I got a book in the mail yesterday. 
Check it out. A lot of great information. The Political Junkie Handbook covers the A to Z of politics from both sides of every issue. I'm finding myself laughing at some of the information and doing the old Johnny Carson, "I did not know that" line in my head with other stuff.
Towards the back of the book there are several lists that are most definately amusing. One list defines the difference between the left and the right. One of the differences that made me laugh was the left says "stop global warming" and the right says "stop global whining". When you think about it, that kind of says it all. Another is the left says 2+2=whatever, the right says 2+2=4. Goes along the lines of how the left views grading systems in schools. Another is group rights, individual rights. Simple easy ways to see the differences on stances. How about humanity and individuality or mass transit and automobile.
There's a list of 250 reasons conservatives hated Clinton and another 250 why liberals hated Reagan.
I found a list of quotes and I think the best one was a Churchill quote, "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." And there are a bunch more quotes from all through history all through the book.
I would say Michael Crane has done an excellent job compiling a lot of useful data. Definately a good read.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Berlin
Based upon a few of the comparisons, it sounds as though Crane is at least somewhat biased toward the right (or am I wrong?).
Thanks for this review, Andy.
2 - andy marsh
No, I think you're wrong. Which comparisons would you say were inaccurate?
3 - andy marsh
Or biased?
4 - Eric Berlin
One of the differences that made me laugh was the left says "stop global warming" and the right says "stop global whining". When you think about it, that kind of says it all. Another is the left says 2+2=whatever, the right says 2+2=4.
Those two examples are mild shots at the left.
5 - andy marsh
no they're not...the left constantly hollers about global warming and the right constant tells them to stop whining...no shot...that's the way the headlines read. I've had discussions here at BC with people on the left talking about grading not necessarily being a good thing. I've never heard someone from the right say that. No grading is the same thing as saying 2+2=whatever. It's the way the discussions go every day. You wanna call them shots because they're the truth? Isn't global warming an issue with the left? Doesn't the right say shut up already?
6 - Eric Berlin
The way it's set up is to make the left look like whiny lunatics and the right to look like level-headed rationalists.
I don't particularly care one way or the other, but that's my take on it.
7 - andy marsh
the left saying stop global warming makes them look like whiny lunatics? Or the positions they take on issues make them look like whiny lunatics? Maybe you're just too sensitive about something you don't need to be so sensitive about?
Or maybe because it's a book I'm reading you're just going to automatically assume it's a biased book?
8 - Eric Berlin
Not at all. In the first example, we see the left "whining" about global warming, and the right calling them on it. In the second, we see the left in love with fuzzy standards ("whatever") in education, while the right smugly states for all to see: 2 + 2 = 4.
Where's the left "sticking it" to the right with smug, mildly effective jabs in an effort for parity? I just didn't see it, and thus the charge of bias.
9 - andy marsh
so that's what it is...because one or two of the comparisons that I listed has what you call a "mildly" effective jab in it!
I agree that "stop Global Warming" is whining. You have to agree that it is a stance of the left. What makes that partisan? It's demonstrating differences in just a couple of words. It's exactly how a lot of feel about this issue. That doesn't make it biased!
just because the right side of stop global warming is stop global whining, doesn't mean that calling for a stop to blobal warming is whining! even though it is.
I suppose these are biased too...
the left says the death penalty is uncivilized the right, high crime rates are uncivilized or idealism and commonsense. How about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. It's a list, with the left on one side and the right on the other. Showing different arguments in a couple of words. IRA or NRA. things like that.
This one fits you...and I only say that because earlier you said you didn't care, Aggrieved for others, the right, personally aggrieved.
Maybe your just not as left as you want to think you are???
10 - andy marsh
Here's a whole bunch more for you to pick apart.
THE ISSUE: LEFT/RIGHT
Abortion: My Body, My Choice / It's a Child! ! Not a Choice
Animal Rights: "A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy" / Man is the Pinnacle of Creation
Child Raising: It Takes a Village / It Takes a Loving Mother and a Devoted Father
Crime: Crime is an Economic Problem / Crime is a Moral Problem
Education Policy: Outcome-Based Education / Back to the Basics
Favorite Celebrity Spokesman: Alec Baldwin / Charlton Heston
Favorite Motivating Factor: Power / Liberty
Favorite President: Franklin Delano Roosevelt / Ronald Reagan
Favorite Term for People Who Illegally Enter Our Country: Undocumented
Workers / Illegal Aliens
Central Goal: Pursuit of Equality / Pursuit of Excellence
How They View Each Other: Believe Conservatives
Reactionary / Think Liberals Utopian
Individual Modality: Self-_Expression / Self-Control
Achieving Peace: Visualize Peace / Peace Through Strength
Politics: The Personal is Political / The Political is Personal
Popular Saying: Do Your Own Thing / Do Good and Avoid Evil
Public Policy: All Social Problems Have Solutions / All Policy Involves Trade-Offs
Rights: Group Rights / Individual Rights
Societal Motivator: Cooperation / Competition
Human Nature: Human Nature Can be Modified by Public Policy / Human Nature
is Unchangeable
The Constitution is: A Living Document / An Inviolable Pact of and for the People
The Military: The Military is a Vehicle for Social Change / The Military Objective is Simply to Defend and Protect this Country
The Three R's: Racism, Reproduction and Recycling / Reading, Writing and 'rithmatic
Wages: Government Should Assure a Fair and Living Wage / Wages Must be
Based on Productivity
Wealth: Wealth Must be Redistributed / Wealth Must be Created
Which Side on the Reading War?: Whole Language / Phonics
11 - bhw
I've had discussions here at BC with people on the left talking about grading not necessarily being a good thing. I've never heard someone from the right say that. No grading is the same thing as saying 2+2=whatever.
I thought I heard someone calling me.
No, Andy, saying that giving students grades is unnecessary is not the same thing as saying 2+2=whatever.
12 - andy marsh
I been waiting for you lady! No, but it IS the way the right looks at it.
13 - andy marsh
Or should I say, people on the right side of this particular issu.
14 - bhw
Which is why the others were correct in saying that there's a bias in the book, at least in some of the examples.
15 - andy marsh
The majority of the information in the book is in the form of tables and is more informative than the list of differences that I used as an example. I found them entertaining and that's why I used them. I'll find you some biases in the other direction just to make everyone happy.
Honestly though. In the major sections of the book, there are arguments for both sides of every issue. For example, in the section titled Death Penalty there are quotes from the ACLU and The Innocence Project on one side and Thomas Sowell and Dudley Sharp(prodeathpenalty.com) on the other side of the issue. This along with 9 or 10 table and graphs showing totals by state and ethnicity really does show both sides of the issue. On Education I find Quotes like this, Local voucher programs divert public resources from reform and, ironically, divert students to the only schools exempt from the new accountabiltiy regime (Democratic Leadership Council) And this statement, which kinda validates that 2+2=whatever thing, Schools must increase students self-esteem, which, in turn, enhances learning. Thus, failing grades are to be avoided, the curriculum made more relevant tothe student and a students opinion (whether right or wrong should be taken seriously. In other words, 2+2=whatever!
Same topic from the other side, statements like, The reason for the New New Math, as for many other curriculum reforms, is that teachers, school administrators and their unions are tired of being blamed for statistical declines and poor student performances. (WSJ)
On another note, I'd point out that in the list of politically active celebrities, Streisand, Lange and Stallone are all listed as moderate, as well as Tom Selleck, Arnold and Ron Silver. Robbins and Sarandon and Ono as progressive. I always thought you could pretty much lump all Celebs with the exceptions of a few in the liberal category.
16 - Eric Berlin
Maybe your just not as left as you want to think you are???
I never claimed to be "left." I never claimed to be anything, really. I generally support the Democratic Party and I generally differ with most of the policies of the current administration, but I have my own mind.
The ability to paint people in one word allows for easy stereotypes, demonization, etc.
Anyway, Andy, I believe that you believe there's no bias in those examples or in the book. Fine -- I'm cool leaving it at that if you are.
Are we simpatico now?
17 - andy marsh
We're good Eric. Hey, I'm an easy guy to get along with!
I honestly do believe it's a good book. A lot of useful info, at least for me anyway. Makes it easier to understand how some people can take the stances they take.
18 - Eric Berlin
Word up and likewise, Andy. I'm glad the book works for you.
19 - Michael Crane
I thank Andy's praise & defense of my book, The Political Junkie Handbook, and would like to add a few comments about the preceeding arguments.
First, I made every effort to present a fair, bipartisan book -- I balanced the debate points with liberal and conservative quotes, when I added a list titled "Why Conservatives Hated Clinton," I included a list called "250 Reasons why Liberals Hated Reagan." About half of the book contains raw statistics, mostly taken from unbiased government sources.
The problem I have found and the illusion of bias perceived by many on the Left results from the use of statistics by the Left and the Right. The activists on the Left tend to attach an entire campaign to a single, often flawed statistic. Examples abound, but I will give one. Feminists claim that 25% of women are sexually assaulted during their years in college; they initiated a huge campaign called "Take Back the Night" based on that single number. Well, the number is a gross exaggeration -- the FBI reports that about 1,000 people are sexually assaulted on campuses each year, this includes homosexual assaults, with about 8 million female college students you do the math. The Left generally does not have a good reputation with statistics. Hence the perception of bias about my book.
The Right, on the other hand, has used statistics effectively and generally honestly. The prominence of conservative think tanks during the last decade gives evidence to my opinion.
Cordially,
Michael Crane
Editor
The Political Junkie Handbook
20 - Temple Stark
Crane, that was a crappy "defense" of non-bias.
I haven't read the book so I won't say either way (and I'd probably be highly entertained). But your rebuttal was terrible. It amounted to "My book is not biased to the right but if it were he're some good examples as to why it could be. Oh and the left doesn't have a good history with statistics." ???
A terrible defense.
21 - Steve S
The list in comment 10 must be from the 'Right' side of the book. I'm on the Left and some of those descriptions of my side are just laughable, but they are the definitions that have been given to us by the Right.
The Left believes in bringing about peace by 'visualizing it'? WTF? Who on the Left?
Favorite motivating factor? Power vs. Liberty? Yeah, right.
And in that list, you say the Left is the one that believes the Military is a vehicle for social change?
I haven't read the book, but that list in comment 10 is more off base than on.
22 - Distorted Angel
Actually, Steve, I think it's pretty accurate if the writer does most of his research by reading peoples' bumper stickers, which is pretty much what it looks like.
23 - Mark Saleski
this technique has been absolutely perfected by a huge chunk of the right. coopt the language and you win the 'debate'.
repeat things over and over again ("stay on message!!!") until those things become accepted as facts.
it's scary.
24 - Michael Crane
Steve S. asks "Who on the left visualizes peace?" Bumper stickers are only part of the "visualize peace" phenomenon of the left (although it seems nearly every car in progressive and university towns has one and I doubt you'll ever find one on a car in a VFW parking lot ). A Google search found 14,200 pages visualizing peace, mostly leftwing blogs. Check out the Peace Center ( http://www.salsa.net/peace/visualize.html ). I doubt that they are fans of Ronald Reagan!
Steve S. also doubts my Power vs. Liberty comparison. Obviously, he has not read any feminist literature of the last 40 years. And what is that all about? Achieving Power! Steve W. also missed the Black Power movement which still maintains considerable influence in the African-American community. He didn't read Hillary Clinton's famous speech at Wellesley. And what was that all about? Any change can only be had through political power. And who is the ultimate guru of the left? Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky lays out in his books about how the Have-Nots in this world can take power away from the haves. I could write a book about the Left's affection for Power.
Conservatives, on the other hand, consider Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Edmund Burke and David Hume central to their philisophical backbone, each a solid proponent of individual libery.
Who can doubt, with issues like "gays in the military" and "women in combat," that Liberals don't view the military as a vehicle for social change? What do you think the Clintons were doing in 1993 with their executive order forcing the military to accept gays into their ranks?
I would like to reply to Temple Stark's comment, but I can't figure out what he said. I did notice, however, that he completely ignored my example.
Cordially,
Michael Crane
Editor
The Political Junkie Handbook
25 - Steve S
What do you think the Clintons were doing in 1993 with their executive order forcing the military to accept gays into their ranks?
I would say ensuring equality. If either side wants to make influences socially, they do so in the social arena.
You equate equality with power in your feminist and Black Power examples. American History has shown us that equality does not come to you, if you are a leaf blowing in the wind.
Certainly Heritage Foundation, Focus on the Family, any of the foundations or think tanks from Scaife, et. al. ad nauseum enjoy the power they wield. They surely do not wield Liberty for all.