Grossly Overdone Hysteria

Brit Hume is unhappy with the media’s “grossly overdone” hysteria about Arizona’s new law which essentially copies and pastes a bunch of federal penalties for illegal immigration onto the state books.  He says, “a lot of the news stories simply flat had it wrong, and a lot of the critics of the bill itself have also got it wrong.”

Mr. Hume is too kind. They didn’t simply flat have it wrong. They’re willfully lying because they know if they keep it up long enough the lie will take hold and they’ll win.  They’re relying on us not to fight back effectively.  And they’re probably right.

CBS, while moaning that Arizona has made illegal aliens feel “unwelcome” disingenuously reports that 51% of people think the law is about right.  The screen graphic omits the 9% who feel it doesn’t go far enough.  Sixty percent of Arizonans support this law, versus 36% who oppose it, a fact CBS downplayed while it hyped the heartbreak of the 12 year old girl whose best friend’s family fled Arizona for California because of the mean ol’ law!!

Comments

  1. Immanuel Comer says:

    I am reminded of a certain group of pie charts showing %tax revenue from the top X % of wealthy people meant to prove how the upper class pays more than their fair share of taxes. A closer look as well as a quick assessment of the percent revenue that the top X % of wealthy people make shows that the top % pay a lesser percentage of taxes according to revenue; further, the middle class are definitely paying more than “their share” when comparing their % revenue to their % tax burden.

    Not to start a tangential issue, but what am I saying?
    Is there “willful” lying? Most likely.
    Is there misinterpretation of data and information? Most definitely.

    Thankfully, there are people like you and Brit Hume who know enough to know that the hysteria and the hype of the whole immigration is based off of distortions of the facts, the truth, & the law.

    As a nation, can we really keep writing laws and simultaneously be hysterical when they are (finally) enforced?

  2. Foxfier says:

    I’ll bite at the hijacking….

    Define “fair.” I’d definitely not say it’s “fair” to take ten pies from me and only a slice from my sister, when I spent all day baking and my sister just stopped by the store on the way over. It’s really not fair to take ten pies from me and give them to folks who didn’t bother to turn on the oven.

    Same with the immigration law; some folks think the primary importance is that peoples’ lives are disrupted. Never mind that they willfully broke the law and have been getting away with it for some time, and if they catch official attention they will now suffer the rather mild consequences of the initial crime. (trespass into a home where you’re not allowed: major crime; trespass into a country where you’re not allowed: you’re removed from the country. Trespass into Mexico: good chance of being shot; trespass into the US, get sent home.)
    .-= Foxfier´s last blog ..At A Wedding =-.

  3. Immanuel Comer says:

    @Laura, sorry, but Foxfier started it…

    @Foxfier, I could agree with your pie example except it is way too open ended.

    With the starting assumption that there are people, e.g. children, who cannot bake or afford pie and you and your sister agree to sharing with them…

    “(More) Fair” is allowing you to keep 90 out of 100 pies that you baked all day AND similarly allowing your sister to keep 9 out of 10 slices of the pie she stopped by the store and purchased on the way over and giving the remainder to those who don’t have money or an oven.

    Of course, if you and your sister don’t care about the children having pie, then that isn’t fair either.

    However, I totally agree with your appoint about the immigration law. It’s the humanitarian side of USA that wants to ignore the law and believe distorted “facts”…Of course, like you said, the stakes are much lower in US. It’s like when ANYONE crosses onto US soil, they potentially can become so spoiled that they will cry when they are called a name and not allowed to hang with the “cool kids” (and that hits my ethnicity as well).

  4. Foxfier says:

    With the starting assumption that there are people, e.g. children, who cannot bake or afford pie and you and your sister agree to sharing with them…

    Bad assumption, and I hardly “started it.” I responded to you.

    A better starting assumption: as a requirement to be in the Pie Club, all members must give some pie for common goals– upkeep of the club house, fund raising, common enjoyment.

    The folks in the club are 10% buy-one-pie folks, 10% bake a hundred a day, 40% bake ten and 40% bake fifty.

    Those in charge of the club decide that those who bake ten or less pies a day don’t have to contribute any directly; those who buy a pie a day will be given a fraction of the pies taken, those who bake more than ten pies a day will have to give one in four pies off the top and those who bake fifty a day will have to give seven. Then when any of them do anything with the pies, more slices are taken, and you might get some back if you file the right papers. Somehow, those in charge of the club always have enough pie, even though they don’t bake, and there are still children without pie. The good bakers that don’t leave the club get tired of giving so much and start baking only 49 pies, or nine pies, or baking and not telling anyone in the club.
    .-= Foxfier´s last blog ..At A Wedding =-.

  5. What charts are you even referring to, Immanuel? I suspect that whatever stat you’re referencing is, at the very least, falsely lumping Social Security and Medicare payments in with income taxes.

  6. Immanuel Comer says:

    @Laura, Sorry, I know this is now very off the main topic

    @Foxfier, I gave the original example with the objective “not to start a tangential issue”. However, LOL it sounds like you were going for closer to the actual metaphor this time!!! I know my example was far from reality. It is an ideal of what would be more fair than reality when constrained to strict numerical calculation (which I know is a limited and possibly faulty model when applied to reality).

    @Drew, since you asked, http://pursuingholiness.com/2008/10/obama-in-tights/

    For the record, my main point is that it is easy to misinterpret data in order to make a point. Like Drew, pointed out, it IS very possible that certain figures may or may not be included incorrectly.

  7. Immanuel Comer says:

    PS… I think Laura and I found some agreement back in 2008. Especially when you read the final comments from both of us.

    @Laura and others, By the way, thanks for writing like you do. I’ve learned a lot through differences of opinion on this blog.

    Pro 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.