Disproportionate effect on poor people is racism in virtually any sense.

Except the dictionary sense.

Hurting poor people is tantamount to hurting minorities since the two are inextricably linked in 21st century America.

Except for Asians. Or Jews.

Also, as a liberal with lots of liberal friends, I'm not sure I know anyone who thinks the drug war is good for black people. Please do not assume that my beliefs are perfectly reflected perfectly by the Democratic Party.

I agree that it's a mistake to conflate liberal/Democrat (or conservative/Republican). But while I've run into many people over the last two decades -- especially on the internet -- who want to legalize drugs, they've virtually all been libertarian, not liberal.

And specifically, the spinelessness of Democratic politicians at every level of government in even attempting to question the efficacy of the War on Drugs is something I find disgusting.

As I've mentioned before here, it was this issue that first pushed me from liberal to libertarian. But I don't think one can limit this to Democratic politicians. Where are the liberal interest groups pushing for legalization? People for the American Way? Moveon? Public Citizen? The NAACP? The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights? Any of the other effete remnants of the civil rights movement? I can find more support for Mumia than for drug legalization among liberals. (The one major counterexample is George Soros.)

Median household income for blacks in the 1970s peaked -- we'll cherry pick the best year -- at $24,822 in 1978. Median household income for blacks in 2004 was $30,268. That's a 22% increase. (Yes, that's in constant dollars.) (The gap in well-being is even bigger than that, because household sizes have shrunk.) (The difference in mean is even bigger; in 1978 it was $31,722, while in 2004 it was $40,814; that's a 28% increase.)

Meanwhile, the median home price in the US between 1975 and 2005, in constant 2005 dollars, went from $130,524 to $219,000. That's a 67.8% increase.

The cost of college tuitions have gone up even more significantly than that. So have medical insurance premium costs, for those fortunate enough to have coverage; those without coverage find major medical expenses far more likely to wipe out savings than they did 30 years ago, savings that would otherwise have gone toward home purchase and/or college education.

For so many basic tenets of "American Dream" generational advancement, a 22% or 28% growth in income over the past 30 years doesn't yield progress. It's just slowed the rate of regress.

Nor has this 22%/28% growth rate gained ground against the income of white households, and despite your belief that relative economic statuses don't matter, they do.

As I've mentioned before here, it was this issue that first pushed me from liberal to libertarian. But I don't think one can limit this to Democratic politicians. Where are the liberal interest groups pushing for legalization? People for the American Way? Moveon? Public Citizen? The NAACP? The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights? Any of the other effete remnants of the civil rights movement? I can find more support for Mumia than for drug legalization among liberals. (The one major counterexample is George Soros.)

I don't know if the Drug Policy Alliance meets your definition of a liberal interest group, but it's certainly pushing for legalization, or at least less foolishness than we have now.

I fully agree, however, that in general the silence/acquiescence on the Drug War of many if not most prominent liberals is appalling.

Isn't it also true that while the breakdown of the family and the rise of illegitmacy has disproportionately affected blacks, it's also true that these sad trends are reflected in just about every demographic group? And isn’t it at least a bit curious how much more accepting of illegimacy our society seems to be, now that it’s become so widespread among whites?

Yes, that's true, and no, that's not the least bit curious. Indeed, you have your causal arrow pointing rather strangely there.

I'm not quite understanding your drift here. It seems to me that as illegitimacy has gone from being seen as an almost exclusively "black" problem to being a societal phenomenon that's invaded even the most respectable white communities, it's now seen as much less of a mark of social depravity, and more of simply a "lifestyle" choice. And you could say the same thing about single motherhood that derives from broken families, since divorce is also now looked upon far more benignly than it was 40 or 50 years ago.

Do you disagree with this as a purely empirical observation? And in what direction would you point the "causal arrow," as you call it? I'm not asking you for your personal judgment on illegitmacy, only whether or not you recognize that society's views on it have undergone a huge shift in the decades that it's penetrated large segments of white family life---well over 20% of all white children are now born out of wedlock, and it's a much higher rate among whites with lower income.

And yes, I do find that swing in judgment rather curiously coincidental, but perhaps you have another explanation for it.

well gentlemen, this is verrrrrrry interestink
listening to rich white educated men talking about being black

as for unskilled jobs, well, lets see one of you try to get a job in any kind of construction, roofing, painting. will not happen. those good paying jobs are basically ALL taken by illegals. you go inside for drugs, you get out, exactly how are you supposed to find work? it is VERY difficult and no one wants to talk about that. trust me on this there is a LOT of hostility between the black community and the illegals. and as an uneducated female let me tell you it is even hard to get a job as a cleaning lady any more because pretty much all those jobs are done by illegals

and about getting rid of the problem of single parenthood-

jc he could hardly hold back his contempt/disgust a few years back when i told him i insisted on a nice christian brotha with a steady job who didn't smoke drink or use drugs and who wanted a family and loved kidsss and me, was NOT a playa, and didn't have temper so i wouldn't have to worry about him hitting me or the kidz. and was an astros fan - can't forget what matters.

i am the ONLY grrrl i know my age (my own friends and cousins) who is married. the ONLY one. every friend i got told me i was even dumber then i looked to go get married because then it would be tougher to get rid of him without putting him inside when it was over. if you don't get married at least you know your kidz will get medicaid, you will get a check and if he helps you out, well that is fine. it is tougher if you get married. so how helpful is that?

and like i keep telling people and nobody believe me - at least in this state if your not married to your babymama, then you got exactly ZERO rights to even see your kid if she don't want you to and tell me how many poor black men - especially a man with a record - can go afford some expensive lawyer to take the mama to court and even if he did visiting rights are NOT enforced. the cops/CPS just won't go after the mama. you think that is good for families? it is not. AND it is not a good thing for a man to have no family and no kidz and i am convinced of that - i mean they can't be with their own kidz, not that men who don't ever have kidz aren't fine.

and at least in houston things are NOT good for non-white skoolz. drugs, gangs, and if there are mexicans, race wars (they mostly keep it out of the media). there are the neighborhood skools for grade skool but the talented and gifted starts with 4th grade and by then it is pretty much too late for poor kidz. and the other thing is that you can go to magnet skools but there sin't no bussing and you have to have family who can take the kids there every day and pick them up and trust me that is tough for a poor single woman with a job to do.

the only good thing about a bad HS is that the top 10% of every graduating class is guaranteed admission to a texas state university so it is easier to get in if you are in a bad skool then if you go to bellaire.

there aren't very many mixed race skoolz here - it's the neighborhood...

the other thing that won't nobody talk about is how much worse in skool that boys do then grrrls. well maybe a few words about how they won't let boys be boys nowadays (whatever that is supposed to mean), but seems to me they let boys be boys 50-60 years ago and most all the top students were boys and most people who went to college were boys and almost all the professions were all boys so i am not sure how that explains anything. somedays i just look at my baby men and i just don't know what to do

sigh

and anyone who thinks you aren't judged on your race these days is just wrong. intersting story - when we were looking for a house last year, a few times i went with the realtor, a white gf of mine and the little white boy i was babysitting. from the SAME income i got shown VERY different houses than i did when i took my youngest (who is no doubt about it a Negro). so they were a lot happier about showing nicer stuff to a (so they thought) white lesbian couple then they were to a Negro woman and her Negro child.

gotta keep Those People out...

it would have been very interesting to see what would have happened to, say, nieporent - same guy, same soul, same intelligence - if he had been born to a poor single working mother in public housing, going to an all black skool

but andy is right, things ARE better than they were even 30 years ago.

and one last thing i ask all yall "liberals" - how many of yall gave me endless shtt about the way i talk/write, insisting that i talk "white" - at least here. or should i say that you put a LOT more value on the WAY something is said than on WHAT is said

it would have been very interesting to see what would have happened to, say, nieporent - same guy, same soul, same intelligence - if he had been born to a poor single working mother in public housing, going to an all black skool

If everyone took part in that little mental exercise, this would be a much better world. And that's not to single out Dave in particular. Like Lucy once complained to Charlie Brown: When she was born, she never even got to fill out an application.

well i would ask nieporant, but i think he's got me on ignore-ant

and one last thing i ask all yall "liberals" - how many of yall gave me endless shtt about the way i talk/write, insisting that i talk "white" - at least here. or should i say that you put a LOT more value on the WAY something is said than on WHAT is said

Please cut it out. Speaking for myself, my main objection was that it was difficult to understand what you were trying to say sometimes, and that I thought you could do a better job with that.

Like #505. I had no trouble understanding this post.

joe

i promise you that you were one of MANY.

Yeah, maybe I paid more attention to my particular objection than to others'. And I don't mean to embarrass you. Your posts lately are easier to read than they were before. And if I ever have a hard time understanding them again, I'll just say so, without the snark.

Except the dictionary sense.

Yeah, and remember that one time when the lynch mob was circling and Sheriff Merriam-Webster stepped in and saved the day?

Except for Asians. Or Jews.

It depends which "Asians" you are talking about. Are you talking about parachute kids or Hmong refugees. If you change the statement to the average East Asian American, it is believable, if you change it to the average Southeast Asian American, it's preposterous.

As for drugs, I don't think it's fair to talk about faceless liberals who aren't here. It's analogous to me blaming you for all of the pollyanna ignorant libertarians. You should be engaging the people who are discussing the issue with you, most of whom seem (I can't speak for sure) to be staunchly opposed to the war on drugs, and speaking for myself, am in favor of legalization.

the other thing that won't nobody talk about is how much worse in skool that boys do then grrrls. well maybe a few words about how they won't let boys be boys nowadays (whatever that is supposed to mean), but seems to me they let boys be boys 50-60 years ago and most all the top students were boys and most people who went to college were boys and almost all the professions were all boys so i am not sure how that explains anything. somedays i just look at my baby men and i just don't know what to do

This is a critical issue in our school. After one year, 57% of our girls still have a solid chance at graduation (less than two "F" during the year), for the boys, it's only 37%...

Like #505. I had no trouble understanding this post.

Nevermind. I shouldn't pour gasoline on something you all appear to have settled amicably.

well i would ask nieporant, but i think he's got me on ignore-ant

I don't know if the creative spelling is supposed to be part of the pun, but it's NieporEnt. I don't care how much grammar you mangle in your posts, but I'd like my name spelled correctly. And I don't have anybody -- not even Retardo -- on ignore. But I don't know what you want to ask me.


Andy, in re #504: My point was that your earlier post insinuated that people thought, essentially, "Oh, it's bad when black people are illegitimate, but if white people are doing it, it must be okay." As opposed to more people doing it as it became acceptable. It is seen as a lifestyle choice. (Ask Dan Quayle.)


And yet, Steve, not only are you cherry picking again, by selecting only certain high-ticket items, but you're doing it misleadingly; despite your statistics, black homeownership rates have increased in that timespan, from about 42% to 50%. And the college tuition one is particularly misleading; while it's true that nominal tuition has shot up drastically, it's a meaningless number, like the sticker price on a car. Except the rich, nobody pays the listed tuition price.

Yeah, and remember that one time when the lynch mob was circling and Sheriff Merriam-Webster stepped in and saved the day?

You remember that one time when lynch mobs didn't select victims by race, but by some neutral measure that just happened to have a disparate impact on blacks? You don't? So your statement was pretty much a non-sequitur, right?

It depends which "Asians" you are talking about. Are you talking about parachute kids or Hmong refugees. If you change the statement to the average East Asian American, it is believable, if you change it to the average Southeast Asian American, it's preposterous.

If we're discussing racism, do you think racists distinguish?

And yet, Steve, not only are you cherry picking again, by selecting only certain high-ticket items

Oh, that's right, because I've only picked certain high-ticket items that are utterly fundamental and unavoidable for any household to pay if it wishes to ascend the socio-economic ladder.

despite your statistics, black homeownership rates have increased in that timespan, from about 42% to 50%.

Well, these aren't my statistics. Regardless, the increase in home ownership that has occurred has come at blindingly obvious huge cost as a function of disposable income, a far greater cost than that borne by whites in the same period.

And the college tuition one is particularly misleading; while it's true that nominal tuition has shot up drastically, it's a meaningless number, like the sticker price on a car. Except the rich, nobody pays the listed tuition price.

Baloney. Other than the tiny fraction who get full ride scholarships, every college student pays some portion of it, and particularly if they're paying it via loans. The real cost of attending college has greatly increased over the past 30 years, not just for rich people.

Other than the tiny fraction who get full ride scholarships, every college student pays some portion of it, and particularly if they're paying it via loans

Amen, Steve. Anyone who thinks that college tuition is just funny money has not had to contemplate sending a kid to college.

So your statement was pretty much a non-sequitur, right?

No, it was a joke.

David Nieporent Posted: September 01, 2007 at 07:44 PM (#2507851)

well i would ask nieporant, but i think he's got me on ignore-ant

I don't know if the creative spelling is supposed to be part of the pun, but it's NieporEnt.

- sigh
yes, of COURSE it was me trying to be punny.

honestly, you are so effing freaking intelligent and i have learned SO much from you about an awful lot of things, so i thank you for that. but honestly you have NO sense of humor. none.

sigh

and as i said in 505
it would have been very interesting to see what would have happened to, say, nieporent - same guy, same soul, same intelligence - if he had been born to a poor single working mother in public housing, going to an all black skool

see i spelled it RIGHT

the question which i don't guess can really be answered - is - what do you think what would have become of you if you had been born in a different environment

Andy, in re #504: My point was that your earlier post insinuated that people thought, essentially, "Oh, it's bad when black people are illegitimate, but if white people are doing it, it must be okay." As opposed to more people doing it as it became acceptable. It is seen as a lifestyle choice. (Ask Dan Quayle.)

I wasn't saying that public acceptance of illegitimacy has moved from 0 to 10 on a 10 scale, but it certainly seems to have crept up into the "lifestyle choice" range of about 4. And this increased public acceptance seems to have a timeline that more or less corresponds to the growing illegitimacy rate among whites. Call it curious or call it merely coincidental if you will, but as one who hardly dwells on racial interpretations of events when they're not called for, I'd certainly lean towards the "curious" interpretation in this case.

I'd almost forgotten about the Dan Quayle / Murphy Brown flap, but that was pretty mixed up in partisan politics, and I'm not sure that even though it lends support to "my" point, I'd want to lean on that isolated political firestorm too much. Quayle would have caught heat no matter what he'd happened to have said on any remotely controversial subject.

But an even more well known case involving a celebrity that does illustrate the earlier stigma was that of Ingrid Bergman, who IIRC was hounded out of the country for having a child by Roberto Rossellini at a time that she was married to another man. Compare that sort of quasi-Victorian reaction to today's climate, when "the little b*st*rds" (to use Jean-Paul's term in that famous Seinfeld episode) are respected members of every walk of life.

You remember that one time when lynch mobs didn't select victims by race, but by some neutral measure that just happened to have a disparate impact on blacks? You don't? So your statement was pretty much a non-sequitur, right?

No, it was a joke.

To be fair, I was kidding-on-the-square a bit. But the point was not that racial disparities are the same thing as lynching. It was that you have to be a complete idiot to play the "dictionary card" and think that it means something. But I thought what I wrote would be more classy than either your post or saying what I just wrote.

Winning academic debates about issues with BS polemics is fun, but it does nothing to address the actual problems we are discussing.

If we're discussing racism, do you think racists distinguish?

Some do and some don't. Racism is not an on/off switch. A rich black man is treated than a poor white man, but that's not proof of a lack of racism.

Baloney. Other than the tiny fraction who get full ride scholarships, every college student pays some portion of it, and particularly if they're paying it via loans. The real cost of attending college has greatly increased over the past 30 years, not just for rich people.

None of which contradicts what I wrote. Very few people pay list price. (And incidentally, if they're paying via loans, then it's their own future income, not their parents' income, that's most relevant.)

honestly, you are so effing freaking intelligent and i have learned SO much from you about an awful lot of things, so i thank you for that. but honestly you have NO sense of humor. none.

Honestly, that's about as 180 degrees off as can be. Anybody who knew me would laugh hysterically (pun intended) at that notion. Getting me to take things seriously might be a problem; me not having a sense of humor is not. I just happen not to like people misspelling my name.

None of which contradicts what I wrote. Very few people pay list price. (And incidentally, if they're paying via loans, then it's their own future income, not their parents' income, that's most relevant.)

This is right. Typically schools collect about $.65 on the dollar (our school pays about $.40). The people getting squeezed are not really the poor, but the middle class, but as DMN notes, most regard the cost of college as an investment.

The poor don't go to school for other reasons, including (maybe primarily) that they're not taught the value of going; iow, it's cultural more than economic.

David Nieporent Posted: September 02, 2007 at 07:59 AM (#2508444)


honestly, you are so effing freaking intelligent and i have learned SO much from you about an awful lot of things, so i thank you for that. but honestly you have NO sense of humor. none.

Honestly, that's about as 180 degrees off as can be. Anybody who knew me would laugh hysterically (pun intended) at that notion. Getting me to take things seriously might be a problem; me not having a sense of humor is not. I just happen not to like people misspelling my name.

- well here on this site i have never heard you say anything that might couold have even a little bitty bit of humor in it. not once. maybe you always just dead serious about everything you talk about here.

but hey i will give you a chance to tell a joke. i'll even spot you the opening line -

NieporENT, Retardo and Dial walk into a bar...

but hey i will give you a chance to tell a joke. i'll even spot you the opening line -

NieporENT, Retardo and Dial walk into a bar...

Shoot Retardo... twice.

NieporENT, Retardo and Dial walk into a bar...

That's a picture that I hope I never see.

-- MWE

Shoot Retardo... twice.

You've come a long way, baby.

I don't get this. bbc & DMN are two people without whom my appreciation of baseball would be significantly poorer. Can someone explain to me in small words why they are peeing on each other's shoes?

Can someone explain to me in small words why they are peeing on each other's shoes?

Given the vast differences in style and ideology, I think they are handling themselves well. Nieporent admitted he gets grouchy when someone spells his name wrong (probably because RossCw used to do it, huh, David?) My post 499, which obviously came prior to their exchange, is my take on the subject.

probably because RossCw used to do it, huh, David?

It goes back at least to the early days of r.s.bb.

-- MWE

It goes back at least to the early days of r.s.bb

Well, it's a tough name to spell. A lot of folks just call him "DMN."

ace1242

i don't think me and DMN peeing on each others shoes

- i was just teasing him a little - i really wasn't trying to make him angry misspelling his name - i had forgot all the rosscw stuff and name misspelling - ross been gone for YEARS
- i guess i should have said nieporEnt got me on ignor-Ent

but he usually ignores me - i always thought he got exactly zero tolerance for people like me who are just nowhere near his intelligence level and unlike most of the guys here, he does not do the usual male kidding - funny mild insults thing. i mean i know us females don't really do that like all yall do but i was trying a little mail bonding...

i always thought he got exactly zero tolerance for people like me who are just nowhere near his intelligence level and unlike most of the guys here, he does not do the usual male kidding - funny mild insults thing.

Nieporent is an extremely bright, well-informed guy. But you are as "smart" as anyone around here. "Intelligence" is a complicated, multifaceted thing. And Nieporent will talk to anyone who wants to talk about issues is my exp with him.

OK, my version of Lisa's scenario...

NieporENT, Retardo and Dial walk into a bar...

Retardo starts quoting Chomsky and tries to organize the bartenders, Nieporent frets because the bar isn't fulfilling its moral obligation to maximize its profit by selling babies on the side, and Dial notices a signed photo of Mickey Mantle above the liquor bottles and begins ranting about greenies.

And then they all get over it and commence to swapping dirty jokes about Jeter and Steinbrenner and the Evil Empire, and by the end of the evening they exchange cell phone numbers and swear that it's all been a big delight.

robin,
thank you

andy

VERY funny
and VERY true

ah
mennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

NieporENT, Retardo and Dial walk into a bar...

Retardo starts quoting Chomsky and tries to organize the bartenders, Nieporent frets because the bar isn't fulfilling its moral obligation to maximize its profit by selling babies on the side, and Dial notices a signed photo of Mickey Mantle above the liquor bottles and begins ranting about greenies.

And then they all get over it and commence to swapping dirty jokes about Jeter and Steinbrenner and the Evil Empire, and by the end of the evening they exchange cell phone numbers and swear that it's all been a big delight.

And the next morning they sober up and go back to driving each other nuts.

Big-time Primey to Andy.

I had Nieporent, Dial, kevin and Joey B walking into a bar on page 2 of this in response to a Dial wisecrack. I don't know if that one would have a happy ending.

robin

it's always 3 guys who go into a bar, not 4. don't ask me why. it's the 4 gf who go into a hotel or the guy who goes into the nunnery but it is pretty much always 3 guys who go into a bar - well except for the guy with the head the size of an orange or the guy who asks about the $10 jar. but i know you gotta know bout all those...

and nieporEnt gonna have to tell a better ending then that or i'm gonna hafta tell the one about the pope and the rabbi

Perhaps, and I'm just guessing, it's time to retire the NieporEnt joke?