Texsox

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:29 AM) I think all the focus here on students, which was most of that part listed, is being short-sighted. There was also these gems there. 1) Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, 2) Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55 So, even after you get out of school, it seems like he wants free labor for life. Anybody here in their 30's or 40's with 2 or 3 kids and a job have 50 - 100 extra hours to spare? Damn right, you see them coaching baseball, football, soccer, you see them volunteering in the school, at football games selling popcorn, at Scout meetings, all over the place. I guess they are idiots trying to better their community instead of sitting on their ass asking for someone else to do it. But don't worry, when your kids are in those programs, someone else will do it for you.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:53 AM) I probably did misunderstand because it kept getting repeated over and over and eventually I forgot what it actually meant. A better way to think of this, and perhaps it is a good example, you bump into Athomeboy in a dark alley and he asks you who you are voting for. Of course you would have said Obama, even if you were voting McCain. Not because you were a racist, but because it is what you believe the pollster is wanting to hear. I'm certain almost everyone has done this a time or two. A candidate knocks on your door during a Sox game. Damn right I'm voting for you, now get on down the road and reach those undedecided. I remember when Nielsen of the TV ratings was switching from pen and notebook reporting to computer based monitoring in homes. They mentioned that they adjusted their numbers when it was self reporting because X% of families will self report Disney and Masterpiece Theater when they were really watching WWF and Dukes of Hazard. They were excited about testing their hypothesis about how many were giving false information. I find polling fascinating. The science keeps getting better. The results more accurate.

When community service went from something important and the people who performed it were considered good and nice to something that celebrities were forced into for killing their spouses in California, our communities started to crumble. So go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend . . .

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:54 AM) PA actually brought this point up in another thread. He said that his grandmother and her sister would really benefit from having some sort of legal union between them. The truth is, I think we need to get away from this idea of government sanctioned "marriage" as we would think about religious "marriage." The government really has no right to say what legal aged consenting adults you may enter into a contract with. On the surface that sounds great. Actually we have given the government the right to determine what a contract is. Think about how contracts are enforced and by who in a modern society. The government determines what a legal age is. The determine what is and is not, an allowable contract. And also you are smacking up against the notion that current and future marriages must somehow be changed or altered to make room for a new style of "marriage" in America. ain't.gonna.happen.

If you are going to drop the coin flip Head to Head Division League Coin Flip The bias becomes if one team plays more home games against the other.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 09:48 AM) That's a point that I have long believed that a lot of people never considered. If the argument is that people should be able to marry who they want, why should they be limited to just one spouse? Or, as I have said before, why should sex, or the potential for sex, matter? If what we are talking about here are certain legal rights and benefits, shouldn't a brother and sister be able to enjoy those rights? Perhaps a parent and child? We are talking after all, two people who wish to enjoy the legal benefits and protections that a union allows. Why should anyone, especially the government, care who shares these benefits?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 08:13 AM) Tex, you're really twisting the logic into knots here and getting far, far away from what the original definition is. The Bradley Effect doesn't account for the opinions of the vast majority of non-racist McCain voters because it's assumed they are reporting their votes accurately to the pollsters. The theory suggests that people are secretly racist and lying about claiming they are voting for the black candidate when they know they won't, nothing more. When you add other factors into it then it just dies along with all the other statistical factors. In the states where it's believed race (where it would hurt Obama) was a factor, the polls were accurate. The theory is people will say they are voting for the black candidate because they believe it will make them seem more socially desirable to the pollster. They want the pollster to believe they are a "good person" and not swayed by race. A racist would not have that concern. The people that would have that concern are the people who are not racist but do not want anyone to think that they are. With all the talk about a vote for McCain is a vote for racism, some people would want to avoid that. A racist person would not believe that he would appear more socially desirable by voting for a black candidate. In fact, they would believe it would make them less socially desirable. Who would fear that criticism? A racist? Or a non racist person? Did you ever try to reason with a racist person? Do you think they really care if they are criticized? They do not believe they are wrong, and in fact, it is the other people who are wrong and just do not understand.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 08:38 AM) I'm I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the Mormons, who have a long history of polygamy, have pumped in tens of millions of dollars into this Prop? Perhaps. The tenants of that religion are very much conservative family orientated. I can't think of a single LDS family I know who have been divorced. They spend a lot of time as a family and have some fairly strict rules in how families should operate. They offer a lot of programs for the family. polygamy is still between men and women. The irony would be that recognizing non traditional unions in this country would be a step towards polygamy. Why should the government care what consenting adults do in their own homes?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 07:40 AM) OK, so, if the church in question did indeed funnel money for a political cause, doesn't that mean they should lose their tax-exempt status? Then also take it away from the NRA, AARP, Heart Association, Salvation Army, American Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and especially the DNC and the RNC, and every other group of people who have tax-exempt status and try to influence voting through their members and through donations. Remember the tax exempt status is a benefit to the people (voters) who donate money to those groups. We donate to those groups because we presumably agree with their mission and want to see that mission realized. Pursuing those ideals through legislative and political avenues is part of the Democratic process and exactly what people expect when, for example, they donate to the NRA. Changes in laws is for some the greatest impact that a charity can achieve. What you are suggesting is taking away YOUR* tax break for donating to those charities. Then, in taking away their tax break when purchasing goods and services, they would not be able to do as much with YOUR donation, meaning YOU would need to donated more dollars to have the same affect. I'm not certain there would be much support for that. *Of course I use this generically.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) The Bradley Effect is a significant variation in the final results from pre-election polls due to racism. If it is such a small number of people that it is negligible, it isn't the Bradley Effect any more. That's just statistical noise at that point. Not exactly. Taking this past election as an example. There are many non-racist conservative voters who voted McCain. The Bradley effect would claim that they would tell pollsters they are voting Obama because they believe they would look better in the pollster's eyes. Or they want to avoid being labeled as racist. The motivation is usually not racism. In fact, a racist person would be much less likely to admit to voting for Obama to anyone. Think in this election someone who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That would be the type of person that would give an inaccurate answer to the pollster. Not the racist person who would be very willing to have it known he isn't voting for a black person. Think about how some groups tried to paint all McCain voters as racist. We know that is not true, but why hassle with some pollster about it? The social desirability factor is well researched and accepted. This is just a variant on that. People lie to pollsters all the time, the best example is income.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 09:18 PM) You do get your masters before you PhD usually, but some programs don't include a masters--you just go straight for the PhD. I think one of my friends did that at Albany. I have had several friends leave my program after the masters; most of them don't regret it because they realize they didn't want the PhD, but most of them do wish they were able to find a job using their degree. My point is just to talk to people that have an MA in Clinical/Counseling around your area and see what type of availability/pay you're looking at. Thank you. The three options here at UTPA are Clinical, Experimental, and a brand new Behavioral Analysis Program just starting up this next fall. And I'm tied to here. I'm looking into thye Behavioral program, I honestly do not know anything about it besides the little I saw at the abainternational.org web site.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 09:27 AM) It sounds like you've already made up your mind. I'm just telling you what I know based on my 4 years in a Psych grad program. Of the clinicians I know that left with masters, two are working in a prison doing a job they could have with a BA, one switched field and one was living in his car and campaigning for Obama. Of the experimentals I know that left, two are working as college admissions officers, one has been looking for a year for a teaching job (unsuccessfully) and another is still looking for a job. My point is that you are really going to want to think about job opportunities. I would honestly talk to people with the MA you are looking for that are NOT affiliated with the program you are thinking about going into. That way you will get a view of what it's like once you have attained the degree you want. I'm just trying to make sure you know how glutted the market is with Clinical PhD's, MA's in counseling and PsyD's. Even since I've entered grad school the market has gotten very competitive. It's difficult to find a post without a post-doc fellowship--beyond the PhD. Then maybe I am missing something, don't you have to have a Masters before a PhD? And honestly, the only decision that has been made is to continue. The next decision is the toughest, English or Psychology. And I am in a position where I can seek knowledge for knowledge. I guess if I was looking at a 50 year career, I would be thinking different, but honestly, I'll have maybe 5-10 years, if I am lucky, post PhD. I re read your post. Clinical is a choice based on not being able to move right away and being available here at UTPA.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 07:31 AM) The poll predictions on 538 were all close to dead-on, all over the country. The only state he missed on predicting was Indiana and even then it was only by a couple of points (it was predicted to go barely red, ended up going barely blue). The actual election Bradley was in was a result of poor polling, furthermore, this year's GE polls were done nationally with different demographics all over the region, and to my knowledge none of them showed any significant anomalies. OK. Which proves that in national elections the "bradley effect" is negligible, it doesn't prove there is no bradley effect. To prove a negative, that it doesn't exist, you basically have to prove that no where is there a single person that tells a pollster they are voting for the black candidate and insteads votes for the white. To prove it does exist, you would need to find one person who did. Basically it is usually impossible to prove a negative in an academic sense.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 12:05 AM) Can I get out my shovel to bury the Bradley Effect? No. The effect is there as long as it applies to someone. What gets added to the information is the number of voters is insignificant, thus the effect is not a factor in National Elections.

The timing with Palin was a mistake. If the party gave her four years to polish and prepare, she could have kicked ass. As things are working out, getting her into that Senate seat for example would have given her about the same prep as Obama, with Governor for a day or so tossed in. I fear this probably ruined her national career. I had secretly hoped McCain would have found a cross over Dem to join him.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 09:03 PM) He needs to spend more time in Illinois and less in Texas. Nope. That crazy s*** snow and ice is something to be avoided. And Austin as about as perfect a place to be as you will find anywhere.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 03:16 PM) Remember that your teaching potential will be limited with just a masters. You'll be looking at community college or untenured college/university posts that don't have the best perks. And my friends that have left with just a masters in Psych haven't been able to land teaching stuff. A terminal masters in Psych (in my opinion) is not going to get you tons further than a BA in Psych. I understand and a PhD is something I would like to do, but remember I have some age and other considerations that may not allow that to happen. Which works in English's favor. Many more options there for teaching. But overall, with almost any field no degree And I need to take it one step at a time. In Texas, a Masters would allow me to sit for the license test and open my own practice. That seems like a huge difference.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) I don't know if you would be happy catering to wealthy people who can afford the help and need it far less. You are not the first one to mention that. Honestly, I think I would be best in some teaching position at this point. And teaching opportunities seem greater for English than Psychology. Remember, I'm not an argumentative s.o.b. in person, just here Another factor that a friend good enough to slap me figuratively across the face said that Psychology has more prestige than English and that I crave the ego stroke.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) It appears that will happen. I'd like to know more about Bob Gates, he seems to have no ego, or rather, a non-politician forced to work with politicians. Just a man very good at his job that cares about how it's done. Huge supporter of Boy Scouts of America. Was President of the National Eagle Scout Association. I had the pleasure of meeting him twice and he is the most genuine person you could imagine. I heard a story where after accepting the position he honored a prior commitment he made to attend a camping trip with his son and the rest of the Troop. They were the safest Scouts anywhere that weekend with Secret Service behind every rock.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 01:26 PM) Can I put in a plug for Social Work? I think you'll go farther with that degree than with an MA in Counseling/Clinical. I'm too old. I just don't have the emotional reserve anymore to tackle that population. Twenty years ago, yes.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 01:25 PM) I AM TOTALLY OFFENDED BY THAT--wait, no, I agree. Wait, you agree with the gambling, hookers or the booze?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 01:16 PM) If the government has to use a different name for marriage across the board, so be it. In principle I am against this sort of sleight of hand to have something passed. Plus, I think it makes it harder, not easier to pass. People put up their defenses when they believe they are being tricked.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 12:24 PM) I see a big difference. You cant file as married in a civil union on your federal tax returns. You have no federal rights as a couple in a civil union. I guess if that is what marriage means to you, then there is a difference. I stand corrected based on the current laws.However, every voter should realize (if they don't already) that eventually there will be total equality between civil unions and marriages. It goes step by step and the first step is the hardest.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 11:44 AM) We've seen very little evidence of the loser having an impact post election. Carter.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 11:50 AM) Are civil unions legal in California? To me, civil unions and marriages are very different. I will say I'm not a fan of voiding already legal marriages though. I fail to see any difference between a civil union and a marriage. The two people involved after either event would have the same rights and privileges. On an emotional level is one couple less committed to the other than in the other couple? Are they any less in love? Are they any less a lifelong coupling? Currently is there a difference between a couple who gets married before a Judge and one who stands in front of Clergy? I have always failed to see a difference in the results of either event. If the results are the same and the relationship that each couple feels is the same, how can they be very different?