Leave a comment

telemann February 7 2013, 14:56:06 UTC
The New York Times published an article about a new effort to adjust the Republican Party to a more moderate image with its conservative base in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience.

And Cantor did by borrowing heavily from President Obama in the process, almost verbatim in some instances; and tried to co-opt the same Republican ideas with Obama's language.

Video comparison here.

[Details back here]

Point One: “Fair Shot”

Obama in 2011:

“Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who’s best at busting unions, who’s best at letting companies pollute as much as they want.”

Cantor in 2013:

“Our goal - to ensure every American has a fair shot at earning their success and achieving their dreams. In America, we do have higher expectations for our nation. Since our founding, we believed we could be the best hope to mankind. That hope led generations of immigrants to
... )

Reply

sandwichwarrior February 9 2013, 05:16:28 UTC
Huh?

Reply

sandwichwarrior February 8 2013, 21:07:31 UTC
To further clarify...

Randall Munroe, the author of XKCD, is a former NASA roboticicst who now teaches Mathematics and Statistical Analysis at MIT. He's always been very good about documenting both his work and his conclusions and as such I consider him at least as, if not more, reliable a source as any columnist from a major Newspaper or Network.

It's the only webcomic I know of that routinely includes Author's notes and a works cited page.

as for "romance, sarcasm, math, and language", can you think of anything more meaningful and potentially entaining to write cartoons about?

Reply

sandwichwarrior February 8 2013, 21:11:01 UTC
It's also has a tendancy to be quite entertaining and informative.

Reply

telemann February 7 2013, 23:58:53 UTC
The blog entry is viewable here.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

sandwichwarrior February 8 2013, 05:32:37 UTC
The blue squigly line goes up, that's all that matters

Reply

peristaltor February 9 2013, 00:32:39 UTC
Why is that terrible?

The graph is good at disputing the myths that the GOP has not become more centrist, or that the Dems have become more radical.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

peristaltor February 9 2013, 18:51:17 UTC
That piece (at least the excerpts you shared) supports why I support the graph in the first place. Far from refuting the graph, you have shown it exactly the understanding it needs.

Reply

peristaltor February 9 2013, 19:26:55 UTC
Just read the whole piece. While I agree with the limitations the author presents, my support for it stands based on similar trends during the times.

There was indeed a societal shift starting in 1980. We could go all day debating its causes.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

peristaltor February 9 2013, 19:44:57 UTC
. . . it seems like you're supporting it not because of the data, but because it's lining up with your preconceived notions.

And this is different from what all of us do . . . how?

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

peristaltor February 9 2013, 20:10:53 UTC
A lot of information. Right. The DW-Nominate graph, the author says, "remains a powerful tool, especially if you keep its limitations in mind and are looking at discrete Congresses (or really are interested purely in polarization)." I am interested in polarization, as it turns out.

Combine that with the graphs I shared, and only the blind can fail to note that something happened starting in 1980. By considering worker productivity vs. compensation and comparing that with union membership over time, the divergence Congresses have taken since 1980 can fit, sadly, into extrapolated narratives, increasingly ones the tales spun on the right cannot explain.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


Leave a comment

Up