Tag Archives: data

Canadian Government Decides Penis-Measuring Lie Detector for Children Not Such a Great Idea

Oh boy—where even to start with this one. Use of penile plethysmography (PPG), which measure your penis for arousal while viewing questionable content, is being ceased by the Canadian government. After being used on kids for 25 years. PPG testing, almost too perverse to believe it was actually a government-sanctioned procedure, was employed in British Columbia as a means of interrogating child sex offenders. A sensor was strapped to a child's penis, monitoring blood flow while the kid was subjected to images of other nude children, and audio descriptions of rape. Reread that sentence if necessary. The reasoning—if you can even call it that—behind the test was to discern whether a child offender was lying about his or her desires, though we have a feeling this treatment probably created far more sociopaths than it screened. As Boing Boing points out, and as any adolescent can tell you, erections aren't exactly the most objectively predictable phenomenon, refuting entirely the purpose of the test. British Columbia's Minister of Children and Family Development has put an end to PPG after the revelation that a technician administering the test was himself a sex offender. The levels of perversion-within-perversion here are dizzying. The Canadian government will now begin an official inquiry into trauma victims among the children subjected to PPG over the past decades—an investigation we have a feeling will not be a short one. added by: Omnomynous

Canadian ‘peter meter’ youth program halted; tester charged with sexual assault – Boing Boing

I've covered Canadian psychology hijinks before, and how a handful of them are leading the push to expand which sexual interests are mental illnesses( http://boingboing.net/2010/01/08/you-will-become-ment.html ). Now comes another scandal that's like something out of Clockwork Orange. Late last month, Youth Forensic Psychiatric Services in Burnaby, British Columbia was forced to shut down a decades-old program where troubled youths had a device placed on their penises while they were subjected to media depicting stuff like rape and child pornography. The final straw was when one of the test administrators was arrested for a sexual assault allegedly committed during leisure time. The whole sordid story follows. Canada has had a long, hard fixation with catching people getting aroused over things Canadian “experts” consider mental illnesses. One program in the mid-20th century, nicknamed the “fruit machine( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_machine_ (homosexuality_test)),” led to over 9,000 Canadian citizens being investigated as suspected homosexuals, with some even being tested and drummed out of government jobs. In the wake of the fruit machine program, the fine folks at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health( http://boingboing.net/2010/01/07/toronto-global-epice.html ) developed and still promote penile plethysmography (PPG). The device, nicknamed a peter meter, is supposedly a lie detector for male genitalia. It's not admissible in court cases as evidence( http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/Scientific_Evidence_Brief.html ) for the same reason as a polygraph: the data can be manipulated by both subject and tester, and there's little standardization in equipment or stimuli. Because the whole concept is based on the premise that the subject is a “non-admitter” who needs to be caught, sometimes they jam another sensor up the subject's butt to ensure he is not clenching his sphincter to alter the blood flow into his penis. Males in general and teenage boys in particular can get spontaneous erections for any number of reasons that may or may not be related to the stimulus presented. They might even chub up just because of the test itself (the stress, touching, humiliation, etc.). According to those who learned how to game the device, it's also pretty easy for other subjects to suppress tumescence by thinking of something decidedly unsexy. In case you are wondering, they've also created one for young ladies that gets inserted in the vagina, but the testers are much, much, much more interested in teen peen. PPG evangelists have fanned across North America, using their device in all kinds of questionable ways for decades. Then a 2009 article, ironically published in the journal Sexual Abuse, reported on the long-running practice of hooking up penile plethysmographs to minors charged with sex offenses in British Columbia. That got the attention of civil rights groups. The sexual assault arrest of one of the testers was the last straw for local lawmakers, who finally pulled the plug on the abusive plethysmograph for kids program. The current guy in charge of Sexual Abuse( http://www.camh.net/research/scientific_Staff_profiles/bio_detail.php?cuserID=51 ) is, unsurprisingly, a CAMH employee, so he is a huge proponent of penile plethysmography. In fact, you can often find him on Wikipedia altering articles on sexuality( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_Cantor ) to promote theories and devices his coworkers developed via the CAMH Phallometry Lab( http://www.camh.net/About_CAMH/Guide_to_CAMH/Mental_Health_Programs/The_Law_and_… ) (an actual tax-funded Toronto lab). Anyone interested in measuring penises should consider an internship or even a career as a Canadian psychologist. Perhaps you can even be part of history by developing the next-gen fruit machine or peter meter… To learn more about how high-tech penile plethysmography is, you can visit this major manufacturer's cutting-edge website( http://www.dmdavis.com/rs3104.html ) (complete with 1995-style Under Construction sign and email gif). The Skeptic's Dictionary has a good overview of PPG( http://www.skepdic.com/penilep.html ), too. B.C. permanently halts sexual arousal testing( http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100729/bc_penis_sex_tests_hal… ) [ctv.ca] Sex charge prompts expanded probe of youth-offender penile test( http://www.theprovince.com/technology/charge+prompts+expanded+probe+youth+offend… ) [theprovince.com] B.C. used penile teen sex test for decades( http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/08/08/bc-teen-sex-testing.h… ) [cbc.ca] added by: toyotabedzrock

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on Monday dismissed the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque as a “political smokescreen.” The liberal anchor derided opponents of the planned construction who live in other states, sneering that there are ” people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying ‘Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end!'” He compared, “But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” Earlier in the segment, Ratigan wondered, “But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions.” The co-host talked to Nate Silver of the website Fivethirtyeight.com. As he pointed out, while 61 percent of voters believe that the Muslim group behind the mosque has a right to put it there, 64 percent oppose the plan. Yet, Ratigan seemed to put all the responsibility for tolerance on those who oppose the construction. He again wondered, “But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque?” A transcript of the August 16 segment, which aired at 4:01pm EDT, follows: DYLAN RATIGAN: Meanwhile, the top Senate Democrat feeling the same way, apparently. Within the past hour, Majority Leader Harry Reid became the highest profile Dem, so far, to break ranks with the White House and publicly oppose the mosque. But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions. Can you have the legal right to do something and at the same time a moral obligation not to? And why is it that the people who that live the closest to Ground Zero seem to be the least resistant to the mosque? And those who may be the furthest away, maybe have never even visited New York City in their lives, are the most adamantly against it? Our first guest this afternoon, Nate Silver who has been crunching the numbers, a founder of 538.com. It’s a pleasure to see you again, sir. Your data basically falls into three categories in your poll. Tell us what you’ve come up with. NATE SILVER: Well, I mean, the distinction, like you said, that Obama was struggling with on Friday night is the same ones Americans struggle with themselves, right? Where about two thirds of people think they have the right to build the mosque. Not terribly controversial. About two thirds of those people also think it’s in poor taste. Right? So, you look at the overlap. And there’s this one third in between who thinks, “They have the right to do it. But, I’m not sure how I feel about it so much.” And especially with, I guess, with some of this hedging, or the some of the way the media portrayed it as hedging, Obama is in that middle camp, too, right now, but seeming to satisfy nobody in particular. RATIGAN: You say this falls politically into a similar category as flag burning. Can you explain what the parallels are? SILVER: Well, sure. Flag burning is something where if you ask people, “Hey, do you like flag burning, right?” I don’t think too many people would say- would yes. Or, “Hey, should they build a Hooters down at the shopping mall? You might say “No, I would rather they didn’t.” But they’re clearly within First Amendment rights. There’s not too much debate about that. I mean, you know, some people have said some groups have said, “No they actually don’t have the right.” Newt Gingrich said something along those lines this morning. But, for the most part, that’s not that controversial. I think Obama went a little bit far in saying “We not only look at the right, the First Amendment’s technicality. We should respect their ability to choose how they want to worship and not try and intervene and say, “No, I would rather you not believe a different thing.”  Or that you’d go worship at a different time or a different place. So, he did go a step further than just saying “Hey, it’s about the First Amendment.” But not quite saying, “Hey, I love this idea.” RATIGAN: What about the distinction between people like myself who have lived in lower Manhattan for many years and worked around Ground Zero, walking with past Ground Zero everyday to and from work for five years straight, who look at this as really not that big of a deal? We deal with a lot of other things. This isn’t that big of a big deal. Versus people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying “Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end.” But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” SILVER: Well, you know, I think part of it, it shows that polls it shows that people in Manhattan are supportive of the mosque- mosque. Not people in New York overall, but in Manhattan where it’s being built. I think it has to do with the geography of the city. I walked around Ground Zero when the controversy started and kind of scouted out the perimeter. And you would not see the mosque anywhere from the Ground Zero property. It’s not really on the way. It’s kind of on a side street where there’s a Burlington Coat Factory. It’s very dense. And it’s not like you’re on main street where there’s one road to Ground Zero. RATIGAN: But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque? SILVER: Well, hopefully some ambitious polls, do a poll of people in the financial district in Tribeca or do a poll of who were victims in 9/11. They’re the people who should have a larger say, frankly, than the former governor of Alaska, I think. It is a local issue.

Go here to see the original:
MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’

Liberal Think Tank Destroys Myth Bush Tax Cuts Favored Rich

For approaching ten years, America’s media have depicted the tax cuts implemented by former President George W. Bush as almost exclusively favoring the rich. This dishonest characterization has picked up steam recently as these tax cuts are about to expire, and the tax-loving press have campaigned for their departure as if a plague on the society. For his part, President Obama is advocating the expiration of tax cuts only to couples making over $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000. With this in mind, the Tax Policy Center, a division of the liberal Brookings Institution, published a report on July 29 that included Treasury Department estimates of tax revenue losses that would accompany an extension of Bush’s cuts. Inside the accompanying PDF was evidence the Left and their media minions have been misrepresenting the beneficiaries of these cuts for a very long time: As this is likely very difficult to read, there are three crucial components to this report: This shows that the total ten-year cost of extending the Bush tax cuts is estimated by Treasury to be $3.675 trillion. Next, Treasury estimated the ten-year revenue gain of not extending these cuts to couples making over $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000: This shows that by following Obama’s recommendations, Treasury is estimated to receive $679 billion extra in the ten years after 2010. Finally, Treasury estimated the ten-year cost of extending the Bush tax cuts except to Obama’s description of high-wage earners: So, let’s put all the pieces together. According to Treasury, the total ten-year cost of completely extending the Bush tax cuts is $3.675 trillion. The ten-year cost exclusively associated with extending tax cuts to folks Obama, the Democrats, and the media consider rich is $679 billion. This means that almost $3 trillion of the cost associated with the Bush tax cuts over the next ten years, or 82 percent, is not for benefits to the so-called rich. As such, despite what the Left and their media minions have been claiming, 82 percent of the Bush tax cuts benefited the poor, middle-class, and upper-middle class in this country. And, despite the preceding appearing at a conservative website, this data was originally published by a division of a liberal think tank.  As the media love quoting reports from the Brookings Institution, I’m sure we’ll see this information splashed all over a TV set near you in the coming days…but I wouldn’t hold my breath!

Go here to read the rest:
Liberal Think Tank Destroys Myth Bush Tax Cuts Favored Rich

Open Source Tools Turn WikiLeaks Into Illustrated Afghan Meltdown (Updated) | Danger Room | Wired.com

It’s one thing to read about individual Taliban attacks in WikiLeaks’ trove of war logs. It’s something quite different to see the bombings and the shootings mount, and watch the insurgency metastasize. NYU political science grad student (and occasional Danger Room contributor) Drew Conway has done just that, using an open source statistical programming language called R and a graphical plotting software tool. The results are unnerving, like stop-motion photography of a freeway wreck. Above is the latest example: a graph showing the spread of combat from 2004 to 2009. It’s exactly what you wouldn’t want to see as a war drags on. “The sheer volume of observations [in the WikiLeaks database] inhibit the majority of consumers from being able to gain knowledge from it. By providing graphical summaries of the data people can draw inferences quickly, which would have been very difficult to do by serially reading through the files,” Conway e-mails Danger Room. “For instance, in the most recent graph I posted [see above], many people were noticing the increasing number of attacks around Afghanistan’s ‘ring road,’ over time, and seeing that as an indication of the Taliban’s attempt to undermine the Afghanistan government by cutting off villages from one another.” Conway’s work largely mirrors what the U.S. military’s internal teams of intelligence analysts found. But Conway and Columbia University post-doc Mike Dewar did all this work themselves, relying solely on free tools and the WikiLeaked logs. Applying statistical analysis, they found little evidence of tampering in the reports. Next month, Conway hopes, a group of New York-based R users will be able to tease out more insights from the data. Obviously, the logs don’t tell the whole story of the war, as Danger Room has noted before. And the stats may be unduly influenced by the spread of NATO forces into different parts of the country. But for now, the most striking point to Conway was how bad things turned in 2006 and 2007. In Afghanistan’s south, for instance, there was only minimal fighting in the start of ‘06. By the end of the next year… well, see for yourself. UPDATE: Conway’s work is just one of dozens of international efforts to turn the WikiLeaks war logs into something graphic. Visualising Data has links to some of the best, including this one: ******************LINKS http://www.visualisingdata.com/index.php/2010/07/visualising-the-wikileaks-war-l… . http://pollen.nymphormation.org/afgwar/_design/afgwardiary/index.html http://pollen.nymphormation.org/afgwar/_design/afgwardiary/timeline.html added by: toyotabedzrock

Why the Pentagon’s War on Wikileaks Is Like the Music Industry’s War on Napster [Wikileaks]

The Pentagon is super mad about Wikileaks leaking 70,000 classified Afghanistan war documents . So mad that they have made the ridiculous demand that Wikileaks “return” the data. A massive organization willfully misunderstanding how the Internet works? Sounds familiar! More

Google, scarrier than we all think.

SANTA MONICA, Calif., July 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citing new information about Google's classified government contracts and the Internet giant's admitted Wi-Spying activity, Consumer Watchdog today said it is more imperative than ever for the Energy and Commerce Committee to conduct hearings into possible privacy violations by Google. In a letter to Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Joe Barton, the nonpartisan, nonprofit public interest group's John M. Simpson wrote: “Based on today's Washington Post, it appears that Google holds classified U.S. government contracts to supply search and geospatial information to the U.S. government. In addition, White House records show that Google executives have been holding meetings with U.S. national security officials for undisclosed reasons. Finally, it also appears that Google's widely criticized efforts to collect wireless network data on American citizens were not inadvertent, contrary to the company's claims.” “As history has repeatedly shown, alliances between the U.S. intelligence community and giant corporations that collect data on American citizens can be a toxic combination where the U.S. Constitution is concerned,” the letter said. In a June 9 letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee, Google director for public policy Pablo Chavez asserted that Google “mistakenly included code in our software that collected samples of 'payload data'” from private WiFi networks. But review of a patent application from Google covering the gathering of WiFi data published Jan. 28 shows that the data collection program was a very deliberate effort to assemble as much information as possible about U.S. residential and business WiFi networks. The letter continued: “…what the patent does show is that Google's recent claims about how the Street View program was designed are not accurate, and that the company always intended to collect and store the 'packets' of wireless data that contain so-called payload information. “The patent makes repeated reference to 'capturing' packets, including paragraph [0055], which states that the system will enable geolocations so long as the equipment being used 'is able to capture and properly decode a packet…' “This raises serious questions about whether Google has engaged in a reckless effort to amass private data without giving any thought to the possible misuse of that information, and whether it can be trusted to safeguard the information it collects from the prying eyes of the U.S. government.” Read the patent here: http://insidegoogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/US20100020776.pdf Read the letter here: http://insidegoogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/LtrWaxman071910.pdf In addition, White House visitor logs show that Alan Davidson, Google's Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs, has had at least three meetings with officials of the National Security Council since the beginning of last year. One of the meetings was with White House senior director for Russian affairs Mike McFaul, while another was with Middle East advisor Daniel Shapiro. It has also been widely reported that Google has been working in “partnership” with the National Security Agency, the very same government body that illegally intercepted the private communications of millions of Americans during the Bush administration http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/googles-wi-spying-and-intelligence-ties-… added by: littlwarrior

Blogger Reports on Radical Imam Visit, Local Journalist Yawns

As most of the country was getting ready for the long July 4 weekend, Pajamas Media blogger and anti-terrorism consultant Patrick Poole wrote a post entitled ” Blue Suede Jihad: Major Hamas Fundraiser in the Land of Elvis .” According to Poole, the Masjid Al-Noor mosque in Memphis posted an event entitled “A Weekend with Mohammed al-Hanooti” for the non-weekend dates of July 13 through 15 on its website . He has a screenshot of the mosque’s event page and says that it is genuine, however, local Memphis newspaper The Commercial Appeal’s Michael Lollar disputed Poole’s findings in an article entitled ” Hamas fundraiser not speaking at mosque .” Lollar only addressed the side of the mosque’s administrators. According to Poole, Lollar made no attempt to contact him and Lollar’s language in the article was dismissive of Poole’s post, to the point of making it seem as though independently verifiable facts used by Poole were merely allegations and suppositions. “Blogger Patrick Poole wrote on the Pajamas Media site (pajamasmedia.com) that Al-Hanooti had raised millions of dollars for Hamas . . .” Lollar wrote, seemingly ignoring the data Poole was able to gather on al-Hanooti, all of it from government documents. That is just plain lazy reporting. The allegation that someone like al-Hanooti, with his very real ties to Hamas, could be on a fundraising tour of the mid-west for them, is one that ought to be taken seriously. Good reporting would have tried to get to the bottom of the controversy, decent reporting would have at least gotten a hold of Poole, but this was just plain lazy reporting. While Poole’s post left out the chronology of events, al-Hanooti has a very interesting history and a tendancy to appear in legal cases involving terrorism and terrorist financing. A Palestinian born in Haifa, he came to the United States in 1978 and first came to the attention of law enforcement in the early 90’s, when he was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator at the trial of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman. In 1993 the FBI learned from electronic surveillance that al-Hanooti attended a meeting of Hamas supporters and fundraisers in Philadelphia where they pledged to ensure the Oslo Accords failed. An FBI source said that al-Hanooti had raised “over six million US dollars” for Hamas by 1993. Additionally, al-Hanooti was Imam of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virginia from 1995 to 1999 and seems to have played a role in making it fertile ground for its later radical connections, including two of the September 11 hijackers, the Fort Hood shooter and Anwar al-Awlaki. However, it is important to note that Hamas was not considered a terrorist organization for the purposes of American law until 1995 and there appears to be no evidence he raised money for Hamas since 1993, except for assisting in rasing money to pay for a Hamas leader’s legal defense . None of this excuses the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization, regardless of weather a government explicitly marks it as such. Al-Hanooti has made radical statements and fundraised for Hamas in the past, though his current opinions are unknown and a repudiation of violence is always something to hope for from anyone.

View post:
Blogger Reports on Radical Imam Visit, Local Journalist Yawns

WaPo Story Laments Lack of ‘Awakening’ After Oil Spill to Need for Green Agenda

The Washington Post put the bad news for liberals right at the top of Monday’s front page, left side: “Climate debate unmoved by spill.” Reporters David Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin lamented that “great change” is not following the “great tragedy” of the BP oil spill. We haven’t had an “awakening” to our wasteful ways:   Environmentalists say they’re trying to turn public outrage over oil-smeared pelicans into action against more abstract things, such as oil dependence and climate change. But historians say they’re facing a political moment deadened by a bad economy, suspicious politics and lingering doubts after a scandal over climate scientists’ e-mails. The difference between now and the awakenings that followed past disasters is as stark as “on versus off,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, a researcher at Yale University who tracks public opinion on climate change. Only liberals are “awake,” while the public is “asleep.” They wonder why newspaper readership is declining. Here’s how the story started: For environmentalists, the BP oil spill may be disproving the maxim that great tragedies produce great change . Traditionally, American environmentalism wins its biggest victories after some important piece of American environment is poisoned, exterminated or set on fire. An oil spill and a burning river in 1969 led to new anti-pollution laws in the 1970s. The Exxon Valdez disaster helped create an Earth Day revival in 1990 and sparked a landmark clean-air law. But this year, the worst oil spill in U.S. history — and, before that, the worst coal-mining disaster in 40 years — haven’t put the same kind of drive into the debate over climate change and fossil-fuel energy. Fahrenthold and Eilperin palpably sympathize: “for the environmental groups trying to break this logjam, it’s hard to imagine a more useful disaster .” After all, “The BP oil spill has made something that is usually intangible — the cost of fossil-fuel dependence — into something tangibly awful.” When ClimateGate was raised, the Post reporters dismissed that as a tempest in a tea party While Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council stressed this is the “last best chance to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill,” the Post added: It’s hard to tell how many people are listening. In public-opinion polls taken after the spill by Leiserowitz and other academics, 53 percent of people said they were worried about climate change. That was only slightly different from January, and still down from 63 percent in 2008. Leiserowitz said there may be distrust of climate science among a small group after the “Climate-gate” scandal last year, in which stolen e-mails seemed to show climate scientists talking about problems in their data. Those scientists have been repeatedly cleared of academic misconduct , including in a report released Wednesday. The Post did quote Kenneth P. Green of the “conservative American Enterprise Institute,” on the “great change” question: “There’s a caveat,” Kenneth P. Green, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said of the rule that great change follows great disasters. “Which is: Great tragedy, with the right timing, can bring great change….When people are in a bunker mentality, sort of hunkered down over the economy, then that’s not going to produce significant change.” None of the advocates for onerous “climate change” bills featured in the story were labeled as liberal.

Read more:
WaPo Story Laments Lack of ‘Awakening’ After Oil Spill to Need for Green Agenda

CNN’s Rick Sanchez: Conservative Talk Show Hosts are Uneducated

On Friday’s Rick’s List, CNN’s Rick Sanchez attacked conservative economic policy, singling out the right’s support for lower tax rates, and complained that ” we in America are so easily led to go against our own interests …. you would find that at least half…[are] pulling for the rich guy.” Sanchez also belittled conservative talk show hosts: ” Many…don’t even have a college degree .” The anchor led the 3 pm Eastern hour with a rant against ” these guys on talk radio, some of whom make hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars ” and their defense of “the money guys…the super-rich, night in and night out- you know who I’m talking about- you will hear this and you have heard this consistent narrative. We’re being held back by high taxes in this country, high tax rates- cut taxes on the wealthy and, zoom, there it goes. Our economy is going to be back with a vengeance. Get the government off our backs and all our problems in this country are going to be solved.” Sanchez then caricatured the conservative take on the present economic situation and, unsurprising, introduced race into the issue. He also targeted CNBC personality and Tea Party hero Rick Santelli: SANCHEZ: And, by the way, the mess we’re still digging out from: it’s not Wall Street’s fault, not a thing to do with the government turning a blind eye to the high-rolling financial shenanigans of some people on Wall Street. No, not at all. It’s the poor people’s fault, who brought the rest of us to our knees, mostly, by the way- I know you hear this- I know you hear this- mostly minorities, them Hispanics and them blacks who bought the homes that they couldn’t afford. They defaulted on those loans, and then we all went down, by golly. Do you think I’m kidding about this? Look, here’s one of the biggest media darlings of this message . RICK SANTELLI (from MSNBC’s “Hardball”): Why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages? SANCHEZ: This guy’s a superstar now. That’s right, superstar: ‘losers.’ Remember that? If you lose your job and you end up defaulting on your mortgage, you are a loser. That was the rant that fueled, in many ways, the Tea Party movement. Quit subsidizing the losers, America. How did the CNN anchor refute Santelli and “these guys on the radio”? He turned to the left-wing New York Times: SANCHEZ: Now, let me show you something else. I want to show you- hey, Rob, are you good there. Where’s the newspaper? I want to bring you in the newspaper that I had here just a moment ago. Here it is. Here’s The New York Times. All right? What’s that say? Can you see it? Biggest defaulters on mortgages are the rich. So, who are the losers? Hispanics? Minorities? Black people who bought more home than they could really afford? Once again, let’s look at this. The biggest defaulters on mortgages are the rich…more than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of $1 million are seriously delinquent, okay? Now, let’s look at the rest of us, people like you and me. About one in 12 mortgages below the $1 million mark is delinquent. Who are the losers again? Who are the losers again, Mr. Santelli, or whatever your name is? Okay, the article goes on to say, though it’s hard to prove, the data suggests that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially-draining properties. They’re doing this on purpose. You know what? I don’t want it. I will dump it, just as they would any other sour investment. Fine, but let’s be clear. The rich aren’t paying their mortgages, and at a higher rate than anyone else. Sanchez then set up a straw man of the conservative position on taxes: SANCHEZ: I want to make a point about taxes now. To hear the narrative out there, you would think that we’re the highest taxed nation on the planet, in the history of the planet. You hear it every day on your way home. Just turn on your radio, folks. In fact, there’s another list out there I want to show you, of the top 30 industrial nations in the world. Where do you think the United States ranks? Now, you hear every single day we’re the most taxed country in the world, no question about it. And it’s all these politicians and the government. And where do you think we are? Of all the developed countries in the world, where do you think we are, as far as the tax rate? Where do you think we are? Twenty-sixth- twenty-sixth out of thirty. That’s according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development- twenty-sixth out of thirty. Again, here’s the list. Here’s my highlight marks that I have put right there. You see it.  We are right after- here, I’ll tell you. Who comes before us? Switzerland, Mexico and Australia. Who comes after us? Ireland, Luxembourg, Iceland, and New Zealand. After mouthing the left’s consistent talking point that “the rich have gotten…richer, the poor…poorer,” the anchor brought on Georgia Tech Professor Danny Boston, who agreed that the New York Times statistic “debunks the stereotype” on the economy. Later, Sanchez returned to his tax straw man and bemoaned how so many people hold the economic conservative position: SANCHEZ: We hear we’re the most taxed country in the world. That seems to show that maybe we really aren’t. We’re 26th of the 30 developing [sic] nations. We hear that it was the poor people who bought too many homes that they couldn’t afford. Now, we’ve got a statistic saying, no, that’s not true. In fact, it’s the rich who have been the most delinquent and defaulted on their mortgages. It’s like statistic after statistic seems to- why is it that we in America are so easily led to go against our own interests? Because- and you know what I mean by that. Most of the people who are super rich in this country are- what, 1 percent? Then there’s 99 percent of the rest of us, and yet, if you look at studies politically and sociologically, you would find that at least half of that 99 percent is pulling for the rich guy , and saying- oh, yes, it’s not his fault, it’s our fault. Near the end of the segment, the CNN anchor took a conservative talking point against President Obama and applied it to Professor Boston, as a set up to launch his attack on conservative talk show hosts: SANCHEZ: Well- you know, a lot of the folks who would criticize someone like you- they would criticize you, first of all, because you’re a college professor, which, in their mind, makes you overeducated, and thus, stupid. But is that something that’s frustrating as well, that you know this stuff and can explain it as easily as you just did to us, but yet, t he people who are really leading the charge in this country are the guys on the radio and- many of which don’t even have a college degree . Well, Mr. Sanchez, as you demonstrated yourself, you can have a college degree and still make mistakes about basic geography, such as when you misidentified the Galapagos Islands as Hawaii during CNN’s live coverage of the February 27, 2010 earthquake in Chile.

More here:
CNN’s Rick Sanchez: Conservative Talk Show Hosts are Uneducated