# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 140
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2781 "2014-10-27T17:55:57Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Yeah you did. I mentioned MSNBC and NPR, and you responded with snark about how cable news sucks. NPR is on the radio. What you said was: > [@](#): > > How many conservatives are on MSNBC? Or NPR, for that matter. You added NPR as an afterthought. From the sentence structure it is obvious that your primary challenge was regarding MSNBC. The reply from Hentor was: > [@](#): > > Those aren’t newspapers. Do you not know what a newspaper is? Jesus! > > We can talk about cable TV, but first let’s get you squared away on the tricky columnist/newspaper distinction. So Hentor saved time by not typing ‘and radio’ after ‘cable TV’, but it is obvious he was ignoring your distraction attempt as presented and was more concerned with your efforts to hide the fact that you don’t know the difference between a columnist and a newspaper with what is essentially gross dishonesty. So stop with the lies. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2782 "2014-10-27T17:59:37Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Yeah you did. I mentioned MSNBC and NPR, and you responded with snark about how cable news sucks. NPR is on the radio. So what? At best, all this means is that someone else is as capable of making mistakes as you are. BTW, I’m just some random guy who wandered into the thread, with no particular dog in the fight, and I too am pointing and laughing at you. You may want to contemplate that fact for a moment. Why don’t you make some more remarks about bunny feet? That’s really selling your premise, let me tell you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2783 "2014-10-27T18:02:23Z")
Yeah, and if they’re so lucky, how come the rabbit is dead? Or alive, with all this feet cut off… ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2784 "2014-10-27T18:07:05Z")
Hoooold on. The rabbit died? **luci** , you devil! ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2785 "2014-10-27T18:20:11Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Believe it or not, they even stopped providing coffee, juice, water, or donuts during morning meetings. FYI: that is just like it is in government, except for the fact that there never were coffee, juice, water, or donuts during morning meetings to begin with, unless some nice co-worker paid for them out of pocket. In fact the water cooler on our floor was paid for with monthly collections from the employees who didn’t like the look of the black specks that were showing up in the tap water. As to the misrepresentation of scientific studies, I find last [Monday’s XKCD](http://xkcd.com/1436/) seems somehow relevant. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2786 "2014-10-27T18:45:04Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Nope. I said that we could talk about cable tv, but first we needed to get you squared away on what newspapers are. (It was only one page back - easy enough to check back to see.) > > See, your fundamental stupidity makes you fail to even grasp how others are mocking you, you dumb bitch. Go fuck a cactus, whilst rubbing dead bunny rabbit feet. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2787 "2014-10-27T18:47:14Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > FYI: that is just like it is in government, except for the fact that there never were coffee, juice, water, or donuts during morning meetings to begin with, unless some nice co-worker paid for them out of pocket. In fact the water cooler on our floor was paid for with monthly collections from the employees who didn’t like the look of the black specks that were showing up in the tap water. Then why did Lobotard imply otherwise in post # 2669? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2788 "2014-10-27T19:34:12Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Why would a liberal newspaper hire a conservative columnist? Just for giggles? > > Please do have fun rubbing bunny feet. The Tribune is actually generally seen as moderate-to-conservative. Read their [statement of principles](http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-principles-story.html). “These principles, while traditionally conservative, are guidelines and not reflexive dogmas.” Besides, city papers tend to present both conservative and liberal viewpoints on their op-ed pages/columnists, so even if they somehow were a liberal rag, it wouldn’t surprise me to see a conservative voice on their pages, much like Bob Novak, a conservative columnist, was a columnist at the more traditionally liberal Chicago Sun-Times. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2789 "2014-10-27T19:41:27Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > The Tribune is actually generally seen as moderate-to-conservative. Read their [statement of principles](http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-principles-story.html). “These principles, while traditionally conservative, are guidelines and not reflexive dogmas.” Besides, city papers tend to present both conservative and liberal viewpoints on their op-ed pages/columnists, so even if they somehow were a liberal rag, it wouldn’t surprise me to see a conservative voice on their pages, much like Bob Novak, a conservative columnist, was a columnist at the more traditionally liberal Chicago Sun-Times. I can’t read your link. It requires a subscription. :rolleyes: They used to conservative, sure. But endorsing BHO not once, but twice? Endorsing Richard “Little Dick” Durbin" again? Even their endorsements in local races are highly suspect, if they are supposed to be “conservative”. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2790 "2014-10-27T19:52:56Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Here’s another one from Senator Coburn’s report. > > The NIH spent $371,026 in a study that was supposed be devoted to addiction research, which might even be a legitimate use of limited government resources. > > What were the findings? “Mothers have the same reaction when looking at photos of their dogs as they do to those of their own kids.” > > The next step in the research? > > “including more people and look at how men and women without children reacted to photos of babies and pets as well.” Oh boy! Let’s examine a case study in dishonesty, misrepresentation, and stupidity, shall we? This is going to be fun! The best thing here is that there are two separate levels of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and stupidity: the first level is in Senator Doofus’s Wastebook, and the second level is in **D’Anconia** ’s contribution to the discussion. First, let’s look at the Wastebook. The first six paragraphs of the Wastebook entry do a reasonably solid and honest job of summarizing the main aspects of the study in question. Of course, most of the accuracy here comes from the fact that they basically quote directly from the abstract and the body of the study itself which, as previously noted by **Really Not All That Bright** , can be found [here](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0107205). The study is, indeed, about the reaction of mothers when looking at their children versus looking at their dogs. Both Doofus Prime (Coburn) and Doofus Junior ( **D’Anconia** ) manage to get that part right. It’s when they stray from simple copying that the two Doofuses (Doofii?) begin to fuck up. Let’s look at the main reason this study is included in the Wastebook. We can find it in the seventh paragraph of the entry: > [@](#): > > Two of the scientists performing the study received a combined total of $371,026 from the National Institutes of Health this year, money intended for work in addiction research. Note what this paragraph says and, most importantly, what it does not say. Firstly, we should note that the study being ridiculed here had a total of five authors, and the Wastebook is only concerned with two of them. Second, note what the Wastebook DOES say: it says that the two authors in question “received a combined total of $371,026 from the National Institutes of Health this year, money intended for work in addiction research” Now, third, note what the Wastebook does NOT say: it never says that the $371K allocated to these two scientists by the NIH for work in addiction research was used—or intended to be used—only, or even primarily, or even in any significant amount, on this particular project. It simply says that two of the authors of this study happened to receive money from the NIH for addiction research. Nowhere does the Wastebook give any indication of how much NIH money was used in this particular study. Luckily, while we can’t see a budget breakdown for the study, we can draw some reasonable conclusions based on the information provided in the [study](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0107205) itself. > [@](#): > > **Funding:** This research was funded by the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Comparative Medicine, with additional support from the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital, using resources provided by the Center for Functional Neuroimaging Technologies, P41RR14075, a P41 Regional Resource supported by the Biomedical Technology Program of the National Institutes of Health National Center for Research Resources (NCRR). This work was also conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst | The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (NIH UL1 RR 025758) and financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers. Finally, the study was supported by the Charles A. King Trust (LES), _**by NIH K23DA032612 (LES) and by NIH K24 DA030443 (AEE)**_. As you can see, there are a variety of sources of funding for this article, and the way this section is worded, it’s probably reasonable to conclude that a significant portion of that funding came from the areas mentioned first, including various Centers at Mass General. The NIH grants that the Wastebook is all up in arms about are the very last things mentioned. I’ve highlighted them in the quote. Not only that, but even if these grants did provide a bit of the funding for this particular study, it is very clear from looking at the grants themselves that the funds in the grants have been used far more broadly than this single study. Here is the NIH page for [Dr. Stoeckel’s grant](http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=8459381&icde=0). If you click on the [Details](http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_details.cfm?aid=8459381&icde=0) tab, you’ll see that this grant is for a project that lasts from April 2012 to March 2017. That is, the study is barely half-way through, so it still has plenty more uses for the $165,000 that he received. Move over to the [Results](http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_results.cfm?aid=8459381&icde=0) tab, and you’ll see that this grant, in addition to helping investigate mommies and kiddies and puppies, has also contributed (so far) to five published pieces of work: > [@](#): > > Acute effects of mecamylamine and varenicline on cognitive performance in non-smokers with and without schizophrenia. > > Impulsive social influence increases impulsive choices on a temporal discounting task in young adults. > > Optimizing real time fMRI neurofeedback for therapeutic discovery and development. > > MRI volume of the medial frontal cortex predicts financial capacity in patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease. > > Greater impulsivity is associated with decreased brain activation in obese women during a delay discounting task. ​And if we move on over now the the other scientist in question, Dr. Evins, and look at [his grant project](http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=8720734&icde=22266712), we can see from the [Details](http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_details.cfm?aid=8720734&icde=22266712) tab this is also a multi-year study, running from September 2010 through August 2015. And the [Results](http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_results.cfm?aid=8720734&icde=22266712) tab for this study shows even more productivity than Stoeckel’s study: > [@](#): > > Acute effects of mecamylamine and varenicline on cognitive performance in non-smokers with and without schizophrenia. > > Maintenance treatment with varenicline for smoking cessation in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: a randomized clinical trial. > > Finding the right match: mindfulness training may potentiate the therapeutic effect of nonjudgment of inner experience on smoking cessation. > > Impulsive social influence increases impulsive choices on a temporal discounting task in young adults. > > Optimizing real time fMRI neurofeedback for therapeutic discovery and development. > > An Open Trial of Relapse Prevention Therapy for Smokers With Schizophrenia. > > Association between CHRNA5 genetic variation at rs16969968 and brain reactivity to smoking images in nicotine dependent women. > > Varenicline as a smoking cessation aid in schizophrenia: effects on smoking behavior and reward sensitivity. > > Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Schizophrenia: Safety and Effectiveness in a 12-Week, Open-Label Trial. > > A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the NMDA glycine site antagonist, GW468816, for prevention of relapse to smoking in females > > Anterior cingulate proton spectroscopy glutamate levels differ as a function of smoking cessation outcome. > > Neural substrates of attentional bias for smoking-related cues: an FMRI study. Now, i’m no research scientist or medical doctor, and i don’t claim to understand what Varenicline or fMRI neurofeedback are, but even my humanities-focused, baseball-addled brain can see quite a few studies there that clearly pertain to issues of addiction. The extensive results gained from the NIH grants demonstrates very clearly that the NIH did not simply hand over $370,000 to ask whether moms love dogs as much as kids. The only thing the Wastebook doesn’t misrepresent is the study itself, but it does misrepresent the issue that is central to the Wastebook: the allocation of funding. It does this by a tricky and slippery and (i believe) deliberately deceptive rhetorical slide in which it strongly suggests, but never quite states outright, that all $370K was used for the study. And it is here that we arrive at Doofus Junior, because **D’Anconia** actually manages to up the ante on the Senator’s dishonesty. Rather than remaining content to simply imply that all of the money had been used for this one study, he states outright that all the money was spent for this study, and goes even further by alleging that the money used for this study was “supposed be devoted to addiction research.” Basically, he not only accuses the scientists of spending government money on research that he considers irrelevant; he implies that they have done so fraudulently, and have misused the funds. I think Al Franken needs to write a second edition of his book, _Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them_, just so he can include Senator Coburn and D’Anconia. And now i think i really am done with Doofus Junior. He’s either so stupid as to not be worth the time, or a really good troll who’s just going to come back with another lie. Either way, he offers nothing to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2791 "2014-10-27T19:58:17Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I can’t read your link. It requires a subscription. :rolleyes: I’m not sure why. I don’t have a subscription to them, and it shows up fine for me. Here’s the relevant text: > [@](#): > > The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression. > > These principles, while traditionally conservative, are guidelines and not reflexive dogmas. The facts and nuances of each issue, and not a forged set of ideological templates, dictate where the newspaper will stand. The Tribune is not blindly or uncritically partisan. No political party should take its support for granted. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2792 "2014-10-27T20:02:23Z")
Here’s the part you don’t understand. It doesn’t matter whether or not the full $371K was spent on comparing kiddie pics to doggie pics. Exactly $0 should have been spent. We don’t need any of this. What ever happened to President Clinton’s promise that the era of big government was over? Apparently, that was a lie. Like the one about how you can keep your doctor and your health plan. I see a pattern here. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2793 "2014-10-27T20:02:51Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I’m not sure why. I don’t have a subscription to them, and it shows up fine for me. Here’s the relevant text: It doesn’t. He’s lying because…um…reasons? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2794 "2014-10-27T20:05:26Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Here’s the part you don’t understand. It doesn’t matter whether or not the full $371K was spent on comparing kiddie pics to doggie pics. Exactly $0 should have been spent. Jesus fucking Christ on a Segway, kiddo, why didn’t you just say so in the first place? It’s not so fucking hard to say you oppose all public funding of basic research, is it? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2795 "2014-10-27T20:19:17Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Here’s the part you don’t understand. It doesn’t matter whether or not the full $371K was spent on comparing kiddie pics to doggie pics. Exactly $0 should have been spent. As i’ve said a couple of times in this thread, there are reasonable arguments to be made about whether the government should fund research. But if it really is the important issue that you keep claiming, then why do you and Senator Doofus keep lying about the basic facts? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2796 "2014-10-27T20:34:12Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Here’s the part you don’t understand. It doesn’t matter whether or not the full $371K was spent on comparing kiddie pics to doggie pics. Exactly $0 should have been spent. So why do you need to lie about it? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2797 "2014-10-27T20:41:22Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > They used to conservative, sure. But endorsing BHO not once, but twice? E I know plenty of conservatives who voted for BHO simply because what the Republicans were offering was sickening to them. One of them openly bitched to me about how what he wanted was the 1999 McCain, not the lunatic 2008 version with brain dead VP candidate. In 2012 there were still plenty of conservative folks not keen on seeing a return of the Bush administration 2.0. They were not happy with Obama but they really did not like what they were seeing from the Romney campaign. ‘openly delusional’ was the phrase one used with me. In fairness, a couple of them went and voted for 3rd party candidates. So advocating for BHO does not automatically mean you are a ‘liberal rag’ unless you are from uncut neo-con country. The conservatives I know however are the ones who long for their old GOP back. So they may be more rational the the crazies you consider normal. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2798 "2014-10-27T20:44:21Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I’m not sure why. I don’t have a subscription to them, and it shows up fine for me. Here’s the relevant text: That was supposed to be sarcasm. A day or two ago posters were claiming that they absolutely couldn’t access the Tribune website without a subscription. They can’t have it both ways. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2799 "2014-10-27T20:45:53Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > So why do you need to lie about it? I have no need to lie about it. There should be no funding for any of that shit. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/2800 "2014-10-27T20:53:32Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I have no need to lie about it. There should be no funding for any of that shit. So why do you lie about it if you have no need to lie about it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=139) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=141)