quote:Using World Values Survey data on seven European democracies, we explore how authoritarian attitudes often associated with Radical Right party support are related to both individual-level and macro-level influences.
Not exactly nonpartisan. Reading the paper, I generally disagree with their analysis, and I'm skeptical of their data.
It seems to me that they were looking to use any data available to make their point that religous conservatives are authoritatian and intolerant more so than leftists.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may not be familiar with the parties they are talking about. Those parties actually are associated with more authoritarian values, and while there is a large amount of variation between them, they all do have a stronger connection with authoritarianism than most.
They aren't making radical claims about these parties, that include nationalist movements as well as outliers such as Germany's Neo-Nazis. They aren't even decrying authoritarianism. The authors are trying to use the survey data available to explain connections between political and religious groups that happen to lean to the far right.
Here's a couple more abstracts (both of these are by the same author, but different from the first), but the results are largely similar.
quote:It seems to me that they were looking to use any data available to make their point that religous conservatives are authoritatian and intolerant more so than leftists.
In fact, every study I found seemed to indicate that fundamentalist religious devotion had no impact on or even a negative correlation to racial prejudice, even though it did somewhat correlate with prejudice against homosexuals.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Realizing that the discussion has completely moved on from the original topic, I nonetheless thought that I'd interject to correct something I said on the last page.
According to the Lawrence Journal World, Mirecki had been the chair of the religious studies program for the past three years, so it would seem that it isn't the rotating position that I thought it was. I'm sure everyone will rest easier now that this correction has been made.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whereas our department chair seems to have a lifetime tenure, until the person in it gets offered a higher administrative position (like Dean of Instruction, etc.).
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aerto: One, if you are you going to cite statistics, please cite where they come from and give me numbers and methodology, otherwise such statistics are virtually useless.
Sometimes it's useful to just run a quick Google search to see if you can find statistics on the subject before attacking somebody's claims. The following came up as the second result on a search I ran.
This isn't the place to get into a debate about debate, but I think the person making the claim has the responsibility to back up his claim, rather than my having to go and find it. Burden of proof and all that jazz. Besides the fact that if I did go search, I might not find the same info he is basing his claim on and then we would not be debating on the same plane.
Thanks for finding some info though, NATO
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the inevitable differences in interpretation of any Biblical passage between different sects of Christianity, I'm not sure there's going to be any consensus on what exactly was meant by saying Love God is the greatest commandment, with Love Thy Neighbor second.
My belief is that the way in which you love God is by loving your neighbor, so the two are essentially one and the same. This goes along with the theme that the way you treat your neighbors is the way your treat God.
Truthfully, I'm not sure how I'd love God in any other way. I can't conceive of Him well enough to really understand and appreciate in the way I do with family members and friends. Some people seem to love Him by loving His name, or His Bible, or His church - but to me that seems a little bit like idol worship. I think God is most reflected in the people He created, rather than His name, His word, or His church. And so, in that sense, loving one's neighbor is related directly to loving God.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice post Tres. Just as an add on though, we are told how we can love God--keep His commandments. Of course since loving your neighbor is the greatest with/after loving God, that helps immensely. However, it does not excuse His followers from failing to keep the rest of His commandments.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mirecki has now resigned his position as department head.
quote: “Professor Mirecki said he thought it appropriate to step down and did so on the recommendation of his colleagues in the department, and I have accepted his resignation,” Barbara Romzek, interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, said Wednesday. “This allows the department to focus on what’s most important — teaching, research and service — and to minimize the distractions of the last couple of weeks.”
However, I found the last part of the article much more entertaining. It seems some of the cities religious leaders got together and issued a statement.
quote: “As religious leaders in the Lawrence community, we condemn the hate and violence escalating around this whole debate as contrary to the message of the Gospel we proclaim,” the statement read.
Excellent.
quote: Peter Luckey, senior pastor of Plymouth, said he wanted the country to know that there were people in Lawrence who were deeply offended by the reported attacks.
Good to know.
quote:Teske, senior pastor of Trinity Lutheran, said he regretted the hurtful things that Mirecki said and also was alarmed at the response.
'Scuse me? He regrets the hurtful things that someone else said? How does that work, exactly?
The truly amusing stuff though is after the article. The part where any idiot in the world can post a comment. Funny, funny stuff.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems fairly simple. He wishes it hadn't been said. To wish something hadn't happened is to regret it. It's not always something you did yourself.
Used like this, it's sort of like deplore, but less condemnatory.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Apparently a truck was following him while he was driving at night (6:20 am). So naturally he pulled over, waited for them to stop, got out of his car, and waited to be beaten up (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/07/mirecki_mum_details_beating/ _. The bruises were so severe nobody in his class six hours later noticed anything out of the ordinary (http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2005/12/14/178998.html ).
The police are investigating him; he has threatened to sue (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/10/professor_blasts_ku_sheriffs_investigation/ ).
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to like a columnist like Malkin that manages to be so objective in order to just report the facts in a non-judgemental way that lets the reader make up her own mind.
Nowhere in your first linked article does it say that he waited, or wanted, for them to beat him up, Will. You are twisting the story to make it look like he wanted to get beat up.
What is the purpose of your third article? What is its relevance to the discussion?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have to like a columnist like Malkin that manages to be so objective in order to just report the facts in a non-judgemental way that lets the reader make up her own mind.
I don't think a columnist is meant to report the facts. Columnists are hired to report their opinion.
quote:You are twisting the story to make it look like he wanted to get beat up.
The NEWS articles he linked to (as opposed to the opinion article) lead one to contemplate the possibility more seriously than when this first appeared. Why wouldn't Mirecki give further information/clarification when asked?
quote:, there was conflicting information about whether Mirecki reported it at the scene or at the hospital. In an interview Monday with the Journal-World, he said he called police from the side of the road, but sheriff’s officials said they were dispatched to the hospital.
Mirecki declined to clarify the discrepancy when asked about it Tuesday outside the sheriff’s office.
“I can; I just don’t want to,” he said.
The discrepancy is easily explained-- he called 911 from the side of the road after being beaten up, but then travelled to the hospital to get medical assistance.
So. . . why did he refuse?
The relevance of the third link is this: Could Mirecki be trying to cover up staging an attack on himself by threatening to sue the police and the school? You know, like a kid who's been caught in a lie: "YOU HATE ME! YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ME AT ALL! I *HATE* YOU! AAAAAUUUUGHHH! YOU'RE SO MEAN TO ME!"
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find that saying "AAAAAUUUUGHHH! " in ANY situation improves my chances of getting what I want.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:You have to like a columnist like Malkin that manages to be so objective in order to just report the facts in a non-judgemental way that lets the reader make up her own mind.
I don't think a columnist is meant to report the facts. Columnists are hired to report their opinion.
It seems to me that crappy use of rhetoric is still crappy use of rhetoric whether you're a journalist, a poster, or a columnist.
quote: quote:You are twisting the story to make it look like he wanted to get beat up.
The NEWS articles he linked to (as opposed to the opinion article) lead one to contemplate the possibility more seriously than when this first appeared. Why wouldn't Mirecki give further information/clarification when asked?
Why the bold for news? Was Malkin not reporting the news? Why the different, better, standard for 'journalists' but not for 'columnists'? Shouldn't we hold everyone to the same 'good' standard, rather than make allowances for some people to use a 'crappy' standard that does nothing to further the facts, and probably detracts from them by covering them in partisan slime? Why pay attention to Malkin's piece when it's easy to see where her sympathies lie, and that she had probably made up her mind from the beginning?
Or is it that Malkin's use of rhetoric is actually the better way, and the so-called news sources are using crappy rhetoric by not being inflammatory and partisan?
Honestly, I don't mind partisanship, but jebus, let's not spew. At least try and keep it to a low roar rather than go full-on Michael Savage crazy and use every tired bogey-man in the conservative arsenal in one short column.
quote: quote:, there was conflicting information about whether Mirecki reported it at the scene or at the hospital. In an interview Monday with the Journal-World, he said he called police from the side of the road, but sheriff’s officials said they were dispatched to the hospital.
Mirecki declined to clarify the discrepancy when asked about it Tuesday outside the sheriff’s office.
“I can; I just don’t want to,” he said.
The discrepancy is easily explained-- he called 911 from the side of the road after being beaten up, but then travelled to the hospital to get medical assistance.
So. . . why did he refuse?
For reasons that we don't know. You can't assume anything. All we know is what he said. Anything else is sheer speculation.
quote: The relevance of the third link is this: Could Mirecki be trying to cover up staging an attack on himself by threatening to sue the police and the school? You know, like a kid who's been caught in a lie: "YOU HATE ME! YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ME AT ALL! I *HATE* YOU! AAAAAUUUUGHHH! YOU'RE SO MEAN TO ME!"
Could be. Or it could be exactly as he says and he feels like he's getting shafted. Seems like a pretty silly way of covering up an attack on yourself to prolong the attention on it by suing people for how they respond to that attack.
I'm open to the possibility that Mirecki is making all this up, but it just seems out of character for a university professor to resort to something whose results are going to be so scattershot, rather than just stay in character and use his pen to smear/point the finger of truth at those he hates.
Linking to someone like Malkin doesn't help me to be objective. It makes me want to turtle up and look for reasons for this guy to not be a nutjob.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me hedge what I said above. I don't want to say that Malkin's piece shouldn't be ignored, but I do think it should be taken with a huge grain of salt, for the reasons that I gave above. I think partisan news fills a valuable niche in reporting news that no one else will, but we have to be careful with it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't want to say that Malkin's piece shouldn't be ignored, but I do think it should be taken with a huge grain of salt, for the reasons that I gave above.
I agree with you. The word NEWS was emphasized to differentiate between Malkin's opinion piece and the factual reporting in the other two links.
Here's how Malkin justifies herself:
quote: Mirecki can't remember where the incident took place, according to local law enforcement, and has offered only the vaguest of suspect descriptions. There are conflicting accounts about Mirecki's physical appearance the day of the attack. While a faculty colleague claimed that "big swollen spots" had "transformed" Mirecki's face, Jesse Plous and Tiffany Jeffers, two of Mirecki's students, told the campus newspaper they didn't notice bruises or scratches when they met for his class six hours after the alleged attack. Lindsay Mayer, another student in the class, "said injuries weren't extremely noticeable." Mirecki did not mention the alleged beating in class.
Now, a week after the alleged attack with the alleged assailants still at large, Mirecki is poised to take both his university and the local sheriff's office to court for their insufficient support and investigation.
Malkin points to these undisputed discrepancies as an indication that something fishy is going on.
I have to agree that she's got a point.
quote:Linking to someone like Malkin doesn't help me to be objective. It makes me want to turtle up and look for reasons for this guy to not be a nutjob.
See, you're not biased at all. . .
quote:Seems like a pretty silly way of covering up an attack on yourself to prolong the attention on it by suing people for how they respond to that attack.
It seems rather silly to me to get out of your car to confront Billy Bob and Joey-- I mean, at this point, you can't really claim that the good Professor is the brightest candle on the chandelier.
And this tactic of claiming victimization by the Authority has been well-used for years. Christian fundamentalist groups use it all the time, incidentally. So does the ACLU. Effects vary, depending on the audience.
At any rate, I'm not judging anything yet. I hope that they catch the folks responsible for beating Mirecki.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: I don't want to say that Malkin's piece shouldn't be ignored, but I do think it should be taken with a huge grain of salt, for the reasons that I gave above.
I agree with you. The word NEWS was emphasized to differentiate between Malkin's opinion piece and the factual reporting in the other two links.
Oh, I got why you capitalized news, I just don't agree that we should hold Malkin to a different standard than 'regular' journalists. I don't agree that she's not a journalist.
edit: And in any case, does it matter whether or not she's a journalist? Who decides who is a journalist and who isn't? The reason why trying to appear to be unbiased and objective when we write isn't because we are journalists, but because it helps others to believe our logic.
quote: Here's how Malkin justifies herself:
quote: Mirecki can't remember where the incident took place, according to local law enforcement, and has offered only the vaguest of suspect descriptions. There are conflicting accounts about Mirecki's physical appearance the day of the attack. While a faculty colleague claimed that "big swollen spots" had "transformed" Mirecki's face, Jesse Plous and Tiffany Jeffers, two of Mirecki's students, told the campus newspaper they didn't notice bruises or scratches when they met for his class six hours after the alleged attack. Lindsay Mayer, another student in the class, "said injuries weren't extremely noticeable." Mirecki did not mention the alleged beating in class.
Now, a week after the alleged attack with the alleged assailants still at large, Mirecki is poised to take both his university and the local sheriff's office to court for their insufficient support and investigation.
Malkin points to these undisputed discrepancies as an indication that something fishy is going on.
I have to agree that she's got a point.
They're undisputed because she didn't report the facts that dispute them, or because they aren't there? That's news she's reporting, dude. Again, why do you trust what she has to say when she is obviously biased? Do you deny that she is?
quote: quote:Linking to someone like Malkin doesn't help me to be objective. It makes me want to turtle up and look for reasons for this guy to not be a nutjob.
[Smile] See, you're not biased at all. . .
I am not sure what you're saying with this. I'm projecting her bias? If she was writing about Mormons and singled them out the way she singles out 'the left', you wouldn't give her credence at all. You would write her off as a Mormon-hater, end of story. The whole point of trying to appear unbiased when covering a story is so people believe that you've taken all the facts into account and aren't just making things up to support what your bias.
Does she do this? No. Her logic sucks. 'This incident is probably false because other unrelated incidents are made up' doesn't cut it. She doesn't cover any other points of view or evidence other than that which supports her assumption. She is practicing terrible journalism.
quote: quote:Seems like a pretty silly way of covering up an attack on yourself to prolong the attention on it by suing people for how they respond to that attack.
It seems rather silly to me to get out of your car to confront Billy Bob and Joey-- I mean, at this point, you can't really claim that the good Professor is the brightest candle on the chandelier. [Smile]
I think my point still stands. This whole exchange just highlights the fact that we don't know and are guessing.
quote:
And this tactic of claiming victimization by the Authority has been well-used for years. Christian fundamentalist groups use it all the time, incidentally. So does the ACLU. Effects vary, depending on the audience.
The Authority would never claim victimization. The Midnighter would never stand for it. He would just kick ass and take names, k?
Anyways, you're guessing. You don't know that that's what he's doing. You have no real evidence for that. People have also sued the cops and whoever for years because they really believed they've been slighted.
quote: At any rate, I'm not judging anything yet. I hope that they catch the folks responsible for beating Mirecki.
For my part, I am open to the idea that the guy is a nut job who hurt himself just to smear religious types.
posted
Storm. I don't think she's unbiased. I don't think she SHOULD be unbiased-- she's a columnist, and columnists' jobs are dependent on the ability to express a certain opinion rather than facts.
And as far as I can see, she has adhered to the facts, though obviously she's come to a different conclusion than you.
Has she fabricated anything? Or is the only thing she's guilty of is the expression of opinion in an opinion piece? Such a thing is hardly tirade worthy.
As far as the quality of her column-- meh. It's not Pitts, that's for sure.
This is where you err:
quote:the whole point of trying to appear unbiased when covering a story is so people believe that you've taken all the facts into account and aren't just making things up to support what your bias.
1) Opinion columnists, such as Malkin, do not try to appear unbiased. As I pointed out above, that's not what most readers expect from them. There IS a divide between OP-ED and the front page.
2) What did she fabricate? Certainly nothing about Mirecki-- her fact points match up with what is reported in the two news articles. It's true that she says that the situation is fishy, indicating a judgment-- but that's an easy judgement to make, considering the circumstances. And that's standard operating procedure for columnists.
3) You seem most upset about her (I agree- unsupported in the text of her column) comments regarding the leftist agenda on college campuses.
quote:Anyways, you're guessing. You don't know that that's what he's doing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
See, you're not biased at all. . . 
