Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Note that these are actually Bedouin Arab Israelis - and not actually "Palestinians"



link

What conclusions are we supposed to draw from this?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Whatever. At every university in American you need to be published in peer reviewed journals to be tenured. The peer review process itself is far more rigorous than your ad hoc standards of credibility.

Did you take any sociology classes in college? Have you had much contact with sociology professors? The deparment was a joke at both my undergraduate and graduate schools. My experience with public policy programs is rather limited (but if my ex girlfriend's experience is anything to go on it is similar to sociology departments), but I have a wide ranging experience with sociology professors. If the entire profession is tainted then it wouldn't be that hard for an idiot to pass through a peer review process? My experience has been that many are Marxists and socialists. This guy I sat with on the panel kept telling me how great Castro was (he told me to read this book, "Pirates: Axis of Hope" and that all the stuff I heard about Cuba was misinformation sent out by the "oligarchy". I guess that means that Less is now working for the Oligarchy. My guess would be that if you are actually a rational person that believes in rigorous academic standards, and you were a sociology professor, you wouldn’t get tenured at most universities. In other words, if you are a tenured sociology professor at most universities you have demonstrated to your collegues that you have no academic standards.

[Adder]

One more for you to ponder:

One should not exaggerate the importance of Liberalism in the last century and make of it a religion of humanity for all present and future times when in reality it was only one of the many doctrines of that century... Now Liberalism is on the point of closing the doors of its deserted temple... That is why all the political experiments of the contemporary world are anti-Liberal and the desire to exile them from history is superemely ridiculous: as if history was hunting preserve for Liberalism and professors, as if Liberalism was the last and incomparable word in civilization... The present century is the century of authority, a century of the Right....

Answer: Il Duce

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did you take any sociology classes in college? Have you had much contact with sociology professors? The deparment was a joke at both my undergraduate and graduate schools. My experience with public policy programs is rather limited (but if my ex girlfriend's experience is anything to go on it is similar to sociology departments), but I have a wide ranging experience with sociology professors. If the entire profession is tainted then it wouldn't be that hard for an idiot to pass through a peer review process? My experience has been that many are Marxists and socialists. This guy I sat with on the panel kept telling me how great Castro was (he told me to read this book, "Pirates: Axis of Hope" and that all the stuff I heard about Cuba was misinformation sent out by the "oligarchy". I guess that means that Less is now working for the Oligarchy. My guess would be that if you are actually a rational person that believes in rigorous academic standards, and you were a sociology professor, you wouldn’t get tenured at most universities. In other words, if you are a tenured sociology professor at most universities you have demonstrated to your collegues that you have no academic standards.

I don't put much stock in psychology. That does not mean psychologists as a class of people should be dismissed.

And, btw, whether they are Marxist and Socialists has nothing to do with whether they might have something worthwhile to say. At least to the thoughtful person, who might think that Marx and the socialists brought forth critiques that are a necessary part of understanding how to make capitalist work.

And people like Slave regularly discount EVERYTHING that is said by the main stream media because of "bias." How are these people less crazy than this sociologist who says what you have read about Cuba is wrong? Did you stop to wonder if it is?

And my god are you smug, condescending motherfucker. You really think that only people who agree with you politically could have academic standards?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Well, there you go have it -- the Spanky's Daddy's House rebuttal to the global warming argument!

Am I wrong that climatologists have been warning us about Global Warming and its catastrophic consequences since the early eighties? Has there not be a constant drumbeat of warning since the early eighties (and even the late seventies) that global warming will mean rising ocean levels, and because of these rising ocean levels people are going to be rendered homeless and cities will be destroyed? It has almost been thirty years since these dire warning started and do you know of any place in the world where actual people have signficantly had their lifestyles negatively effected by rising ocean levels? A large swath of the world lives right at sea level. Just a slight increase would mean catastrophe for hundreds of millions of people. Has one house in the US have even one of inch of water permanentlhy stationed in it because of rising ocean levels? In College I was also told that thet signs are all out there. The Second coming of the savior will happen any month now. Just like rising ocean levels, I still hear the same refrain and I am sure I will hear it until the day I day. How much B.S. do people have to listen to before they wake up?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Am I wrong that climatologists have been warning us about Global Warming and its catastrophic consequences since the early eighties?

No, but have they been proven wrong? You attribute short timelines to their predictions that I don't recall as have been all that solid.

But let me ask, do we have satellites armed with lasers than can shoot down any incoming threat? Is that because it is impossible or is that because people has misjudged the timeline?

It has almost been thirty years since these dire warning started and do you know of any place in the world where actual people have signficantly had their lifestyles negatively effected by rising ocean levels?

You really want to argue that 30 years is a climatologically meaningful period of time? Especially when temperatures have risen consistently over that entire period?

A large swath of the world lives right at sea level. Just a slight increase would mean catastrophe for hundreds of millions of people.

Rising ocean levels is only one of the many potential ill effects that have been predicted to result from continued warming.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
And my god are you smug, condescending motherfucker. You really think that only people who agree with you politically could have academic standards?

Don't you see? Follow the logical steps:

Because (1) sociologists have no standards,

(2) Kleiman, who holds a Ph.D. from the Kennedy School at Harvard, can be ignored, as can

(3) the many academic articles considering the effects of teachers unions on education.

It's a neat trick. But if your idee fixe is that teachers unions are bad, then it takes something like this magic attack on sociologists to dispel inconvenient realities.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Has one house in the US have even one of inch of water permanentlhy stationed in it because of rising ocean levels?

Of the many, many U.S. houses to experience damage from tides/flooding/waves, which were unaffected by the rise in ocean levels?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
I don't put much stock in psychology. That does not mean psychologists as a class of people should be dismissed.

I agree, but I have met many psychologists who I believe subscribe to the scientific method and seem generally rational. I can't remember meeting a sociology professor who I would consider a competent academic. When a group of people all part of the same academic field seems to demonstrate similar traits it says to me that there is a serious problem with that academic field. It would seem logical to conclude since almost all sociology professors that I have met demonstrate the same traits that the leaders of the field weed out people that don't carry those traits.

Originally posted by Adder
And, btw, whether they are Marxist and Socialists has nothing to do with whether they might have something worthwhile to say.

I don't know what you mean by "something worthwhile to say". I am talking about people that subscribe to basic rules of academic discipline. An academic field should be about study and the search for truth. Most sociology professors I have met seem to be ideologues obsessed with a cause. Academic discipline and objectivity does not seem like something that they subscribe to or prize.

Originally posted by Adder At least to the thoughtful person, who might think that Marx and the socialists brought forth critiques that are a necessary part of understanding how to make capitalist work.

I have no problem with people that think Marx made some valid criticisms of Capitalism. But any sort of Academic that still believes that socialism can and does provide a better standard of living for a society, or that stories of human rights abuses in Cuba or Mao's China are propaganda, are simply people that are not engaged in and do not appreciate objective analysis. I would say the same thing about a professor that denies the holocaust or thinks Mein Kamph is an impressive piece of rigorous academic analysis.

Originally posted by Adder And people like Slave regularly discount EVERYTHING that is said by the main stream media because of "bias." How are these people less crazy than this sociologist who says what you have read about Cuba is wrong? Did you stop to wonder if it is?

I don't understand how Slave's opinion of the mainstream media is relevant to this discussion. If you think Slave discounts everything that the mainstream media says, do you think that somehow absolves sociologists from applying academic standards? Why do I need to stop and "wonder" about the fact that some people discount information put out by the mainstream media? How could that possibly affect my current view of the field of sociology?

Originally posted by Adder And my god are you smug, condescending motherfucker. You really think that only people who agree with you politically could have academic standards?

There are many people in other disciplines that disagree with me that I respect. I would say the vast majority of political scientists disagree with me on many issues, yet I have met many political scientists whose academic objectivity I respect. I have sat on many panels with Political Science professors who took opposing views from mine, and yet they were calm, analytical, rational people. And many sociologists agree with me on many issues. Like the guy I was on the panel with. We both support reproductive rights. But as I said, I have met many, many sociology professors (I must say I have met some "sociologists' that seemed pretty rational, but they were consultants in the private sector and not professors) and I have yet to meet one whose academic objectivity I respected.

Have you met many sociology professors whose intellectual analysis and objective discipline you respect?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
No, but have they been proven wrong? You attribute short timelines to their predictions that I don't recall as have been all that solid.

How long do we have to wait before they are proven wrong? And if this is really a problem we need to worry about shouldn't something have happened in the last thirty years?

Originally posted by Adder But let me ask, do we have satellites armed with lasers than can shoot down any incoming threat? Is that because it is impossible or is that because people has misjudged the timeline?

Again, if they misjudged the timeline at least something should have happened by now.

Originally posted by Adder
You really want to argue that 30 years is a climatologically meaningful period of time?

If it is not then what are we worried about. If thirty years is not that big a deal, then a hundred years is not that long either. Think how much technology has changed from 1907 to 2007. In a hundred years we will probably have found a way to take carbon out of the atmosphere.

Originally posted by Adder
Especially when temperatures have risen consistently over that entire period?

Where do you get that from? How consistently? How much warmer is the world now than it was thirty years ago. In 1977 how much colder was the world than it is now?

Originally posted by Adder
Rising ocean levels is only one of the many potential ill effects that have been predicted to result from continued warming.

Yes. But it was one they focused on in the eighties. Most of the Antarctic and Greenland sit on solid ground. All the books I read at the time, and the articles I saw, showed different places like Florida, Bangladesh etc. disappearing under water the farther and farther they went into the future. If the temperatures on average stay consistently hotter over a consistent period of time there is no question the oceans will rise.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of the many, many U.S. houses to experience damage from tides/flooding/waves, which were unaffected by the rise in ocean levels?

Rising ocean levels does not mean changing tides, flooding and waves. It means a permanent rise in the sea level. All the places you talk about the water receded. Where has the water moved in and not receded? A large swath of the world's population lives very close to sea level. Many people live inches above sea level. As I was told over and over again in the eighties, the ocean just has to rise a little bit and millions lose their homes. If you change the redefinition of sea level just a couple of inches, many people are screwed. Do you know of one area in the United States where people have lost their homes due to the water rising permanently? How many pictures of homes have you seen on the US coastline where they are now permanently under two inches of sea water? Or even an inch under sea water?

There is a restaurant in Aptos near Santa Cruz that I eat at whose outdoor dining area is like three inches above sea level at high tide. It has been there since the late sixties. Yes sometimes the deck gets flooded, but if the world is warming shouldn't the water at high tide always be on the deck now? Until the water sits there permanently at High Tide, and they have to raise the deck a few inches, I am not going to buy any of this B.S.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

(3) the many academic articles considering the effects of teachers unions on education.

Are you really going to try and defend a study that shows there is a direct relatioship between the existence of a union and academic scores? Did you look at the link? And we are not talking about changes in academic scores in relation to changes in the influence of the unions, just a direct connection. Do I really need to point out the five million painfully obvious reasons why that study is so absurd? Do you really think they can remove or hold constant the myriad of other variables involved?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Rising ocean levels does not mean changing tides, flooding and waves. It means a permanent rise in the sea level.

As long as the moon is still up there, the sea is going to go up and down every day.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you really going to try and defend a study that shows there is a direct relatioship between the existence of a union and academic scores? Did you look at the link? And we are not talking about changes in academic scores in relation to changes in the influence of the unions, just a direct connection. Do I really need to point out the five million painfully obvious reasons why that study is so absurd? Do you really think they can remove or hold constant the myriad of other variables involved?

Is the closest that you can come to discussing substance this sort of profound combination of scorn and stupid rhetorical questions?

eta: I'm sure there are difficulties in framing that kind of study, but I'm also sure that the authors thought of those things and tried to address them. Would you be reacting the same way if the papers said the unions are detrimental to education? Not in a million years.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Slagging what he says simply because he's published it on a blog instead of printing it on paper is just dumb.

You seemed so set on defending the professionalism and academic credentials of this blog posting. But the following quotes don’t seem to indicate that is more of a rant than anything else: Does this sound like the kind of prose someone whould put in an academic paper?

“the superintendent and school board threaten any teacher that tries to move out of her obedient servile position under their feet.”

“I don't have any problem saying that I would prefer a solution that wouldn't terminally piss off the teachers' unions, because the unions help Democrats win elections and I like it when Democrats win elections. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to support programs the unions dislike if they're necessary to the program of improving public education; only that, other things equal, I'd rather find a modus vivendi than start a civil war.

How about Mickey? Will he 'fess up to the fact that, like Bill Bennett, he'd much rather smash the unions than improve the schools? And that he demands that Democratic candidates diss the unions for the same reason I demand that Republican candidates diss the TV preachers: because it's a good way to break up what could otherwise be a winning electoral coalition?