Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, April 03, 2014

OTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments

Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 03, 2014 at 01:59 PM | 4718 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 7 million aca signees and counting, i-95 south, nc, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 20 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 >  Last ›
   1901. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4691076)
It's all good - Justice Roberts has signed off on an Interpol order to arrest Obama on 25 charges of treason.


Interpol? He's outsourcing American justice to a group based in FRANCE?
   1902. spike Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4691078)
that's the best part. For all the UN treachery fear, it turns out we're ok with one-world policing.
   1903. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:41 AM (#4691084)
I'm surprised Interpol is concerned about treason. That's not usually a cross-border issue.
   1904. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4691085)
What you're describing with the term "racism" is really just another form of tribalism, and tribalism is absolutely a natural fact of life.


Historically speaking, rape and murder are also "natural facts of life." Yet we manage to do what we can to prevent and reduce those.
   1905. Shredder Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM (#4691087)
So there would be 3 million people * $1 million * 20%: $600 billion. If we were to give all that money to the 150 million people or so who make the bottom half of this country's income bracket, each person would get $4,000.

That's a nice sum, but wouldn't anywhere close to bringing people back to mid 20th century postwar prosperity.
Maybe not, but it would make a huge difference in a lot of people's lives. For a person making $50,000 gross income, assume roughly a 15% effective tax rate, if that' $4k is all take-home, that's about a 10% raise. How many people were getting 10% raises last year? Probably not too many.
   1906. Canker Soriano Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM (#4691088)
It's all good - Justice Roberts has signed off on an Interpol order to arrest Obama on 25 charges of treason.

Holy crap. I made the mistake of reading the comments on that article. I had to stop when I felt my brain trying to push its way out of my ear just to get away.
   1907. The Good Face Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:45 AM (#4691090)
So hey look at that, the Modern Liberal agenda. Diversity! See there is a point behind all the diversity training and shaming of racists and such. And you are overstating how long it takes and how hard it is. Look at the differences from 1950 to today. You keep training the young ones and letting the old folks die off at their own pace. Generational change.

Yes it is work and far from perfect - the US melting pot, not just a cute marketing slogan.


The metaphor you're looking for is salad bowl, not melting pot. The Atlantic recently ran an article describing how schools are more segregated now than they were in the 50s. If you look at the census racial heat maps that break down who lives where by race, you'll see that our cities typically have bright lines separating out racial neighborhoods. In short, you see people FLEEING diversity, and the more money and options they have, the more frequent (and successful) their attempts at flight. Kind of like you in your lily white suburb!
   1908. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM (#4691091)
The metaphor you're looking for is salad bowl, not melting pot.


Fruit boat.
   1909. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4691097)
Holy crap. I made the mistake of reading the comments on that article. I had to stop when I felt my brain trying to push its way out of my ear just to get away.


First of all "my brain trying to push its way out of my ear just to get away" is RDF, I must remember it to steal later. And secondly your comment made me go and read the comments. Everyone should go and read the comments. They are great! I love the few sane voices trying to impose reality, such lost souls, it is like a bit out of Greek myth, perhaps Sisyphus or Tantalus.

In short


Is that a height crack? It is isn't it. Now I am really mad! ;)
   1910. GordonShumway Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM (#4691101)
Maybe not, but it would make a huge difference in a lot of people's lives. For a person making $50,000 gross income, assume roughly a 15% effective tax rate, if that' $4k is all take-home, that's about a 10% raise. How many people were getting 10% raises last year? Probably not too many.


Fully agreed, and I also fully agree with the similar points made in 1885 and 1887. In writing what I did, I was responding to what snapper wrote in 1864, in regards to whether the US can return to postwar, mid-20th century prosperity:

We're far wealthier now as a nation than we were then. If we could figure out a way to restructure our society to shift income from capital to labor, and especially to unskilled labor, we could redistribute that wealth and recreate that standard of living.


I'm very skeptical a wealth transfer anywhere close to my hypothetical would ever take place; it's been about 80 years since the last time we've had such a dramatic wealth transfer in this country. But even if such a wealth transfer took place, the country is far poorer than it was 50-60 years ago, and there's no viable way I can see to recreate the standard of living that people enjoyed back then.

   1911. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4691104)
there's no viable way I can see to recreate the standard of living that people enjoyed back then


The relative standard of living, then probably not. In absolute terms we are better and will continue to be so (absent nuclear war or something). But I don't think trying for such a relative advantage is really a worthwhile goal. Post WWII America was a historical anomaly.
   1912. GregD Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:06 PM (#4691111)
Well it all depends on your timeframes. If you're willing to wait hundreds of years and able to maintain the peace while tribes merge/shift/cohere, then you *may* have a shot at creating a new, unified tribe. Also, keep in mind much of what you're intepreting as tribal merging is simply alliances of smaller tribes against those perceived as even greater outsiders. Take away the greater enemy and you'll see fragmentation and conflict re-emerge. People are vicious monkeys and this sort of in-group/out-group behavior lives deep in our monkey brains.
What's your explanation for Switzerland, which fought a (mild) civil war over religion in the 1840s? Or Canada? Or the shift in the status of Catholics vis a vis Americanness? Or Asians?

Your claim of impossibility collapses.
   1913. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4691115)
Holy crap. I made the mistake of reading the comments on that article. I had to stop when I felt my brain trying to push its way out of my ear just to get away.


I read the comments and I honestly can't tell the real comments (if any) from the troll written parody comments(I presume)
   1914. GordonShumway Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4691117)
The relative standard of living, then probably not. In absolute terms we are better and will continue to be so (absent nuclear war or something). But I don't think trying for such a relative advantage is really a worthwhile goal. Post WWII America was a historical anomaly.


Overall, I lean towards agreeing with you. I do wonder though, how do we define the "absolute terms" by which people are better or worse off? To what extent is a relative standard (whether within a country, or compared to the world) part of how we define a high or low quality standard of living? Also, independent of considerations of relative standards of living, how should we weigh different variables of health, safety, education, income level, personal happiness, relationships, and the like in determining an absolute standard of living?

I realize that using a relative standard of living is a very flawed way of measuring quality of life, but I wouldn't know where to begin in weighing all the variables independent of relative considerations.
   1915. GregD Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4691119)
The metaphor you're looking for is salad bowl, not melting pot. The Atlantic recently ran an article describing how schools are more segregated now than they were in the 50s. If you look at the census racial heat maps that break down who lives where by race, you'll see that our cities typically have bright lines separating out racial neighborhoods. In short, you see people FLEEING diversity, and the more money and options they have, the more frequent (and successful) their attempts at flight. Kind of like you in your lily white suburb!
But this just shows how your claim of tribalism is weak. People are fleeing one type of diversity to another type which is now invisible to them since the boundaries of the tribe have changed so dramatically. No one is finding articles about efforts by white Protestants to flee neighborhoods with Catholics or Jews, as would have been common deep into the 1960s, or to seize the property of Asians and displace them. The boundaries have shifted. Which means they can shift again.

Which means that a claim that the current, brand-new boundaries can't be changed is a claim that one wants them to stay where they are.
   1916. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4691128)
Fully agreed, and I also fully agree with the similar points made in 1885 and 1887. In writing what I did, I was responding to what snapper wrote in 1864, in regards to whether the US can return to postwar, mid-20th century prosperity:

I'm very skeptical a wealth transfer anywhere close to my hypothetical would ever take place; it's been about 80 years since the last time we've had such a dramatic wealth transfer in this country. But even if such a wealth transfer took place, the country is far poorer than it was 50-60 years ago, and there's no viable way I can see to recreate the standard of living that people enjoyed back then.


Why do we care about the relative wealth of the US vis a vis the world, in this example?

We don't need to have 40% of the world GDP for a working class man to be able to support a family, buyt a modest house, and car, and send his kids to decent schools. That's all very achievable on a salary of $40-50K a year, with benefits, in most parts of the US.

All we have to do is figure out how to have working class jobs pay $40-50K with benefits. The answer is likely some combination of reduced competition (by restraining globalization, and large scale unskilled immigration) and direct gov't subsidies.
   1917. zonk Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4691132)
I'm surprised Interpol is concerned about treason. That's not usually a cross-border issue.


I'm more surprised that the nefarious New World Order apparently has its uses afterall... Save us, black helicopters sent by the One World Government!
   1918. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4691133)
Or Canada? Or the shift in the status of Catholics vis a vis Americanness? Or Asians?


As long as America has black people to kick in the gnads, pretty much every other "Other" can be patient and be assured of getting into the game.
   1919. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:54 PM (#4691143)
I'm more surprised that the nefarious New World Order apparently has its uses afterall...


I'm surprised by nothing these people do.
   1920. BrianBrianson Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:54 PM (#4691145)
The answer is likely some combination of reduced competition (by restraining globalization, and large scale unskilled immigration) and direct gov't subsidies.


C'mon. Everyone here knows the likelihood of getting "working class jobs pay $40-50K with benefits" by restrained globalization is somewhere between zero and nil. The 1950s were built on being to export to the world. Direct "subsidy" is more useful (because it creates customers for businesses, which is really what's in shortage these days), but replacing subsidy with infrastructure jobs (which have other uses) is far better for community, etc, where it's possible. Here I take a very broad view of what's infrastructure. Reducing classroom sizes by hiring more teachers is essentially infrastructure, for instance, and far more useful than digging holes then filling them back in. But I like environmental cleanup, building rail, elder care, a lot of other things. A lot of working class jobs is better than a smaller number of professional class jobs for the same cost. Less university bureaucrats, more university janitors, etc.
   1921. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4691147)
The metaphor you're looking for is salad bowl, not melting pot. The Atlantic recently ran an article describing how schools are more segregated now than they were in the 50s. If you look at the census racial heat maps that break down who lives where by race, you'll see that our cities typically have bright lines separating out racial neighborhoods. In short, you see people FLEEING diversity, and the more money and options they have, the more frequent (and successful) their attempts at flight. Kind of like you in your lily white suburb!

I'd like to see those maps controlled for income, because the modern "white flight" is more about that than about race per se. White Bostonians hounded Bill Russell out of their neighborhood in the 50's, but few whites today flee from the arrival of black families who don't seem all that different from them beyond skin color.

White flight in the 50's and 60's was due to a combination of blockbusting, racial paranoia, and general fear of the unknown, with each component feeding off the others, and it was hard to tell when one factor ended and the other began. To the extent that this still exists today, the flight mostly takes the form of switching one's middle school children to private schools, and even there it's not solely a white phenomenon. Intra-racial solidarity among minorities often doesn't survive too well once it gets past the rhetorical stage.

Where old-fashioned white flight does show up, however, is when neighborhoods reach the famous "tipping point". Whites are often so used to being in the majority everywhere they go that it's often hard for them dealing with being the "other" within their own neighborhoods. Part of that may be old fashioned prejudice, but some of it's not necessarily all that malignant a sentiment. As most people realize: This #### ain't easy.
   1922. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4691150)
C'mon. Everyone here knows the likelihood of getting "working class jobs pay $40-50K with benefits" by restrained globalization is somewhere between zero and nil. The 1950s were built on being to export to the world. Direct "subsidy" is more useful (because it creates customers for businesses, which is really what's in shortage these days), but replacing subsidy with infrastructure jobs (which have other uses) is far better for community, etc, where it's possible. Here I take a very broad view of what's infrastructure. Reducing classroom sizes by hiring more teachers is essentially infrastructure, for instance, and far more useful than digging holes then filling them back in. But I like environmental cleanup, building rail, elder care, a lot of other things. A lot of working class jobs is better than a smaller number of professional class jobs for the same cost. Less university bureaucrats, more university janitors, etc.

I think protectionism gets you part of the way, but not all the way. A $500B trade deficit, is a lot of working class jobs. Direct subsidies will be also necessary.

   1923. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4691153)
White flight in the 50's and 60's was due to a combination of blockbusting, racial paranoia, and general fear of the unknown, with each component feeding off the others, and it was hard to tell when one factor ended and the other began. To the extent that this still exists today, the flight mostly takes the form of switching one's middle school children to private schools, and even there it's not solely a white phenomenon. Intra-racial solidarity among minorities often doesn't survive too well once it gets past the rhetorical stage.

You omit the other factors, skyrocketing crime, and massive deterioration of urban schools in the 1960's.
   1924. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4691154)
I think protectionism gets you part of the way, but not all the way. A $500B trade deficit, is a lot of working class jobs. Direct subsidies will be also necessary.


You still have to get this past the legions of entrenched power brokers who insist that watching great-grandpa's money accrue interest is the real thrust of productivity and common good.
   1925. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4691156)
You omit the other factors, skyrocketing crime, and massive deterioration of urban schools in the 1960's.


1. Lead
2. Failure to invest in "black" schools
   1926. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4691157)
As long as America has black people to kick in the gnads, pretty much every other "Other" can be patient and be assured of getting into the game.


Native Americans are interested in this theory of yours. Newsletter?

Seriously though you are largely correct, though I would argue progress has been made on all fronts, including African Americans. Someday soon one will be an African American ex-president (after his impeachment I assume).
   1927. Mefisto Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4691158)
A $500B trade deficit, is a lot of working class jobs.


This is very true. A weaker dollar would help out quite a bit.
   1928. The Good Face Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4691160)
Your claim of impossibility collapses.


I never made a claim of impossibility. Socialism/strong welfare statism seems to work pretty good in Scandinavia, although they've been having their issues as well now that they've imported significant numbers of non-Scandinavian immigrants.

But this just shows how your claim of tribalism is weak. People are fleeing one type of diversity to another type which is now invisible to them since the boundaries of the tribe have changed so dramatically. No one is finding articles about efforts by white Protestants to flee neighborhoods with Catholics or Jews, as would have been common deep into the 1960s, or to seize the property of Asians and displace them. The boundaries have shifted. Which means they can shift again.


I already addressed this on the last page. Tribes will make common cause against what they see as a greater enemy. I against my brothers, my brothers and I against my cousins, etc. When the common enemy goes away, they may lapse back into conflict or they may find that their alliance of convenience has led to the formation of a new thede.

As long as America has black people to kick in the gnads, pretty much every other "Other" can be patient and be assured of getting into the game.


This is pretty much the case.
   1929. Publius Publicola Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:13 PM (#4691162)
White flight in the 50's and 60's was due to a combination of blockbusting, racial paranoia, and general fear of the unknown

Excellent episode of East Side, West Side with George C Scott on that:


No Hiding Place
   1930. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4691164)
1. Lead
2. Failure to invest in "black" schools


There was lead in paint for centuries. Why did the lead paint cause a crime spree in the 1960's, but not in the 1920's?

The schools were white working/lower-middle class when they were allowed to deteriorate. When minorities moved in and neighborhoods started getting dangerous, the whites fled.
   1931. Publius Publicola Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4691167)
A $500B trade deficit, is a lot of working class jobs. Direct subsidies will be also necessary.


I think we're on our way out of the trade deficit cycle right now. Oil and gas imports were a big part of that, and those will be gone soon. We will even be exporting a lot of gas, which will help even more. More importantly, a combination of very cheap domestic fossil fuels, combined with new manufacturing technologies like 3D printing, is going to chip away at the rest of it. In 5 years, we might have a small deficit but nothing to get in a sweat about. Maybe 0.5% or less.
   1932. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4691168)
Fruit boat.


You can disagree with someone without caling them names, y'know.
   1933. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4691172)
White flight in the 50's and 60's was due to a combination of blockbusting, racial paranoia, and general fear of the unknown, with each component feeding off the others, and it was hard to tell when one factor ended and the other began. To the extent that this still exists today, the flight mostly takes the form of switching one's middle school children to private schools, and even there it's not solely a white phenomenon. Intra-racial solidarity among minorities often doesn't survive too well once it gets past the rhetorical stage.

You omit the other factors, skyrocketing crime, and massive deterioration of urban schools in the 1960's.


I'm not discounting those factors, but it's like a henhouse full of chickens and a bushel of eggs trying to separate cause and effect. You might want to educate yourself on how blockbusting worked, and how it played into pre-existing white paranoia long before crime became that much of a factor.
   1934. Publius Publicola Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4691173)
Why did the lead paint cause a crime spree in the 1960's, but not in the 1920's?


You could hang a negro in the '20's without generating much fuss about it.
   1935. Shredder Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4691176)
Why did the lead paint cause a crime spree in the 1960's, but not in the 1920's?
There wasn't a lot of leaded gasoline emissions in the environment in the 1920s. The biggest source of lead in the postwar era was leaded gasoline, the use of which rose dramatically up until we started using unleaded gasoline. There's plenty of research on the subject, but Kevin Drum summarizes it pretty well. It's a fairly non-partisan subject, lest Jason get his panties in a bunch about a Mother Jones link.
   1936. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:26 PM (#4691177)
Why did the lead paint cause a crime spree in the 1960's, but not in the 1920's?


It wouldn't just be paint. Leaded gasoline became more of an environmental issue automobile culture flourished. Compounding the issue was the increase in population density in urban areas, so busy intersections would be hot-spots for lead accumulation.

[BAH! A Coke Unleaded for #1935]
   1937. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4691178)
There was lead in paint for centuries. Why did the lead paint cause a crime spree in the 1960's, but not in the 1920's?


You think lead paint is the primary cause of lead in people? It is not. The main culprit is thought to be lead in gasoline.

Here are some links to various articles.

It is not yet a proven theory, but I think it is fairly compelling once the evidence is fully examined.

EDIT: Cokes above.
   1938. McCoy Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:30 PM (#4691180)

We don't need to have 40% of the world GDP for a working class man to be able to support a family, buyt a modest house, and car, and send his kids to decent schools. That's all very achievable on a salary of $40-50K a year, with benefits, in most parts of the US.

All we have to do is figure out how to have working class jobs pay $40-50K with benefits. The answer is likely some combination of reduced competition (by restraining globalization, and large scale unskilled immigration) and direct gov't subsidies.


Is a working class couple not making 40,000 to 50,000?

Don't most people have affordable housing, the ability to buy a modest house, have a car, and can send their kids to a decent school?
   1939. Cris E Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:30 PM (#4691182)
Why did the lead paint cause a crime spree in the 1960's, but not in the 1920's?

The lead changed from building supply to environmental hazard just after the whites left the neighborhood. (Not precisely "just after", but "soon". Whites didn't leave on a particular date either.) Let's say flight starts after WW2 as mobility increases, accelerates as blacks start showing mobility as well and results in inner-city trouble in the 60s. The 70s environmental scene demanded that a lot of money has to be spent on lead abatement, which made investing in poor schools harder because the first chunk of cash allotted to any building had to go to largely invisible costs rather than improving the education. It's not a plot, but it made a bad situation worse.
   1940. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:33 PM (#4691184)
There was lead in paint for centuries. Why did the lead paint cause a crime spree in the 1960's, but not in the 1920's?


Answered multiple times above. The key environmental change was the dispersion of lead into the air via gasoline.
   1941. The Good Face Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:35 PM (#4691187)
Answered multiple times above. The key environmental change was the dispersion of lead into the air via gasoline.


Yes, nothing worse than the spectre of lead particles floating around, travelling with the wind, being dispersed via the slightest breeze... wait, wat?
   1942. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:36 PM (#4691188)
The key environmental change was the dispersion of lead into the air via gasoline.


There's also the large-scale incineration of garbage as an issue, FWIW. Lead paint is actually one of the less-insidious forms, since despite it's concentration it stays in place. It's the aerosolized and particulate stuff that's a long-term hazard to everyone in an area.
   1943. McCoy Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4691191)
The lead changed from building supply to environmental hazard just after the whites left the neighborhood. (Not precisely "just after", but "soon". Whites didn't leave on a particular date either.) Let's say flight starts after WW2 as mobility increases, accelerates as blacks start showing mobility as well and results in inner-city trouble in the 60s. The 70s environmental scene demanded that a lot of money has to be spent on lead abatement, which made investing in poor schools harder because the first chunk of cash allotted to any building had to go to largely invisible costs rather than improving the education. It's not a plot, but it made a bad situation worse.

This by the way reinforces the point about the 50's and 60's being an anomaly in that the 50's and 60's for the most part didn't have to pay the true cost for things. They simply passed those costs unto proceeding generations and decades.
   1944. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4691193)
Don't most people have affordable housing, the ability to buy a modest house, have a car, and can send their kids to a decent school?


The problem is that wages for the lower (and I really mean non-upper) income brackets has been flat for a long time now. The fruits of victory (so to speak) are going to the 1% (and even more to the .1%). the american dream, house, car, go school is getting harder and harder for most people to afford, as the prices for those things (especially school) are outstripping wage growth.
   1945. spike Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4691197)
I'm more surprised that the nefarious New World Order apparently has its uses afterall... Save us, black helicopters sent by the One World Government!

Well now that Fox blown the lid off Prince Barack de Kenya-Muslim creating a domestic militia who else can we turn to?
   1946. Shredder Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:42 PM (#4691201)
Yes, nothing worse than the spectre of lead particles floating around, travelling with the wind, being dispersed via the slightest breeze... wait, wat?
Or, ya know, settling into the dirt in fields and playgrounds. But why actually read anything about a topic when you can just show your ignorance by making a snarky comment?
   1947. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:42 PM (#4691202)
You think lead paint is the primary cause of lead in people? It is not. The main culprit is thought to be lead in gasoline.

If it was gasoline, why would the crime spike have been so concentrated in minority groups? You could make an argument that poor people were more exposed to lead paint in old buildings, but everyone was breathing the gasoline emissions, at least everyone in urban areas.
   1948. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4691203)
If it was gasoline, why would the crime spike have been so concentrated in minority groups? You could make an argument that poor people were more exposed to lead paint in old buildings, but everyone was breathing the gasoline emissions, at least everyone in urban areas.


Because one demographic was living in those urban areas night and day, and not going home to the suburbs where the concentration levels were much less at night.
   1949. spike Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4691204)
High density of minorities in urban areas with greatest concentrations of lead paint and lead auto pollution. Makes more sense than the bullshit assertion you made about the middle class in the '50s
   1950. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:46 PM (#4691208)
Yes, nothing worse than the spectre of lead particles floating around, travelling with the wind, being dispersed via the slightest breeze... wait, wat?


The science here is about 100x stronger than anything you've ever posted about crime and race, or intelligence and race. But of course, this doesn't fit your preferred narrative of "black people are the problem" so you ignore it. And then, I'm sure, will turn around and deign to lecture others on "realism."
   1951. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4691210)
Is a working class couple not making 40,000 to 50,000?

Don't most people have affordable housing, the ability to buy a modest house, have a car, and can send their kids to a decent school?


Right, two people have to work full-time to achieve what one full-time worker used to be able to provide. That is a massive decrease in standard of living.

The problem is that wages for the lower (and I really mean non-upper) income brackets has been flat for a long time now. The fruits of victory (so to speak) are going to the 1% (and even more to the .1%). the american dream, house, car, go school is getting harder and harder for most people to afford, as the prices for those things (especially school) are outstripping wage growth.

Yes. Male real median wages are below that of the late 1970's. Female wages are up, but female workers are much, much more skilled and educated than they used to be.

The issue is capital vs. labor. Capital is taking approx. 5% more of national income than it used to.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2012/2012-13.cfm

All the major economic changes (global free trade, high levels of unskilled immigration, declining unionization, etc.) favor capital at the expense of labor.
   1952. spike Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4691212)
IN other news, it turns out Cliven Bundy is a liar in addition to a moocher
   1953. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4691213)
Lead exposure, again most predominantly via aerosol exposure, also leads to worse performance in standardized educational testing.
   1954. The Good Face Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4691214)
If it was gasoline, why would the crime spike have been so concentrated in minority groups? You could make an argument that poor people were more exposed to lead paint in old buildings, but everyone was breathing the gasoline emissions, at least everyone in urban areas.


Eh, let it go. They're drunks looking for their keys under the lamppost; leaded gasoline gives them a narrative they like and frees them from having to contemplate narratives they don't like, so they'll cling to it regardless of merit or lack of causation.
   1955. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:49 PM (#4691216)
Because one demographic was living in those urban areas night and day, and not going home to the suburbs where the concentration levels were much less at night.

The white working class was living there night and day too. They didn't experience the same crime epidemic. And, if they were permanently cognitively damaged by lead, the crime epidemic should have been carried to the suburbs by all those fleeing working-class whites, but it wasn't.
   1956. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:49 PM (#4691217)
All the major economic changes (global free trade, high levels of unskilled immigration, declining unionization, etc.) favor capital at the expense of labor.


And, it should be noted, all of these changes were voluntarily made and to this day are optional. We're all just too gullible and insouciant to realize it.
   1957. The Good Face Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4691219)
Lead exposure, again most predominantly via aerosol exposure, also leads to worse performance in standardized educational testing.


Except racial gaps in standardized testing have remained pretty much the same since people were using horses to get around.
   1958. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4691220)
The white working class was living there night and day too.


No, the white working classes were moving to the suburbs in droves. About the only major city where that didn't happen in the 1950s and 1960s was New York, which happened to have a massively effective public transit system to keep the lead levels down.

Again, the data and science of this is out there, and it's pretty strong. As with any on-going piece of research, new information will lead to new conclusions, but at this point lead should be the default assumption for the problem for empiricists.
   1959. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4691221)
Rickey! said:

The science here is about 100x stronger than anything you've ever posted about crime and race, or intelligence and race. But of course, this doesn't fit your preferred narrative of "black people are the problem" so you ignore it. And then, I'm sure, will turn around and deign to lecture others on "realism."


And like magic:
Eh, let it go. They're drunks looking for their keys under the lamppost; leaded gasoline gives them a narrative they like and frees them from having to contemplate narratives they don't like, so they'll cling to it regardless of merit or lack of causation.


Rickey! you have a future in predictive analytics :)
   1960. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:53 PM (#4691223)
Except racial gaps in standardized testing have remained pretty much the same since people were using horses to get around.


You are emotionally invested in the standard line argument of "race realists" and refuse to look at any data or evidence to the contrary. This indicates your basic failure as a thinker. You want it to be racial. Why that is the case is anyone's guess.
   1961. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:53 PM (#4691224)
In case anyone was wondering what happened to Brandon Backe (old incident, but in the courts right now).
He got beat up by cops at a wedding
   1962. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:55 PM (#4691228)
No, the white working classes were moving to the suburbs in droves.

Right, but the lead theory posits childhood cognitive damage that causes crime later on. The fact that they moved to the suburbs when they were 10 shouldn't have saved those white kids from crime under that theory.

The suburbs were relatively tiny in the 1940s and 50's when this alleged lead effect would have had to have been happening (to be able to cause a crime wave in the 1960s).

About the only major city where that didn't happen in the 1950s and 1960s was New York, which happened to have a massively effective public transit system to keep the lead levels down.

But NYC is so much more dense than any other city, I'd have to imagine the emission levels would still have been nearly as high.
   1963. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4691231)
They're drunks looking for their keys under the lamppost; leaded gasoline gives them a narrative they like and frees them from having to contemplate narratives they don't like, so they'll cling to it regardless of merit or lack of causation.


As opposed to the guy repeating the same narrative handed down by white supremacists since the 1600's or so. You are invested emotionally in "race realism" and refuse to acknowledge evidence that contradicts your preferred narrative. You have zero cause to claim empiricism or realism as your own. All you have is an emotional narrative about "stupid black people."
   1964. spike Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:57 PM (#4691233)
Why that is the case is anyone's guess.

It is the only way folks who claim to subscribe to a very specific morality can justify their support of amoral/immoral behavior towards others. "They had it comin'"
   1965. Shredder Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4691234)
If it was gasoline, why would the crime spike have been so concentrated in minority groups?
Seriously, is it that hard to just read about a topic?
Eh, let it go. They're drunks looking for their keys under the lamppost; leaded gasoline gives them a narrative they like and frees them from having to contemplate narratives they don't like, so they'll cling to it regardless of merit or lack of causation.
Similarly, it's also quite easy to ignore actual research on a topic, the conclusions from which might make it difficult to maintain ones worldview that inner-city black people are just dumb, lazy, and prone to criminal behavior. I mean, why investigate whether a theory actually lacks merit when you can just declare that it does and be done with it?
   1966. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4691236)
Right, but the lead theory posits childhood cognitive damage that causes crime later on.


Cumulative damage.

EDIT: also possible selection bias here; violence in the white suburbs would have been domestic, the sort of thing that went unprocessed a lot in the 50s and 60s, whereas violence in the inner city was prosecuted harshly by "tough on crime" politicians.

But NYC is so much more dense than any other city, I'd have to imagine the emission levels would still have been nearly as high.


It's been a while since I scanned the studies, but I don't think that's the case.
   1967. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4691237)
The suburbs were relatively tiny in the 1940s and 50's when this alleged lead effect would have had to have been happening (to be able to cause a crime wave in the 1960s).


Read the articles with an open mind. It puts forth a reasonable case. There are even neurochemical links that show what lead does to the central nervous system.

Of course if Ray were here he would be demanding to know which specific criminals were "caused" by lead and be arguing each specific crime and how that one was not lead caused. So while I know GF won't change his mind, you have shown a much more open mind on stuff. This really is not partisan, lead/crime is just a hypothesis at this point, but it has a bunch of science and facts behind it, and is worth considering.
   1968. Shredder Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:00 PM (#4691238)
In case anyone was wondering what happened to Brandon Backe (old incident, but in the courts right now).
This stuff was posted on the main page about a month ago I think. Most of the baseball blogs (Hardball Talk, etc.) reported on it back then.
   1969. The Good Face Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4691239)
You are emotionally invested in the standard line argument of "race realists" and refuse to look at any data or evidence to the contrary. This indicates your basic failure as a thinker. You want it to be racial. Why that is the case is anyone's guess.


Actually, that's completely backward. I'm willing to accept that the lead hypothesis could possibly be correct and explain some social phenomena. You're unwilling to accept that genetic differences between races could explain ANYTHING. Perhaps because you're emotionally invested in the progressive blank slate model.

I'm not willing to accept the lead hypothesis IS correct because causation has not been demonstrated. As the time horizon stretches farther and farther away from the days of leaded gasoline but the social pathologies it's being used to explain away remain, no doubt it'll be dropped by the Sams of the world and a NEW unproven correlation will be trotted out. So it goes.
   1970. Shredder Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4691240)
Read the articles with an open mind. It puts forth a reasonable case. there are even neurochemical links that show what lead does to the central nervous system.
They've also shown similar effects across different continents.
Nevin collected lead data and crime data for Australia and found a close match. Ditto for Canada. And Great Britain and Finland and France and Italy and New Zealand and West Germany. Every time, the two curves fit each other astonishingly well. When I spoke to Nevin about this, I asked him if he had ever found a country that didn't fit the theory. "No," he replied. "Not one."
I wouldn't say the link is proven, but the correlation is extremely strong, and the theory hasn't really been debunked.
   1971. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4691241)
IN other news, it turns out Cliven Bundy is a liar in addition to a moocher


Does this surprise anyone (I mean other than Sean Hannity).

Actually, there are some ranchers who do have legitimate legal claims against the BLM and who have legitimate claims to compensation when the BLM has impeded their access to grazing lands, water, etc., Bundy is simply not one of them (though he is parroting their arguments)
   1972. McCoy Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4691243)
Right, two people have to work full-time to achieve what one full-time worker used to be able to provide. That is a massive decrease in standard of living.

Except it was never true that only one person used to provide what two do now. I was reading a 1951 census report the other day and from all the way at the bottom of the income range about one third the families had two people working and the more money the household made the more likely it was that two people were working. I think it gets as high as about 55 to 60% if memory serves me correct.

How is it a massive decrease in the standard of living if you just said that earning 40,000 to 50,000 provides for a decent life for you and your family?
   1973. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4691246)
Actually, that's completely backward. I'm willing to accept that the lead hypothesis could possibly be correct and explain some social phenomena. You're unwilling to accept that genetic differences between races could explain ANYTHING. Perhaps because you're emotionally invested in the progressive blank slate model.


More likely because every time this particular chestnut has been trotted out over the last four centuries it's been proven wrong, only to be recycled by your lot in some new spin later in the game. I accept genetic differences in populations. I do not accept your religious zealotry over the concept of "intelligence" and how it maps to your construct of "race." Mostly because you've shown absolutely zero evidence that your previously debunked theories should be reevaluated, relying instead on the old Steve Sailor game of obfuscation and rhetorical jui-jitsu.

I'm not willing to accept the lead hypothesis IS correct because causation has not been demonstrated.


Again, a classic response of the race-troll element. (and any number of other trolls, really.) When shown countervailing evidence, hide beneath the skirts of "correlation is not causation" until you think it's safe to sneak back out and propose the radical idea of white supremacy again.
   1974. Shredder Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4691247)
IN other news, it turns out Cliven Bundy is a liar in addition to a moocher
I like the guy they interview holding his gun, claiming that they're modern day Indians. Pretty sure the actual Native-Americans are the modern day Indians. They still exist, and they'd probably like their land back.
   1975. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4691248)

Actually, that's completely backward. I'm willing to accept that the lead hypothesis could possibly be correct and explain some social phenomena. You're unwilling to accept that genetic differences between races could explain ANYTHING. Perhaps because you're emotionally invested in the progressive blank slate model.


Wait, the neurological damage caused by lead is a demonstrated fact. Meanwhile, nobody has ever identified a gene or set of genes that cause violent or criminal behavior (leaving aside that genes don't really work like that), let alone that they are concentrated in any one ethnic group.
   1976. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4691250)
I wouldn't say the link is proven, but the correlation is extremely strong, and the theory hasn't really been debunked.


As I've said, this is the strongest hypothesis we have. The data here are near overwhelming. To refuse the evidence here in order to stick to "race realism" indicates a desire for white supremacist rhetoric overriding any desire for evidence based empirical reasoning.
   1977. spike Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:14 PM (#4691254)
I like the guy they interview holding his gun, claiming that they're modern day Indians.

Stewart's line about them holding the flag was awesome - “If you reject the American federal government, at least have the decency to create your own damn flag. I don’t give the Confederacy credit for much, but at least they had a graphic design team that was worth a sh*t.”
   1978. The Good Face Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4691260)
More likely because every time this particular chestnut has been trotted out over the last four centuries it's been proven wrong, only to be recycled by your lot in some new spin later in the game.


The data has been consistent since we began keeping data. The fact that you really, really hate what the data indicates is not meaningful.

I accept genetic differences in populations.


Oh? Before I call you a liar, I suppose it would be fair to grant you the opportunity to clarify. What do you accept?

I do not accept your religious zealotry over the concept of "intelligence" and how it maps to your construct of "race." Mostly because you've shown absolutely zero evidence that your previously debunked theories should be reevaluated, relying instead on the old Steve Sailor game of obfuscation and rhetorical jui-jitsu.


Is there a point in there someplace? Using IQ as a proxy for intelligence is a useful tool because it works. I realize this talk upsets you because it in some ways correlates with what old timey racists believed to be true, but that's of no matter. Some things are true even if people we find loathsome believe them. First figure out what's true, THEN worry about policy implications. Perhaps this will offer you comfort and succor.

Again, a classic response of the race-troll element. (and any number of other trolls, really.) When shown countervailing evidence, hide beneath the skirts of "correlation is not causation" until you think it's safe to sneak back out and propose the radical idea of white supremacy again.


Yawn. Physician, heal thyself.
   1979. Ron J2 Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:23 PM (#4691262)
Oh yeah Rickey! Been meaning to follow up on a point you made earlier. You claimed (paraphase) that we're measuing the wrong things in discussing strength of economy/recovery. I'm not really disagreeing, just wondering whether you had any thoughts as to what we should be looking at when discussing the state of the economy.

(Not that I need to add this -- BBTF after all) Others please chime in
   1980. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:26 PM (#4691264)
Is there a point in there someplace?


Yes. It's a good lever by which to call out your rank white supremacism for what it is, and therefore I used it. I have no illusions about getting you to engage outside of your white supremacist frame on this subject, son. I know who you are for the purpose of this discussion. So all I'm doing here is point out again, for anyone who hasn't cottoned on to the fact yet, that you're just a white supremacist who refuses to engage any reality that doesn't hinge on white supremacism when it comes to any discussion of a topic you can be shoe-horned into "bad things black people do."
   1981. McCoy Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4691265)
We should be looking at how America isolationism affected European diplomacy during the interwar years.
   1982. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4691268)
Important statistics (no one stat tells the whole story):
* Employment (measured a couple ways)
* GNP
* Median wage (especially effective take home pay)
* Gini coefficient

Over rated stats:
* Stock market
--- GAP ---
* Inflation (it is important, but lower is not always better and it is reported as if it were)
* Housing prices
* Any one single tax rate


I am sure there are others I am not thinking of right now.

NOTE: Did I mention how over rated the stock market is? Bond prices are a bit important, but not very primary I would argue.

NOTE 2: Interest rates. Yeah I knew I was forgetting something. Related strongly to inflation (obviously). I would say it is in between over and under rated. So maybe rated about right, though again often reported incorrectly.
   1983. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4691269)
Oh yeah Rickey! Been meaning to follow up on a point you made earlier. You claimed (paraphase) that we're measuing the wrong things in discussing strength of economy/recovery. I'm not really disagreeing, just wondering whether you had any thoughts as to what we should be looking at when discussing the state of the economy.


I think employment and working class wages have to be the starting point of any discussion of real economic well-being. I disregard any argument about the "strength" of the economy that relies on standard stock exchange metrics. I don't share all of his theoretical remedies for the problem(s), but I share many of Snapper's skepticisms with regard to economic measurement.

Real wages is sort of the alpha and omega for me, right now. I'm open to better metrics, but actual human beings taking home actual earnings, rather than corporate share prices going "up" is the fundamental switch we have to make in our thinking.
   1984. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4691270)
They've also shown similar effects across different continents.

This is the strongest argument by far for the lead theory IMO.
   1985. Mefisto Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4691271)
Capital is taking approx. 5% more of national income than it used to.


Significantly more than that, according to Piketty's figures. Of course, it depends on your endpoints.
   1986. zenbitz Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4691276)
Hey look let's assume the conclusion some more.

US less homogenous than Western European "Socialist Countries". Therefore, homogenization must be reason for socialism's success!! Therefore Socialism can not work in US!

Hey, I have more evidence: Yugoslavia was an attempt at Socialism across an inhomogeneous set of ethnic groups! Yugoslavia failed! Therefore, one cannot attempt Socialism across an in-homogenous set of ethnic groups. The US has an in-homogenous set of ethic groups. Therfore, socialism in the US is DOOMED TO FAIL.

   1987. The Good Face Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4691278)
Yes. It's a good lever by which to call out your rank white supremacism for what it is, and therefore I used it. I have no illusions about getting you to engage outside of your white supremacist frame on this subject, son. I know who you are for the purpose of this discussion. So all I'm doing here is point out again, for anyone who hasn't cottoned on to the fact yet, that you're just a white supremacist who refuses to engage any reality that doesn't hinge on white supremacism when it comes to any discussion of a topic you can be shoe-horned into "bad things black people do."


Seriously? What a collection of hysterical nonsense. I mean, I find your rank anti-semitism to be every bit as offensive as you apparently find my non-existent "white supremacy", but I don't feel the need to constantly bring up your judenhass.
   1988. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4691284)
I find your rank anti-semitism


When Rickey! drags "the jew" into every single conversation then you might have room to talk. As it is, one of you clearly has an obsession with groupings of people and the other lives in Georgia and is in a van on 95 south.
   1989. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4691285)
US less homogenous than Western European "Socialist Countries". Therefore, homogenization must be reason for socialism's success!! Therefore Socialism can not work in US!


I think there's a problem of scaling too. Not necessarily all due to "homogeneous" population, but a good deal due to sheer physical size. To take three examples:

Norway has about 5 million people of various ethnicities, but mostly white European. That's roughly comparable to Minnesota. I think it would be relatively simple to run a standalone "socialist" state in Minnesota.

Switzerland has +/- 8 million people, is more diverse than Norway but still relatively homogeneous. That compares reasonably to Virginia. Again, I don't think it would be hard to establish a functional "European style social democracy" in the Commonwealth.

Sweden, even more diverse and larger, has 10 mil or so. Comparable in size and scope to perhaps Georgia.

Even with the diverse populations I think you can make it work, if you keep the geographic scale limited. You'd have a really hard time running a European social democracy with a full-ride social safety net across ALL OF EUROPE too.
   1990. zenbitz Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4691286)
But even if such a wealth transfer took place, the country is far poorer than it was 50-60 years ago,


What, really? What metric are you using here?

As for lead vs. genetics - it's hardly relevant, unless you are trying to sell more lead.


Meanwhile, nobody has ever identified a gene or set of genes that cause violent or criminal behavior (leaving aside that genes don't really work like that), let alone that they are concentrated in any one ethnic group.


As resident genetics expert, this doesn't make it an invalid hypothesis. It's certainly POSSIBLE for VCB to have a genetic basis (genes DO work like that - just not *single* genes). In fact, it's totally reasonable (although I don't have any evidence for it) that there are "genes" (nowadays we say "Variants" or "Polymorphism") concentrated in ethnic ancestry groups that convey *susceptibility* to lead-based neurotoxicity.

   1991. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4691287)
Seriously? What a collection of hysterical nonsense. I mean, I find your rank anti-semitism to be every bit as offensive as you apparently find my non-existent "white supremacy", but I don't feel the need to constantly bring up your judenhass.


You can't find a single argument I've made that is the "anti-semitic" equivalent of your incessant, non-stop whinging about race.
   1992. zenbitz Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4691288)
Historically speaking, rape and murder are also "natural facts of life." Yet we manage to do what we can to prevent and reduce those.


30,000 Quatloos to Sam for making sound counter-arguments.
   1993. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4691295)
30,000 Quatloos to Sam for making sound counter-arguments.


Shouldn't that be "30,000 Quatloos on the Sam for making sound counter-arguments"? They are betting on them, not paying them.

Yes, I am a Star Trek nerd. Sorry. End pedantry (for now).
   1994. The Good Face Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4691300)
You can't find a single argument I've made that is the "anti-semitic" equivalent of your incessant, non-stop whinging about race.


"Incessant, non-stop whinging," (a description I reject by the way) is not "white supremacy". The next "white supremacist" policy prescription I offer up here will be the first one. What you've done is confuse facts that upset you ("hatefacts") with white supremacy. You, however, are on record claiming shadowy "cabals of Jews with dual loyalties" were undermining US foreign policy from within in service to Israel.

   1995. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4691312)
It's certainly POSSIBLE for VCB to have a genetic basis (genes DO work like that - just not *single* genes).


Generally, I think it's wrong to map genes on to complex behavior that is so heavily culturally influenced (it's like asking if Jews have a set of genes that make them like bagels and lox). It's possible that there are a series of genes that, together under the right environmental conditions, result in an enhanced propensity to violence, although even that formulation is a far cry from the genetic reductionism of those seeking a racial basis for crime.
   1996. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4691327)
"Incessant, non-stop whinging," (a description I reject by the way) is not "white supremacy". The next "white supremacist" policy prescription I offer up here will be the first one. What you've done is confuse facts that upset you ("hatefacts") with white supremacy.


I have stated the simple truth that your need to cling to racial arguments about the supremacy of white people with regard to intelligence and violent behavior, without any actual evidence beyond spin and cherry picking of "data" from sources you think are good for your cause, is in fact white supremacist rhetoric. You argue, incessantly and non-stop, that black people do poorly in the world because of their racial/genetic makeup. To claim that that is not the argument of white supremacy is insane. That is exactly the argument of white supremacy. The fact that you don't support a policy of whipping and lynching doesn't make your argument any less supremacist.

You, however, are on record claiming shadowy "cabals of Jews with dual loyalties" were undermining US foreign policy from within in service to Israel.


No I'm not. I've argued against AIPAC and in favor of J-Street repeatedly, because J-Street is the better argument and policy proposals, and I do not support the state of Israel with unthinking knee-jerk reaction. That's not what you seem to think it is. Most of my positions with regard to Israel and AIPAC could be copy and pasted from Peter Bienhart.
   1997. Lassus Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4691340)
"Incessant, non-stop whinging," (a description I reject by the way)

I certainly reject the word "whinging", because it's both bizarro and unpleasant.
   1998. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4691346)
I certainly reject the word "whinging", because it's both bizarro and unpleasant.


Me also. But I find a great deal of what AIPAC says to be bizarre and unpleasant as well. Oh well.
   1999. The Good Face Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4691349)
I have stated the simple truth that your need to cling to racial arguments about the supremacy of white people with regard to intelligence and violent behavior, without any actual evidence beyond spin and cherry picking of "data" from sources you think are good for your cause, is in fact white supremacist rhetoric.


Interesting use of scare quotes around data there. Quoting the FBI's statistics on crime is not "white supremacist rhetoric". Citing mainstream science on IQ testing is not "white supremacist rhetoric". Your tendency to fly into hysterics when presented with facts that upset you does not mean that the person who presented the fact is a "white supremacist". It just means you're a delicate flower who lacks the capacity to communicate with people who don't uncritically accept your worldview.

You argue, incessantly and non-stop, that black people do poorly in the world because of their racial/genetic makeup.


No, I accept that it's a possibility, which it is. You're the one jamming your fingers in your ears and screaming that it just can't be true, it can't, it can't, it CAN'T! Because old timey racists were meanies or something. The world isn't always how we'd like it to be. Someday you'll figure that out.

No I'm not. I've argued against AIPAC and in favor of J-Street repeatedly, because J-Street is the better argument and policy proposals, and I do not support the state of Israel with unthinking knee-jerk reaction. That's not what you seem to think it is. Most of my positions with regard to Israel and AIPAC could be copy and pasted from Peter Bienhart.


No, you said what I quoted. You made the dual loyalty slur and you get to own it. The fact that certain other people agree with you is irrelevant; you're an anti-semite because you post anti-semitic statements and defend them vigorously.
   2000. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4691368)
Interesting use of scare quotes around data there. Quoting the FBI's statistics on crime is not "white supremacist rhetoric". Citing mainstream science on IQ testing is not "white supremacist rhetoric".


You routinely trot out cherry picked data in order to make the argument that African Americans do poorly in intelligence tests and are convicted of committing more crime to support your theory that these bad behaviors are genetically based.

The argument that bad outcomes, produced by bad behavior or inferior intellectual capacity, are driven by genetics is the very definition of white supremacy. That's what white supremacy is.

Your argument, at the nub of it, is that white Americans do better on metrics X, Y or Z because they have a genetically superior set of tools than black Americans.

The argument that white people are genetically superior to black people, specifically in regard to the question of intelligence and violent behaviors, is bog standard white supremacy.
Page 20 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(281 - 2:30pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jimmy P

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2849 - 2:28pm, Oct 21)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(105 - 2:23pm, Oct 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(90 - 2:16pm, Oct 21)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(165 - 2:14pm, Oct 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(5 - 2:14pm, Oct 21)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(28 - 2:10pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(7 - 2:07pm, Oct 21)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(100 - 1:35pm, Oct 21)
Last: Belfry Bob

NewsblogSo You’re About to Pitch to Pablo Sandoval | FanGraphs Baseball
(3 - 1:34pm, Oct 21)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(49 - 1:28pm, Oct 21)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(47 - 1:27pm, Oct 21)
Last: Lassus

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(22 - 1:24pm, Oct 21)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(445 - 12:59pm, Oct 21)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(18 - 11:29am, Oct 21)
Last: GuyM

Page rendered in 1.2855 seconds
52 querie(s) executed