David Murphy
Mentor
Yes I know digital photographers as well who do quite well with traditional work. Their expensive digital SLR's seem to dazzle many clients (lame, but true).
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I didn't get that impression. I only posted that article to illustrate the irony of both sides of the fence thinking that the other side is greener.It's certainly interesting to ponder.
Glad you did not get that impression. I would not think the greener on the other side of the fence applies to my POV and likely the majority of Canadians. From here it is not greener. That said, there are many points to ponder including those of the opposite camp.
Bob
Paul T.
Mentor
Actually, this wasn't clarified earlier in the thread. Someone alleged the figures were corrupt, because left-wing governments massaged them. But similar figures came from the United Nations; perhaps they're in the left-wing conspiracy, and on every measure the US results are lamentable, for such a wealthy nation. Or, really, two nations; one of them doing well, the other ranking at, or below, third world status. Perhaps if you're in the former, the situation in the latter doesn't matter.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Paul,
Which of course would never happen with a right-wing government or a profit-hungry corporation; only left-wing statistics are ever dubious. And the looney right KNOWS that the UN is a left-wing conspracy, generously equipped with black helicopters. The only remedy is tinfoil helmets!
Seriously, I'm quite happy to believe that definitions of perinatal and infant mortality can show quite large variations, according to how they are established/reported. But because in this case the discrepancies are so large, and because they do not involve only disreputable governments, one is tempted to believe that this is yet another case of the right trying to discredit statistics which, whatever their shortcomings, are probably better on balance than their own. Where they even try to deliver statistics, that is.
Cheers,
R.
gdi
Mentor
Maybe not totally clarified - but a key point was made. Not all countries use the same method for measuring these statistics and it is not advisable to use incomparable statistics in an attempt to draw a firm conclusion.
Those who want to draw such conclusions are welcome to do so. But when they cite such statistics to support their position in a debate, they can expect to have that citation challenged.
It really doesn't matter where the statistics come from - CIA, United Nations, WHO, etc. They are no more reliable if they are based on the differing criteria. Note that I am not saying that this indicates a conspiracy to alter rankings - simply that it is unwise to consider an this unscientific comparison as quantification of a breakdown in the US infant health care. Could it be true that the US has poorer infant care than other countries? Of course, but these rankings are not the proof.
An article by the form head of the NIH, related to the topic:
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
gdi
Mentor
It can be very convenient to believe that the opposition's - in your case the Right Wing loons, to others it may be the Barking MoonBats on the left - position is fabricated from whole cloth and there is no credibility to be found.
It can really save a lot of time to simply choose to accept anything that supports you own viewpoint rather than try the evidence. But to me, these uneven statistics prove nothing conclusively - nor does their lack of validity disprove anything.
Now if you have any evidence that shows that my information is wrong and these statistics actually are consistent in mythodology and definition, please share them with me. I am happy to be convinced and more than willing to change my view in light of credible evidence, but the claim that flawed statistics should just be accepted because they are better than no statistics, is something I cannot buy.
And please don't confuse healthy skepticism of all sides in this debate as evidence of my extremist political leanings - that would be a mistake. I see many statements and statistics put forth as facts that do not stand up to scrutiny; they come from the right and left.
thanks
wgerrard
Mentor
The American left has it share of loons. For example, those who attribute all sorts of conspiratorial motives to Bush's behavior when it is far easier and more accurate just to blame it on wrongheadedness and bad judgement.
The difference is that the right has moved dramatically to a more distant right since the 2008 elections. Almost immediately after election day we heard prominent conservatives declare that the path to victory rests in strict adherence to principle. We even see conservative senators say they'd rather have fewer senators who were True Believers than more senators who weren't. The GOP these days is considering "Purity Tests" for candidates.
We've seen the right universally adopt the meme that Obama is a socialist, which is a bit of sophistry that's possible only if you equate any action by government with socialism, and then assume that socialism is always bad.
Talk show entertainers like Limbaugh and Beck, once considered as far right outliers, are now seen as representing mainstream conservatism.
I don't think the American public is nearly as far right as conservatives apparently think they are. Most of us are indifferent and can't be bothered to spend much time learning what's going on, instead disguising that laziness and indifference under the guise of being independent or a moderate.
The difference is that the right has moved dramatically to a more distant right since the 2008 elections. Almost immediately after election day we heard prominent conservatives declare that the path to victory rests in strict adherence to principle. We even see conservative senators say they'd rather have fewer senators who were True Believers than more senators who weren't. The GOP these days is considering "Purity Tests" for candidates.
We've seen the right universally adopt the meme that Obama is a socialist, which is a bit of sophistry that's possible only if you equate any action by government with socialism, and then assume that socialism is always bad.
Talk show entertainers like Limbaugh and Beck, once considered as far right outliers, are now seen as representing mainstream conservatism.
I don't think the American public is nearly as far right as conservatives apparently think they are. Most of us are indifferent and can't be bothered to spend much time learning what's going on, instead disguising that laziness and indifference under the guise of being independent or a moderate.
gdi
Mentor
Well we can agree on most of this. The Republicans will be making a serious mistake, IMO, to define the party as the party of the far right. This is not a far right country, but a somewhat right of center one, again IMO. Casting themselves as the party of the extremists could well relegate them to fringe status.
I do, however, think that being an independent or moderate is the logical path for many people who do take the time to understand the issues. There is an certain level of freedom that comes from putting one's self in the position of having to work understand an issue before committing to an position. It is much more simple to just believe what your party expects you to believe (commit to ideological purity) and be done with it.
wgerrard
Mentor
Agreed, with caveats. I've known a lot of people who don't bother to take the time to understand an issue. They take the "One from column A, one from column B" approach. Meaning, when faced with two opposing views, they adopt a view that's an arbitrary mix of half of one and half of the other and call it "moderate".
A good number of issues are just too complex to allow a lay person to form an opinion without a great deal of study. Last year's financial collapse is a good example. (Go ask the "average guy" what a derivative is.) In such cases, people often try to pin blame on a villain, falling back on long-held stereotypes.
Adherence to an ideology doesn't necessarily preclude careful consideration of an issue. I tell people I vote for Democrats because they usually agree with me, meaning I make up my mind without reference to dogma. I haven't sworn any oaths to anyone and, frankly, think blind obedience to an ideology is almost always a grave risk.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Re-read the post, instead of reading what you wanted to read. There are three fairly clear points, two in the first paragraph and one in the second.
First, those who buy into your argument have to assume that most or all filthy foreign statistics are inherently inferior to honest American statistics.
Second, you do rather need to be in the tinfoil helmet brigade to believe that the UN is a left-wing conspiracy.
Third, I cheerfully conceded that there may be variations in methodology, and that these might lead to ranking differences. The point, however, is that as long as the statistics are consistently reported by any nation, the change in the relative positions of the nations tell you more than the absolute annual figures. Otherwise you have to believe that either the Americans changed the way that they report things or that numerous other nations did -- and that these changes were invariably to the detriment of Americans.
Cheers,
Roger
gdi
Mentor
I simply read what you wrote and the points you are trying to make are clear, even through the sarcasm. You may have meant something other than what you wrote, but my comments addressed what was written.
That is nonsense, of course.
I made no claim regarding the veracity of any reporting entity "foreign" or "domestic". I simply wrote that the measures in the cited source - the CIA Factbook - are not consistent and it would not be advisable to use them as a yardstick in an honest debate. I expressed no judgment about which ones were most accurate.
Yes, and it helps to be small to drive a Messerschmidt KR175. Neither statement has anything to do with what I wrote, yet both are accurate.
Yes you did, thank you.
That is a logical point, although one I had not read you make in the previous posts. (However, this is a long thread, and if you or someone else had made that point earlier, I may have missed it.) I did see that the bullet point cut and pasted by nextreme referenced the change in rate for the US alone since 1960, but did not provide a similar stats for other countries.
In closing, I'll admit to being stubborn when personally vetting "statistics" offered up as undeniable truth in discussions such as these. Of course I have opinions, but I try to do reality checks on those as well. Unfortunately, on this forum, it seems that raising legitimate points questioning certain evidence will quickly get you fitted for the proverbial tinfoil hat.
Last edited:
Brad Bireley
Well-known
This thread is almost as bad as the over 2000 page health care bill. I have no idea what's in it
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear gdi,
I see where I may not have made myself clear: I meant the reference to tinfoil helmets to refer only to those who regard the UN as a left wing conspiracy, not to those who query statistics. I apologize for the lack of clarity. You may also recall that it was a light-hearted aside to Paul, and not addressed to you. If you were a tinfoil helmet wearer you'd probably have exploded by now.
The point about the filthy foreign statistics is only a slight exaggeration, and the last point (about the rate of change being more important than the absolute figures) seems to me unanswerable. I had not made it before because there is not much other ground for placing any faith in the statistics, so it was taken for granted.
Like you, I can be stubborn about statistics, especially when those who refuse to accept them are in flat ideological disagreement with what the figures seem to indicate. I merely suggest that the main reason that some reject these (rather damning) statistics is that they don't want to believe them. Actual detailed attacks on the methodology would be one thing; merely saying that the reporting could be flawed is not really much of an argument.
Cheers,
Roger
I see where I may not have made myself clear: I meant the reference to tinfoil helmets to refer only to those who regard the UN as a left wing conspiracy, not to those who query statistics. I apologize for the lack of clarity. You may also recall that it was a light-hearted aside to Paul, and not addressed to you. If you were a tinfoil helmet wearer you'd probably have exploded by now.
The point about the filthy foreign statistics is only a slight exaggeration, and the last point (about the rate of change being more important than the absolute figures) seems to me unanswerable. I had not made it before because there is not much other ground for placing any faith in the statistics, so it was taken for granted.
Like you, I can be stubborn about statistics, especially when those who refuse to accept them are in flat ideological disagreement with what the figures seem to indicate. I merely suggest that the main reason that some reject these (rather damning) statistics is that they don't want to believe them. Actual detailed attacks on the methodology would be one thing; merely saying that the reporting could be flawed is not really much of an argument.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
wgerrard
Mentor
This isn't a blanket statement, but I've noticed that we often ascribe to the opposition the behavior we engage in or are willing to engage in. I suspect this is especially prevalent in True Believer ideologues -- on either side of the spectrum. If you already know all the answers, falling into a The-Ends-Justify-The-Means posture is almost inevitable, and something you would expect from the True Believers on the other side. History provides many examples.
So, if members of the right are quick to denounce statistics without seriously examining methodology, perhaps that's a reflection of their own willingness to cook the books.