Monday, February 13, 2006

How Liberals and Conservatives see things differently

As many of you know, I was on BookTV this past Sunday. Below is a link from World Net Daily whose book division, WND Books, published my book, telling of meteoric book sales following my appearance. At the time of their writing the book ranked over 400 on BarnesandNoble.com, but actually reached 267.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48793

What was interesting to me was the number of emails from Franken supporters who described me as angry, a fascist,hatemonger,... I watched my appearance twice and just couldn't see, as hard as I tried, to see the angry hatemonger that these people saw.

Others who emailed me didn't bother refuting my points against Al Franken, rather that I'm just another publicity seeking right-winger.

What I draw from this is just how polarized we are as a country and how so many people can be so consumed with anger that they can't argue or advance their own opinions or arguements without lacing it with vulagrity and nasty name calling.

No wonder Al Franken has such a strong following. He's pandering to the angry and bitter folks in this country who prefer verbal assaults than intellectual debate.

9 Comments:

At 8:07 PM, Blogger LaChouffe said...

Saw you on C-span Sunday and I agree with many of your comments regarding Al Franken and Air America. I have not read any of the books written by Al Franken. But one thing I have found, is that if someone needs to repeat a statement over and over (such as I'm really smart, or I only tell the truth, or he is stupid or he is a liar), chances are that statement is FALSE. If something is obviously correct, that statement would not need to be endlessly repeated.

 
At 9:48 PM, Blogger pscats said...

I also saw you on C-span Sunday and all I can say is thank you. I find most of my liberal friends are unable to debate or intelligently discuss anything political without animosity. You, dear sir, are a breath of fresh air.

 
At 11:29 AM, Blogger Steve B said...

I also saw the last half of your C-Span talk. I thoroughly enjoyed it. You're right on many points, esp. when it comes to the left and how they react. Instead of giving proof and counter-arguements about statements that were made, the go right to the name calling.

Liberals are truely intellectually bankrupt if they are followers of Franken and other liberal talking heads. At least Rush and Hannity try to research the statements they make.

 
At 8:46 AM, Blogger Shover Robot said...

I too saw you on C-Span and I agree totally about Al Franken!

Yes Thank you for Proving how false his statements are and the smear tactics liberals use.

 
At 8:06 PM, Blogger UnflinchingLiberal said...

Wow.

You really don't seem to understand the divisiveness in the country. I also just saw you on CSPAN (a repeat). I'm not a big fan of Franken but I do support many of the same things that he supports. His personal challenges in supporting the same do not weaken the arguments.

Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and yes, Franken are the promulgators of this divisiveness. You seem to have also joined that force.

Your BookTV appearance was, unfortunately, rambling and had sparse reason for me to be particularly shocked about Franken.

You might perhaps better serve the public trust by working to understand "the left" rather than defending the shock pundits of the right and attacking the same on the left.

 
At 2:45 PM, Blogger Huggy said...

I saw you on Book Notes recently and again just the other evening. I am so glad that you and a few others are actually holding people like Franken's feet to the fire. If more calmly spoken conservatives (not the Hannity, Coulter, Inghram, and Hewitts of the world) would do just that and continue this expose, perhaps the Frankens would just go away. I am really looking forward to reading your book. I believe that the Franken's and the Jane Fonda's of this country should be brought up on charges because their rants lead our enemies to prolong the battles and a few more good soldiers are killed. Keep up the good work. And, by the way, I would hope you would challenge the Hannity-types to "prove" some of the things they say too....

 
At 4:18 PM, Blogger Raymond Woodbury said...

In your C-SPAN appearance, you said that 20+ was not documented, only 16-19, 16-24, and 25+. Algebra can be your friend. Obtain 20+ data by adding the 16-24 and 25+ data, then deducting the 16-19 data.

The result? Not 60.1%, but 75.2% of those who earn minimum wage or a lower wage are adults age 20 and over. (The number for exactly minimum wage is 67.9%.) All that this proves is that a one-penny increase in the minimum wage would go to more adults than teens. Try to prove more than that and you need a more complex economic model to take into account job loses, including effects on those making something between $5.15/hr. and the new minimum wage.

All minimum or lower wage workers represent just 2.7% of the hourly workforce -- 9.1% of teens, 4.8% of those 20-24, and 1.7% of those 25 and over. Conversely, of workers earning minimum or lower wage if composed of 24.8% teens, 26.2% early-20somethings, and 49.0% 25+. Overall these groups represent 7.3, 14.5, and 78.1% of the total hourly workforce.

If minimum wage is a minimum, how are there those working for less than minimum wage? Technically, there aren't. If you are a waiter or waitress, your employer may pay a wage below $5.15 per hour, but you work to make tips such that your earnings exceed minimum wage -- or you go work the register at the fast food joint or retailer across the street. You are, perhaps on a small scale, an entrepreneur in a white shirt and black slacks.

As age increases, a smaller percentage of each age range is involved in such low-wage work, to the point where over 25, only one adult in 232 (0.4%) is making exactly minimum wage, not counting the 1.3% with lower wages but higher hopes and a desire to tell you about today's specials. Limbaugh's instincts are right even if his numbers are off.

Who is the one in 232? Perhaps a family member is employed in such a way that she is required to draw pay, but takes the minimum wage to benefit the family business. Perhaps it is someone who is developmentally challenged benefits more from being in the workforce than his employer benefits by having him.

Franken should be made aware that whites and red-staters are overrepresented among those wages are at the minimum or lower. And that his algebra-aware researcher can't add very well. Maybe then he will leave this important public policy debate to those with proper economic models rather than pages or airtime to fill.

 
At 5:09 PM, Blogger AngelMay3 said...

I only caught the last couple minutes of the C-span interview about your book. Therefore the only part that I saw was the part about the 60.1% of 20 and over who make minimum wage. I have a couple questions. First, what year were those statistics obtained from? I am a math teacher, and am always teaching my students to question statistics when they hear them. So, I went to the dept. of labor website and looked at what I assume is the same table you used for your example. I don't know what year you referred to, but the most recent one I could find was 2004. You commented that Al Franken said that 60.1% of minimum wage workers were 20 and over, but that wasn't a category. Correct me if I'm wrong, but...if the survey is of workers that are ages 16 and over, and you have a category of 16 - 19, doesn't it make sense that the rest of those workers would be 20 and over? Going with that line of thought, according to the table that I found on the Dept. of Labor's website for minimum wage statistics for 2004 showed that the % of 16 - 19 year olds at or below minimum wage is 24.8%. Therefore the % of 20+ years olds at or below minimum wage would be 75.2%. The % of 16-19 yr. olds at minimum wage is 32.3%. Therefore the % of 20+ workers at minimum wage is 67.7%. The % of 16 - 19 yr. olds below minimum wage is 22.2%, therefore the % of 20+ yr. olds below minimum wage would be 77.8%. Though the 60.1% stat. was incorrect, all of the % for at, below or both, for 20+ yr. olds is actually higher than the 60.1%. Just thought I would mention this. Thank you!

 
At 8:17 AM, Blogger Mark said...

Alan, I saw you on C-Span and thought you were great! If you can't defeat the message, shoot the messenger. That is exactly what Al Franken's friends and allies do every time that they are confronted with the truth.

God bless,
Mark
Mission-Philippines

 

Post a Comment

<< Home