignificant to his 'theory'.

Then, someone claims police presence is not even a right, it's a privilege and it's instituted just like any other common social privileges are voted upon and funded, he counters with no facts - just an opinion of denial. When someone claims to know how police are funded - by direct polling of residents and taxpayers of a given community, he challenges that with no bases in fact to back him up this time. Fortunately for him, he doesn't press that point or even acknowledge it in subsequent posts because there are no stats on the subject.

Therefore, there is nothing arguing against his facts, his interpretation of some random study, or the effectiveness of some government program which is only tangential to his primary argument. There's just myke, rallying around his stats like they're still proving his opinion , whatever that may have been becuase everyone has forgotten about what he originally said, and anyone who challenges him is arguing against the 100% truth, because, you see, he has numbers to back him up. Unfortunately, all the numbers in the world can't make police departments or heathcare constitutionally protected rights in America; they are privileges and they don't protect us from getting mugged and stabbed to death around the corner where that policeman can no longer see what's happening.

And that's the point of the topic. Myke wants to hear arguments against privilege. Privilege is something that has to be earned, or bestowed to you through some process. With privilege there's no entitlement, it can be revoked. Myke wants none of that nonsense and has admitted as such in his diatribe against personal freedom. He wants you to be able to demand, through force, a right to healthcare and police protection, while someone else foots the bill. Unfortunately, there are few people to defend us from people who have opinions and facts like myke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top