NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/californ/2072

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 3.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!biosci!agate!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!mustang.mst6.lanl.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!CARL
From: [e-mail] (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.california
Subject: Re: relocation
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:20:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 60
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (C D Burdorf) writes:
>>>Take an introduction to political science class.
>>
>>Then take the advanced course and you'll learn that the "political spectrum"
>>they talked about in the intro course doesn't exist.  If you don't want to take
>>a course, read _The_American_Voter_ by Converse, et. al. in lieu of the intro
>>course, and _The_New_American_Voter_ to see why Converse's analysis was flawed.
>
>Sure every analysis is flawed.  Nonetheless, the polictical spectrum
>does apply and is widely used.  Usually people that try to deny
>that there is a polictical spectrum are right or left wing extremists
>but don't want to admit it.

Wrong, jackass.  Trying to cram everything into a single dimension is
absolutely stupid.  The only people who do that are those with an axe to grind
and who which to obfuscate real issues, or those just too bloody stupid to
realize that other people may not be sheep.  For example, please place the
following positions on your "political spectrum" (I'm using issues from the
most recent U.S. elections for examples):
    1)  Pro-choice; in favor of affirmative action; in favor of reduced
        goverment spending to reduce the deficit;
    2)  Pro-choice; in favor of affirmative action; in favor of increased
        taxes to reduce the deficit;
    3)  Pro-choice; against of affirmative action; in favor of reduced
        goverment spending to reduce the deficit;
    4)  Pro-choice; against affirmative action; in favor of increased taxes
        to reduce the deficit;
    5)  Anti-choice; in favor of affirmative action; in favor of reduced
        goverment spending to reduce the deficit;
    6)  Pro-choice; in favor of affirmative action; in favor of increased
        taxes to reduce the deficit;
    7)  Anti-choice; against affirmative action; in favor of reduced
        goverment spending to reduce the deficit;
    8)  Anti-choice; against affirmative action; in favor of increased taxes
        to reduce the deficit;
Now, tell me, turkey, just how do you manage to order these positions in a
single dimension?  Convers, et. al. tried, and when they discovered it didn't
work, they decided that American voters were irrational and inconsistent.
Apparently that's the way you look at it, too:  If the world doesn't fit your
simplistic model, it's the world that's wrong, right?

>>>Yeah well Marx has pretty much been proven to be out of touch
>>>with reality these days what with the east-bloc in a gross economic
>>>state as a result of pursuing marxism.
>>
>>Perhaps while you're taking the advanced poli sci course, you could manage to
>>squeeze in a history course as sell.  Marx was NOT a marxist.
>
>Oh right, and Freud wasn't a Freudian, and Stalin wasn't a Stalinist.

Marx, on his deathbed, seeing how his ideas had been "interpreted" and said,
quite specifically, "I am not a Marxist."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.