« Temper, Temper | Main | Dishonor »

October 10, 2008

Comments

Ludwig Plutonium! Damn, those were the days...

Russell,

Middle American spent decades cleaning up the disaster made by the left in the 1970's. One of the reasons that Reagan was elected was not only Carter an idiot but that most of the Democratic leadership in th e1970's were also idiots. Look up the misery index from 1980 sometime and see what bad political leadership is like. It took Bush two terms to get to where Carter was at the end of one term.

The real question for the Democrats is how will the lead in the coming one party state and how will they hold the different parts of the Democratic party together when opposition to the Republican Party will not be the focus.

Also, I have also found it humorous that everyone hear really believes that everyone in the U.S. can be taught quantum mechanics when most of them avoided the hard math and science classes in High School and College.

I'd just like to say that russell's comment was a thing of rare beauty.

When you throw in the Russel Amendment
, I think most will agree that Russel won the week.

It's time for heartland America to get the hell over themselves ...

... and stop divorcing, murdering, and suing each other at higher rates than us godless commies in MA do. And to cut the crap about self-reliance, when the net flow of federal tax dollars is largely to the Red states from the Blue ones.

Russell, I have occasionally suggested (tongue only halfway in cheek) that New England ought to secede from the Union. I'm not advocating another War Betwixt the States, mind you. If we play our cards right, we could get ourselves kicked out.

--TP

Gary, I'm inclined to yield to your copyediting expertise, but when the two words are used in the same sense separated by a single conjunction, capitalizing them differently seems very odd - rspecially given that this is an issue of race, with all its history of slights and diminutions. Brett, given Jes's post I stand by my rejection of the notion that "the left" comported itself especially poorly wrt Bellesisles - and I note that you didn't address my 2nd-amendment-fraudster counterexample, John Lott.

The Republican Party since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Open Housing legislation in 1968:

George Wallace planted.

Richard Nixon watered.

Satan (assited by Lee Atwater and Karl Rove) gave the increase.

"Middle American spent decades cleaning up the disaster made by the left in the 1970's. One of the reasons that Reagan was elected was not only Carter an idiot but that most of the Democratic leadership in th e1970's were also idiots. Look up the misery index from 1980 sometime and see what bad political leadership is like. It took Bush two terms to get to where Carter was at the end of one term."

Yes, you're right, how dare Carter do this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Oil_Embargo

And how dare he impose wage and price controls after abandoning the Bretton Woods system!

Wait, you mean he didn't do all those things? I'll be damned.

He did, however, drop support for *our* dictator, resulting in this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis

But he also appointed an adult like Paul Volcker to the Fed to give us the necessary medicine in order to get inflation under control...

Russell, I have occasionally suggested (tongue only halfway in cheek) that New England ought to secede from the Union.

On behalf of the Empire State, can we come too?

He\she\it is a troll in the classic sense of the term. As for racist, read his comments and decide for yourself.

Yeah, but my question is about the posting rules and their application.

What Uncle Kvetch said.

CC: The problem is that role your side has let the Know Nothing element play in your coalition. It's a real problem for you, because it prevents you from getting your best and brightest into office.

Absolutely. Although I think it’s more about the religious right. (More below.) I hope that this coming time in the wilderness will give them ample time to reflect on that.


cleek: see... "elitist" is just another part of the GOP's inane celebration of ignorance.

They’ve certainly made use of it, but it wouldn’t get any traction if there was nothing to it.


CC: Patience doesn't work, respect doesn't work, presentation of policies that might be in their interest doesn't work.

publius: i'm weary of trying to express things through a filter so as not to sound bitter toward a group of people that i frankly feel bitter toward. and that act the same toward dems regardless of how liberals talk about them.

Fledermaus: But I am sick of caring how "elitist" these my opinions appear. I'm tired of trying to save people from the consequences of their own bad judgment and ignorance of the world.

Russell: …what I really want to say here is that I don't give good god damn what the folks who get bent out of shape by "elitism" think.


I don’t disagree that there is a contingent you’ll never reach. But I’m curious if you have any guesses on what kind of numbers we’re talking about. Personally I think that the religious right is the biggest problem on my side. You’re never going to talk them into gay marriage or supporting abortion or a bunch of other things. But even here there are people who are reachable. The “religious right” only makes up about 13% of the voting-age population. Within that group, 33% consider themselves to be moderate or even liberal. 12% of the religious right voted for Kerry in 04. And that’s the hard-core contingent… Now I think they have wielded power in disproportion to their numbers, but I also think their strength is waning. I think that this coming loss will help to slap them down for good.

So how many conservatives do you believe there are who somehow relish being uninformed or ignorant? Sure, we’ve seen some real yahoos turn up at rallies this week. But IMO, anyone who takes time away from work/family/whatever to go to one of these rallies is not representative. They’re way more into politics than a lot of the country. I follow politics closely, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to go to one of these events. (Maybe if it was Saturday afternoon and I was bored and it was right down the street – and they were serving free beer…) So how many conservatives really hold on to their ignorance? That seems like a rationalization to me: These people must be ignorant, or cling to being proudly uninformed - because otherwise they would plainly see how our policies are really best for them. Which leads right back into elitism...

Publius seemed to focus on the importance of education, or rather the importance of exposure to diversity that comes with a college education. The urban/rural divide has also come up. Over 24% of farmers have some college education. 20% have 4 year or graduate degrees. They’re all pretty much in flyover country by definition.


I think most will agree that Russel won the week.

I think russell has been on fire for the last month.


On behalf of the Empire State, can we come too?

The city sure. Upstate will all turn out to see you off. ;)

Carter appointing Volker does not make up for appointing Miller as both Chairman of the Fed and as Sec. of the Treasury.

Middle American spent decades cleaning up the disaster made by the left in the 1970's.

Tell it to the Marines, dude.

One of the reasons that Reagan was elected was not only Carter an idiot but that most of the Democratic leadership in th e1970's were also idiots

Another was that Reagan was great at making a bunch of frightened people feel happy and secure again. Kind of like a big fuzzy blanket. On policy, I make Reagan out to be kind of mediocre.

Russell, I have occasionally suggested (tongue only halfway in cheek) that New England ought to secede from the Union.

There are some cranky Vermonters who are a step ahead of you.

My personal view is that we were here first and we'll kick the red states out before we'll go anywhere.

It'll save us a lot of money, for one thing.

Thanks -

Over 30% of the school age children in Boston attend private schools. The public schools in DC are less than 4% white. If you live in Boston or DC and are white, your chidlren(sic) attend private school. The same can probably be said for NYC, Seattle, LA, SF.

The Seattle's public schools are 42% white.
So much for your ill-informed "probably". DC is a special case, as is Boston (where many white families have been sending their children to Catholic schools for generations).

Is that one of the things you taught at college- picking a single outlying data point and then generalizing across an entire data set, ignoring the remaining data points and the overall trend?

It is hard for liberals to claim that they are rational and fact based when they scream racism whenever anyone points out that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites.

Poor people commit crimes at higher rates than non-poor people. When someone misuses statistics to slander a race, it's pretty easy logical leap to the conclusion that they're racists. Naming you a racist is an *example* of our fact-based thinking.
Counterexample: if I pointed out that people from Red states are more likely to be felons or get divorced & wondered what it is about Red state beliefs or Southern genetic deficiencies that causes this, you would rightly think that that statement showed bias against Republicans/Southerners- because it ignores useful distinctions in the data in favor of those that present a ideologically pleasing slanted view of reality. (nb I dont really think those things, just another example of misusing statistics).

If you look at modern criminal jusitice(sic), liberal dogma is also not built upon evidence or facts but upon dogma. That is why the crime rate went so high in the 1970's

You say a lot of generally meaningless things such as this ("liberal dogma is built upon dogma"? wtf does that even mean?). There is no link, no statement of what 'dogmas' are being discussed or how many of the monolithic left actually hold those dogmas. No evidence of causal relationship between the unnamed dogmas and crime rates. etc.
Weirdly, it just sounds like a lot of fact-free dogma.

Thanks for the example of who the left supports free speech for itself but censorship for everyone else.

This is a private space. Why do trolls have such a hard time understanding that they've got no right to speak in someone else's living room?

"But, is it okay to call superdestroyer a racist troll according to the posting rules in this situation?"

No.

On behalf of the Empire State, can we come too?

The city sure. Upstate will all turn out to see you off. ;)

Now see, I didn't want to go there. I didn't want to do the whole liberal coastal elitist looking haughtily down on Upstate. Besides which, the Catskills and the Hudson Valley are lovely and we need places we can repair to on the weekends so we can write our anti-capitalist tracts in peace. But if Upstate doesn't need us, well fine, the feeling is mutual, hmph. The Berkshires are lovely too.

And we don't need to be our own state. They can just stretch that weird little southwestern appendage of Connecticut a little ways further so that it encompasses NYC, and bob's yer uncle. And as of today, we'll get same-sex marriage that way too...which sure as hell beats waiting for Albany to get around to it.

I don’t disagree that there is a contingent you’ll never reach

What I'm trying to say, OC, is that I'm kind of tired of trying to reach them.

As far as I'm concerned, it's time for them to come and try to reach me.

I've given up enough. How long of a list would you like? Start with torture and habeas and work back from there. You'd probably have to go back to pre-Reagan before we'd start finding a basis for common ground again.

Your guys can come my way for a change. Otherwise no deal. I'll see them in hell on election day, and may the better side win.

Thanks -

lso, I have also found it humorous that everyone hear really believes that everyone in the U.S. can be taught quantum mechanics when most of them avoided the hard math and science classes in High School and College.

Wow, SD, projection much. I have been vacillating on whether it was worth responding to your drivel or whether it was better just to not feed the troll. Ultimately, I figured it was worth stepping in for the teachers.

We really do believe that everyone (short of a significant cognitive handicap) can learn Algebra. In fact, in some states (like crazily liberal Oklahoma, where I used to teach) they even believe everyone can learn up through Algebra II. I have never, not once, heard the fact that many people fail at this task be attributed by educators to race. In fact, short of reading you here, I hadn't really heard that before at all.

Like many teachers, I cannot help but notice that students in many minorities do struggle with math. Like most educators, I attribute it to social factors. I also note that many of those social factors are clearly caused by persistent generational poverty and single family households. In fact, as a rule, socioeconomic factors are a much much better indicator of academic success (especially in mathematics) than race. Amazingly enough, it does happen that there is often sinificant overlap between race and SE status, which often leads those with racist inclinations to blame everything on the former and completely overlook the latter. Sometimes, we try to point out the inherent bias that is revealing itself through racist explanations. I am sorry if that offends you.

And for what it is worth, the first person I ever saw who argued that everyone should be able to do math actually argued that everyone who couldn't do math up through calculus was an imbecilic subhuman who could barely tie his (or her, though he wouldn't have added it) shoes. Any guesses as to who the crazy author was???

Robert Heinlein.

Please, SD, explain to me how Heinlein is a stupid liberal with no mathematics education. Inquiring minds want to know...

Carleton Wu

from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/parentsguideschools/2002435219_webskulprivate.html

"In part, this is because private education is popular in the Puget Sound area — and especially in Seattle, where a U.S. Census survey reports nearly a third of first- through 12th-graders attend private schools."

Any place where the public schools are less than 50% white is probably a deep blue city or county.

Also, Red States have higher divorce rates because they have higher marriage rates. Connecnicut has one of the lowest marriages rates in the U.S., so it makes sense to have a low divorce rate. Washington, DC has one of the highest crimes rates in the U.S. ans is deeply blue. Even in blue states like Maryland, the most Democratic counties have the highest crime rates. However, if you look at Vermont, it has the lowest crime rate in the U.S. probably because it is the whitest state in the U.S.

hilzoy,

As a point of clarification, is it calling him racist, calling him a troll or calling him both in conjunction that isn't okay?

I think I skirted the racist issue because I don't like mind reading for people. Though as you can see, I am willing to note arguments that clearly have racist overtones.

I did call SD a troll, though. I know that is pushing respectability, but didn'tthink it was a violation. If so, I apologize and retract.

Along comes SD and proves my point.

However, if you look at Vermont, it has the lowest crime rate in the U.S. probably because it is the whitest state in the U.S.

See, hilzoy (and other overlords), I really don't get how one is supposed to not point out that this is clearly a racist argument. I mean, how much clearer can SD be?

Ludwig Plutonium! Damn, those were the days...

UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED

Regardless of the monetary errors of Burns and Miller in attempting to fight the energy-driven imbalances, Carter seems to have done pretty well economically compared to his peers:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/07/partisan-econom.html

An above-average record, especially considering the energy shocks.

Uncle: Kidding! I’d miss Broadway and the restaurants.


Russell: What I'm trying to say, OC, is that I'm kind of tired of trying to reach them. As far as I'm concerned, it's time for them to come and try to reach me.

Well I certainly understand that. I’ve mostly given up trying to reach that contingent as well, some of whom are in my own family. ;(

More generally, I’m concerned about what happens next. I think it’s pretty clear that Obama is going to sail to a win at this point. Given the markets, it seems likely we’ll be in a (potentially) severe recession for his entire first term. Folks won’t remember the details of how we got into it – all they’ll know is that Obama didn’t get us out of it a month after he took office. That would seem to set the stage for a resurgent GOP (without the party learning a damned thing from this loss).

So any bridges that can be built in the next four years would seem to be worth the effort.

@socratic_me: There is a difference, however subtle, between noting that someone is making racist assertions and arguments, and calling them a racist.

Now, clearly, someone whose comments consist almost entirely of racist assertions and arguments, probably is a racist -- but the prohibition on name-calling is a valuable enough civility rule that it's worth enforcing even in this case.

SD's posts are classically trollish, and they use racist assertions to provoke response.

Uncle: Kidding! I’d miss Broadway and the restaurants.

As Frank Burns used to say, tough toenails. A deal's a deal. But you'll do fine. I had a really good slice of pizza in Binghamton once, and I understand Schenectady is a veritable hotbed of cutting-edge community theatre. Enjoy!

Sure, we’ve seen some real yahoos turn up at rallies this week. But IMO, anyone who takes time away from work/family/whatever to go to one of these rallies is not representative. They’re way more into politics than a lot of the country.

I do agree with you there. There are millions of citizens in this country and I'm unlikely to meet most of them. I can't explain why half of them voted for Bush in 2004, but I'm sure most of them were just trying to make the best decision rather than vote their resentments. But for the last 2 decades there has been a cottage industry telling them that Dems and their supporters (as well as the ever-elusive 'Left') who dispise them so they just shouldn't listen to their ideas or even consider voting dem. How much influence that has on their votes I can only guess.

And four years later that same cottage industry is ramping up the machine again. Given how poorly the country has been run under almost complete GOP control for the last 8 years, if they still fall for the same game, yet again, I can only throw my hands in the air and write everything off and focus on me, my friends and improving the small urban elitist corner of the world in which I live.

But one thing I don't want to from these people is how I, and The Left!, now have to solve all these problems which I had nothing to do with. If they didn't want to listen then, I am not going to bother repeating myself. If they want a politician who will just to pat them on the head and tell them what good americans they are and how swell everything is going there will always be someone like that on the ticket. If they want to have a serious discussion of the problems facing the country well there is someone like that on the ticket too this time.

Neil,

I agree about the fine distinction, which is why I made it in my own response to him. I just wanted to make sure that distinction was where the line was drawn.

Is there/ should there be a similar distinction for caling someone a troll? I assume the answer is yes, and thus we should be commenting on how SD's comments are trollish, troll-like or troll-onic while refraining from calling him/her/it a troll. I am just asking for clarification.

That seems like a rationalization to me: These people must be ignorant, or cling to being proudly uninformed - because otherwise they would plainly see how our policies are really best for them. Which leads right back into elitism...

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, there are two separate debates going on: (1) what policies we should enact and (2) by what mechanism should we decide what policies we should enact.

There are lots of conservatives who disagree with me on various issues in debate (1). Some of them agree with me on (2) and some don't. For those that do, I've got no problems whatsoever. I don't think they suffer from anti-intellectualism. We disagree about stuff, but we can probably have a good interesting discussion and I can imagine my mind getting changed if they mount a persuasive enough case. That has happened with some issues. But that only works because we agree on (2).

For those conservatives who disagree with me on (2), well, they're likely to disagree with me on (1), but I can't really discuss usefully with them because they don't accept my whole method for determining policy. If I talk about feedback loops and probabilities and climate models, they come back and say that there can be no global warming because scientists are in hock to a radical environmental movement that wants to kill everyone. Or maybe they say that there can be no global warming because God gave us dominion over the earth and therefore it is impossible for us to break the planet that way. If I talk about counterterrorism policy in terms of cost-benefit analysis, we get nowhere because they don't accept CB analysis in that regard: for them, losing a single person to terrorism is unacceptable and must be avoided at all costs. If I try to talk about foreign policy towards Iran, we get nowhere because these people know that all Iranians are implacably obsessed with destroying the US and Israel and will stop at nothing, including their own destruction, to achieve those goals.

Now obviously, what I've described is a caricature and real people are never 100% in any one category, but I think it gives you a hint of where I'm coming from. I suspect that most people posting here are coming from the same place in that regard.

That seems like a rationalization to me: These people must be ignorant, or cling to being proudly uninformed - because otherwise they would plainly see how our policies are really best for them. Which leads right back into elitism...

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, there are two separate debates going on: (1) what policies we should enact and (2) by what mechanism should we decide what policies we should enact.

There are lots of conservatives who disagree with me on various issues in debate (1). Some of them agree with me on (2) and some don't. For those that do, I've got no problems whatsoever. I don't think they suffer from anti-intellectualism. We disagree about stuff, but we can probably have a good interesting discussion and I can imagine my mind getting changed if they mount a persuasive enough case. That has happened with some issues. But that only works because we agree on (2).

For those conservatives who disagree with me on (2), well, they're likely to disagree with me on (1), but I can't really discuss usefully with them because they don't accept my whole method for determining policy. If I talk about feedback loops and probabilities and climate models, they come back and say that there can be no global warming because scientists are in hock to a radical environmental movement that wants to kill everyone. Or maybe they say that there can be no global warming because God gave us dominion over the earth and therefore it is impossible for us to break the planet that way. If I talk about counterterrorism policy in terms of cost-benefit analysis, we get nowhere because they don't accept CB analysis in that regard: for them, losing a single person to terrorism is unacceptable and must be avoided at all costs. If I try to talk about foreign policy towards Iran, we get nowhere because these people know that all Iranians are implacably obsessed with destroying the US and Israel and will stop at nothing, including their own destruction, to achieve those goals.

Now obviously, what I've described is a caricature and real people are never 100% in any one category, but I think it gives you a hint of where I'm coming from. I suspect that most people posting here are coming from the same place in that regard.

Grr...sorry for the double post. It didn't show up on refresh for a few minutes so I foolishly posted again.

Uncle: Kidding! I’d miss Broadway and the restaurants.

You can always make trips abroad to get pizza. It'll be just like Europe!

Who is this "Bellesisles" guy you're talking about? The closest wiki could come was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francois_Simars_de_Bellisle>Francois Simars de Bellisle, and it doesn't mention any theories.

Found him! It's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles>Bellesiles! Geez!

=================

Can we get back to discussing the anti-intellectualism in the Republican Party? In particular, does anyone have any suggestions as to how to go about stopping this?

Force them to look into the lamp of the "overhead projector" at the local planetarium? Just for one instance, so they can see how dumb McCain was being about complaining about this "earmark".

and thus we should be commenting on how SD's comments are trollish

i posted a link to a google search, way up above, that shows SD's MO: assert that the US is going to become a one-party state because all the minorities are going to vote Dem, forever, while out-breeding all the whites who vote Republican. over and over and over, all over the place. it's the same argument, every time he shows up. and every time, people knock down that argument. and then he comes back with it again.

that meets my definition.

@socratic_me:

Glad the distinction's understood. Your question about the posting rules wrt calling a troll a troll is a good one, and I'll leave it to hilzoy, publius, Eric, Sebastian, and/or von to issue the clarification you seek.

P.S. It's 'Nell' not 'Neil', but no big thing, it happens often, especially with sans-serif typefaces.

cleek,

Actually no one ever knocks them down and people keep writing posting as if the current divide between Repulbicans and Democrats is what will continue even though the underlying demographic situaiton is changing.

Look in 2008 how the Republicans have utterly failed to appeal to Hispanics even though McCain has spent his entire career pandering to Hispanics.

Progressives keep talking about general election of the President or redistricting to beat the Repubicans when what they fail to realize is that the Republicans are already beaten. The Democrats seem to be stuck fightin old political battles instead of moving ahead but like the Republican activist were stilling fighting the anit-clinton fight in 2001 when they should have moved on.

Turb: That’s reasonable. OTOH, I think you have a remarkable ability to remain very detached when discussing policy. I rarely get the impression that emotion is driving your arguments in any way. (That’s a compliment – I wish I could manage that.) But I think many of us on both sides let emotion drive us to the point of blurring the lines you’ve drawn there.

And for what it is worth, the first person I ever saw who argued that everyone should be able to do math actually argued that everyone who couldn't do math up through calculus was an imbecilic subhuman who could barely tie his (or her, though he wouldn't have added it) shoes.

Funny thing about that- Heinlein went through the entire book "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" with a complete failure to understand basic probability. Everyone makes mistakes, but few people make mistakes that they themselves felt put them in the "subhuman" category...

Is there/ should there be a similar distinction for caling someone a troll? I assume the answer is yes, and thus we should be commenting on how SD's comments are trollish, troll-like or troll-onic while refraining from calling him/her/it a troll. I am just asking for clarification.

I've never liked that- I was once here told that my post was 'idiotic' & then told that this wasn't a violation because it wasn't about me. Like saying "you are the son of a motherf*cker" is acceptable, bc it's not directly about them. Or "this post could only have been written by an idiot" or something.
Id rather avoid circumlocutions; everyone says insensitive things sometimes. Someone who does it consistently is an insensitive person, and I dont see the threat in saying so.

You can always make trips abroad to get pizza. It'll be just like Europe!

Ok! Ok! I retract and apologize.

Sorry Nell! I realized it after I posted. What is sad is that I have been writing here long enough to recognize the name "Nell" and had actually been wondering who this new "Neil" person was. Stupid sans serif.

CW,
For what it is worth, I find that it is much easier to have a basic understanding og calculus and its uses than statistics, so maybe he isn't totally contradictory ;-}

That said, what is his horrible abuse of statistics in Moon? It has been a while since I read it, so I am a little fuzzy on the details. That said, I don't recall anything really glaring the last time I read it.

Carleton Wu

from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/parentsguideschools/2002435219_webskulprivate.html

You claimed 4%, or something like that. Turned out to be something like 10 times that much. So your theory, that white people in blue states send almost all of their kids to private schools, was completely, utterly, totally wrong.
Pointing out that white kids are over-represented in private schools in the Seattle area isn't what you said. To belabor the point, you were absurdly wrong & are an object of ridicule.

Any place where the public schools are less than 50% white is probably a deep blue city or county.

Or someplace with not that many white people. But yes, places with few white people tend to be very blue. Also, urban places tend to be very blue.
Did you not understand the bit about false statistical correlations, and how chasing them rather than looking at all of the facts is a good example of how racists misuse statistics?
If so, I will explain again with a different example of bad reasoning: the places where the economy lives (ie cities) are also mostly blue. What is it about the Republican ideology that produces these unproductive (rural) areas? Or is it that unproductive people are attracted to the Republican party? (nb again, this is not my actual thinking)

Also, Red States have higher divorce rates because they have higher marriage rates.

Wrong-o; they lead in divorce-per-marriage, not divorce-per-capita. Love watching you rationalize on the fly though.

Washington, DC has one of the highest crimes rates in the U.S. ans is deeply blue. Even in blue states like Maryland, the most Democratic counties have the highest crime rates. However, if you look at Vermont, it has the lowest crime rate in the U.S. probably because it is the whitest state in the U.S.

Does the fact that you had to switch up your methodology mid-paragraph clue you in that your thinking process is completely broken?
Urban centers are almost always Democratic strongholds, even in the South. They also 1)have high crime rates, 2)are the centers of the economy, 3)tend to have larger minority populations, 4)have all of the major universities, etc. Cities are different than rural areas; if you'd like to blame the negative differences on Democratic ideas, you'll need to credit the Dems with creating the economy as well.
I would argue that it doesn't make sense to attribute *any* of the effects that can be explained by urban-rural divides by using race or political ideology. Likewise economic status is much more useful than race or ideology. But again, if you're going to attribute the negative set of characteristics, you'll need to attribute the positives as well.

Like saying "you are the son of a motherf*cker" is acceptable, bc it's not directly about them.

Not to be pedantic, but, taken literally, isn't this true of everyone?

Turb: That’s reasonable. OTOH, I think you have a remarkable ability to remain very detached when discussing policy.

That's very kind of you to say, but I can guarantee that most people who discuss politics with me in real life wouldn't, um, agree with you there. To put it another way, my wife still hasn't finished laughing since I read her your comment.

But I think many of us on both sides let emotion drive us to the point of blurring the lines you’ve drawn there.

I agree that many people, self included, let emotion drive them down all kinds of bad roads once they start talking politics. But so what? At the end of the day, no matter how emotionally invested he is, someone like publius can have very fruitful discussions with conservatives he disagrees with (provided they agree on (2)) while being totally unable to productively discuss issues with conservatives with whom he disagrees on (2). In other words, the presence of the dividing line doesn't depend on people knowing that it exists.

That said, what is his horrible abuse of statistics in Moon?

It's been a while for me too, but I recall this: the big computer tells the main character that they have a 1-in-10 chance of success at rebellion. After they do some stuff and it works spectacularly, the computer tells him the odds are much worse (like 1-in-100), not because anything had gone wrong but because there was inevitably (foreseeably) going to be a bad time in the middle of the process.
Of course, if the probability of event Z depends on both events X and Y, the probability of Z cannot be larger than either X or Y.

So not stats, but the grasp of probability was pretty weak- I think even people who don't care about math could spot the error there. No sports team has a higher chance of winning the championship than they do of getting to the championship game...

Not to be pedantic, but, taken literally, isn't this true of everyone?

It's my stab at the eccentric use of song lyrics. Im not sure if it is- depends on whose mother is being referenced. In the song, the next line is "you are the son of an incestuous union", so not what the writer was thinking.
But I like it.

Also, Red States have higher divorce rates because they have higher marriage rates.

Isn't this a remarkably STUPID statement?

Marriage is, indeed, a necessary condition for divorce. It is not, however, a sufficient condition.

More generally, I’m concerned about what happens next.

You and me both.

Folks won’t remember the details of how we got into it – all they’ll know is that Obama didn’t get us out of it a month after he took office.

At this point, that will more or less be a baked-in occupational hazard for any Democrat in the executive. Or maybe anyone in the executive as of January 2009, period.

So any bridges that can be built in the next four years would seem to be worth the effort.

I hear that.

To be honest, I've put in my bridge-building time, and I don't see that it's made a whole lot of difference. The point of view I've come to is that my energy, at this point, will be better spent defending the things that are important to me, as opposed to trying to meet other folks halfway.

I really, really don't have a problem at a personal level with folks from cultural backgrounds different than my own. I just do not.

Unfortunately, I also don't think there's much ground left to give if this country isn't going to end up in the dumper.

So I more or less refuse to lose any sleep worrying about whether I'm offending people who are inclined to feel slighted by, frex, what kind of salad greens other folks eat.

I mean, seriously -- the banking system is going belly up, and we need to talk about arugula? Guys are putting in their 4th or 5th tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no realistic endgame in sight, and the most important thing is whether Sarah Palin's Newsweek picture was retouched or not?

These people are children. I'm sorry, but they are.

I just do not have the time or energy. It's a bottomless well of self-pity, and there is no upside from my point of view.

superdestroyer, I'd say that there are many, many reasons that Vermont has a low crime rate. There just aren't a lot of people there, there isn't that much difference between rich and poor folks there, and the state has a very, very long and proud history of egalitarianism and general mutual respect. I'd start there, rather than with the color of folks' skins.

Beyond that, I reckon you to be among the folks who are unlikely to be all that interested in, let alone persuaded by, anything I have to say, so I'll leave it there.

Thanks -

Actually no one ever knocks them down

actually, they do. and i'm going to do it again, for the record.

and people keep writing posting as if the current divide between Repulbicans and Democrats is what will continue even though the underlying demographic situaiton is changing.

for some reason, you seem to think:

a) parties never change platforms in ways which alienate current members or attract new ones
b) party ID is determined by ethnicity and race

those are both false, and this has been pointed out to you countless times.

all the redistricting in the world isn't going to change the fact that parties can lose voters as easily as they can attract new ones.

Not to be pedantic, but, taken literally, isn't this true of everyone?

Yes, but only ex post facto.

Thanks -

A number of folks have for some mysterious reason agreed that "everyone" is a "son of a motherf*cker" (if "only ex post facto").

Last time I checked I counted as part of "everyone," but I'm certainly not the "son of a motherf*cker," since I'm not the son of anyone. ;|

but I'm certainly not the "son of a motherf*cker," since I'm not the son of anyone.

zing.

the joke has come upon them.

Russell: We’re cool. I’d give you the terrorist knuckle bump if I could.

Instead, I’m going to the open thread that seems to involve drinking…

I'd always thought the term "m*therf*cker" was meant to be taken more, er Oedipal-y (meaning that it would be likely for a huge majority of people to NOT be sons or daughters of mofos).

(I'm sorry! I'm sorry! But that was fun...)

Cleek,

You have to admit that for non-whites ethnicity predicts party affiliation more than any other factor and it has been that way for decades. It is to the point that most blacks have probably never voted for a Republican.

You also have to admit that the blacks and Hispanic populations are growing much faster than the white population.

You also have to admit that the Voting Rights Act and current federally mandated majority/minority districting regulations will keep most blacks and Hispanics in heavily Democratic districts.

Now the question is can the Republicans find away to appeal to blacks and Hispanics (or even white collar whites on both coasts) without losing their current support. I believe the answer is no. Everyone here is arguing the answer is no without carrying the result of their thesis forward.

Carleton Wu

I stated before that about 1/3 of the students in Boston attend private school and gave a reference, I stated that the DC public schools are 4% white and gave a reference and stated that in Seattle about 1/3 of the students attend private schools.

Any town where the rich attend private schools and the poor attend lousy public schools is most certainly a deep blue city. It also one of the reasons that upper middle class knowledge workers are now heavily Democratic voters.

Urban centers are not the economic engines. The U.S. economy comes the suburbs these days. More people live and work in the suburbs than in urban areas. Most new businesses open in the suburbs and not in urban cores.

Russell,

Maybe Vermont has maintain a culture of egalitarianism and general mutual respect because it is overwhelmingly White. Putman at Harvard as argued as much before. Remember, the more diverse the area, the less trust develops. If you want a country based upon egalitarianism and general mutual respect you would stop immigration today.

It is to the point that most blacks have probably never voted for a Republican.

but 40 years ago that wasn't the case. and since you can't predict the future, you have absolutely no basis for thinking things will remain the way they are today.

cleerk

Blacks are been voting for DEmocrats since the 1930's for the few that could manage to vote. By 1968, the black vote was solidly Democratic. Considering a 21 y/o vote in 1968 would be 61 years old, there are very few blacks who have ever voted for a Republicans even at the state or local level. Remember, one of the reason black turnout is so poor is that many blacks live in majority black district where there are no competative elections at the local leve.

Historical examples to no apply because in the past, the Democrats and Republicans were fighting over the white vote even when the Depression era Democrats were dominating. The Voting Rights Act will ensure the continuation of majority/minority districts that will be overwhelmingly Democratic. Any black who wants a career in politics has to be Democrat. The same also applies to Hispanics.

Out of the entire Repubican House delegation only three Reps (all cubans) represent districts that are majority/minority.

I stated before that about 1/3 of the students in Boston attend private school and gave a reference, I stated that the DC public schools are 4% white and gave a reference and stated that in Seattle about 1/3 of the students attend private schools.

Actually, what you said was
Over 30% of the school age children in Boston attend private schools. The public schools in DC are less than 4% white. If you live in Boston or DC and are white, your chidlren attend private school. The same can probably be said for NYC, Seattle, LA, SF.

That is, you were completely wrong, unless over 40% is "probably like" 4%. Your thesis that the vast majority of whites in blue cities were sending their kids to private school is *destroyed* by the Seattle case. 1/3 is not a vast majority.

Urban centers are not the economic engines. The U.S. economy comes the suburbs these days.

Many jobs exist in the suburbs, but lots of those jobs are at big-box stores etc. Many of the good jobs, the high-income wealth-producing jobs exist in the urban centers. Big law firms, financial firms, heavy manufacturing, medical centers, corporate HQs, etc are usually in cities. Now, those high-earners like to have grocery stores and jewelry stores etc near their suburban homes, so there are plenty of jobs in the suburbs.
But the cities are the engines of the economy- remove the suburbs, and NYC has a housing crisis. Remove the city, and the suburbs have an economic crisis (as would the US as a whole, to some extent).

Any black who wants a career in politics has to be Democrat. The same also applies to Hispanics.
Out of the entire Repubican House delegation only three Reps (all cubans) represent districts that are majority/minority.

I have no idea what your thought(?) process is- are you saying that only majority-minority districts elect minority candidates? That only minorities vote for minorities? Heard of this Obama guy yet? He seems to be getting some white folks to vote for him.
Saying that the GOP is doomed by demographics is one thing, but that shouldn't have anything to do with the race of the candidates themselves afaict.

Historical examples to no apply

Whatever that means.
History tells us this- there will always be two major parties in the US. If one falls into decline, another will take its place. Much more often, what happens is that the declining party goes through a period in the desert, reformulates itself, and comes back strong. If the current GOP is doomed to failure because it's caught between race-baiting whites and a growing minority population, we'll see a minority-friendly GOP in a decade or two or another party devoted to much of their base.

I've been thinking about Brooks' comments and about the Republican anti-science, anti-intellectual trend in general. What strikes me is that if you look at historical totalitarian movements (think Nazis and Soviet Communists), they always had as part of their worldview (at least the public face of their worldview) a disdain for intellectuals - a disdain that eventually spills over into control, imprisonment, etc so as to muzzle those who actually can see what's going on. This is what I find so dangerous about the modern Republican Party. It's playing with fire by entering these waters.

Wow. Sure a lot pointless statistics & unsupported opinion in this followup from people defending conservative hate and ignorance.

intellectualism demands rigorous honesty, independent research and a dispassionate, disinterested collection and interpretation of information and data. 40 years of critical thinking has led me to the conclusion that there is no intellectualism on the right, merely craven mental gymnastics with a primary focus toward justifying the hateful, mean-spirited selfishness practiced by fearful conservatives bent upon preserving a White elite at the expense of everyone else.

Say what you'd like about Repugniscum making cities safe, low crime rates have a direct correlation to economic conditions, so good times, low crime rates, bad times, high crime rates. The economy historically does better under Democratic administrations, so you're wrong there as well.

As for the assertion that blacks & hispanics commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, look to the poverty line and minority populations for the explanation. Whites in corresponding economic strata are just as criminal, arrest records show. If you're afraid of being a victim, you have far more to fear from whites, since they are the overwhelming bulk of the population and own more guns per capita. You do the math.
Furthermore blacks and hispanics are convicted of crimes at a much much higher rate than whites, receive harsher sentencing and are refused parole at a much higher rate. Many laws are specifically written in order to be arbitrarily enforced, so things like driving while black or brown means something entirely different than driving while white. That's tyranny in my book.

The recent poll finding that employers would rather hire a white man with a prison record over a qualified black candidate shows that Jim Crow is alive and well in the private sector. America is a racist nation, period.

That America, in the 21st Century, with all the lessons of slavery and racism behind us, you'd think that electing an intelligent Constitutional scholar to the highest office in the land would be a no-brainer esp. in light of the recent assault on Liberty by the current Repugniscum administration (domestic spying, the Patriot Act, suspension of Habeas Corpus, GITMO, extraordinary rendition, TORTURE.) The fact that a person's skin color or religious beliefs could stand in his way (any more than gender or gender preference) in what is touted to be a FREE COUNTY is immanently risible. That these impediments are staunchly defended by citizens who assert that they believe in Liberty is the height of hypocrisy.

The very reasons which Repugniscum cite for voting against Obama show their true selves. Why couldn't we have a black or mixed-race person in the White House? Or a gay President? Or a Muslim? Why are they so willing to give a white woman a pass on experience but not a black candidate? Every and any reason they state only reflects what hateful cowards they are.

Let's call a spade a spade: John McCain is little more than a scion of privilege and a poster-boy for assisted living, just like Bush, and has shown himself to be a rank opportunist of the first water, and I will gladly bid the last of his ilk goodbye. Sarah Palin is part and parcel of the religiously intolerant racist contingent of the sexist, anti-intellectual Republican party. That some would like to see her at the top of the ticket in 2012 shows them to be cut from the same cloth.

My two bits:

A lot of the "anti-intellectualism" arises at this point in the election as the dem candidate moves to the middle (as Obama has here). The rhetoric always seems to get ramped up and more "basic" around this time which is why I tend to tune it out from both sides from here on out except for pure entertainment value. While this discussion goes much deeper than that and goes back further historically, it seems prompted from recent reactions of nutcases at republican rallies. Not an objective or representative starting point, IMHO.

By contrast, I hate Sarah Palin — despise her.

Young, white women too, who will probably be assigned the job of removing fillings from the mouths of Jews when the time comes.

These "chicken farmers" will someday make the trains run on time and probably develop new furnace technology.

They are the terrorists. Nip it in the bud.

A lot of young punks, who should have been suckerpunched and kicked in the nuts on the spot,

If they're very, very lucky, I will not kick them in the nuts if I should ever meet them. IMVHO, they have it coming

And the republicans are the only ones stoking hate . . .

Looks like I'm going to start wearing my sparring cup until the elections over.

@Anarch: the finnish system appearantly does not stream before 15 but their average math performance is good.

According to this article the US looses a lot of math talent in the non-immigrants.

Carleton Wu,

Please provide your reference that the public schools in Washington, DC are 40% white. I have already provide a reference that the pubilc schools in DC are less than 5% white. If you cannot provide a reference, then please provide a reference that I am wrong. I doubt that you will do it. Anyone who thninks that the public schools in DC are 40% white has no idea what they are talking about.


Motorod,

Please provide a reference that whites are arrested at the same per capita rate was whites. I could not find it on the Department of Justice Site. Considering that blacks are six times more likely to be the victims of crime than whites, I doubt that you are correct.

Crime is more correlate with race tha wealth. Poor whites in Utah do not commit crimes at the same rate as poor blacks anywhere in the U.S. the refusal to face the facts on crime must the liberals really are not as dispassionate as they claim.

Please provide your reference that the public schools in Washington, DC are 40% white...I doubt that you will do it. Anyone who thninks that the public schools in DC are 40% white has no idea what they are talking about.

Now Im not sure if you're genuinely stupid or if you're hiding behind faked incomprehension.
You claimed that If you live in Boston or DC and are white, your chidlren attend private school. The same can probably be said for NYC, Seattle, LA, SF.
I provided info that Seattle's school system is over 40% white. That you were wrong about white people in blue cities not sending their kids to public schools to mingle with minorities.
I never said anything about DC (other than pointing out that DC is an unusual case & that your extrapolation from it to all other blue cities is ludicrous).

Try to follow the argument in all its simplicity: you said that DC is representative of other blue cities in having very low white participation rates in public schools. It is not. You are wrong. End of story.

Why does anyone even respond to SD? It gives him a legitimacy that he, IMHO, does not deserve.

Poor whites in Utah do not commit crimes at the same rate as poor blacks anywhere in the U.S.

Do you ever cite anything? IANYSE, I've already debunked one of your 'probably's today, so Ill just assume that you're wrong on this point for the moment.

Why does anyone even respond to SD? It gives him a legitimacy that he, IMHO, does not deserve.

It's not like he can put it on his resume; he'll get bored pretty quickly and go crap on other people's carpets soon. Meanwhile, it's something to do with a thread that's already been crapped on. And he's pretty funny, in a why-are-you-liberals-always-relying-on-dogma kind of way. Im still chuckling over the "liberal dogma is built upon dogma" line- this guy may not know much, but he sure hates him some dogma.

Folks won’t remember the details of how we got into it – all they’ll know is that Obama didn’t get us out of it a month after he took office.

I don't want to say that's impossible, but I do think it's very unlikely. People have seen the government try one thing after another - megaloans, the bailout, direct cash infusion - and they see it not working. This weekend the G-7 will meet, and the public will be watching that pretty keenly, too. All but Compleat Idiots realize the problem is deep, intractable and not susceptible to quick fixes- and the Compleat Idiots are already lost, anyway.

I had a nice tin-foil thought today, though: Remember when the Bushies were so eager to privatize Social Security? If they had succeeded, that would have been about another trillion dollars flowing through the investment banks and brokerages - more assets to be bundled into packets, more packets to be leveraged against, more assets inflated beyond any sustainable, realistic value. The bubble would have been even bigger, and the final bang would have taken all the funds that were once the SocSec Trust Fund.

But the infusion of the SocSec Trust Fund would also have delayed the final explosion - possibly long enough for the Bushies to flee town and the next President installed. Then it really would have been a mighty Big Bang on Someone Else's Watch.

Like I said, a tin-foil thought. But Lordy Lordy, are we lucky that scheme to loot SocSec didn't succeed, or what?

That’s why I hope everyone stops making fun of her — I want her to remain credible in a future GOP primary because there’s no longer any way on Earth she could win a general election.


Pardon, but I think you are DEAD WRONG about this. I think she has the opportunity, if she chooses to use it, to pull a Tom Hanks and re-invent herself as a serious politician.

While Palin is widely seen as "unqualified" to be President, I don't think that most people think she is inherently so or incapable of becoming qualified. I think that most people understand that she never really thought much about some of these issues and would be open to supporting her later if it looks like she has put in a serious effort to educate herself over the intervening 4 years.

I'm not saying she will get "educated" from a progressive point of view. I'm saying she will learn enough, from a rightwing perspective, to be able to at least advance the rightwing point of view in a coherent and articulate fashion.


I'm also not saying that she will do this - only that I think she has the ability, drive, and ambition, to do it if she chooses.


bc:

If we don't want restrictions on hate speech, then the only way to counter hate speech is with more hate speech.

You are, of course, correct and a good person to boot.

But the rhetoric since 1980 has been ramped up more notches every election cycle since.

Deliberately.

John McCain and Sarah Palin can call this shit off any time. They can end a speech midway when this stuff occurs and clear the hall.

They don't.

Fuck em. They are haters.

I hate back.

"I hate back."

I understand the feeling, but I'm really not clear how this is a path to helping in any way.

See also "abysses, looking into."

Well, Frodo, sometimes the Balrog takes you into the abyss with him.

You continue on with the Ring. Go. Now!

I'll join you later.

But the Balrog needs a good ass-kicking right now.

i'm educated, but by no means 'elite.' however, i agree with all your points about why so many of us could never vote republican, and would toss in one more, a very important one to many of us.

i love this country, not just the political institutions, but the marvelous country God gave us. i confess that i try to qualify as a serious environmentalist. one of the more distressing developments over the years started with the gipper and his secretary of the interior, james watt. watt made it republican orthodoxy that people who felt as i do are not real americans, much less real republicans. he equated members of the audubon society and the national wildlife federation with the weathermen. it all started with reagan, watts, and gorsuch. before that, concern for the environment was considered the mark of a responsible citizen, regardless of party.

so be it. i welcome their enmity and promise to return as good as i get.

Mr. Brooks is so intellectual that he can change history? Gerald Ford was elected president in 1976?

You are, of course, correct and a good person to boot.

Dang. Shows me your just hating the hate. Nice try trying to really hate. You can't do it, you goody two shoes. And here I thought you might have gone over to the dark side, and I was SO interested in how it would affect your art . . .;)


"Repugniscum"

Please do not use this term here. It is uncivil.

Well this is some thread.

HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.

I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream, Harlan Ellison

Let's not go there.

Maybe Vermont has maintain a culture of egalitarianism and general mutual respect because it is overwhelmingly White. Putman at Harvard as argued as much before.

Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

And, without even knowing anything further about "Putman at Harvard" than what you've mentioned here, I feel comfortable saying that it's highly likely that he is an ass.

If they're very, very lucky, I will not kick them in the nuts if I should ever meet them. IMVHO, they have it coming

If I may, I'd like to retract my statement about kicking anyone in the nuts. Bad form on my part, my apologies.

I haven't kicked anyone in the nuts since I was seven years old.

It is, however, still my goal to crush them utterly at the ballot. Not because I think they are bad people, but because I think they vote for people who insist on driving the country over a cliff.

I want it to be very, very clear to folks who vote for guys like George Bush because he reminds them of their drinking buddies that that just isn't going to fly anymore.

Seriously bc, I don't think you have any idea how angry and fed up I, and people like me, are with what has happened in this country in the last eight years.

Habeas.
Torture. Torture, for Christ's sake.
Rescinding international treaties on weapons proliferation.
Refusal to participate in efforts to reduce land mines.
Refusal to participate constructively in efforts to curb carbon emissions.
A foreign policy that purposefully alienates our friends and needlessly provokes our enemies.
Wars started for fraudulent reasons.
Widespread corruption, at a level that makes the bad behavior that prompted the "Contract with America" seem like a game of marbles.
Politicization and general undermining and corruption of the agencies of government.
An utter -- utter -- lack of respect for the Constitution, and for the proper restraints and conditions it places on the exercise of power.

The pissing away of a national credibility, moral authority, goodwill, and respect that took generations, and untold sacrifice of treasure and blood, to build.

Do you have any idea how precious, not just to us, but to the world as a whole, that legacy was, and how thoroughly it's been eroded?

Angry? My friend, you have no, absolutely no, idea.

I would really appreciate it if the folks who plan to vote based on who they'd like to go fishing with, or who reminds them of their hockey league car pool buddy, would stay the hell home and let the adults get on with it.

Just stay the f*%k home. Please. Really, I'll buy you lunch if you'll just stay the f*%k home on election day.

Seriously, does that seem overly harsh to you? I sure as hell hope not.

George W Bush is the worst, absolutely the worst, president of my lifetime. He's probably in the top three worst presidents ever to hold that office. The man is a walking, talking (barely) disaster. Every time he thinks, speaks, or acts, he weakens the nation.

I didn't vote for him. Other folks did, and did so in large numbers, but it wasn't me.

I don't really want to kick those folks in the nuts, and I don't really have any personal bad feeling toward them.

I just really, really want them to stay the hell home on election day.

I don't want to talk to them about their precious cultural signifiers, I'm not interested in their colorful folkways. Whatever floats their boat. Mazel tov.

Just stay the hell home. That's all I ask of them.

Thanks -

I'd like to comment on what russell said.

Most of the time I'm too polite to put it that baldly, out a forlorn hope that there might be some sort of middle ground to be staked out between Dems and Republicans, but in the privacy of my own heart - yes, what he said.

And to add insult to injury, Senator McCain and Gov. Palin give every indication you could possible ask for in advance in the way of fair warning, of having it within their capacity to run an administration which is even worse than that of George W. Bush.

What the GOP has inflicted on our beloved country, and threatens to inflict more of given the chance, stacks up reasonably well vs. the indictments against King George III and his ministers laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

Which is to say that blood has been shed and wars have started over less. Be very grateful that we are more pacific and less hot blooded a people than our distant ancestors were, and that a commitment to using the electoral process to seek redress of grievances, to right wrongs, and to establish policy, runs far deeper and stronger than any other instinct.

Russell,

Putman wrote "Bowling Alone" that look at social capital and social involvement in the U.S. He has had to conclude that the cities and states with the best social involvement are the whitest areas of the U.S. such as Vermont. His other theory is that as an area becomes more diverse, people will not only stop trusting other ethnic groups but that they will stop trusting anyone (See Los Angeles).

Many people above claim that liberals are the smart people who will defer to the experts. However, the conclusions of Putman clearly show that liberals will not believe experts if it disagrees with their leftist dogma. The same has been shown on this post where people refuse to acknowledge that their own life decisions differ with standard leftist dogma on education.

Carleton Wu,

If you look at http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html
you will see that a poor states like Utah and West Virginia have the same about the same crime rate as very rich Conn. and about 1/3 the violet crime rate of South Carolina. Of course, the difference between the low crime states and the high crime states is the percentage of the population that is black.

If you look at the Department of Justice statistics, blacks are arrested about somewhere between five and seven times the per capita rate was whites. I guess insults is what passes for facts for the really smart liberals.

Also, 1/3 of the school age children in Seattle attend private schools. If the public schools are 40% white and those are the 2/3 of the students, that means that 28% of the total students in Seattle are white students attending public school.

In Los Angeles, the public schools are 9% white. IN San Franciso, the pubilc schools are 18% white. In Chicago, the public schools are 8% white. In Philadelphia, the public schools are 13% white. Saint Louis is 14% white. Even in Minneapolis, the public schools are only 27% white. It is hard to find a deep blue city where the liberal, tolerant, diversity supporting Democrats are willing to send their children to the pubic schools. I wonder why?

You neglect to foresee the political threat of a new Depression stirring fascist nationalism. If you look at her closely you'll notice she WALKS just like Hitler did, quick strides forward, turned slightly aside,maniacally animated, hitching up her clothes.

He has had to conclude that the cities and states with the best social involvement are the whitest areas of the U.S. such as Vermont.

Superdestroyer -

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I haven't read "Bowling Alone", and perhaps I should. It's certainly a book that many folks have commented on, here and in many other places.

Not having read the book, I will simply comment from my own experience and observation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "social involvement", but for any reasonable meaning I can give that phrase, I don't see white communities being any better at it than any other community. Often worse, in some ways, than many others.

On the topic of experts, I personally try not to blindly accept what experts of any persuasion say, but to weigh their statements against what I can see and hear with my own eyes and ears.

To some degree that limits my thoughts to whatever passes the filter of my own experience -- what some might call "anecdota" -- but it also guarantees that, whatever conclusions I come to, they are rooted to some useful degree in reality.

Here is one conclusion I have come to:

There is nothing about black, brown, yellow, or red skin, in any shade or variety, that prompts its owners to act in any more or less anti-social way than do folks with white skin.

Nothing whatsoever.

Thanks -

Sorry, one more thing.

I think you're basically right about the relative rates at which whites and other folks send their kids to private schools.

Here is my analysis.

In almost all cases, the folks that send their kids to private schools have a lot of money.

All other things being equal, folks with a lot of money tend to be white, rather than not.

The exception here is Catholic parochial schools, which are quite often reasonably priced. Whatever else folks may think of the Catholic church, we all owe them our thanks for their commitment to primary education.

And, I think if you look at the rolls of neighborhood Catholic primary schools, you will find a broader spectrum of skin color than elsewhere.

Cash rules everything around me. More's the pity, but there you have it.

You are correct to note that there is quite often an element of liberal hypocrisy in all of this.

Nobody's perfect.

Thanks -

I have not read Putnam's book, but I'd hope that, if I had, I would have paid enough attention to learn how to spell his name.

I considered dyslexia as a possible explanation, but see no signs elsewhere in sd's posts.

Russell,

A good anecdote that demonstrate whites and social involvement is participating in their childrens education. Thomas Jefferson High School in Fairfax recently made the news about having more Asians students in the Science and Technology magnet programs than Whites. However, if you look on-line at the lists of band boosters, choir boosters, athletic boosters, etc, officers, they are overwhelmingly white. Good schools require parents who volunteer. In most places, the Asian-American parents do not volunteer much and blacks and Hispanics parents do not volunteer at all. It is one of the reasons that schools in Prince Georges County with the largest concentration of affluent blacks in the U.S. are still poor schools.

sd --

Can't speak to the breakdown of booster club participation by race in Fairfax County.

If you think black people are not involved in their children's lives, or vitally interested in their community, I suggest you spend a few Sundays at any black church in your area. The church, more than schools (although not excluding schools) has been one of the real hubs of black community life for a long time. By "long time" I mean hundreds of years.

It might widen your perspective a bit.

Beyond that, I'm just really not interested in talking about skin color with you any further. I just don't see that it would be particularly fruitful, for either of us, or probably anyone else.

Thanks -

If you look at the Department of Justice statistics, blacks are arrested about somewhere between five and seven times the per capita rate was whites. I guess insults is what passes for facts for the really smart liberals.

Now, to make your case, you would have to look at the comparative poverty rates among blacks and whites (around 4x, iirc). You may recall that you're not just trying to show that blacks commit crimes (however much you may enjoy that), but that poor blacks commit crimes at much higher rates than poor whites.
That's the problem with your thinking process- you aren't thinking things through *at all*. You make no progress towards demonstrating your case. You just present a statistic that shows blacks in a poor light and then call it a day.
In other news, "insults" is plural and needs the plural verb "are", and the percentage of folks here who think you never taught anything is approaching 100.

Also, 1/3 of the school age children in Seattle attend private schools. If the public schools are 40% white and those are the 2/3 of the students, that means that 28% of the total students in Seattle are white students attending public school.

Not sure what this is supposed to prove. You could dilute the percentage even more by calculating the % of the total population of the Seattle area are white kids in public schools, but that wouldn't change the facts:
-most white kids attend public schools
-you were wrong in claiming that all blue urban areas are like Washington DC in having almost all of the white kids in private schools.
DC is an outlier. You've chosen an outlier and claimed that it represented the entire population. This is deceptive and wrong.

A good anecdote that demonstrate whites and social involvement...

The plural of anecdote is not data. If you understood this, you might be further up the intellectual food chain.

Many people above claim that liberals are the smart people who will defer to the experts.

Did anyone actually say that above, or are you high? Smart people (hopefully) dispassionately weight the evidence and listen to the experts and then form well-informed opinions. They do not do what you do: leap to predetermined conclusions based on half-baked theories and anecdotes.
You bizarre caricature that 'liberals' ought to defer to a single expert quoted by a moron without a single piece of statistical evidence to back it up- well, I think 'moron' does kind of sum that up.

Carleton Wu,

Perform you start talking about data, you should admit that your original claim that whites and blacks are arrested at the same rate was falses.

You scream moron but you make a wild claim, that whites and blacks commit crimes at the same rate once you correct for family income or wealth but you give no reference, cite no expert, and present no study.

Please provide the reference or admit you do not know what you are talking about. If class was the only part of crime, West Virginia would not have the same crime rate as Conneticut and have 1/3 the crime rate as South Carolina.

Like I said, Liberals have their own dogma that they will not allowed to be questioned. Two areas where no discussionis allowed are education and crime. What is most hypocritical is that the elite white progressive live their own personal lives in accordance with what I have cited in education, crime, and housing but claim to not believe it.

russell,

If you really do spend some time in a black church AME or Baptist, what any upper middle class white should immediately notice is the absence of men. It is kind of hard to have a community with so few men participating.

Perform you start talking about data, you should admit that your original claim that whites and blacks are arrested at the same rate was falses.

Yeah, I've already played search engine for you once- you thought that Seattle was 'probably' like DC, and I demonstrated that that wasn't the case.
Im not going to continuously look up statistics to debunk your bogus claims; once is enough for me. So if you want to make a claim, by all means go find some numbers to support that claim.
(Ive found that it's much easier for the fool in the room to make stuff up than it is for everyone else to go through the trouble to debunk it).

Here's a hint while looking for data: trying to look at things a the statewide level is unlikely to tell you things about individual behavior; it relies on the assumption that- other than race- there is no difference between people in West Virginia and people in Connecticut. This is obviously a very stupid assumption, and it basically assumes the conclusion (ie that race explains much of the difference in behavior).
[Trivial example of this being wrong: % of blacks in a state is positively correlated with GOP vote, ergo blacks tend to vote for the GOP].

I never claimed that whites and blacks are arrested at the same rate. You are a liar, and an idiot for not realizing that anyone can check the veracity of this claim by scrolling back up the page. Just as I never claimed that 40% of the students in the DC public school system were white.

Your reading comprehension is, if possible, worse than your grammar and spelling. But both take a back seat to your inability to think coherently. Please go away now, the only way you'll ever add to the conversation here is if you accidentally misspell so many words that your sentence becomes coherent despite your best efforts.

Since superdestroyer seems incapable of giving a link, let me point out that's referring to Robert D. Putnam. I've read reviews, but not the book. I'm pretty sure Putnam is no kind of racist, and would strongly object to the claims superdestroyer makes. Putnam is about civic renewal, not racial claims.

Stuff like this:

Examples:
* A mentoring and reading program in Philadelphia that brings together retirees and elementary school children to the benefit of both – the children get help reading and the retirees have a richer, more purposeful life
* A group of sixth-grade activists in a small Wisconsin town who managed to persuade local authorities to improve safety at a railroad crossing and in doing so learned a valuable lesson in civic activism
* A neighborhood in Boston that has been revitalized by a civic association that overcame ethnic differences and now plays an ongoing role in the neighborhood
* A community effort in the impoverished Rio Grande Valley, one of the poorest regions in the U.S., that brought such basic services as electricity, roads, and health care to the mostly Spanish-speaking residents
* A successful small business initiative in Tupelo, Mississippi, that began sixty years ago with the purchase of a prize bull
* Chicago public libraries that have broadened their mission and have become true community centers
* Two huge and rapidly growing churches in Los Angeles that are making people feel connected to other church members and their community
* The city of Portland, Oregon, where the anti-war movement of the sixties actually changed the institutions so that now there is a remarkably high level of civic engagement in government and politics (more so than in other cities, even other cities on the west coast).

All across America such organizations are starting up and thriving, giving hope that the message of Bowling Alone has reached people and that our civic institutions are improving and adapting to the changing world around us. And the timing of Better Together could not be more perfect -- in the wake of 9/11 the subjects of civic spirit, community renewal, and social capital have been high on everyone’s agenda as Americans ask again what makes us uniquely American and what values do we want to pass on to the next generations.

"He has had to conclude that the cities and states with the best social involvement are the whitest areas of the U.S. such as Vermont. His other theory is that as an area becomes more diverse, people will not only stop trusting other ethnic groups but that they will stop trusting anyone (See Los Angeles)."

Why don't you try excerpting those passages, eh?

"A good anecdote that demonstrate whites and social involvement is participating in their childrens education. Thomas Jefferson High School in Fairfax recently made the news about having more Asians students in the Science and Technology magnet programs than Whites. However, if you look on-line at the lists of band boosters, choir boosters, athletic boosters, etc, officers, they are overwhelmingly white. Good schools require parents who volunteer. In most places, the Asian-American parents do not volunteer much and blacks and Hispanics parents do not volunteer at all. It is one of the reasons that schools in Prince Georges County with the largest concentration of affluent blacks in the U.S. are still poor schools."

Is there some point to this anecdote other than straight out racism?

I used to respond to SD thoughtfully, but then I realized he's a one-note borderline troll who enjoys threadjacking every interesting conversation that anyone else might have. He's not as downright moronic like LoneWacko is, but he is just as obsessive, disruptive, and uninformative. One notes that SD never questions whether the Palin debacle and the reams of anti-intellectual culture and hate whipped up at McCain/Palin rallies reflects poorly on white Americans.

If you really do spend some time in a black church AME or Baptist, what any upper middle class white should immediately notice is the absence of men.

Have done, for both those denominations, as well as Plymouth Brethren, AoG, and Holiness, and I did not note an absence of men.

Greek Orthodox, different story, but I draw no negative conclusion from that.

Basically sd, I don't think you know what you're talking about. I think you read stuff in books, and understand them according to your pre-existing prejudices.

I could be wrong, I'm just judging from your contributions here.

Thanks-

As an aside -- the thing that *really* struck me in the Holiness church was the beautiful way that the young women would wear their hair.

A lot of Holiness churches prohibit makeup and jewelry, and many also encourage young women to wear their hair long. Whatever energy the typical young woman might put into her makeup or accessorizing, these young women put into their hairstyles.

They were stunning. A thing of beauty.

Maybe that's why the men were there, at least the young ones. It certainly got my attention.

Thanks -

Greek Orthodox, different story, but I draw no negative conclusion from that.

Explanation: the husbands were busy Sunday morning running the family diner.

In any case, this phenomenon is pretty consistent across religious denominations of many races. While the religious leadership is dominated by men, the actual workaday business of teaching sunday school, running the choir, and attending church is considered "women's work."

What this has to do with McCain/Palin's unleashing of America's dark side among white Americans is, of course, not clear.

A lot of Holiness churches prohibit makeup and jewelry, and many also encourage young women to wear their hair long. Whatever energy the typical young woman might put into her makeup or accessorizing, these young women put into their hairstyles.

They were stunning. A thing of beauty.

Maybe that's why the men were there,

Well, yeah.

Church isn't just a religious thing. It's a community. And that's where a lot of courtin' goes on, under the watchful and approving eyes of the elders.

And about Asian American parents not volunteering?

BWAH HAHA HAH HAH HAH!

What this has to do with McCain/Palin's unleashing of America's dark side among white Americans is, of course, not clear.

Nothing whatsoever, it was about as far off topic as could be.

When I was a very young man, my first real girlfriend was a lovely young woman whose father was born in Crete. The Greek Orthodox thing was just a wistful trip down memory lane.

And yes, Sunday dinner was superb.

Thanks -

Church isn't just a religious thing. It's a community.

One might even say: at it's best, it's where the two are indistinguishable.

Thanks -

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad