leejo

(study suggests)

Two interesting points:

Republicans consistently "gave" less to Katrina victims both in terms of amounts and time, regardless of race, while Democrats consistently "gave" more to whites than to non-whites.

Another study shows that Republicans favor stiffer sentences regardless of race, while Democrats are more elastic, preferring one set of sentences for non-whites and a more gentle set of sentences for whites.

Last bit is best: The discussion about the US being uppity for wishing its UN buck to produce bang made me think of this. Pay attention to rhetoric too: next time you hear about how much a tax cut will "cost" the government consider the fact that the government isn't writing the checks to people, the people are merely writing smaller checks to the government.

Anyway...I figured this might stir the pot a tad

Mateo

Why? Cast a few aspersions based on a flawed study that you didn't read as if it were facts? The makeup of the democratic party is far more socially, racially, and secually diverse than the GOP, so that has you taking on water right there.

And your argument about a common GOP drum on sentencing biases are specious at best. There is no stated preferential treatments of whites on the part of the DNC-that's just another hasty generalization the GOP uses to score points with the base.

As a democrat, I can't wait to spend your money. Much better than spending my own.

Apophis

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060701177.html

Why is it a flawed study? What makes the Professor of Communication and director of the Political Communication Lab at Stanford University so untrustworthy?

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

leejo

Of course not. As the study guy says The study doesn't say there is a preference for whites, merely that there is a bias against non-whites. I'm with you!

Seriously, you seem to be saying that
1) since I haven't read the study it's...uh....what are you saying?
2) the study is flawed, which you know because...uh...how do you know that?
3) since the Democrats are more socially (unless you're anti-abortion, for the war in Iraq, not so sure about racial quotas, or kinda think that immigrants ought to apply for admission at the border maybe?), racially (by which we mean REAL blacks who are poor and need our liberal help, not those Uncle Toms/house "negroes" like the last two Secretaries of State), and economically diverse this skews the results such that they give less to non-whites and sentence non-whites more harshly. Please explain that one.

TheFeniX

So, they gave people only "cookie-cutter" facts slanting the survey and got the exact results they had anticipated? Why didn't they show them pictures of white people "looting" and black people "searching for food," then ask the questions? Further, people from different economical levels are going to respond differently. Some might claim a person could live off $500 a month, whereas someone who's used to living in Cali or New York may say they need 4 times as much. And other people may say "Well, I could get back on my feet after that in only 3 months because I'm a hard worker." It's all subjective opinion.

Just because you hold a bachelors doesn't make you an expert in economics and distaster recovery.

I also remember reading that altough per capita the minorities were the hardest hit, there were more white people left in the after-math, rather than minorities.

__________________

Mateo

Neither of which enables them to make a scientific survey.

And what FeniX said.

leejo

Uh....ok. But it doesn't show that they can't. Is this one of those bad arguments you mentioned earlier? These guys are stupid therefor the study you haven't seen is flawed?

Isn't your ad hominem attack also implying another bad argument, appeal to authority: IF they got the credentials you suggest they need to please you, THEN the study would be less flawed?

Apophis

I don't think they made any claims that holding a bachelors degree made them experts in economics and disaster recovery. I believe the survey was to determine how these students felt, not create any sort of economic policy or disaster recovery plan for the region.

They didn't show pictures of these individuals doing ANYTHING. They only showed pictures of the individuals themselves as noted in exhibit 2. The news stories were not only about looting. What were the cookie cutter facts that you found in exhibit 1?

I realize that this is just subjective opinion, but once again, if you're polling the population to determine how they react to different sources and types of information, what you expect to get from them is their opinion. It seems the point of this WAS to garner their opinion.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Apophis

So what are the acceptable qualifications for making a scientific survey? Who has the authority and qualifications to do that? Or is that something that can only be determined based on the outcome of the survey and if the opinion of the survey itself puts one group of people in a favorable light over another?

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Mateo

Actually, isn't your appeal to support for this simply because they support your world view?

Apophis

As an aside, the following article/poll was brought up in another conversation as evidence that Daily Show viewers were better educated in the ways of politics than non-viewers.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/0...medy.politics/

What makes someone at the Annenberg Public Policy Center more qualified to conduct a scientific poll than someone at Stanford? Serious question.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Apophis

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond to it anyway.

I found the survey interesting because of the results. I thought it was very interesting how they took these stock images and made light and dark skinned versions of the same person, and modified their martial status, parental status, and occupation to try and determine what bias exists and what factors contribute to that bias.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Apophis

To answer my own question, I found the following quote on the Annenberg site:

I have also found no information that contradicts their statements. I have not found any sources that claim any sort of political bias on the part of Annenberg. I have not found any charges that Annenberg performs any shady practices either.

That aside, I'm still wondering what invalidates the study performed by this Stanford professor. Are all University professors disqualified from being able to conduct scientific polls?

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

leejo

How so? I saw an article, thought it interesting, and posted it. I haven't asserted anything about the study's validity, you have.

AMosely

It's an obsurd and headline-grabbing survey and would be equally so whether it was skewed towards the right or the left. This particular survey was clearly skewed towards the left:

So, not only was the study skewed, but it was small.

The opinion article that Leejo posted from the WSJ was quick to point out that the study proves nothing. The study participants were not random (as indicated above), the criteria presented to them was not presented evenly (thereby creating disparities between different groups of people). In other words, the study was flawed and therby invalid.