| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2004 05:55:35 AM |
| Object: |
X = not a whole lot |
X = not a whole lot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1353271,00.html
The people have spoken, but what did they say? John Allen Paulos finds
it difficult to draw statistical conclusions from Bush 's victory in
the US election
Thursday November 18, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush's election has generated far too many ill-founded
conclusions about the US electorate. Despite Bush's assertions to the
contrary, the voters certainly did not give him a mandate to further
"traditional moral values" (or, indeed, to do anything else).
No deep theorem in arithmetic is needed to see that the 51% of the
electorate who voted for him constitute a bare majority. The outcome
looks even more questionable in the electoral college. Bush received
approximately 130,000 more votes than John Kerry in Ohio, so if 65,000
Bush voters in the state had switched, we'd now be talking about
president-elect Kerry.
John Allen Paulos
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0408190958.420fc835%40posting.google.com
Math OR Maths OR Mathematics OR Mathematical OR Mathematician OR
Mathematicians
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20Math%20OR%20Maths%20OR%20Mathematics%20OR%20Mathematical%20OR%20Mathematician%20OR%20Mathematicians&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=Math+OR+Maths+OR+Mathematics+OR+Mathematical+OR+Mathematician+OR+Mathematicians&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Math+OR+Maths+OR+Mathematics+OR+Mathematical+OR+Mathematician+OR+Mathematicians&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_oq=Math%20Maths%20Mathematics%20Mathematical%20Mathematician%20Mathematicians&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
OT: Some numbers you can't count on
http://tinyurl.com/ysjn
A Blueprint for the Future
http://tinyurl.com/9vga
.
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: X = not a whole lot |
18 Nov 2004 10:11:11 PM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in
news:18510aff.0411180408.5c462f12@posting.google.com:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1353271,00.html
Bush acted as though he had a mandate in his first term.
What makes anyone think he won't go whole hog as a lame duck?
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: X = not a whole lot |
20 Nov 2004 10:37:19 AM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0411180408.5c462f12@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
George Bush's election has generated far too many ill-founded
conclusions about the US electorate. Despite Bush's assertions to the
contrary, the voters certainly did not give him a mandate to further
"traditional moral values" (or, indeed, to do anything else).
<snipped>
I'm very puzzled by the idea that 'traditional moral values' are such
a great vote-winner, or even something desirable. After all,
traditional moral values endorse slavery, acts of genocide against
native Americans, land-grabbing, widescale polution of the
environment, acts of war against neutral territories (such as the
bombing of Cambodia)and so on.
It seems to me that a number of ideas about moral values have been
lumped together as being somehow 'Christian', and that many of them
are somewhat at odds (to put it mildly) with the teachings of Christ.
For example, the enthusiasm for the death penalty shown by GWB when he
was governor of Texas is directly in opposition to the 10
commmandments. 'Though shall not kill' is not qualified by 'unless it
is by legal action', and I believe (though someone will, I'm sure, put
me right if I'm wrong) that the Jews did not use the death penalty in
accordance with this commandment. In my understanding, the reason why
they handed Jesus over to the Romans was because they wanted him dead
but couldn't kill him under their own laws. Given the grotesque
injustices under which the death penalty is used in the USA, including
the evidence that it is applied disproportionally to African Americans
and that it is imposed on minors, the mismatch with the teachings of
the Old and New Testaments is even more marked.
What about the emphasis on property rights, and the idea that it is
morally defensible to use force to protect your property from theft?
Someone made the point on this forum very clearly: "Would Jesus shoot
a burglar in the back?" It seems to me that the "traditional moral
values" endorsed by GWB would encourage just such an act.
Then there is of course the small matter of lying to the nation about
the reasons for invading Iraq.
Where exactly to these 'traditional moral values' come from, and how
do they relate to Christian values?
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R.Schenck" |
|
| Title: Re: X = not a whole lot |
19 Nov 2004 02:57:21 PM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0411180408.5c462f12@posting.google.com>...
X = not a whole lot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1353271,00.html
The people have spoken, but what did they say? John Allen Paulos finds
it difficult to draw statistical conclusions from Bush 's victory in
the US election
Thursday November 18, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush's election has generated far too many ill-founded
conclusions about the US electorate. Despite Bush's assertions to the
contrary, the voters certainly did not give him a mandate to further
"traditional moral values" (or, indeed, to do anything else).
snip
I'd have to say that any margin of victory for bush is a mandate at
this point, certainly a vindication.
And the youth vote was the same percentage in 2004 as it was in 2000,
how disturbing. An increase, similiar to what christian conservatives
increased by, probably would've changed the election, US policy, and
the next several years of world history. Stupid kids.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Double Felix" |
|
| Title: Re: X = not a whole lot |
19 Nov 2004 03:47:50 PM |
|
|
In article <8fcb1069.0411191310.235c7f56@posting.google.com>,
(R.Schenck) wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0411180408.5c462f12@posting.google.com>...
X = not a whole lot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1353271,00.html
The people have spoken, but what did they say? John Allen Paulos finds
it difficult to draw statistical conclusions from Bush 's victory in
the US election
Thursday November 18, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush's election has generated far too many ill-founded
conclusions about the US electorate. Despite Bush's assertions to the
contrary, the voters certainly did not give him a mandate to further
"traditional moral values" (or, indeed, to do anything else).
snip
I'd have to say that any margin of victory for bush is a mandate at
this point, certainly a vindication.
I would call it a 'reprieve.' Certainly not a mandate, which I would
define as an unequivocal endorsement of his agenda-- this election was
all about equivocal.
- Felix
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: X = not a whole lot |
19 Nov 2004 09:20:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:57:21 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com (R.Schenck) in
<8fcb1069.0411191310.235c7f56@posting.google.com> wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0411180408.5c462f12@posting.google.com>...
X = not a whole lot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1353271,00.html
The people have spoken, but what did they say? John Allen Paulos finds
it difficult to draw statistical conclusions from Bush 's victory in
the US election
Thursday November 18, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush's election has generated far too many ill-founded
conclusions about the US electorate. Despite Bush's assertions to the
contrary, the voters certainly did not give him a mandate to further
"traditional moral values" (or, indeed, to do anything else).
snip
I'd have to say that any margin of victory for bush is a mandate at
this point, certainly a vindication.
Given that he was a sitting president during a war he had a tiny
margin. That should have given him 10%+. He had the smallest margin of
any sitting president during a war. I am also concerned about an
apparent problem with at least 130,000 votes in Florida and who knows
how many elsewhere. I wonder if the lesson they learned from 2000 was
to steal so big no one questions it.
And the youth vote was the same percentage in 2004 as it was in 2000,
how disturbing. An increase, similiar to what christian conservatives
increased by, probably would've changed the election, US policy, and
the next several years of world history. Stupid kids.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: X = not a whole lot |
26 Nov 2004 08:16:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:20:44 +0000, Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:57:21 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com (R.Schenck) in
<8fcb1069.0411191310.235c7f56@posting.google.com> wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0411180408.5c462f12@posting.google.com>...
X = not a whole lot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1353271,00.html
The people have spoken, but what did they say? John Allen Paulos finds
it difficult to draw statistical conclusions from Bush 's victory in
the US election
Thursday November 18, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush's election has generated far too many ill-founded
conclusions about the US electorate. Despite Bush's assertions to the
contrary, the voters certainly did not give him a mandate to further
"traditional moral values" (or, indeed, to do anything else).
snip
I'd have to say that any margin of victory for bush is a mandate at this
point, certainly a vindication.
Given that he was a sitting president during a war he had a tiny margin.
That should have given him 10%+. He had the smallest margin of any sitting
president during a war. I am also concerned about an apparent problem with
at least 130,000 votes in Florida
I haven't heard of this? Cite?
and who knows how many elsewhere. I
wonder if the lesson they learned from 2000 was to steal so big no one
questions it.
And the youth vote was the same percentage in 2004 as it was in 2000, how
disturbing. An increase, similiar to what christian conservatives
increased by, probably would've changed the election, US policy, and the
next several years of world history. Stupid kids.
--
Don't blame me -- I voted for the other guy.
--Daniel Harper
(Insert my name and change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: X = not a whole lot |
27 Nov 2004 02:21:23 AM |
|
|
"Daniel Harper" <my_name@terralink.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.27.02.28.35.809288@terralink.net>...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:20:44 +0000, Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:57:21 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com (R.Schenck) in
<8fcb1069.0411191310.235c7f56@posting.google.com> wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0411180408.5c462f12@posting.google.com>...
X = not a whole lot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1353271,00.html
The people have spoken, but what did they say? John Allen Paulos finds
it difficult to draw statistical conclusions from Bush 's victory in
the US election
Thursday November 18, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush's election has generated far too many ill-founded
conclusions about the US electorate. Despite Bush's assertions to the
contrary, the voters certainly did not give him a mandate to further
"traditional moral values" (or, indeed, to do anything else).
snip
I'd have to say that any margin of victory for bush is a mandate at this
point, certainly a vindication.
Given that he was a sitting president during a war he had a tiny margin.
That should have given him 10%+. He had the smallest margin of any sitting
president during a war. I am also concerned about an apparent problem with
at least 130,000 votes in Florida
I haven't heard of this? Cite?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3956129.stm
and who knows how many elsewhere. I
wonder if the lesson they learned from 2000 was to steal so big no one
questions it.
And the youth vote was the same percentage in 2004 as it was in 2000, how
disturbing. An increase, similiar to what christian conservatives
increased by, probably would've changed the election, US policy, and the
next several years of world history. Stupid kids.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: X = not a whole lot |
27 Nov 2004 07:43:33 AM |
|
|
"Daniel Harper" <my_name@terralink.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.27.02.28.35.809288@terralink.net>...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:20:44 +0000, Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:57:21 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com (R.Schenck) in
<8fcb1069.0411191310.235c7f56@posting.google.com> wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0411180408.5c462f12@posting.google.com>...
X = not a whole lot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1353271,00.html
The people have spoken, but what did they say? John Allen Paulos finds
it difficult to draw statistical conclusions from Bush 's victory in
the US election
Thursday November 18, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush's election has generated far too many ill-founded
conclusions about the US electorate. Despite Bush's assertions to the
contrary, the voters certainly did not give him a mandate to further
"traditional moral values" (or, indeed, to do anything else).
snip
I'd have to say that any margin of victory for bush is a mandate at this
point, certainly a vindication.
Given that he was a sitting president during a war he had a tiny margin.
That should have given him 10%+. He had the smallest margin of any sitting
president during a war. I am also concerned about an apparent problem with
at least 130,000 votes in Florida
I haven't heard of this? Cite?
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_7
http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=11-19-04&storyID=20116
and who knows how many elsewhere. I
wonder if the lesson they learned from 2000 was to steal so big no one
questions it.
And the youth vote was the same percentage in 2004 as it was in 2000, how
disturbing. An increase, similiar to what christian conservatives
increased by, probably would've changed the election, US policy, and the
next several years of world history. Stupid kids.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: X = not a whole lot |
19 Nov 2004 04:01:55 PM |
|
|
R.Schenck wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0411180408.5c462f12@posting.google.com>...
X = not a whole lot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1353271,00.html
The people have spoken, but what did they say? John Allen Paulos finds
it difficult to draw statistical conclusions from Bush 's victory in
the US election
Thursday November 18, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush's election has generated far too many ill-founded
conclusions about the US electorate. Despite Bush's assertions to the
contrary, the voters certainly did not give him a mandate to further
"traditional moral values" (or, indeed, to do anything else).
When did Bush say that he had a mandate to do this? In his post election
press conference he said he would spend his "capital" reforming the tax
code and social security.
"Let me put it to you this way," he told reporters Thursday, his voice
quickening with confidence. "I earned capital in the campaign, political
capital, and now I intend to spend it."
"I'm going to spend it for what I've told the people I'd spend it on,
which is -- you've heard the agenda -- Social Security and tax reform,
moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on
terror."
snip
I'd have to say that any margin of victory for bush is a mandate at
this point, certainly a vindication.
And the youth vote was the same percentage in 2004 as it was in 2000,
how disturbing. An increase, similiar to what christian conservatives
increased by, probably would've changed the election, US policy, and
the next several years of world history. Stupid kids.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
