Or so Zogby would have you believe.
They did a poll where they made statements about "basic economic" issues and saw that the left-leaning people got the answers wrong.
Now, you're probably expecting these basic statements to be something very clear and non-controversial. Something like "Inflation is the gradual increase in the price of goods" and such.
No such luck. Let's go over the statements and correct answers.
"Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable"
According to the WSJ, smart people would agree. Dumb people, on the left, disagree.
I guess that depends on the restrictions. Restrictions requiring developers to make a certain portion of their buildings as accessible to low-income earners would make housing more affordable, wouldn't it?
Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree)
Unenlightened? Whatever. Yes, services are more expensive because we license engineers and plumbers and what not. You could also have unlicensed people work in your house and end up having to pay for most of your jobs to be done twice. Then add in the cost of the damages to your house done by the first guy. Depends on what you count.
Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
This depends very much on exactly where your numbers come from and which segment of society you mean. Are we talking wage disparity? Access to health care? Longevity? The inflation accounted income for the lowest quintile of Americans has dropped since a peak in the early 1970s. Rich people are doing fine, though.
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Again, it depends on the "rent control" in question. Done properly, it's merely a way of keeping your landlord from holding you hostage in your own home, gouging against the expense of moving. Done improperly, it can cause shortages because no one wants to rent out houses anymore.
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).
If this was the statement, not paraphrased, then I agree that the answer is no. A company has to have all, or nearly all, of the market share to be a monopoly.
Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
The "unenlightened" would agree? Who are the fucking idiots who don't think third world workers are being exploited? Are the union leaders being assassinated in Colombia not enough of a hint? Or the sports shoe sweatshops? What world is Zogby living in that doesn't have exploited third world workers?
Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
Actually, yes it does. When NAFTA came to my home town, it shut down two steel plants, a Union Carbide and a bunch of other plants. Those people became unemployed. Even in the Libertarian Faery Dust version of things, free trade causes unemployment, but the Faery Dust comes and retrains the 50-year-old steel worker as an IT consultant.
Yes. Free Trade also causes employment - in Mexico and other such places. But don't pretend it doesn't cause unemployment, at the very least in the immediate sense.
That kind of pretense is simply unenlightened.
Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Minimum wage causes unemployment, does it? I'd like to see them prove it. What it does, in my considered opinion, is distribute income away from multi-billion dollar corporations toward their employees. This creates local expenditures (local goods) rather than remote ones (yacht, villas and the like).
After going through this list, I'm going to have to argue that the guys at Zogby are a bunch of right-wing, wealthy, ideologically-locked jackasses too full of their own pomposity and arrogance to evaluate anyone else. Their conclusion is that, basically, anyone who disagrees with their biases (the same biases that have led the United States in to its current financial disaster) must be stupid.
Best of luck, assholes.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Mike Harris's Honorary Hypocrisy
Nippissing University, presumably out of some masochism or ignorance, has decided that Mike Harris is deserving of an honorary degree.
Mike Harris.
Remember him? I do. He's the guy who wanted to "create a crisis in the education system." Why? To improve it? No, that was the lie his government told on the outside. The real reason, as has been recorded, was to "get government out of the education business."
That's why I assume the people at Nippissing are a bunch of masochists. Why would a public institution grant a degree to a man who wanted to destroy education.
The teachers are upset. In fact, they're so upset that they're considering the idea of refusing to give seats to student teachers from Nippissing.
The loyal Harris followers - specifically the people who hate public education and would prefer that the poor suffer in ignorance - will be quick to jump on this as if it were the teachers' fault. They'll tell us that the teachers are "using students" in their fight again. That's what they did when Mike Harris unilaterally took away teachers' retirement benefits, so I imagine it will happen again.
But frankly, I support the teachers. You know what? If you choose to go to Nippissing, after it honours a man who tried to destroy public education in Ontario, then you shouldn't come crawling to Ontario's public school teachers for apprenticeship. Go find a private school. Otherwise it's SOCIALISM! (ZOMG!)
Those teachers. They have a long memory. It's surprising how long people can be bitter at you when you use taxpayer money to attack them with lying, deceptive televisions ads.
The only real problem is that teachers are far too polite. They won't actually go through with it. The other problem is that they're really ineffective at public campaigns vilifying people. That was really Mike Harris's forte.
Mike Harris.
Remember him? I do. He's the guy who wanted to "create a crisis in the education system." Why? To improve it? No, that was the lie his government told on the outside. The real reason, as has been recorded, was to "get government out of the education business."
That's why I assume the people at Nippissing are a bunch of masochists. Why would a public institution grant a degree to a man who wanted to destroy education.
The teachers are upset. In fact, they're so upset that they're considering the idea of refusing to give seats to student teachers from Nippissing.
The loyal Harris followers - specifically the people who hate public education and would prefer that the poor suffer in ignorance - will be quick to jump on this as if it were the teachers' fault. They'll tell us that the teachers are "using students" in their fight again. That's what they did when Mike Harris unilaterally took away teachers' retirement benefits, so I imagine it will happen again.
But frankly, I support the teachers. You know what? If you choose to go to Nippissing, after it honours a man who tried to destroy public education in Ontario, then you shouldn't come crawling to Ontario's public school teachers for apprenticeship. Go find a private school. Otherwise it's SOCIALISM! (ZOMG!)
Those teachers. They have a long memory. It's surprising how long people can be bitter at you when you use taxpayer money to attack them with lying, deceptive televisions ads.
The only real problem is that teachers are far too polite. They won't actually go through with it. The other problem is that they're really ineffective at public campaigns vilifying people. That was really Mike Harris's forte.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What's With All Those Pregnant Christian Teens?
Ever wondered why we have so many pregnant Christian teens?
Wonder no more.
You see, "Sexual relationships, while enacted privately, are public property." That's why birth control is so very, very bad. If people use birth control, the rest of us have no way of monitoring their behaviour and measuring their sinfulness.
How do you know if two married people are keeping their marital vows? (by the way, for you non-religious folk, you should know that Christians are required to have lots of sex). Why, it's the babies! The babies prove they're doing it right!
And how do you know if unmarried teens are being sinful, dirty miscreants? Why, it's the babies!
See how clear everything is when you outlaw contraception? The babies tell you everything. That's why contraception is bad. It lets you keep your sexuality to yourself, almost as if it were your own private business and not a responsibility of all of society.
Hm.
I suppose I should have stopped at "However, I salute their stupidity."
That was probably a red flag right there.
But if you're wondering why we have pregnant teenagers, look no further than that mentality. It's the mentality that birth control is a worse sin - by way of being premeditated premarital sex - than having a baby you can't possibly raise properly. You see, sex without birth control could just mean you got carried away. But sex with birth control means you planned it, you evil bastard.
Makes me glad to be an atheist. It means I don't have to rationalize stupidity like this. It also means Christians have no business invading my privacy to judge how I live my life.
Wonder no more.
You see, "Sexual relationships, while enacted privately, are public property." That's why birth control is so very, very bad. If people use birth control, the rest of us have no way of monitoring their behaviour and measuring their sinfulness.
How do you know if two married people are keeping their marital vows? (by the way, for you non-religious folk, you should know that Christians are required to have lots of sex). Why, it's the babies! The babies prove they're doing it right!
And how do you know if unmarried teens are being sinful, dirty miscreants? Why, it's the babies!
See how clear everything is when you outlaw contraception? The babies tell you everything. That's why contraception is bad. It lets you keep your sexuality to yourself, almost as if it were your own private business and not a responsibility of all of society.
Hm.
I suppose I should have stopped at "However, I salute their stupidity."
That was probably a red flag right there.
But if you're wondering why we have pregnant teenagers, look no further than that mentality. It's the mentality that birth control is a worse sin - by way of being premeditated premarital sex - than having a baby you can't possibly raise properly. You see, sex without birth control could just mean you got carried away. But sex with birth control means you planned it, you evil bastard.
Makes me glad to be an atheist. It means I don't have to rationalize stupidity like this. It also means Christians have no business invading my privacy to judge how I live my life.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Sex Education in Ontario
Saw this one in the paper today:
Schools Shouldn't Teach Sexual Orientation
Here's the exciting stuff:
Wow! I didn't know that "validating" same-sex attraction was harmful. What a weird thing to say. The only way you would say something like that is if, well, you thought homosexuality was harmful.
Say. Who are the "U.S. pediatricians college" anyway? That sounds very official. Let's check them out.
The writer is actually talking about the "American College of Pediatricians". That sounds like a real group, doesn't it? Let see what other things they write ... oh, good god ...
Abstinence only is a good idea
How to make gay kids straight
Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt
You can read the rest of their "Position Papers" if you want. It's a basic list of the right wing's wishing-makes-it-so version of scientific studies.
Even the 85% number they quote - the one L.M. Small quoted - refers to a 1992 study that showed that 26% of 12 year old boys weren't sure about their sexual orientation. Yet only 2-3% of them turn out gay later! If only we could have bombarded those last 2-3% with how evil it is to be gay, think how much better everything would be! No more of teh gayness!
Yes, well.
I didn't find any fault with the actual sex education curriculum that the government was planning on implementing. The earlier that you can teach kids the words "penis" and "vagina", the better off we'll all be. But apparently, if you're a religious nutcase, all it takes is a word in their ears and they'll turn in to crack whores.
Schools Shouldn't Teach Sexual Orientation
Here's the exciting stuff:
In its Facts about Youth pamphlet, the U.S. pediatricians college states that most students (more than 85 per cent) with same-sex attractions will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged.
It further states that "declaring and validating a student's same-sex attraction during the adolescent years is premature and may be personally harmful."
Wow! I didn't know that "validating" same-sex attraction was harmful. What a weird thing to say. The only way you would say something like that is if, well, you thought homosexuality was harmful.
Say. Who are the "U.S. pediatricians college" anyway? That sounds very official. Let's check them out.
The writer is actually talking about the "American College of Pediatricians". That sounds like a real group, doesn't it? Let see what other things they write ... oh, good god ...
Abstinence only is a good idea
How to make gay kids straight
Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt
You can read the rest of their "Position Papers" if you want. It's a basic list of the right wing's wishing-makes-it-so version of scientific studies.
Even the 85% number they quote - the one L.M. Small quoted - refers to a 1992 study that showed that 26% of 12 year old boys weren't sure about their sexual orientation. Yet only 2-3% of them turn out gay later! If only we could have bombarded those last 2-3% with how evil it is to be gay, think how much better everything would be! No more of teh gayness!
Yes, well.
I didn't find any fault with the actual sex education curriculum that the government was planning on implementing. The earlier that you can teach kids the words "penis" and "vagina", the better off we'll all be. But apparently, if you're a religious nutcase, all it takes is a word in their ears and they'll turn in to crack whores.
And in Arizona? Fascists.
I hate to go straight to Hitler, but there's just nowhere else to go.
The Arizona state legislature has declared that police can demand to see documents from anyone that might be an illegal immigrant. If you don't have your proof of citizenship or a proper visa? You go to jail.
Look, jackasses.
If you don't like being compared to the world's most notorious fascists, maybe you shouldn't make laws that allow you to round up different looking people, demand their papers, and throw them all in jail.
Just saying.
The Arizona state legislature has declared that police can demand to see documents from anyone that might be an illegal immigrant. If you don't have your proof of citizenship or a proper visa? You go to jail.
Look, jackasses.
If you don't like being compared to the world's most notorious fascists, maybe you shouldn't make laws that allow you to round up different looking people, demand their papers, and throw them all in jail.
Just saying.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Meanwhile in Oklahoma: Assholes
They made a law that women undergoing an abortion must have an ultrasound - possibly an invasive vaginal one - before having the abortion. During the procedure, the person doing the ultrasound is required to describe the fetus out loud.
If that doesn't make it clear - if it wasn't already clear - that anti-abortion advocates are a bunch of assholes out to torment and torture pregnant women, I don't know what could possibly make it clear.
If that doesn't make it clear - if it wasn't already clear - that anti-abortion advocates are a bunch of assholes out to torment and torture pregnant women, I don't know what could possibly make it clear.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Gun Toting Hypocrites
So everyone has seen that video? You know the one? Where the reporters from Reuters are walking around an otherwise empty street somewhere in Iraq and the the American helicopter pilot reports that they have weapons?
That one. You see, there are actually some spots in that video where it actually looks like a couple of the guys are carrying weapons. Surprise! In one of the most unstable places on the planet, people carry around weapons for their own protections. They might even hire bodyguards to protect them.
Not that they fired at any Americans or anything. No. They did nothing aggressive at all besides point a camera at the helicopter. In fact, they're walking around the streets quite casually, as if taking a tour.
But, decry the knee jerk pro-Americans, they had weapons! They had weapons! Look at 2:45 (or 3:02 or 3:15 or whatever, I don't care). That guy by the utility pole! That's an AK! That's an RPG! Those people all deserved to die! They were carrying weapons! Those reporters even deserved to die for hanging around with people with weapons!
Hm.
Let's think about this a moment. They were carrying weapons and therefore they deserve to die? Really?
Really really?
Because I seem to remember - and this seems to come from the same knee jerk pro America crowd - statements about weapons. Where was it now ... where was it ... Oh, here it is:
Fucking hypocrites.
h/t to the PZ and thanks Wiki.
That one. You see, there are actually some spots in that video where it actually looks like a couple of the guys are carrying weapons. Surprise! In one of the most unstable places on the planet, people carry around weapons for their own protections. They might even hire bodyguards to protect them.
Not that they fired at any Americans or anything. No. They did nothing aggressive at all besides point a camera at the helicopter. In fact, they're walking around the streets quite casually, as if taking a tour.
But, decry the knee jerk pro-Americans, they had weapons! They had weapons! Look at 2:45 (or 3:02 or 3:15 or whatever, I don't care). That guy by the utility pole! That's an AK! That's an RPG! Those people all deserved to die! They were carrying weapons! Those reporters even deserved to die for hanging around with people with weapons!
Hm.
Let's think about this a moment. They were carrying weapons and therefore they deserve to die? Really?
Really really?
Because I seem to remember - and this seems to come from the same knee jerk pro America crowd - statements about weapons. Where was it now ... where was it ... Oh, here it is:
* Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fucking hypocrites.
h/t to the PZ and thanks Wiki.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)