Link to Sponsoring Departments Statistical Learning Records, Fall 2005

Dear Habermas Logo and Link to Site Index A Justice Site

Statistics: NAME:
Learning Records, Fall 2005

Academic Resources - Daily Site Additions
Lectures - Notes - Texts - Self Tests - Discussions
Visual Sociology - Graduate Exam Study
POST TO: Tutoring - Learning Records - Transform-dom
SEARCH: Topics Index - Site Index - Issue Archives
Google Web Search - Google Site Search

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: January 9, 2006
Latest Update: January 9, 2006

E-Mail Icon

Index of Topics on Site Statistical Learning Records, Fall 2005
Chaidez, Sandra L.:

Message 9048:

his is in response to "Let's Salute Our Soldiers" by PJ. I just thought, there's a more proactive way to help soldiers abroad than thinking about them occassionally and giving thanks, which is nice and all but you could do something much more direct: anyone who wants to help them out, if only to lift up their spirit just a little, can send them a care package. Follow this link to ways to do it, or find out an alternative organization: I agree with you, PJ: US soldiers, as well as any soldiers around the world, are people, and more specifically: boys. Having a sister and a brother-in-law in the forces, as having formerly dated an Army soldier who was shipped out for 7 months January 2003, the year the war was declared on Iraq, I have come to find that out. The way the military works is this: new recruits are trained, via bootcamp and the military system itself, to feel they are protecting our nation. In all truthfulness, any given one of them is thinking that, and thinks that while they're out there shooting down "subversives" and watching eerie bursts of beautiful flashes of light from explosives from the rooftop of an invaded ornate palace. Forgetting the debate of whether we, the US, should be in Iraq, or wherever; forgetting the debate whether the military should not be so strong, and getting stronger; forgetting the debate of why the Bush administration really invades some countries (instead of taking care of poverty at home, and by "taking care" I don't mean make sure poverty remains =P)--these soldiers are teenagers, straight out of high school for the most part, and alone for the holidays, perhaps not receiving any sort of letters from anyone, at any point in time. I guess what I'm saying is that the conflict within any one of us would be of letting politics or humanistic tendencies to win over.

Just my last two-cents of the semester. And no, I'm not working for the USO. ;) I actually was strictly against military, and it's the most ironic thing about having a sibling in it, a brother-in-law in it, and ultimately having dated one. =P


I agree; we need to remember our soldiers aren't the ones mapping out the strategies that are tearing up Iraq. They are our families.

Let's link that conceptually to statistics. The administration isn't making this easy, but there are counts of our soldiers and the amount of time each has served, and what their relationship to this whole mess was before the invasion, and since the invasion. We would want to look at available statistics, consider what variables were covered, and how they were measured, and compare those to the ones that our discussions have led us to think ought to be measured. It is reportedly very hard to get decent statistics on the number of insurgents, on the number of Jihad fighters infiltrating the insurgents, but that's no excuse for not trying, or not telling the public.
December 27, 2005

Message 8697:

Just last night I was discussing "Correction Facilities" with someone close to me over the phone. We found it darkly amusing how no one ever believes someone straight out of jail is reformed. On the contrary, if you hear someone just came out of jail you go, "Ohhh..." And wonder why they let 'im out. And figure that they're worse and more dangerous now, even if they weren't before going in. Given that popular reaction and notion of prison not being a corrective measure, it's not surprising to find they find it hard to forgive "Tookie" even if he's a case for a "Corrections Facility" successful product.


Written in response to Sherise Sandoz' Message 8694. You are getting here to the wicked little unstated assumptions that make this matter so complex. In relating this to statistics, notice that we are not at all sure of how to measure rehabilitation, and there are relatively few attempts to understand it in all its complexity. But many of us still have an opinion about what we don't begin to understand. Learning to use what statistics are available is one way to combat such prejudicial labeling and assumptions.
December 27, 2005

Message 8289:

'Scuse my Murricanez if ah feel ya'll are bein' patronizing. Albeit your thoughts have crossed my mind whenever speaking in any spatial forum ("Will what I say make sense to anyone?"), it is pretentious to suppose that no one could understand the "intellectual capacity" of the commentary. I take slight for those who do understand what's going on but are either too introspective to participate, too shy, or merely jumbled in the art of language and cannot express their viewpoints understandably. I suggest, for the betterment of those whom you suggest aren't "intellectually capable" of understanding the language, or in the case of citing historic figures such as Patrick Henry, that you continue to cite them and give a briefing of who or what you're talking about. Not doing so suggests a certain assumption that everyone "should be" able to understand what you're saying. And that is what I call pretentious. ~Give me death before you give me intellectual supremacy


Sandra, this is cute. It was written in response to Beau, who was responding to Kathleen. (See Message 8285.) I'm glad to see some of you expressing the "pretentiousness." I suspect we're having a language game problem. Beau is in law school. And we're dealing with lots of different cohorts here. There is a netspeak in which Beau's suggestion that no one under 30 will understand who Patrick Henry was is simply an acceptable put-downish normal discourse, not normative, normal. Well, I think that's what I mean, anyway.

I'm hoping we'll go into this in lots more detail when I get back from New York in early January. Beau and Michael are right that the naked space does permit us all to speak, and authority shouldn't censor us. But there are many styles of speak and and confrontativeness. I haven't been regularly on transform_dom because of my reaction to the radiation therapy. But I'm glad to see that "Give me death before you give me intellectual supremacy" is appearing. That doesn't need we want smother love instead of discipline; but I don't want to see us feel comfortable snapping back to them that snaps, without fearing censorship, and without either style dominating. No imperialism, please. We're on the opposite side, here.
December 22, 2005

Message 8288:

Aww.. Not much detail? Oh well. It sounds like she didn't make such a weighty argument for herself. Good point, about people saying they're sorry only because they've been caught. I wonder, though, if it matters that people are sorry because they got caught, especially if they wouldn't do it again because they fear getting caught once more. There's a lot to say for answerability and how it can stop some people from committing any sort of crime.
stef parrone wrote:

hey sandra, she does different kinds of programs with the offenders and has group meetings with them every week. she has them tell their "stories" and asks them how they feel about it and stuff like that. she didnt go into much detail about it tho.(sorry) to be honest i just dont think that people who are sex offenders can be helped because they have something in their mind and they dont think that what they did is wrong. a lot of times they will say that they regret it or that they are sorry but to me i think they only say it because they got caught!

Quimo Sabe wrote:

Hi Stef,

Just out of curiosity.. What did the presentor say you can do to cure "sex offenders"? What kind of process is it? (Therapy, exercise, hobbies...?) Why do you think it doesn't work? Like I said: just curious.


stef parrone wrote:

hey everybody! well when it comes to labeling someone as a sex offender the label covers a broad spectrum. a sex offender can be a 19 year old kid who had concensual sex . . .


This is a good example, Sandra, of the kind of substantive discussions tranform_dom affords us. As we link this conceptually back to statistics, you might want to look at how all the questions you and Stef are tossing back and forth will need to be taken into account in defining variables and in interpretation. Don't we often get broad labels when we're still kind of unclear on an issue and its underlying unspoken assumptions?
December 22, 2005

Message 8269:

I agree, Beau. I think most people forget that "offender" and other words like "terrorist" and "subversive" are reeeally loose terms, and it matters who's pointing the finger, or rather, who is in power. Considering I'm in a Political Behaviour in Latin America class, I'll give an example of Latin American countries.

Most Latin American countries have experienced changes in government; that government ranges from 'democracy' to military regime, back and forth, and back and forth between people in power. In LatAm countries, it was usually between the conservatives and the liberals. When the conservatives were in power, the liberals were 'subversives'; when the liberals were in power, the conservatives were 'subversives.,' It really didn't matter who was in power-- when that system was in power, they really didn't want to let go of the power, so they were afraid that 1) they would no longer have power again one day (which is probable considering they toppled a previous power/government, and 2) that their power may be stripped by the previous power-holders who are now currently the "losers" of the power struggle, those they're not torturing and imprisoning under the label "subversive." Imagine how afraid you'd be if you realized that one day that little shrimp you've been bullying will grow buff and hit you back-- twice as hard.


These are complex issues. I'm glad to see them coming up for discussion. check out my response to beau on "fascism" in this exchange in Message 9126.
December 22, 2005

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Individual copyrights by other authors may apply.