From the News-Gazette:
They want the Chief back.
In a nonbinding referendum this week, University of Illinois students gave a resounding "yes" when asked if they want Chief Illiniwek to return as the official UI symbol.
The vote was 7,718 to 2,052, or roughly 79 percent to 21 percent.
More than 10,300 students voted in the two-day elections this week, the second-highest total in the 10-year history of online balloting, said law student David Mangian, co-chairman of the Student Election Commission.
And:
Chief supporter Frank Calabrese, who was re-elected to the faculty-student senate, was jubilant after results were announced Thursday evening at Gregory Hall.
"People cannot ignore public opinion: 80 percent of the student body says we want it back," said Calabrese, a UI junior.
Frank is wrong: The NCAA absolutely will ignore public opinion, and the BoT will do what the NCAA tells them to do.
Effort is admirable, but this will have absolutely no effect on anything.
"People cannot ignore public opinion: 80 percent of the student body says we want it back," said Calabrese, a UI junior. "You can't get 80 percent of the people to agree on what bread they want."
Mr Calabrese must not be a math major. Only 18% of the student body wants the chief back, the rest either want him to stay gone or don't care enough to go to a web browser and click "yes". That's hardly a major public opinion. I'm also not surprised that this isn't touched upon by the News-Gazette.
Well, that's almost twice the number of students who voted for the renovation of IMPE and CRCE, and about zero percent of current graduate students voted for the GEO to represent them. That's the beauty of democracy.
This reminds me a little of the non-binding AWARE referendums during recent elections. Nothing wrong with them, they just didn't end up making much difference.
Couldn't agree more, Arvid.
Uh...they also want to drink green beer for 48 hours straight and puke and urinate and fornicate in public.
In fact, I'd lay money on the fact that *more* students want to participate in Unofficial than get the Chief back....
In fact, that's more people that voted to unionize the visiting APs...
And it didn't stop that union for forming claiming "democracy".
If you want to judge the validity of elections by the number of participants, almost every officeholder in this country wouldn't be in office right now.
Arvid-I think you are the one with the math problem, the students who were interested voted. Of those that had an opinion 80% want the chief back. It really isn't important what the rest of the student body wants if it wasn't important enough an issue for them to even vote. You don’t know what the non-voting students wanted to say by not voting.
Well, that's almost twice the number of students who voted for the renovation of IMPE and CRCE, and about zero percent of current graduate students voted for the GEO to represent them
Then encourage your fellow grad students to take a vote to re-authorize the GEO. Once something is approved and the core group has moved on, it is considered the status quo. Don't like the GEO, ask for a re-vote. A union can't claim to represent a group if that group votes to say "don't represent us". Of course, if you don't bother to take that vote, then it is assumed the whole is ok with the current status.
In fact, that's more people that voted to unionize the visiting APs...
And it didn't stop that union for forming claiming "democracy".
If you want to judge the validity of elections by the number of participants, almost every officeholder in this country wouldn't be in office right now.
I love how we're comparing a non-binding resolution formed by a group grasping for straws to hold onto a tradition that has departed the campus to voted of union certification and elections in the real world. Way to distract from what is really being said here. As far as votes for unionization goes, don't you still have to have a quorum (usually consisting of a simple majority) present for the voting to be valid? So if a majority of the majority casts a vote to unionize, it's valid, but if a majority of the AP's didn't vote, it wouldn't be valid.
All I am judging is the fact that the pro-chief camp is essentially claiming that "almost 80% of the student body want the chief back", which is a false claim. 18% of the student body wants the chief back, whereas the other 82% either want it to stay gone or don't care enough to vote from the comfort of their own dorm/apartment/classroom/lab.
A majority of the student body didn't even cast a vote; only 22.8% of the entire student body voted. So the pro-chief camp pulled in 80% of 23% of the students to care about their cause. Hardly a significant validation, especially considering the ease and availablitly of voting. So this could easily be considerd that 77% of the student body is happy with the current status of the chief, and either voted that way or did not feel it necessary to voice that opinion.
As I said in another thread, if this had gone the other way, the pro-chief zealots would be making this very same argument.
Arvid-I think you are the one with the math problem, the students who were interested voted. Of those that had an opinion 80% want the chief back. It really isn't important what the rest of the student body wants if it wasn't important enough an issue for them to even vote. You don’t know what the non-voting students wanted to say by not voting.
No, read it again. He said: "80 percent of the student body says we want it back", which is a factual inaccuracy. Of the campus' 42,728 student body, only 18% of those students want the chief back. I'll give you the fact that 5% of them specifically want it to stay gone. As for those who didn't vote, it doens't take a rocket scientist to know what they *didn't* say: they didn't say they wanted the chief back.
Arvid-I know of few elections were even 50% of the electorate voted for the candidate and we accept the outcome of those elections, this wasn't even binding on the BoT. I have seen many turn-outs around 20% so this one wasn't too bad. You just can't accept that many people could like the Chief.
You just can't accept that many people could like the Chief.
And you also can't accept that many people could NOT like the chief, or honestly couldn't give a rat's ass about it.
In 2004, when the last referendum was voted on, of the 13.000 students who voted, 69% said keep and 31% said retire. The same logic applies here: of the entire student body, only 1/3 cared enough to vote either way. Tacitly, this means that the other 2/3 were content with the status quo, which at the time was keep the chief. Now, 78% tacity agree with the status quo, keep it retired.
Considering that the student body was smaller in 2004 but had a higher turnout than this time around says to me that even more students than before care less about the chief than they do about work, class, drinking, volunteering, socializing and learning all about promiscuity from their RA's.
-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
Arvid, what would be a real-life example of a valid electoral result?
Arvid, what would be a real-life example of a valid electoral result?
We're not talking valid electoral results here, so please do not try to change the subject. I'm talking about making claims that one does not have. I'm not saying the results are not valid, I'm saying that this is a rather lengthy interpretation of the actual voting results. The result is, of those who care about this issue, 79% would like to see the chief return. They have a clear majority of those students who care about this subject, but that's not a "clear majority of the student body", by a long shot.
FWIF, I feel the same way about the AWARE resolutions,too.
-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
I agree with Arvid.
Perhaps a more correct phrasing of the result is:
Of the 24% of the student body who expressed an opinion by voting one way or another on the issue, 79% expressed a desire for the return of the chief.
One can speculate all day as to what the opinion of those who did not vote was. The reason we count votes is to find the will of the people who bother to express it.
Or: "If you don't vote, you don't count".
On February 29th, 2008 at 12:51 PM, IlliniPundit said:
I agree with Arvid.
I'm printing and framing this for posterity.
-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
Arvid you can stamp it on your posterior for all I care, if IP wants to agree that elections are won by the minority then I sure wouldn't higher him.
"I agree with Arvid."
I'll take it a step further: There's nothing to agree or disagree with. It's simple math -- 79% of 24% does not represent a majority. It's 19%.
Therefore, the statement, "People cannot ignore public opinion: 80 percent of the student body says we want it back," is inaccurate.
Under the logic of the genius bloggers here, there is no way to have any valid election. Voter turnout was incredible, I would estimate about one third of undergraduates voted in the election (graduate students don't turn-out in these elections), that is much higher than most municipal elections. Just under 8,000 students voted yes. This is a valid student election. Some of you people are being ridiculous, how can you say this election is not accurate? I was asked a question by Julie Wurth after the results were announced and I was excited; and I was happy 80% of the students who voted did vote for the Chief, I understand that not every student voted.
Arvid you can stamp it on your posterior for all I care, if IP wants to agree that elections are won by the minority then I sure wouldn't higher him.
"Screw the numbers, I'll believe what I want!"
Nobody is saying elections are won by the minority. What is being said "People cannot ignore public opinion: 80 percent of the student body says we want it back" is a mathematic logical fallacy when only 24% of the student body was voting. I suggest you spend less time telling liberals to run for cover and more time covering basic math.
-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
What's the number of US citizens that want us to get out of Iraq, now?
Majority rules? Only if you agree with the majority, I guess.
I would be more interested in a referendum that asked the question more accurately, which would be:
"Would you like to see the Chief reinstated, which would mean the University is put under sanctions by the NCAA, or keep the Chief retired and have the University not on NCAA sanctions?"
Jay
Under the logic of the genius bloggers here, there is no way to have any valid election
Do they not teach reading comprehension skills anymore? Nobody is disputing that it was a valid vote.
Voter turnout was incredible, I would estimate about one third of undergraduates voted in the election (graduate students don't turn-out in these elections), that is much higher than most municipal elections.
Well, under the logic of the genius history major, voter turn-out was 31% with assuming no graduate students participated. Really, that's like saying "young people don't turn out in elections, so we just won't count them in the turnout total. They're eligible to vote, so they count in the turnout percentage. You can't make the assumption that they didn't unless you have direct access to the ballots via NetID's that prove that no graduate students voted, which you don't, so voter turn-out was just under 23%.
Even at 23%, that's still a very good voter turnout, though. Had the chief issue not been on the ballot, I seriously doubt it would have been anything close to that. Ranks up there with the time that the students elected two cartoon characters to the ISG in terms of voter turn-out. According to the Champaign County Clerk website, voter turn-out in this last primary was 35.16%. Previous ones have been historically much lower, as have historical non-issue related student voting. It's amazing what a contested issue will bring out, isn't it?
This is a valid student election. Some of you people are being ridiculous, how can you say this election is not accurate?
Again, nobody is disputing that it was a valid election. I'm willing to bet had the results been the other way around you wouldn't be so quick to claim that 80% of the campus was against the chief (using your logic).
I was asked a question by Julie Wurth after the results were announced and I was excited; and I was happy 80% of the students who voted did vote for the Chief, I understand that not every student voted.
But that's not what the newspaper said. Had you said "I'm happy that 80% of the 23% of the student body voted to keep the chief", that would be different. Your statement in the paper claims a consensus and demand from the student body that you do not have. That's like Bush's "mandate" in 2004 and the Democratic "mandate" in 2006. The three things that these two mandates and your claim that "80% of the student body wants the chief back" have in common is that they don't exist.
-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
Yeah, I'm really confused that people would be so polemical that they would become enraged at MATH...
Arvid you are being a scheisskopf but you are also pointing out the problem with democracy. Mao was right. Just shoot 'em if they disagree too much.
The notion of a mandate has always been asinine. People who don't vote don't count.
Seems that people voting gets Arvid's panties in a bind. If about %80 of the people that voted than what ist he problem. Yes maybe not every student voted, but those that did and wanted to voted overwhelmingly to bring Chief Illinewek back. What is so hard to unerstand about that.
And if I was there I would tell the NCAA to go hump some sand. Chief Illinewek is a homage to the Illini indians which the state of Illinois was named after. Do you know what the person who acts as Chief Illinewek has to do to wear the Feathers. IF the NCAA wants to play the PC police, I would tell them to shove it.
Why is itthe PC police are telling schools waht they can and can not call thier mascot. What is it of their business to tell a school to get rid ofa mascot. The PC police have run amok and our scholls are becoming Socialists havens for indoctrination centers. What ewver happened to our great Universities??? They are run by Leftists that areteaching hate of all things American and letting the Muslims run thier schools,such as Harvard making women only hours for Muslim females. What happend to freedom here in the United States. I am sorry for what our education system has become. Socialism and Dhiminificating centers.
If Chief Illinewek is reinstituted and you don't like it, go somewhere else where they will placate to the PC police. If you don't like having co-ed excerscise rooms, go somewhere that does,but don't enforce it on the majority that do not believe in this crap.
Remember what freedom of choice was in the United States, it is dwindling every day.
Sorry for the rant,but this Chief Illinewek thing is ridiculous and never should have been a controversy. it is a homage to our state's name, and in no way is demeaning to the Illini Indians or any other Indian tribe. it is a tribute to them. Why is that so hard for the PC police nad the NCAA to figure out???
And by the way I livein Illinois and never went to school there. My mom went to Law school there. And she wanted to bring in a Conservaitve speaker against a Planned Parenthood Speaker, but the school said no,because it would divisive. A really great way to expand people's minds, just to let one side speak and not another. This was about 10 year ago and it has gotten worse now. No wonder students can't fnd Mexico or Candaon a map with the bafoons that run our schools now
In Arvid's world nothing can be decided in an election because when everyone does not vote that means we can't know what people really think. We will have to shut down all of our elections because I can't remember an election when everyone votes so we can know for sure what every possible voter thinks.
I suppose Arvid knows somehow how those that did not vote would have voted, are not elections like polls like a sampling of the electorate, if you asked all the people who didn't vote wouldn't we really find that they would vote like the students that did vote?
I think something often gets lost in this debate: There is a difference between The Chief (or the Redskins, Indians, etc.) and other sports symbols. The culture of the Illini tribe is gone; it is wiped out. The culture that replaced it (ours) now pays "homage" by using Illini cultural icons at entertainment events. Why would any Native American see this as an "homage"? Doesn't it seem more like an endless end-zone dance than any type of apology?
Unlike, say, the Fighting Irish, who still have an Ireland and whose culture lives on, there is no "Illini-land" for Native Americans to call their own. Their cultural story is over, and is now known more for a basketball team than for a proud race of people. Every time the Chief did his dance, he replaced more and more of the Illini's cultural tradition--and they ain't making any more of it!
As an Alum, I personally liked the Chief. But as a non-Native American, I cannot tell a true Illini tribe member that they shouldn't be offended by what we have done to their name. Imagine that--you can't tell someone else that they shouldn't be offended by something, that's not how it works. Since their cultural legacy is all they have left, I choose to err on the side of the Native Americans. If they say it's offensive, I have to take them at their word and respect it.
I think something often gets lost in this debate: There is a difference between The Chief (or the Redskins, Indians, etc.) and other sports symbols. The culture of the Illini tribe is gone; it is wiped out. The culture that replaced it (ours) now pays "homage" by using Illini cultural icons at entertainment events. Why would any Native American see this as an "homage"? Doesn't it seem more like an endless end-zone dance than any type of apology? Unlike, say, the Fighting Irish, who still have an Ireland and whose culture lives on, there is no "Illini-land" for Native Americans to call their own. Their cultural story is over, and is now known more for a basketball team than for a proud race of people. Every time the Chief did his dance, he replaced more and more of the Illini's cultural tradition--and they ain't making any more of it! As an Alum, I personally liked the Chief. But as a non-Native American, I cannot tell a true Illini tribe member that they shouldn't be offended by what we have done to their name. Imagine that--you can't tell someone else that they shouldn't be offended by something, that's not how it works. Since their cultural legacy is all they have left, I choose to err on the side of the Native Americans. If they say it's offensive, I have to take them at their word and respect it.
As an Alum, I personally liked the Chief. But as a non-Native American, I cannot tell a true Illini tribe member that they shouldn't be offended by what we have done to their name. Imagine that--you can't tell someone else that they shouldn't be offended by something, that's not how it works. Since their cultural legacy is all they have left, I choose to err on the side of the Native Americans. If they say it's offensive, I have to take them at their word and respect it.
I agree.
In Arvid's world nothing can be decided in an election because when everyone does not vote that means we can't know what people really think. We will have to shut down all of our elections because I can't remember an election when everyone votes so we can know for sure what every possible voter thinks.
I suppose Run4cvrlib doesn't know that "reading is FUNdamental", because I clearly said that I wasn't saying it was an invalid election nor am I contesting the results. I am contending the validity of the statement:
"People cannot ignore public opinion: 80 percent of the student body says we want it back,"
But I don't hold that against him; poor comprehension of reading is usually found in those with poor comprehension of math. He just doesn't know any better. Eighty percent of the student body isn't saying that. Nineteen percent is, and another 4 percent is saying that they want him to stay gone. The other 77% is saying that they don't give a shit.
if you asked all the people who didn't vote wouldn't we really find that they would vote like the students that did vote?
I would say that those who didn't vote are those don't care and are content enough with the status quo of "no chief" just like the 66% who didn't vote are those who are content enough with the status quo of 2004. They didn't vote to say they didn't want the chief, but the certainly didn't say to keep it, either. Please tell me you are not incapable of comprehending this simple thing; you can not possibly be this unintelligent.
It's not like this vote makes any kind of a difference anyway, aside from the fact that it was a small portion of the student body who thought this was enough of an issue to even vote on. This doesn't change anything and is really a non-issue, no matter how much anybody tries to spin it otherwise.
-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
But as a non-Native American, I cannot tell a true Illini tribe member that they shouldn't be offended by what we have done to their name. Imagine that--you can't tell someone else that they shouldn't be offended by something, that's not how it works. Since their cultural legacy is all they have left, I choose to err on the side of the Native Americans. If they say it's offensive, I have to take them at their word and respect it.
Cosign.
I thought complete and utter genocide means never having to say you are sorry.
Wow, and people are still attacking Arvid with strawman for pointing out that Frank mangled his facts.
If I say, "I have blue eyes!" and Arvid says, "No! You have Hazel eyes!" I suppose it would fit the conversation if I said, "Why does Arvid attack people on their eye color?"
Reading is FUNdamental.
Let me try to explain.
There's a quote in the NG article above:
Since nobody is actually paying attention to anything Arvid is saying, maybe you'll listen to me:
KEY POINT: (Pay attention here!!!)
All Arvid is saying that the statement by Frank Calabrese quoted above is inaccurate. And Arvid is right. 80 percent of the student body didn't say anything, because not even 80 percent of the student body voted.
ANOTHER KEY POINT: (Also pay attention here!!!):
Frank could have accurately stated: Eighty percent of those who voted wanted the Chief returned.
But Frank cannot accurately say what he is quoted by the NG as saying above. It is not accurate to say that the people who voted are representative of the student body as a whole, so that the referendum results could be extrapolated on the student body as a whole. By definition, those who voted are more concerned with Chief-related issues than those who did not, therefore those who vote are by definition NOT representative of the student body as a whole.
End of rant.
I MEANT THAT 80% OF THE STUDENTS WHO VOTED WANTED THE CHIEF BACK!!! I HOPE YOU ARE HAPPY, GET A LIFE ARVID!
I ANSWERED THE QUESTION AT THE TIME OF THE RESULTS WERE ANNOUNCED, I WAS EXCITED AT THE TIME, I DID NOT PROPERLY COMMUNICATE MY ANSWER AT THE TIME BECAUSE OF MY EXCITEMENT.
GET A LIFE ARVID, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT! ALMOST 8,000 STUDENTS VOTED YES, GET A LIFE! I WILL NOW CONTINUE MY UNOFFICIAL CELEBRATION.
You don't really need to tell him to get a life for being right.
The people who argued with him, though, should go back and read what they wrote.
I am not a moron, Gordy, stop treating me like a baby. I meant that 80% who voted in the election. I was excited at the time and I misspoke, I was hoping for at least 65% and I got 80%. I believe there are more important things for people to write about than that quote.
One could easily assume through statistics (I took ECON 202 and 203 Arvid!) that a solid majority (lets say greater than 70%) of students want the Chief back though the results of this election.
I am disgusted at some of these posts, I am not a moron. I meant 80% in the context of the election. I apologize to the grammar nannies of CU.
"I am not a moron, Gordy, stop treating me like a baby."
I know you're not a moron, and I'm not treating you like a baby.
Your original misstatement was entirely forgivable given the heat of the moment.
The subsequent defenses of it (after Arvid pointed out the error) and attacks on Arvid (almost entirley by others) was not.
I don't think Arvid knows as I said whether 80% or 20% or 10% of the student population is for bringing back the Chief they didn't vote so he can't prove Frank's statement is right or wrong. I have tried to no avail to get this across all day but reading is fundamental to only a few people here. I would say that Frank has a much better chance of being right because that is how the election came out.
It was a misstatement, Arvid is soooo helpful.
Gordy, I think you need to lighten up just a bit. This topic , the Chief, is not all that important anyway. By the way Frank, Jeffrey Domher (I hope I spelled that right Gordy) was a serial killer who killed people around 15th and Wisconsin Avenue. Thus the "golden Domhers" rather than the Golden Domers.
If you want to bring back the Chief, make him Gay. They wouldn't dare censor him then.
Thus the "golden Domhers" rather than the Golden Domers.
Or Dahmers, even. I heard his last meal disagreed with him.
not domher or even dobamar. Dahmer..
Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer.
Did anyone ask Myles Brand what he thought and if he thought this would change his or the rest of the NCAA minds? You can have this vote in 5 years, 10 years 20 years from now and the results will be the same. The students will want the Chief back and the NCAA wont allow it.
You can however buy "retro" Chief merchandise, for that generates revenue for the U of I and the NCAA.
Money talks............
That's fine. Instead of shooting the messenger, why not contact the media and explain that you screwed up and would like to clarify?
This isn't smoking up and philosophizing on nothing. You made a statement to a media outlet with completely incorrect information. People do that sometimes, and that's fine. However, the non-"baby" thing to do at this stage would be to correct the oversight, wipe the egg off your face and move on. The self-absorbed destructive response is to get defensive over your own mistake and attack the messenger.
Looked it up. Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer that killed 17 young men in Milwaukee and Ohio. He did part of his work around the Marquette University area. Marquette University was having difficulty with its mascot and wanted to get rid of the name Marquette Warriors. When I attended undergraduate school there they had Willie Wampum who had a big platic head with a painted face and was dressed up like an Indian. He did the tomahawk chop and all that stuff. It is hard to believe that the native Americans that lived on the reservations in Wisconsin objected, but they did. Marquette decided that "Willy" must go, so they went to the Menominee Indian Tribe and purchased an authentic Menominee Indian Warrior outfit and used a real Mennominee Indian to do the traditional dance. But the critics were not satisfied-surprise!!!!!
One of my dearest friends that I have played golf with for over 25 years at Urbana is Pete Czajkowski. He was a former VP of Finance at U of I. Pete is originally from Milwaukee and we were talking one day about the Chief-when I told him this story. It is the same one I related to Frank Calabrese the other day. I forgot that he probably was not old enough to understand my joke. Since all this can only be understood in this context here it is. Understand that I was trying to suggest to Frank that substance is more important than technical context and that he should not take himself too seriously all the time. Thank you for your help with that- Gordy.
John to Pete: (Pete knows I go up every year to the Athletic Association Golf outing in Milwaukee) "You know Pete, I was responsible for renaming the Marquette mascot after they decided to rename it. There was a big contest going on discussing the new name and all the grant in aid people were at this outing and I submitted the first place and the second place name. I won a nice Marquette Golf bag for my effort.
Pete to John: I know you are kidding.
John to Pete: Well, not exactly kidding. You have heard, have you not of that other Catholic school in South Bend-the fighting Irish. Well do you know that are also called the Golden Domers because one of the buildings overlooking the football stadium has a golden roof.
Pete to John: Yea, but so what.
John: Well, I submitted the name the Golden Dahmers. Since this guy was a cannibal that ate some of his victims, the mascot would come out with a liver in his mouth. They are the Golden Eagles today, so they used half my suggestion. (Pete knows I am kidding, but asks me about second place.)
John: Well, Pete, you know how I hate to waste money. I thought and thought of a really frugal way to do a name change from the Warriors. Then it hit me. Simply replace the a in Warriors with an o. Now you have the Marquette worriers. Easy change with a stick over letter. As a bonus, remember that Willy Wampum costume. Paint over it and make it look like Alfred E. Newman-put the sign up on him- "what me worry"
I told this to Frank, but I forgot to explain to him about Jeffrey Dahmer, so I did not get the full belly laugh I expected.
Xian- I was just avoiding the "Whale" fun you had a couple of months back. Frank does need to be warned that nobody but Gordy takes themselves too seriously here. (and he is supposed to)
Xian-
Question, if I made a statement, that the number of children killed by guns has doubled every year since 1950 would that be a valid statement to make, would you accept that premise?
Xian-
Question, if I made a statement, that the number of children killed by guns has doubled every year since 1950 would that be a valid statement to make, would you accept that premise?
I'd have some problems believing that just because of the math - OK, let's say n children were killed by guns in 1950. If the figure doubled every year, the current number of children killed by guns would be n * (2 ^ 57). Unless n=0, you're talking about a pretty big number.
Exactly... something like 57 billion or more than the people who have been on this earth. But your one of the smart one's who realized that would not be a valid postulation of the math....most people would say yeah that sounds about right... if there were 200 kids killed in 1950 by guns, 400 kids in 2008 would be about right. The same about the 80% of the students at the U of I voted in favor of the Chief. The correct way of saying it was that 80% of the people who voted were in favor......Yet most people could not make that distinction....they would assume that 80% of the people were in favor of the Chief staying.. and they were, but it was on those who actually voted.
"You don't really need to tell him to get a life for being right."
Can't Frank and Arvid both be wrong? Arvid's second sentence started, "Only 18% of the student body wants the chief back," then mindread a mutually exclusive alternative. I'd argue all of us are wrong for wasting so much time on this thead. A meaningless referendum overwhelmingly won, and we're picking meaningless nits. Good night.
Awesome Just completely awesome.
I MEANT THAT 80% OF THE STUDENTS WHO VOTED WANTED THE CHIEF BACK!!! I HOPE YOU ARE HAPPY, GET A LIFE ARVID! I ANSWERED THE QUESTION AT THE TIME OF THE RESULTS WERE ANNOUNCED, I WAS EXCITED AT THE TIME, I DID NOT PROPERLY COMMUNICATE MY ANSWER AT THE TIME BECAUSE OF MY EXCITEMENT.
I'm not looking for you to admit any wrong-doing, you're a student who was obviously very excited that they accomplished something they had been working on for several months and spoke without thinking through the full ramifications of your sentence. So you screwed up, that's not my initial point. My initial point is that a mis-statement was made, and a correction was given. When it becomes a problem is when you and others here attack me for using that Voodoo Witchcraft Magic known as "mathematical logic" on your statement.
However, the News-Gazette should have known better, but they either intentionally left it in to further their cause (a la bhss73's example above), or didn't copy-edit and clarify so they could finally have a story about something the day after it happens. Either way, it's bad journalism on their part. People as a whole tend to really suck at numbers and make broad claims about things that have little to no basis in reality when you really look at it. It could've ended there, but others felt it necessary to throw out things I didn't say. attack points I never made and come up with red herrings for me to defend.
When you allow yourself to be published in the newspaper making quotes like that, you have opened the door for others to pick, poke and prod at your credibility, and if that media source mis-quotes you or you make an incorrect statement and someone comes along and completey shreds it, you can either issue a correction or tell people who take the time to analyze what you say to get a life. They both affect your credibility, but in different ways.
GET A LIFE ARVID, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT! ALMOST 8,000 STUDENTS VOTED YES, GET A LIFE! I WILL NOW CONTINUE MY UNOFFICIAL CELEBRATION.
Actually, no, based on the paper, I'm confident that felt you had a mandate from the student body. Since you've redacted your statment here after having seen a real analysis of the numbers compared to your claim, I'm content that you mean what you say that you're happy that 8000 students agree with you (which you should, even though I disagree with you and would have voted against this if I was still in college)
With this all this anger, I'm hoping this isn't your unofficial celebration being projected. Drunk Blogging is just as bad, if not worse, than Drunk Dialing :)
One could easily assume through statistics (I took ECON 202 and 203 Arvid!) that a solid majority (lets say greater than 70%) of students want the Chief back though the results of this election.
Statistical Economics, as well as how great exit polls have been working as of late, should tell you that you are working with way to small of a sample size to make a claim of 80%, or even 70% considering the method and ease in which the polling was conducted. But you know what Samuel L. Jackson says about making assumptions....
If the students wanted the chief back, they'd have voted for him. If they wanted him gone, they'd have voted against it. If they didn't care and realize that UIUC is about a whole lot than the chief, they wouldn't vote. This result is a resounding victory for the "couldn't care less" crowd, who are in the clear majority.
I'd argue all of us are wrong for wasting so much time on this thead.
Heh.
I didn't vote since I'm graduating in May but had I known there was a chief referendum I probably would have. I would have made it 7,718+1 in favor.
Wasn't Jeffrey Dahmer's adopted religion Jewish ?
The only sensible thing said in all these posts is near the end. NO ONE CARES about the Chief, other than the same behind-the-times folks who can't grasp the obvious: The University has finally made progress by dumping this sorry mascot.
Stop trying to live in the past. The Chief is gone; accept it.
Polls have Hillary and Obama at 47% each in Ohio, looks bad for Hillary seems the Ohio voters are picking Obama to win the primary over Hillary. Oh darn that's right only about a 1000 people were polled so we really can't tell what will happen can we. :-)
Chief Illiniwek is the most inspiring and proud symbol I have ever winessed at a school anywhere. It does NOT demean anyone or anything. Instead it protrays reverence to a cultural and historical past of the great state of Illinois. After all, where did the state name come from? While you may not be able to change the minds of a group of stubborn jerks at the NCAA who have nothing better to do than find fault with something,you can show your pride. Keep the Chief merchandise coming and proudly wear it as much as possible at all public events. In other words, let the NCAA idiots know that true Illini fans believe in the true spirit of Chief Illiniwek even if they cannot seem to understand the symbolism. Furthermore, why does Florida State get to keep the Seminoles as their symbol? Something is amiss here.
Xian-
Question, if I made a statement, that the number of children killed by guns has doubled every year since 1950 would that be a valid statement to make, would you accept that premise?
Of course I wouldn't. After all, I do teach my students the "$1000 or a penny doubling every day for a month" scenario. Just off the top of my head, even with only one child killed in 1950, you are talking about 1048^5 *256. Which is well over 250,000,000,000--40 times the population of the world.
So there is a 0% chance I would accept such a premise. However, if somehow I was caught saying such a thing, I would quickly apologize, not tell the person who pointed out the oversight to "grow up" especially if I had made the point that more than 250 billion children had died this year from gun violence to try to publically sway people on the issue as Mr. Calabrese had done.
"Chief Illiniwek is the most inspiring and proud symbol I have ever winessed at a school anywhere. It does NOT demean anyone or anything. Instead it protrays reverence to a cultural and historical past of the great state of Illinois."
I never felt any such inspiration or pride. It's a sport's mascot for crying out loud. About the only thing I ever had for the symbol is irritation with my fellow students who cared more about a mascot debate and took more action on that debate than anything else. All Darfur got was a candlelight vigil. It was an embarrassment that this was the most active issue worrying the student body... even after 9/11... it still seemed to take precedence over the conflicts.
I think the anon poster hit the nail on the head earlier: "Why would any Native American see this as an "homage"? Doesn't it seem more like an endless end-zone dance than any type of apology?"
Indeed. After the wars and ethnic cleansing, exactly what part of Illinois' history are we revering here? It's a sports mascot that appears to be a constant reminder to many of the suffering and dying that is a part of our history. Meanwhile, people are suffering and dying right now. I'd have been more impressed if there was this much turn out and activism focused on education measures aimed towards spreading awareness of oppression and atrocities around the globe.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Polls have Hillary and Obama at 47% each in Ohio, looks bad for Hillary seems the Ohio voters are picking Obama to win the primary over Hillary. Oh darn that's right only about a 1000 people were polled so we really can't tell what will happen can we. :-)
Polling is supposed to try to get a representative sample, and the results are still considered estimates. I'm not sure that you could claim that the vote was a representative sample, since there was some self-selection. That said, I didn't think that Frank's misstatement was any big deal. If he was majoring in math, engineering, or actuarial science, it might be a little alarming, but it looks like he's in Poli Sci,
"Polling is supposed to try to get a representative sample, and the results are still considered estimates. I'm not sure that you could claim that the vote was a representative sample, since there was some self-selection."
Absolutely correct. There's a difference between extrapolating election results onto the entire population and extrapolating a randomly sampled poll onto a pool of likely voters. One cannot be done with any sort of accuracy, and one can be done with statisticaly confidence to such-and-such margin, X percent of the time.
"That said, I didn't think that Frank's misstatement was any big deal."
Also correct. It was much more foolish when people started attacking Arvid for pointing out the misstatement.
The thing with votes is, it's ALWAYS harder to overturn status quo due to general apathy. When the status quo was for keeping the Chief, people had no problem pointing out that it was a minority of students voting to get rid of it, and mocking those people for constantly needing to be loud and "in-your-face" to get their word out, having their candlelight vigils, all of it.
The day after the Chief was retired, all of a sudden it was the pro-Chief crowd that was having those SAME candlelight vigils and buttons on backpacks and awareness drives and all of it, because now it was them going against the status quo. (And of course all of a sudden those things were Serious. Bidniz.)
More on topic, I think the wording of the vote was amended because it seems there still ARE some people who felt that the student vote might actually matter, while with the similarly advisory-only votes on troops in Iraq and impeachment on the township ballots it's pretty clear to the vast majority of people that the township can't possibly affect federal policy.
Arvid, you are a good guy after all. I am just bewildered why you were so concerned with my statement. You cannot deny that a solid majority of students are supportive of Chief Illiniwek, which was the only point of the referendum, to show support of the Chief through as legitimate of a way as feasible. I retract my "get a life" comment. But you could probably have spent your time better, as could have I.
Gordy, I was mostly frustrated with you because you have been rather unfair to me on this blog when it came to snow removal, the Republican primary and your unconcealed hatred of Romney, and now this. I am convinced that I could save a kid from a burning building and you would still criticize me.
The sample size is large enough for significant statistical analysis. I will whip out my stats book and show you. Also Arvid, the cultural house fee was on the ballot, which brought a lot of students of the anti-Chief persuasion to the ballot. This was not a one-sided election.
Arvid, you are a good guy after all. I am just bewildered why you were so concerned with my statement.
I was initially just making an observation that would have been most likely made by someone else had the vote gone the other direction. I wasn't all that concerned until I was attacked for using deductive reasoning and comparing a non-binding resolution to votes for union certification and municipal elections. That's when things started getting ugly, especially when arguments were being made against points I never made.
You cannot deny that a solid majority of students are supportive of Chief Illiniwek, which was the only point of the referendum, to show support of the Chief through as legitimate of a way as feasible.
Well, as I said above, yes I can. A large percentage of the students are supportive of the chief, a much smaller percentage is feverently against it. A solid, overwhelming majority just doens't give a rat's ass either way, they just want to go to class/work/Murphy's. Akibare makes a very good point above regarding student apathy on this and many other subjects. It's just not something most students care about; they come here to get their education and get the hell out of Champaign-Urbana.
I may completely disagree with your philosophy on the matter, I applaud your efforts on the referendum, though, which shows that a sizable portion of the student body does still care about this issue.
I retract my "get a life" comment. But you could probably have spent your time better, as could have I.
Retraction accepted. Of course we all could be doing better things with our time, but then this site would be a whole lot less entertaining. :)
To be fair, it was me with the unconcealed hatred of Romney. Other folks just didn't trust his 11th hour conversion. ;-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
The sample size is large enough for significant statistical analysis. I will whip out my stats book and show you.
Whip it out all you want, but the primary "rule" of determining statistical significance is the true randomness of the selection coupled with the sample size. A 23% sampling on its own could be statistically significant, but there are too many factors in play such as:
Now, had it been "grab 23% of students based on a random selection of NetID's from the PH database, ask them the final ballot question as posed, and mandate an answer", you would then have a statistically significant sample in which to draw a reasonable conclusion from. Self-selection for participation in the sampling is why pundits and election analysis people spend hours pouring over exit polls and then come up with amazingly wrong answers, especially as of late.
I want to rephrase my earlier comment as a question to the pro-Chief people on this blog: would you rather bring back the Chief and be on NCAA sanctions, or have him gone and be off NCAA sanctions? Remember, you can't separate the two.
Personally, I would like the see the Chief brought back, but honestly titled. Something like, "Toe Touching Suburban Kid in Fake Indian Suit" would suffice.
Gordy, I was mostly frustrated with you because you have been rather unfair to me on this blog when it came to snow removal, the Republican primary and your unconcealed hatred of Romney, and now this. I am convinced that I could save a kid from a burning building and you would still criticize me.
I'd love to see some examples from these. Just judging on the current conflict, you seem to equate, "being rather unfair" with "calling me out when I do something stupid that messes up a discussion on the website".
More likely, you would set a building on fire, rescue a kid from the building, claim you did nothing wrong because you saved a kid from a burning building and then get angry at Gordy for calling you out on it.
"The thing with votes is, it's ALWAYS harder to overturn status quo due to general apathy. When the status quo was for keeping the Chief, people had no problem pointing out that it was a minority of students voting to get rid of it, and mocking those people for constantly needing to be loud and "in-your-face" to get their word out, having their candlelight vigils, all of it.
The day after the Chief was retired, all of a sudden it was the pro-Chief crowd that was having those SAME candlelight vigils and buttons on backpacks and awareness drives and all of it, because now it was them going against the status quo. (And of course all of a sudden those things were Serious. Bidniz.)"
More likely, though, is the pro-Chief crowd never really had an argument other than: "This is the way it ALWAYS has been."
Then, when that was struck down, they had no argument left.
There is no reason for the Chief to come back. None. The Chief supporters have no logic, no facts, and nothing they can point to that would back their point. They are just a bunch of chanting crazies at this point.
The original Illiniweks were not individiuals from a specific tribe, but a group of people who represented different tribes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiniwek
The Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma are descendents of the Illiniwek and they did ask the University of Illinois to discontinue the use of the Mascot before the NCAA came in with their Sanctions. A Native American woman I know told me that she did not like to see the culture of Native Americans being reduced to a phony representation for half time entertainment.
It's not uncommon to see supporters state that Chief Illiniwek does not intend to cause offense. Just as it can be argued that opponents don't understand this...it can also be argued that supporters do not, and will not, even consider the objections that have been raised.
IP, as an anon poster in the past I have been a troll. Not always, but sometimes. Sorry about that, I get wound up sometimes. I have not posted to this thread until now. This has been too full of mean and/or misunderstood comments, and the subject has been exhausted. Please just close this thread.
I saw a local bum sleeping in the entry way to the Urbana City building at the sustainablity symposium the other night. I don't know his name, most all of you would recognize him. He is indiginous to this area. If we would have collected one percent of the investment in this pathetic politically correct attack on a freaking mascot, this man would be living like a king. But no, the smarter then thou, caring, full of sh.. PCr's can't see the forest through the trees. I urge you all, on both sides of this debate, prioritize!!!!!!
The truth, we are all losers.................when it comes to any investment of time or resources to this argument. The left won....Recognize how they work and stop them in the next pursuit of their so called "Social Justice", it's coming. Regroup, prioritize, organize, and be proactive. Our country needs you. Hell, our county needs you (this is the most aggresive liberal county governement in the state). The Chief.....he lives.....in the hearts and minds of the Alumni. A wise leader (like a chief) would sacrifice for his people, it's time for his people to sacrifice for his memory, build a scholarship, give it to a right wing conservative group in the law department and let them take on the left, an anti ACLU program maybe........let his memory win the war, as he knows that this battle is but that.
Arvids, play with words is but a fine example, yes a couple of very important words were missing, yet the intent was obvious, as he and all knew. But that was not the point. He was right, yet inherently he is wrong. Of those who felt it warranted a vote, they lost(those who care maybe, the rest could probably be bought for a beer or maybe beads). Of course then we can add the motivation or lack there of on all accounts of voter turnout, which is highly subjective. Could I be wrong as to motivation and turnout, yes, but probably not. Ah, probability, a buzz word for the mathmaticians to chirp in on, and on, and on......it goes. Those who cared enough to vote, voted overwhelmingly, period.
But this being a highly publicized "non binding referendum" had an effect on turnout, why bother? So, who knows. The system negated the validity before it was cast.
BUT, WE KNOW, yet we always have, and on and on and on..............we go. The left sucks.....................is it to late to have an unofficial beer?..............what really sucks is knowing tomorrow is another day and those people are going to be going at it again.....................I am so glad I have a God to fall back on.
"Gordy, I was mostly frustrated with you because you have been rather unfair to me on this blog when it came to snow removal, the Republican primary and your unconcealed hatred of Romney, and now this. I am convinced that I could save a kid from a burning building and you would still criticize me."
I don't think I've been unfair to you on any of those issues, but I did disagree with your positions on each of them. If you think I was unfair in my disagreement, please point me to those comments so that I can address them or learn from them.
And, to be clear, I didn't/don't hate Romney. I hated that Romney thought he could lecture Republicans and conservatives on what it means to be a conservative or a Republican when he was so clearly flawed himself. That, and I disagree fundamentally with some of the positions he's taken, and his constant changes in position, and I criticized those positions and those changes. That's not hatred - that's politics.
Ractivist: Are you really advocating for a group that's mission is to attack civil liberties? Please explain further.
Also, the "if you didn't waste your time fighting for what you believe in, we could have fed this bum" argument is fallacial. Many of us do both. Otherwise, the argument "If you didn't spend so much time hating the people feeding the bums, YOU could feed them!" seems to be a more compelling argument anyway.
Most people on the left are people who are trying their best for what they think is best for the country. I'd assume it's the same on the right. In my case at least, I devote at least 80-90 hours a week working diligently to improve the society. However, there are those on either side who seem to relish hating those who disagree with them more than searching for improvements for the society. Take care that you are not one of them.
Xian, I don't know if you do it purposefully, but it's getting tiresome to hear about how hard you work (as if everyone else doesn't).
And many on the left work eighty or ninety hours a week fighting the Bush administrations war effort as well. The contrast to the right and the left is expansive, whether it be the Chief, Zoning, War, National Security, Gay rights, all the issues related to government and their responsibilities or percieved responsibilities. The difference is much like that of a man and a woman. We have to get along, yet the mindset is polarized, opposites. The ACLU in alls its glory is much like welfare, sounds good on paper, then reality sets in. The search for improvement is and should be the goal at all times from all camps. But, the reality of the situation, has to be included. Not the percieved reality, the hardcore reality. I am dismissed because my reality is based on the presence of God into the equation, the presence of evil as well, I see a different reality. When the intellectual thinks dialogue is the end all, I see one who is looking through rose colored glasses in what I consider a very black and white world. He sees a world of grey area that can be adjusted regardless.
There's this movement to change our country, a movement in the wrong direction. I too invest energies and monies into helping the less fortunate, not as a vocation, just from a sense of compassion and responsibility. I have grave concerns for the direction our country is headed with this onslaught of liberalism, it is tearing us up at the foundation. We see the cause and effect all over the place. If you don't stand for anything you will fall for anything. Cliche, but true, as our kids, our society is spiraling downward, being helped along by those who know not what they do.
Yes, the ACLU has done as much to bring this society down as it has to uplift it. Yes, we need to have the abiltity to contest the lawyers, they have stolen this country from the people and have strangled the sense out of life, all for the almighty dollars....If we can't get the system of law in check we will be destroyed by it.....the writing is on the wall. Look what has happened to the medical liability law practice, frivolous lawsuits, exagerated settlements, a world out of control. Some entity in the school of law should attack this as to its effect on this country, it is the reason for the season. What challenge could be greater, what challenge met could be of a greater value to society. The answer is so easy, limit settlements to a reasonable amount and then all prices fall to a reasonable amount, yet the system of law prohibits this very thing. When the fox is guarding the chicken coop you got problems...............Of course this has nothing to do with the Chief, or the bum, because neither really matters...................None of this does.........when it comes to the big picture.
It's all relative (Went to two funerals last week) to the big picture. Take care of yourself, the world will be, as it will be. I'm not cynical, I'm real.
As a fellow believer in Christ, I have to say the above post is disturbing. Equating those on the Left with the powers of the world who are working against God just seems vain and short-sighted. The fact that this nonsense is posted in a thread about Chief Illiniwek is even worse. Are we to understand that Jesus was a Chief supporter? Or, better yet, that the murder of the millions of First Peoples was ordained by Christ and therefore we do not need to respect their legacy and their ancestors?
It is very easy to believe that the "other side" is Evil. As a person who tends to side with liberals on a whole host of economic and security issues, it is very easy for me to believe that George Bush's use of the Christian community to justify a war for resources was an evil act. It is also easy to believe that anyone who supported the push to war (which means killing, perhaps the worst sin) without taking sufficient time to make sure their opinion was correct were being the hands of the Devil on earth. Like I said, this is easy to see - the liberals tried to stop the war, and the death. The conservatives pushed for the war, and the death. Who was really doing the Devil's handiwork here?
My guess? Nobody. The ACLU is not evil, and neither is George W. Bush. Liberals who think Gays should be free to marry are not going against God's laws - they are advocating freedom under our constitutional system (the 14th amendment, to be specific). The lawyers who make big paydays off lawsuits against negligent companies are not evil. They are just lawyers, being lawyers. Many probably go to church and have as deep a faith as any of us.
There is a real and profound danger in claiming the Mantle of Christ for one political side over the other. Jesus does not deal with political parties, he will judge us on our actions. This is important to remember, lest we fall into the trap of pointing out the speck in the Liberal's eyes while ignoring the log in our own.
Hell is going to be smoking, for sure. But there will probably be an equal number of conservatives and liberals at the barbeque. Believing otherwise is the not the teaching of Jesus, just the thoughts of man.
anon 1:15-
Liberals who think Gays should be free to marry ARE INDEED going against God's laws. Read the Bible, it is relevant to the claims you are making. What you call freedom is bondage to sin and it is the sort of sin than brings a curse upon a land. It's true. But if you have Christ, the law loses its power because you dont do those sinful things.
On the other hand while you do make some good points about both sides being wrong, you are quite with your perception of evil, in saying that the evil doer with faith is ok with God. It just ain't so.
Madonna, a sin is only a sin to those who consider it a sin. If a culture says "X is a sin" but another culture says "X is not a sin". then it is a sin only to the first culture and not the other culture. If you think being gay is a sin, it is to you, but you cannot impose your concept of sin on another. My advice is, don't be gay if you think it is sin and you don't want to sin, but do not tell others their actions are sin.
Never in the post did I make an inference to Jesus siding with one or the other, you did. I was exchanginng with xian one or two comments up, not so much the chief post. I made the argument that there is a very real, very vocal group of liberals who are secularists, and they dismiss my views based on this alone. And the right and left are polarized on virtuallly every topic, or at least the path to success on a given topic....I would like to think that all voters want peace, how we get there has a lot of reality to take into consideration. That was a point. As well as there are very real problems with the system due to the system of law that is out of control, in that it is under so much control of the lawyers, who protect themselves at all costs, as in all costs to society. The system of checks and balances is abused to the third degree, as the left has done to the war effort, as many believe was done with the Chief issue. As the right will do to stop the left from getting office, and vice versa.
How you confer the murder of millions of "first people" is such a stretch...........I can read thru your words and determine we have much common ground, reread mine with a little less venom and see if you don't see my logic. I know that many on the left are God loving people. Their works make this very obvious, they truly care about so much, It is impressive what comes from their hearts. I just happen to think that many of them miss the reality of our very dangerous and often evil world. It is hard to plant flowers when soldiers are trashing your garden. So I do question their ability to discern and understand how evil this world is, and the old cliche, to fight fire with fire, is one that holds too much truth in an evil world. And I don't believe America is the evil one here. We just have to combat an evil world, that's why we train our young men to fight. Thats why they go to war.
OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD'NT TELL US EVERYTHING, there is a reason for the CIA, yes, we should have oversight, WE DO. Iraq is so much more important than the left appears to understand, and the need to be there was and is real. Saddam was a good excuse, thats all....of course this is just my opinion on foriegn affairs and strategic operations. Too bad Bush wasn't more forthright........that is what I believe is true.
I could'nt agree more on the most important point you make, Jesus is absolutely unbiased, right up to the individual. He only cares about one thing, in the end, which is truly the begining. Which makes so much of this world, somewhat, inconsequential. And again thats not being cynical, thats being a Christian who believes what the bible says. It is all about that personal relationship. You either have it or you don't. For those who truly strive for peace..........
Ractivist, this is what you said that I find disturbing:
"I have grave concerns for the direction our country is headed with this onslaught of liberalism, it is tearing us up at the foundation. We see the cause and effect all over the place. If you don't stand for anything you will fall for anything. Cliche, but true, as our kids, our society is spiraling downward, being helped along by those who know not what they do."
This statement, coupled with your advocacy of Christianity led me to conclude that you find the "onslaught of liberalism" to be evil, or against God's wishes. I simply don't see that as true. Is God punishing this country? Are we being torn apart at the foundation? How? Why?
Surely you're not going to blame gay marriage for the problems in this country? The death of the Chief? This is ludicrous, as millions are dying around the globe for resources. Our foreign policy causes more evil in by 9:00 a.m. than most gays do all day.
But we are free to believe otherwise, and someday we'll all know the truth one way or the other, eh?
Psssst God is a liberal, and so was Jesus. Read the Bible again.
The interesting thing is not in the common goal. We all want peace, happiness, liberty, freedom, etc........
The pursuit is the challenge. The two parties dream of a utopian world. Or do they?
I see the impossibility of this utopian reality, based on my bible as well as my interpretation of humanity. The left tends to ignore this reality and strives for one that is unattainable and in the process impedes what progress could have been made had they accepted this reality. Never did I say or in my mind infer that the left was evil or that one side had God as a cheerleader. You really do read way too much into my statements. Consider the new wave of tolerance, political correctness, the loose standards on the tv, the attack on Christianity, the gay agenda as an, in your face thrust.
For the record, I have nothing against gay people, some are most definetly born that way, those I understand, totally. I have had many friends over many years who were gay. But the in your face, out of the closet, fourth of July parade mentality is so over the top, it is nothing short of an advertising pitch promoting the lifestyle.
I have no tolerance for the flaming gays............the ones who promote debauchery, etc..................thats my opinion, my reality.....I thiink it's disgusting........
And I do love sex! I see it as as good an indicator in the almighty as he ever gave us....Any human who needs a sign, might want to (thaink) about this one......Is that how new words come to be?
And yes, one day we all will know the truth, some of us will be able to say, told you so, nah, nah nah nah nah.....Just kidding bro. Praise God say a prayer for me. As you might guess I could use one......we're even now.....ha ha
A new prayer, may all the anonymous people of the world, become someone.....and may your truth shine thru out............God bless one and all.
Believe it or not, I am extremely liberal in many ways, I just have this problem with the reality of the evil that is such a reality that so many intelligent people deny.
One last note, if Jesus was running for office today??? he would not be a liberal, he might not be a Republican, he would most definetly have his own party...Hell, he's gonna have a great party, hope your all there.
Anonymous liberal -- you must be Right in saying... there is no recompense....or is there?
‘Son of man, the land—when it sinneth against Me to commit a trespass, and I have stretched out My hand against it, and broken for it the staff of bread, and sent into it famine, and cut off from it man and beast— and these three men have been in its midst, Noah, Daniel, and Job—they by their righteousness deliver their own soul—an affirmation of the Lord Jehovah. -Ezek 14.13-14
For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. Revelation 18.17-20
Thine heart shall meditate terror. Where is the scribe (bookkeeper/accountant)? where is the receiver (financial officer)? where is he that counted the towers? - Isaiah 33.18
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
I say again, God is liberal, and so was Jesus. "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself". Not, "except flaming gays", or lepers, or those that strike you or torture you, or blow up your buildings or kill your countrymen, turn the other cheek.
Judgement is the Lord's, not yours, your goal is to follow the teachings of Jesus, not be inflamed by the Revelations of John. Follow Jesus, not John.
Love and forgiveness, except for those that really, you know, like, are soooo annoying! Jesus surely didn't mean flamers, or Arabs, or lepers, or sinners. Yes, he did.
Love God. That's Rule number 1. Love thy neighbor. That's Rule number 2. Jesus said so.Jesus didn't mention any exceptions. Not Osama Bin Laden, not Fidel Castro, not Kelvin Sampson, not Michael Vick, not John Wayne Gacy, not anybody. Love them all. Is it easy? No, faith is not easy. Hate is easy. Love is not easy, unless you trust Jesus's teachings.
If you can't make it to Rule number 2, maybe you should should rethink your membership.There are many groups that think being judgmental about others is the correct way to think and act, it's just Christianity isn't one of those groups, if you are a believer.
While I support what the previous poster mentioned about the "rules" (which, btw, are exactly correct), I think everyone here is a bit off track. In a Constitutional Democracy it does not matter what God, Jesus, Muhammad, or even Buddha has to say about any of it. The only thing that matters is the law, and the founding principles of the country. This country owes a greater debt to John Locke than it does to John the Baptist.
Life, Liberty and Property. These are the rights you are born with. The job of the government is to protect those rights. Does God give you those rights? Sure. But again, that is irrelevant. What is important is that the government does an adequate job protecting those rights for everyone in the country, And when the government is doing a poor job, it is the role of the citizenry to rise up and correct the problem, or abolish that government and start over.
To imply that this country was once a nation of "God's Laws" is just ridiculous. Slavery? The Chinese Exclusionary Act? The Internment of Japanese-Americans? Jim Crow? The "Indian Wars"? I mean, come on! This country has been about the strong suppressing the weak since day one. There is no "Golden Age" of America where fags were kept in their place and everyone lived in harmony under the banner of Jesus. This notion is a fantasy.
In fact, it is my opinion that only since the progressive changes of the post-war generation have we seen what America is really about. When everyone is allowed out of their respective closets then the Truth can come into the light. You might not like that truth, you might wish it was still in the closet so we could all go on saying the pledge of allegiance and believing that all is right in the world, but the truth is better than the lie. Coming face-to-face with the fact that millions of Americans are gay is a good thing for the Church and America. Coming face-to-face with the fact that the Chief is a racist, derogatory symbol used to co-opt yet another piece of the First People's culture is a good thing, and good riddance. Coming face-to-face with the fact that corporations are willing to eat their own children to make a profit is a good thing.
Being gay might be a sin, but it should never be against the law. And if it aint against the law, then that means the law is on its side. And if that is case, then according the 14th amendment to the Constitution (and the Declaration) gays have the right to all the same rights the rest of us have, including state-sanctioned marriages.
That's the end of the story. And, frankly, Christians should embrace that reality. For only when logic, and not religion, is allowed to dictate the laws are we truly free to follow Jesus without fear of the government. I can only assume ignorance of the basics of our governmental system is what leads Christians to fight so strongly to place religious law into practice here in America. But that is an extremely dangerous ignorance.
People did vote.
Donations to the Athletic Association increased by 5% after the Chief was retired.
Someone please see bullsh*t to the door. Thanks.
This has gotten beyond ridiculous.
Thread closed.