29 Sep 10
Originally posted by DrKFWell, I've read the first few chapters and it appears that the book's greatest failing will be that it is insufferably boring. You don't need tedious breakdowns of innumerable graphs to know that every point they're making is the gospel truth. What the book needs is a little less "methodology" and a little more excoriating polemics. If it were written in the style of Ariana Huffington's "Pigs At The Trough", then it might have more to recommend it. As it is, slogging through another 250 pages or so is not something I'm especially looking forward to.
*shrugs*
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by rwingettI've always thought that polemical economics would blend quite well with aerobics or, latterly, tai bo classes.
Well, I've read the first few chapters and it appears that the book's greatest failing will be that it is insufferably boring. You don't need tedious breakdowns of innumerable graphs to know that every point they're making is the gospel truth. What the book needs is a little less "methodology" and a little more excoriating polemics. If it were written in th ...[text shortened]... ng through another 250 pages or so is not something I'm especially looking forward to.
29 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettTranslation: I don't care about reality. Just tell me what I already think and I'll be happy to accept it.
Well, I've read the first few chapters and it appears that the book's greatest failing will be that it is insufferably boring. You don't need tedious breakdowns of innumerable graphs to know that every point they're making is the gospel truth. What the book needs is a little less "methodology" and a little more excoriating polemics. If it were written in th ng through another 250 pages or so is not something I'm especially looking forward to.
(yes, I know you are just baiting, but who said I can resist?)
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by rwingettDouble shrugs, and I'll throw in a barely stifled yawn. The opinion of pretty much the opposite of an autodidact is of little interest. You know whodey has pretty much the same approach to reading as do you, don't you?
Well, I've read the first few chapters and it appears that the book's greatest failing will be that it is insufferably boring. You don't need tedious breakdowns of innumerable graphs to know that every point they're making is the gospel truth. What the book needs is a little less "methodology" and a little more excoriating polemics. If it were written in th ...[text shortened]... ng through another 250 pages or so is not something I'm especially looking forward to.
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by DrKFCome on, we all know Whodey can't read. He just looks at the pictures. He might be on to something there, though. The dozen or so comics spread throughout the book might just be the most entertaining part.
Double shrugs, and I'll throw in a barely stifled yawn. The opinion of pretty much the opposite of an autodidact is of little interest. You know whodey has pretty much the same approach to reading as do you, don't you?
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by rwingetthttp://bit.ly/aED3hR
Come on, we all know Whodey can't read. He just looks at the pictures. He might be on to something there, though. The dozen or so comics spread throughout the book might just be the most entertaining part.
http://bit.ly/ba6zgi
http://bit.ly/aJG7ux
29 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFThose are pretty good. I like the first one especially. Those commies are no better than the Boston Strangler!
http://bit.ly/aED3hR
http://bit.ly/ba6zgi
http://bit.ly/aJG7ux
Edit: the third one is called 'Debs_poster.jpg'. I don't see what it's got to do with Debs, though, assuming they're referring to Eugene V. Debs.
30 Sep 10
Originally posted by FMFAndrew Tannenbaum's electoral-vote.com site is now allowing the user to filter out Rasmussen's polls, on the theory that since he's conservative his polls must be biased.
Non-Fiction, just read, being read, going to get read...
The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Founding Fathers - Brion McClanahan
Stalingrad - Antony Beevor (second time around)
The Culture Of Fear - Barry Glassner (ten years down the road and it now seems to have been prescient)
John Zogby - The Way We'll Be - The Zogby Report on the Transformat ...[text shortened]... Steam, Industry, and Invention - Willian Rosen
Forgotten Voices of the Holocaust - Lyn Smith
isn't Zogby the original biased poller (biased in the liberal direction)?
i wonder if Tannenbaum will filter HIM out. i kind of doubt it since Tannenbaum's admitted to liberal bias in the past.
30 Sep 10
Originally posted by DrKFLet's examine this from another angle, shall we?
Double shrugs, and I'll throw in a barely stifled yawn. The opinion of pretty much the opposite of an autodidact is of little interest. You know whodey has pretty much the same approach to reading as do you, don't you?
I am a politically aware individual. I have read extensively about politics in the past and have been exposed to conservative arguments innumerable times. As such I have formed a clear and consistent picture of what 'conservative' means and don't need to continually re-learn it. Conservative arguments invariably fall within certain parameters and I have invariably found them to be unpersuasive. If you come to me with an argument that is linked categorically to something which I have already determined to be false, do I need to go through the exercise of reading it too before I can safely conclude that in all probability I will also be false? No, I don't. Arguments which are defined as being 'conservative' will coincide with what I already know about conservativism to the point where I can conclude, in advance, that in all probability I will likewise disagree with the new source. Time and again experience has shown this to to be true. You can wring your hands and gnash your teeth about "close minded bigotry" all you want, but I say it is merely pattern recognition and the voice of experience at work.
Now, with regard to "The Spirit Level" in particular, my long and patient research has already revealed to me that greater equality does make societies stronger. I have long ago accepted the book's basic premise as being true. If I find out that some of their methodology is somehow flawed, is that going to overturn my opinion? No, it isn't. My view on the value of equality is not dependent upon their methodology. Will reading your two conservative sources serve any useful purpose then? No, it will not. It is sufficient for me, as I read the book, to form a mental note that some of their methodology is in question, and thus I can spare myself the drudgery of finding out precisely why.
30 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettTriple shrug, double yawn and a 'meh' for good measure. (Although I do wonder who is baiting who now.)
Let's examine this from another angle, shall we?
I am a politically aware individual. I have read extensively about politics in the past and have been exposed to conservative arguments innumerable times. As such I have formed a clear and consistent picture of what 'conservative' means and don't need to continually re-learn it. Conservative arguments inv in question, and thus I can spare myself the drudgery of finding out precisely why.
If you have read extensively about politics in the past and come to your unshakeable conclusions, you surely do not need continually to relearn either antithetical positions or anything that supports those unshakeable conclusions. Progressive arguments, every bit as much as conservative arguments, will surely tend to fall within certain parameters. If I come to you with something that is linked to something you have already determined to be true, do you need to go through the exercise of reading it too before you can safely conclude that in all probability it will also be true? No, you don't. Arguments which are defined as being 'progressive' will coincide with what you already know about progressivism to the point where you can conclude, in advance, that in all probability you will likewise agree with the new source. If the methodology of The Spirit Level were to be revealed as wholly junk, for you that would in no way detract from the truth of the book. This seems odd.
Other than a way to while away the time, rather than, say, to learn anything, why read The Spirit Level? Why read?
As an aside, inverted commas generally denote direct quotation. I've said a couple of rude things to and about you in this thread, but putting the phrase 'close minded bigotry' in my mouth is pretty bad form.
30 Sep 10
Originally posted by DrKFBecause I doubt that their methodology will be revealed to be 'wholly junk.' Since the sources you provide fall solely along ideological lines, it would seem to be an open question. The conservatives are predictably condemning the book, while the progressives predictably praise it - both exactly as you would expect. As I find conservatives less trustworthy in every other regard, I fail to see why I would find their review of the book any more convincing than the progressive ones. If, however, as I said, you were able to find a progressive source that found the methodology troubling, then I would take notice. Lacking that, it's just conservatives doing what conservatives are paid to do, which is to attack progressives. Nothing new there.
Triple shrug, double yawn and a 'meh' for good measure. (Although I do wonder who is baiting who now.)
If you have read extensively about politics in the past and come to your unshakeable conclusions, you surely do not need continually to relearn either antithetical positions or anything that supports those unshakeable conclusions. Progressive ...[text shortened]... is thread, but putting the phrase 'close minded bigotry' in my mouth is pretty bad form.
Other than that, I am reading the book because I have a longstanding interest in more equitable social relations and had an interest in what the authors had to say on the matter. Perhaps they could enhance my own understanding of the subject (their methodology notwithstanding). It all comes down to reading books on subjects that are of interest to me. If you were my Facebook friend, you could see the list of books I've read in the last two and a half years. It should come as no surprise to you that none of them are by conservative authors.
As for the "close minded bigotry" thing, you did say it. Just not in those exact words. So while you are correct that it is not a direct quote, it is an accurate summation.