rickyp wrote:When it gets as hot as it has the last few weeks, the people who don't care for AC are dieing...

Not necessarily, I just spent the weekend (103 on Sat and 93 on Sunday) wearing wool outside. I didn't die.

They most likely died because they didn't take care of themselves by drinking sufficient amounts of fluids. Would A/C have helped. Possibly but if they dehydrated by not drinking sufficient fluids, the A/C may not have helped.

I don't have central AC, and it is 100 degrees here. We have window units that work nicely.

I guess I am impoverished according to RickyP. Does that mean I have the voice of the downtrodden?

rickyp wrote:Since its 29 to 32 Celcius in Bangor...

Maine? That's semantically impossible. It can be 84 to 90; it can't be.... whatever you said it was.

http://www1.sympatico.ca/cgi-bin/wx2004 ... n=USME0017

The weather in Maine above. I was surprised too.

bbauska

I don't have central AC, and it is 100 degrees here. We have window units that work nicely.

I guess I am impoverished according to RickyP. Does that mean I have the voice of the downtrodden?

See, you'd qualify as having AC in the data Ray quoted. So NO.
And unless you have a family income of under $21,700 you aren't part of the group he quoted data about anyway. (People under the poverty line)
So no again.
Try to keep up.

rickyp wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-20080628.html

When it gets as hot as it has the last few weeks, the people who don't care for AC are dieing..and there are reports of 60 deaths so far in the press, . And Since its 29 to 32 Celcius in Bangor for the next 5 days, and I doubt Alaska accounts for 21% of the poor ...
I'll go with abject poverty. The story i link supports that notion.

Because they talked to a few people?

Again, do they have cable? Cell phones? Video games? DVDs?

If we are talking abjectly impoverished, then they should have none of those things if an air-conditioner is the difference between life and death.

I notice some could not pay their utility bills. Why isn't President Obama sending them checks? Why wasn't this part of the Stimulus? He is most cruel indeed!

You inability to understand sarcasm surpasses even levels that I held you at.

Heat wave victims tend to be young, the elderly, and the chronically ill. France was embarrassed when several thousand elderly French died due to a heat wave back in 2003. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4 ... eaths.html A discussion of the heat wave that killed several hundred in Chicago in 1995 found that risk factors were " living alone, not leaving home daily, lacking access to transportation, being sick or bedridden, not having social contacts nearby, and of course not having an air conditioner." http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chic ... 13in.html/ :

See the following for a discussion of what causes heat wave deaths. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC192832/

Bottom line: if you're poor, elderly, have limited social contacts and you do not have air-conditioner that can be problematic. If you're healthy and not elderly heat waves are primarily an inconvenience.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Purple wrote:referring to is medical marijuana (except he never shows that word here!). Legalizing marijuana and supporting the availability of medical marijuana are very different things. RJ didn't lkimit his desire to legalize to medical marijuana.

Perhaps I was being overly broad in my interpretation but I think it is the steps that count not just the final destination. The more liberal northeastern aspect of the Party tends to support full legalization. Further, if you talk to the libertarian wing of the Party, the tend to support full blown legalization as well. I will see if I can find a better poll.

Ok, after looking for a poll that looks at opinions in the northeast on legalizing marijuana in a general way as opposed to just in a medical sense, I have been unable to find one. All the polls I find are specific to medical marijuana.

Therefore, while I "know" from an anectdotal point that most Republicans in the northeastern U.S. would support the general legalization of pot, I will say that I have not been able to adequately prove my position that RJ's support of this would put him squarely in the middle of his local Republican party.

There is a new sherifff in town and he demands proof not feelings, anecdotes, intutitions, "i know when I see it", "god says so", beliefs, suppositions, and surmises...

Archduke Russell John wrote:Therefore, while I "know" from an anectdotal point that most Republicans in the northeastern U.S. would support the general legalization of pot, I will say that I have not been able to adequately prove my position that RJ's support of this would put him squarely in the middle of his local Republican party.

I appreciate the admission; now to the available data. Less than a year ago Gallup ran a poll regarding legalization. Overall, 50% of those polled favored legalization - an all-time high (no pun intended). Do Northeast Republicans differ from the average in being more pro-legalization? Answer: not likely. Quite the opposite.

Whereas 57% of Democrats favor legalization, only 35% of Republicans do. And between West, Midwest, East and South, East is less pro- than either West or Midwest. (South is least pro-.) Mathematically, Republican Easterners could somehow be an exception to both Republicans generally and Easterners generally, but it seems highly unlikely.

For an individual to know from anecdotal evidence that most Republicans in a small town favored legalization, he'd have to have casually asked and gotten a pro- response from a majority of them, and that's just in a small town. "Anecdotal" does not mean "guesswork" - it doesn't mean "I extrapolate from the two dozen people I know to the tens of millions I wish to discuss". In point of fact, here's the Free Online Dictionary definition of anecdotal: "Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis." Casual observations but real ones.

What we have really learned from your posts is that you run in a circle of Northeast Republicans that is, in all likelihood, different than average. That's practically inevitable. How could your circle of friends realistically be perfectly representative of such a large group? Perhaps they are younger than average, or more libertarian, or maybe they're just too small a sample to have much of a statistical chance to be representative. At least that's much more likely than that the Gallup data is all backwards. Plenty of Northeast Republicans do support legalization so it wouldn't take some huge anomaly for a small group to have such a majority and for your personal sampling to thus mislead you.

Note: I don't have access to the Gallup form, details and crosstabs. I can't attest to the poll's accuracy, so I've looked for another to confirm or contradict. One month later CBS ran a poll. Here are their results:
Republicans: 23% vs. 71% pro- vs. anti-
Democrats: 45% vs. 44%
Indeps: 48% vs. 42%

Once again: no access to details so accept these numbers with a grain of salt. I've not proven that most Northeast Republicans are against legalization, but I think I've shown that it's awfully unlikely, and I've not relied on anecdotal evidence.

Purple wrote:[hat we have really learned from your posts is that you run in a circle of Northeast Republicans that is, in all likelihood, different than average.

Well, I will say that as a former Assistant District Director to a State Senator my "circle of Northeastern Republicans" include, amongst others, that State Senator, at least 3 State Representatives, a U.S. Congressman and a Lt. Governor. Now I am not saying that all of them support general marijuana legalization because I know a couple of them do not. However, my point is that my "circle of Northeastern Republicans" isn't all that small or unimportant.

Archduke Russell John wrote:...my "circle of Northeastern Republicans" isn't all that small or unimportant.

Whoa. This changes everything. Forget about the legalization of marijuana. The question now becomes: if you could be hanging out with such important folk what the heck are you doing spending so much time with us losers here at Redscape? [/sarcasm]

Purple wrote:Whoa. This changes everything. Forget about the legalization of marijuana. The question now becomes: if you could be hanging out with such important folk what the heck are you doing spending so much time with us losers here at Redscape? [/sarcasm]

It's how I keep in touch with the little people

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Purple wrote:[hat we have really learned from your posts is that you run in a circle of Northeast Republicans that is, in all likelihood, different than average.

Well, I will say that as a former Assistant District Director to a State Senator my "circle of Northeastern Republicans" include, amongst others, that State Senator, at least 3 State Representatives, a U.S. Congressman and a Lt. Governor. Now I am not saying that all of them support general marijuana legalization because I know a couple of them do not. However, my point is that my "circle of Northeastern Republicans" isn't all that small or unimportant.

Maybe, but are they typical or representative. Most supporters of a party don't get involved it it, and few of those who do seek elected office.

danivon wrote:Maybe, but are they typical or representative. Most supporters of a party don't get involved it it, and few of those who do seek elected office.

That is a valid question Dan. I think it is because while I know them, My position is not limited to them. Part of my duties as the Assistant District Director was to represent the Senator at all sorts of personal appearences. This could include anything from a party fundraiser to the local neighborhood meeting about PennDoT plans to expand a road. I also include taking general phone calls from people telliing you what position they would like the Senator to take as part of my formative information. My point is that my opinion is based on a relatively large number of people and not just the small circle Purple assumes.

Now before you ask how do I know they were Republicans it can vary from either knowing them personally, to having them tell me while talking to me, to seeing their registered party while entering their opinion into the computer.

So yes I will stick with the term anectdotal. See the problem here is that Purple assumed something about me without actual knowledge of my background. My opinion is "Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis." Casual observations but real ones." and not just guesswork.

So I think I am in good position to ask for a retraction from Purple.