We're a "Nation of cowards"

[EasyEJL]

No,I base my arguments on actions,research,experience,etc. It doesn 't take a mind reader to know that the officer who committed the following act was "scum".

Ah yes, the officer who committed it was beyond a doubt. For some reason I was thinking you meant the whole precinct. I don't think any of us have argued that there are no bad people, or no bad people in positions of power, just that it is no longer a pandemic as it was 50 years ago.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

No. In actuality you have no arguments. You 'quote' random, semi on point research

:werd:

 

[CDB]

Blah blah blah

You already quote all this. Let me ask you, in these wonerful studies did they try to correlate crime rates with the rate at which criminals were represented on TV? I mean in 50% of the robberies in an area are black on white, 25% are black on black, 20% white on black, and 5% white on white, and blacks show up 75% of the time as the suspect on TV, that is not an indication of racism but fair reporting.

"A Different World: Children's Perceptions of Race and Class in the Media" reported that "children of all races agree that the news media tend to portray African-American and Latino people more negatively than white and Asian people, particularly when the news is about young people."

A look at the "Methodoloy" section on page 17 of that study might explain why. These were lead focus groups seperated by race and even sex, moderated to bring who knows how much bias into the results. Oh, and the ****nuts misused the word Methodology too. The section should be titled Method(s).

 

[EasyEJL]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Bionic]

Oh man, the moment of realization is priceless.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Lets wrap up with a couple songs: Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

 

[lutherblsstt]

Invalid Link Removed

Description: What happens to wrongly accused inmates , exonerated by DNA testing, after the media spotlight turns elsewhere?

FRONTLINE producer Ofra Bikel examines the many social, psychological, and economic challenges facing exonerated inmates, most of whom re-enter society with no transitional assistance.

Cases of several exonerated inmates and the hurdles they face illustrate efforts to pass laws allowing the wrongfully convicted to sue for compensation.

View the entire 53-minute program here in seven consecutive chapters

Invalid Link Removed

 

[lutherblsstt]

You already quote all this. Let me ask you, in these wonerful studies did they try to correlate crime rates with the rate at which criminals were represented on TV? I mean in 50% of the robberies in an area are black on white, 25% are black on black, 20% white on black, and 5% white on white, and blacks show up 75% of the time as the suspect on TV, that is not an indication of racism but fair reporting.



A look at the "Methodoloy" section on page 17 of that study might explain why. These were lead focus groups seperated by race and even sex, moderated to bring who knows how much bias into the results. Oh, and the ****nuts misused the word Methodology too. The section should be titled Method(s).

Criminal labeling

The labeling of African-American and Latino communities as in some way "criminal" is commonplace. It happens, though, in a variety of ways. Study after study has documented how the mainstream media disproportionately portray the face of crime in America as young and black. (See "Crime in Black and White: The Violent, Scary World of Local News," Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, Vol. 1, No. 3.)

Sometimes mainstream media resort to outright labeling, as in the case of a New York Times article (12/23/92) on the high incidence of street crime arrests in several largely African-American and Latino neighborhoods in New York City.

An ominous sub-head within the story read "Predisposition to Crime." Accompanying the article was a map of New York City featuring the black and Latino neighborhoods in question—under the label "The Criminal Communities."

But the media crime frame of racial dualism is a more subtle, though no less problematic, operation.

For example, in "A Shocking Look at Blacks and Crime" (10/16/95), U.S. News & World Report introduced its account of the 1995 Sentencing Project study with the question, "Are a third of young black men criminals?"

Overlaying the "A or B" framing with a "white vs. black" significance, U.S. News proclaimed that "many whites say the statistics merely reflect the fact that a disproportionate number of criminals are young black men," while "many blacks say the numbers are the product of a legal system that is tilted against them."

Similarly, coverage of the 1997 Sentencing Project report "Unintended Consequences" in the New York Times (1/30/97) gave further credence to the notion that a lot of black males are just naturally criminals.

Times writer Fox Butterfield used the quotes of a professor to say that while "much of the racial disparity in imprisonment" of black males "could be attributed to tougher sentences for crack cocaine favored by black drug users, than for powdered cocaine, favored by whites," there is the "unhappy truth" that blacks are "arrested disproportionately for violent crimes." This device was used elsewhere by the Times (10/5/95, 10/8/95, 2/13/96) and conveys the distinct impression that, bias aside, there is still the larger problem of criminal black folk.

The media crime frame of racial dualism sets up a false conflict between a model that explains the high numbers of blacks in the criminal justice system as a result of discrimination and a model that posits "disproportionate" criminality on the part of blacks as a root cause. But the Sentencing Project's reports cited a variety of causal factors, the principled ones being (1) bias, (2) the continuing overall growth of the criminal justice system, (3) the continuing disproportionate impact of the "war on drugs" on minority populations, (4) the new wave of "get tough" sentencing policies and (5) the continuing difficult circumstances of life for many young people living in low-income urban areas—what the Sentencing Project called the "intersection of race and class effects." Those who use the frame of racial dualism ignore or minimize these causal factors while mystifying "disproportionality" into racial destiny.

The media frame of racial dualism also reinforces the prevailing
"discrimination" model for explaining racism in America: By presenting racism as a matter of individual attitudes and choices, the more important role that structural economic and residential apartheid have played as pillars of white supremacy in the U.S. is missed. Finally, the frame of racial dualism divides black and white into hostile camps, associating whites with one view and blacks with the other—glossing over the fact that many leading critics of black criminalization, including the author of the Sentencing Project reports, are European-Americans.


Invalid Link Removed

 

[lutherblsstt]

You already quote all this. Let me ask you, in these wonerful studies did they try to correlate crime rates with the rate at which criminals were represented on TV? I mean in 50% of the robberies in an area are black on white, 25% are black on black, 20% white on black, and 5% white on white, and blacks show up 75% of the time as the suspect on TV, that is not an indication of racism but fair reporting.

Take the host of Nightline's response on yet another facet of the "Black Crime Problem" discussion.

The National Center's Jerome Miller confronted Koppel (Nightline, 9/2/92) with statistics documenting that in Baltimore a total of 86 black youths and 18 white youths were arrested for drug sales in 1980, whereas in 1990 only 13 white kids were arrested while 1,300 black youths were arrested for sale of drugs. Now, according to a 1992 estimate of the U.S. Public Health Service's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 76 percent of illicit drug users in the U.S. were white, 14 percent were black, and 8 percent were Latino. But when Miller confronted Koppel with the data, Koppel's response was a question of his own. "Let me ask you a very painful, but necessary question," he said. "Is it that not many white people are selling drugs?"

A "painful" question? Why, one might ask, is this so "painful" for Koppel? Could it be that he is pained at the unhappy task of revealing the "truth" about blacks, a "truth" that is hard to hear, and even harder for him to say, but one that bravely, if gently, must be uttered: the "truth" of black pathology, of black criminality. But Koppel's paternalistic truth is not true. And thus the response of Miller, who, in a nice turn of the tables, answered, "No. I think a lot of it, incidentally, has to do with the media."

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Vtaper]

O.K. Luther, can you please answer these simple questions, please do not preface your response with: "Are you serious?", "Clearly you didnt read the study by", etc.

You will gain the respect of everyone reading if you can stay on task and DIRECTLY answer these questions, dont attack me and please do not just post an article written by someone else, I want to know what YOU think.

1. What would you say to the millions of people of color who are willing to risk their lives to come here?

2. Do you think they are making a mistake?

3. If so, what should they do? i.e. Stay where they are, OR what other country should they go to.

4. If our economic system is unfairly slanted to give whites opportunities, why do Asians have the highest household income in the U.S.? ($66,103)
Invalid Link Removed

5. Why havent Whites been able to stop this?

6. Is it possible that Asians' family structure, education and work ethic are stronger than the white racism that wants to keep everyone else down?
I just want to know if it is possible.

a)Yes
b)No

Thanks!

 

[lutherblsstt]

O.K. Luther, can you please answer these simple questions, please do not preface your response with: "Are you serious?", "Clearly you didnt read the study by", etc.

You will gain the respect of everyone reading if you can stay on task and DIRECTLY answer these questions,
1. What would you say to the millions of people of color who are willing to risk their lives to come here?

Relevance?

As for your implied point of why they would want to come to the US in the first place I would answer that the government of the United States of America, if it does anything well, does a superb job in its advertising department. (What Goebbels called propaganda.)

2. Do you think they are making a mistake?

Depends on where they are coming from and who "they" are.

3. If so, what should they do? i.e. Stay where they are, OR what other country should they go to.

Again,depends on who "they" are and where "they" are coming from. As far as where else to go I would say to a country with a high level of social mobility and that is high on the human development index. The United States has fallen from second place in 1990 (behind Canada) to 12th place.

Excerpt from study entitled “The Measure of America,” Invalid Link Removed

"The US is 34th in infant mortality—with a level comparable to Croatia, Estonia, Poland and Cuba. US school children perform significantly below their counterparts in countries like Canada, France, Germany and Japan, and 14 percent of the population, some 40 million people, lack basic literacy and number skills.

Of the world’s 30 richest nations, which comprise the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States has the highest proportion of children living in poverty, 15 percent, and the most people in prison, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the whole population. With five percent of the world’s population, the US has 24 percent of the world’s prisoners.

The report notes: “Social mobility is now less fluid in the United States than in other affluent nations. Indeed, a poor child born in Germany, France, Canada or one of the Nordic countries has a better chance to join the middle class in adulthood than an American child born into similar circumstances.”

In overall life expectancy, the United States ranks an astonishing 42nd, behind not only Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all the countries of Western Europe, but also Israel, Greece, Singapore, Costa Rica and South Korea. The US spends twice as much money per capita on health care as any of these countries, but its citizens live shorter live."

4. If our economic system is unfairly slanted to give whites opportunities, why do Asians have the highest household income in the U.S.? ($66,103)
Invalid Link Removed

This has already been addressed thoroughly here: Invalid Link Removed

Voluntary migrants from nations that are not contiguous to their country of destination tend to have the skills and money needed to leave their home country in the first place. As many scholars have found, Asian immigrants are largely drawn from an occupational and educational elite in their countries of origin.

Asian success in the U.S. relative to others is largely due to immigration policies that favor immigrants with pre-existing skills and education.

As the Glass Ceiling Commission discovered in 1995, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the highly educated APA community already had college degrees before coming to the U.S., or were in college upon arrival.

Thanks to preferences for educated immigrants, APAs are two-thirds more likely than whites and three times more likely than blacks to have a college degree. More than 8 in 10 Indian immigrants from 1966-1977 had advanced degrees and training in such areas as science, medicine or engineering.

5. Why havent Whites been able to stop this?

Data showing Asians doing better than whites is family and household data, not per capita income data.

This is important because APA households and families tend to have more family members (thus, slightly higher incomes have to cover more persons), and more earners per family (thus, it takes more folks working so as to earn only slightly more than whites, with fewer income earners).

The average Asian household size, for example, is 3.3 persons, compared to only 2.5 per household for whites. Likewise, Asian American families are more likely than white families to have two income earners, and nearly twice as likely to have three earners. So while Asian household and family income is higher than that for whites, the median income per person is lower for Asians: as much as $2000 less annually.

An additional reason why the average income of Asian families is higher than that of whites is because Asians are concentrated in parts of the country that have higher average incomes and costs of living. The three states with the largest Asian populations and a disproportionate share of the overall Asian population (California, New York and Hawaii), rank 13th, 4th, and 16th in terms of average income: all within the top third of states. Whereas 76 percent of Asian Americans live in the higher-income regions of the West and Northeast, only 41 percent of whites and 28 percent of blacks are in these regions. Over half of all APAs in the U.S. live in just five major U.S. cities (Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City): all of which have higher than average household incomes, and much higher costs of living than most of the U.S.

6. Is it possible that Asians' family structure, education and work ethic are stronger than the white racism that wants to keep everyone else down?
I just want to know if it is possible.

a)Yes
b)No

Thanks!

Again from #4

To claim superior Asian genes or culture as the reasons for achievement in the U.S. requires one to ignore the rampant poverty of persons from the same backgrounds in their countries of origin.

There is no shortage, after all, of desperately poor Asians in the slums of Manila, Calcutta and Hong Kong: testament to the absurdity of cultural superiority claims for Asians as a group.

Indeed, if one examines ethnic Koreans in Japan and the Burakumin there -- a minority treated much like the Dalits and other lower caste persons in India -- one finds the same kind of consistent underperformance relative to the dominant Japanese in terms of education and employment status.

Both are targets of discrimination, and although they are culturally and genetically indistinguishable from other Koreans or Japanese, they are consistently found at the bottom of Japanese society, and do worse than others in Japan and Korea. Not only does this debunk the notion of pan-Asian cultural superiority, it also suggests that a group's caste status influences group outcomes: much as with blacks in the U.S., whose position has been similar to the Burakumin and ethnic Koreans in Japan.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Again,depends on who "they" are and where "they" are coming from. As far as where else to go I would say to a country with a high level of social mobility and that is high on the human development index. The United States has fallen from second place in 1990 (behind Canada) to 12th place.

Dig a little deeper and you'll see that social mobility has been declining ever since the early 1970s in the US, with the advent of the Great Society programs and welfare.

Of the world’s 30 richest nations, which comprise the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States has the highest proportion of children living in poverty, 15 percent, and the most people in prison, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the whole population. With five percent of the world’s population, the US has 24 percent of the world’s prisoners.

How much do you want to bet that the 20-25k annually that many welfare "families" receive in government entitlements was not calculated into that poverty measuring stick.

In overall life expectancy, the United States ranks an astonishing 42nd, behind not only Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all the countries of Western Europe, but also Israel, Greece, Singapore, Costa Rica and South Korea. The US spends twice as much money per capita on health care as any of these countries, but its citizens live shorter live."

So you think if the government expanded its control beyond the fraud ridden medicare and medicaid programs and socialized all medicine that the quality of care and the price of care would go down? Keep dreaming.

A fact socialized health care proponents never mention is that the majority of American are happy with their own personal health care. Its only when confronted with the phrase health care system that they balk and say they're not happy with the system.

As the Glass Ceiling Commission discovered in 1995, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the highly educated APA community already had college degrees before coming to the U.S., or were in college upon arrival.

Is the "glass ceiling commission" supposed to be an objective measure? That's like saying that an "excessive government spending commission" is a reputable source for determining if government spending is excessive. The name is saying that they believe a glass ceiling exists....

To claim superior Asian genes or culture as the reasons for achievement in the U.S. requires one to ignore the rampant poverty of persons from the same backgrounds in their countries of origin.

There is no shortage, after all, of desperately poor Asians in the slums of Manila, Calcutta and Hong Kong: testament to the absurdity of cultural superiority claims for Asians as a group.

I like how you always judge success by the least successful people rather than the most successful people. Marx would be proud.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Dig a little deeper and you'll see that social mobility has been declining ever since the early 1970s in the US, with the advent of the Great Society programs and welfare.

No matter the cause I would advise them to go where there is more social mobility.

How much do you want to bet that the 20-25k annually that many welfare "families" receive in government entitlements was not calculated into that poverty measuring stick.

Statement or question?

By the way:

"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." --Boston Globe series on Corporate Welfare Invalid Link Removed

So you think if the government expanded its control beyond the fraud ridden medicare and medicaid programs and socialized all medicine that the quality of care and the price of care would go down? Keep dreaming.

Where or when did I say that?

A fact socialized health care proponents never mention is that the majority of American are happy with their own personal health care. Its only when confronted with the phrase health care system that they balk and say they're not happy with the system.

Working families are experiencing double-digit increases in the costs of health insurance, more out-of-pocket costs for doctor visits and skyrocketing prices for prescriptions, forcing many to delay getting needed medical care or worse—to decline coverage for themselves or their families because of cost. Health care costs are rising at five times the rate of inflation.

According to the Center for Studying Health System Change, health care spending rose 10 percent in 2002 and that followed a slightly more than 10 percent increase in 2001—the largest jump in more than a decade. In the first six months of 2003, health spending rose another 8.5 percent. Premiums for employer-sponsored coverage increased nearly 13 percent in 2002. As employers refuse to pay their fair share, this trend may result in millions of workers losing their employer-based coverage

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Is the "glass ceiling commission" supposed to be an objective measure? That's like saying that an "excessive government spending commission" is a reputable source for determining if government spending is excessive. The name is saying that they believe a glass ceiling exists....

See for yourself: Invalid Link Removed

Excerpt:

"Thanks to the leadership and vision of Secretary Elizabeth Dole—and that of her able successor, Secretary Lynn Martin— the Department of Labor became closely involved in identifying and publicizing the glass ceiling problem, issuing a Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative in 1991.

Senator Robert Dole, who introduced the Glass Ceiling Act in 1991, praised Martin’s report, noting that it “confirm(s) what many of us have suspected all along—the existence of invisible, artificial barriers blocking women and minorities from advancing up the corporate ladder to management and executive level positions.” He added: “For this Senator, the issue boils down to ensuring equal access and equal opportunity.”

The Glass Ceiling Act was enacted with only minor changes as Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It established the bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission, with the Secretary of Labor as its chair. And it
charged the twenty-one member Commission (itself an appropriately diverse body, in terms of ethnicity, gender, and political affiliation) with a complex mission: to conduct a study and prepare recommendations
on “eliminating artificial barriers to the advancement of women and minorities” to “management and decisionmaking positions in business.”

The fact-finding report that the Commission is now releasing confirms the enduring aptness of the “glass ceiling” metaphor. At the highest levels of business, there is indeed a barrier only rarely penetrated by
women or persons of color.

I like how you always judge success by the least successful people rather than the most successful people. Marx would be proud.

Wrong,I pointed out that asserting that there is some inherent cultural superiority demonstrated by Asians based off of their success in the US is myopic and requires one to ignore the rampant poverty of persons from the same backgrounds in their countries of origin.

 

[RobInKuwait]

No matter the cause I would advise them to go where there is more social mobility.

Makes sense.

Statement or question?

By the way:

"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." --Boston Globe series on Corporate Welfare Invalid Link Removed

Statement.

What's your not mentioning are facts like Exxon alone paid more in taxes last year than the combined taxes of half the nation. You're also not mentioning that the US has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Why should corporations pay any taxes? Seriously. It makes no sense to me. Its cutting directly into the revenue reinvestment stream of the corporation and preventing growth. The money will get taxed when the individuals get paid, why do we need to hit them twice?

Where or when did I say that?

You were implying that our current system is unwieldy and untenable. Unless there is some health care system I don't know about, the only options I know of are public, private, and the current hybrid system we have in place.

Working families are experiencing double-digit increases in the costs of health insurance, more out-of-pocket costs for doctor visits and skyrocketing prices for prescriptions, forcing many to delay getting needed medical care or worse—to decline coverage for themselves or their families because of cost. Health care costs are rising at five times the rate of inflation.

According to the Center for Studying Health System Change, health care spending rose 10 percent in 2002 and that followed a slightly more than 10 percent increase in 2001—the largest jump in more than a decade. In the first six months of 2003, health spending rose another 8.5 percent. Premiums for employer-sponsored coverage increased nearly 13 percent in 2002. As employers refuse to pay their fair share, this trend may result in millions of workers losing their employer-based coverage

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Why don't you examine the costs and efficiency of private health care versus medicare and medicaid, then you can extrapolate just how much better or worse private healthcare is versus public. Or you could examine how effective socialized healthcare has been in Canada and the UK, where people routinely die from cancers such as prostate and cervical cancers that are routinely treated and cured in the United States. I never want my life to be in the hands of a government bureaucrat. Its a scary scenario.

See for yourself: Invalid Link Removed

Excerpt:

"Thanks to the leadership and vision of Secretary Elizabeth Dole—and that of her able successor, Secretary Lynn Martin— the Department of Labor became closely involved in identifying and publicizing the glass ceiling problem, issuing a Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative in 1991.

Senator Robert Dole, who introduced the Glass Ceiling Act in 1991, praised Martin’s report, noting that it “confirm(s) what many of us have suspected all along—the existence of invisible, artificial barriers blocking women and minorities from advancing up the corporate ladder to management and executive level positions.” He added: “For this Senator, the issue boils down to ensuring equal access and equal opportunity.”

The Glass Ceiling Act was enacted with only minor changes as Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It established the bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission, with the Secretary of Labor as its chair. And it
charged the twenty-one member Commission (itself an appropriately diverse body, in terms of ethnicity, gender, and political affiliation) with a complex mission: to conduct a study and prepare recommendations
on “eliminating artificial barriers to the advancement of women and minorities” to “management and decisionmaking positions in business.”

The fact-finding report that the Commission is now releasing confirms the enduring aptness of the “glass ceiling” metaphor. At the highest levels of business, there is indeed a barrier only rarely penetrated by
women or persons of color.

Sowell mentions this in Economic Facts and Fallacies. The part these groups never mention is that working women who do not have extended sabbaticals and continue to work full time actually make more on average than men. The fact is that the many working woman takes extended time off from work to raise children. The normal time for women to get pregnant is between 25 and 40, the most important time for getting on the "fast track" in careers. So while the statistics show women are being treated unjustly, in this case the statistics are in fact lying.

Wrong,I pointed out that asserting that there is some inherent cultural superiority demonstrated by Asians based off of their success in the US is myopic and requires one to ignore the rampant poverty of persons from the same backgrounds in their countries of origin.

Your painting with a broad brush. You can't look at a couple of island nations with few natural resources and assume that poverty is due to their culture. The best way to see would be to take a control group, say the "boat people" from Vietnam who immigrated to America, and see how they fared as a whole when given similar economic opportunities as most Americans.

The fact is that many of these Vietmanese "boat people" came here with no assets to their name, and have since gone on to become highly successful businessmen and entrepreneurs in America. I don't think its a stretch to say that their strong work ethic and tight family support system enabled them to accomplish this feat.

 

[lutherblsstt]

What's your not mentioning are facts like Exxon alone paid more in taxes last year than the combined taxes of half the nation. You're also not mentioning that the US has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Why should corporations pay any taxes? Seriously. It makes no sense to me. Its cutting directly into the revenue reinvestment stream of the corporation and preventing growth. The money will get taxed when the individuals get paid, why do we need to hit them twice?

Most Companies in US Avoid Federal Income Taxes
Report Says Most Corporations Pay No Federal Income Taxes; Lawmakers Blame Loopholes
Invalid Link Removed

"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.


Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes
Invalid Link Removed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

You were implying that our current system is unwieldy and untenable.

It is.

Your painting with a broad brush. You can't look at a couple of island nations with few natural resources and assume that poverty is due to their culture. The best way to see would be to take a control group, say the "boat people" from Vietnam who immigrated to America, and see how they fared as a whole when given similar economic opportunities as most Americans.

You seem not to comprehend what I am saying. I am not blaming their culture for poverty in the nation.I pointed out that asserting that there is some inherent cultural superiority demonstrated by Asians based off of their success in the US is myopic and requires one to ignore the rampant poverty of persons from the same backgrounds in their countries of origin.

The fact is that many of these Vietmanese "boat people" came here with no assets to their name, and have since gone on to become highly successful businessmen and entrepreneurs in America. I don't think its a stretch to say that their strong work ethic and tight family support system enabled them to accomplish this feat.

Claims of Asian success obscure the fact that the Asian American child poverty rate is nearly double the white rate, and according to a New York Times report in May of 1996, Southeast Asians as a whole have the highest rates of welfare dependence of any racial or ethnic group in the United States.

Nearly half of all Southeast Asian immigrants and refugees in the U.S. live in poverty, with annual incomes in 1990 of less than $10,000 per year. Amazingly, even those Southeast Asians with college degrees face obstacles. Two-thirds of Lao and Hmong-American college grads live below the poverty level, as do nearly half of Cambodian Americans and over a third of Vietnamese Americans with degrees.

Indeed, Asian "success" rhetoric ignores the persistent barriers to advancement faced by Asians relative to whites. On average, Asian Americans with a college degree earn 11% less than comparable whites; and APA's with only a high school diploma earn, on average, 26% less than their white counterparts.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[CDB]

Luther,

Again the problem is you quote a bunch of stuff that doesn't prove your point. Even the on point studies you quote only show down stream correlations, not what's causing the issue. The only valid point you have made so far is that the War on Drugs, largely targetted toward blacks and which largely destroys black communities, leads to disproportionate crime. Those profits have never be legitamized like the profits of the bootleggers of old. This doesn't cover the other areas though. All your studies go backwards. They assume racism and then look at tv or news coverage or whatever, and find disparities in the ways the races are presented. This proves diddly **** unless you beg the question and assume the answer to begin with.

The fact is that no matter what confounding issues you try to correct for blacks commit crimes disproportionate to their representation in US society. That this occasionally hits the news in some form or another is unsuprising. What is surprising is the consistent push back from blacks who, rather than acknowledging reality and working from there, constantly want to excuse and/or gloss over the basic issues and approach this as a matter of presentation; ie the problems in the black communities that lead to these imbalances will go away if more white people are shown as criminals on TV. Or some ridiculous bullshit like that. Bottom line is if you don't deal with basic social issues such as fatherless children and the remaining racists policies like the war on drugs, and keep imagining some systemic bias that you can blame all these problems on, the problems will persist. The black community is dying of TB and you're refusing anything stronger than a cough suppresant.

 

[EasyEJL]

As employers refuse to pay their fair share, this trend may result in millions of workers losing their employer-based coverage

Fair share? The employer's fair share is 0. Go back to WWII. Before that there was NO employer participation in health care. Many people had no insurance, many people had catastrophic coverage only. When the US government started monkeying with the economy and forced all businesses to do a wage freeze, some "smart" businesses started adding new benefits to attract employees since that wasn't covered by the wage ban. The interesting part here is that we as a nation were far healthier then, and I have a firm belief as to its cause. When you know that the cost of you visiting a doctor for high blood pressure treatment and the medication that goes with it is going to come directly out of your pocket, you are a LOT more likely to pay attention to the dietary part of controlling it, since that costs nothing. Also if your doctor suggested you needed an xray, or some other specialized test, you'd actually call around to check prices, and check with friends to see if they had used any and their experience. Nowadays, cost is irrelvant if you have insurance so there is no pressure on the providers to lower prices, as there is no competition between them. This is largely in my opinion the reason for the skyrocketing medical costs, combined with americas skyrocketing waistlines. Prople expect "the system" to make up for their own lack of taking care of themselves "i'm just too busy to eat healthy" "I don't like to get all sweaty exercising" "Fresh fruits and vegetables are too expensive" etc.

Put people's health care back in their own hands. Make them be responsible for their eating habits, and their exercise habits by paying for their own insurance. You'll see lifespans increase, obesity decrease, and health care costs decrease too. Our whole dumb current system including HMOs is "if you start treating something early, you can avoid having it be a bigger problem" however what its turned into is "by treating something early, you encourage people to not change their shitty behaviors and they still have the problem in the long run anyhow"

 

[CDB]

The US is 34th in infant mortality—with a level comparable to Croatia, Estonia, Poland and Cuba.

Bullshit statistic. More children with potential problems are broguht to term here in the US when in these other countries they, and possbily their mother, would just die and be still born or lost pregancies. As happens so often, Luther, it would help if you understood the stats and the methods behind them before you posted them.

US school children perform significantly below their counterparts in countries like Canada, France, Germany and Japan, and 14 percent of the population, some 40 million people, lack basic literacy and number skills.

According to which tests? How are the students selected in each nation?

In overall life expectancy, the United States ranks an astonishing 42nd, behind not only Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all the countries of Western Europe, but also Israel, Greece, Singapore, Costa Rica and South Korea. The US spends twice as much money per capita on health care as any of these countries, but its citizens live shorter live."

Because we have higher incidents of accidental deaths and other fatalities not related to things like health care or overall health. This same bullshit stat was pulled up in the WHO report on health care systems and was demolished as irrelevant **** within weeks of publication. Once more, Luther, it would help if you understood the stats and the methods behind them before you posted them.

So while Asian household and family income is higher than that for whites, the median income per person is lower for Asians: as much as $2000 less annually.

Median income means diddly **** because it doesn't correct for population distribution in the professions. This was mentioned quite a while ago, I'm surprised you would pull such an irrelevant and basically meaningless statistic out of your ass. Unless of course you are just parrotting a party line and not thinking about the stats you're posting, rather trusting someone else to tell you what they mean or could mean.

 

[EasyEJL]

Because we have higher incidents of accidental deaths and other fatalities not related to things like health care or overall health. This same bullshit stat was pulled up in the WHO report on health care systems and was demolished as irrelevant **** within weeks of publication. Once more, Luther, it would help if you understood the stats and the methods behind them before you posted them.

also lets not forget that we are one of a few countries with a significant sized standing army. The fact that even in times of peace rather than war (during the clinton presidency a significant amount more of troops died than during bush btw) roughly 5000-7000 troops die a year. These are generally 18-30 year olds, which significantly impacts the statistics.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Bullshit statistic. More children with potential problems are broguht to term here in the US when in these other countries they, and possbily their mother, would just die and be still born or lost pregancies. As happens so often, Luther, it would help if you understood the stats and the methods behind them before you posted them.

"A report issued Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) documents how the infant mortality rate in the United States is growing in relation to other countries.

The US's relative position has declined steadily. In 1960, it had the 12th lowest infant mortality rate, but by 1990 had dropped to 23rd place, and by 2004—the latest year of the CDC's comparative world figures on living standards—the US ranked 29th. The most recent study, published in July and titled "The Measure of America," estimated that the US is now in 34th place.

The CDC report found that there was no improvement in the incidence of US infant deaths between 2000 and 2005, a "plateau in the US infant mortality rate represent[ing] the first period of sustained lack of decline in the US infant mortality rate since the 1950s." This "has generated concern among researchers and policy makers," the report noted. "

According to which tests? How are the students selected in each nation?

Invalid Link Removed

The international tests in which the United States participates and their areas of focus are as follows:

Program in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) assesses reading literacy of fourth graders.

Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) assesses how well fourth and eighth graders understand math and science concepts they've been taught in school.

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assesses how well fifteen year-olds apply knowledge and skills in reading, math, and science.
Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL) assesses how well adults ages sixteen to sixty-five apply reading and math skills in life and at work.

Each of the assessments shares the following characteristics:

The samples assessed are nationally representative of all students/adults within the targeted age group or grade.

The samples include all types of students/adults (e.g., native and non-native language speakers, students with disabilities) within all types of schools (e.g., charter schools, private schools).

The assessments contain both multiple choice and constructed-response (e.g., short answer) items designed to measure higher-order skills.

The test questions were developed by experts from a wide cross-section of nations and were tested in various countries to minimize the chance any particular item would be biased toward one country or cultural group.

The results for each of the assessments are reported both as average scores and by achievement levels for each country,(e.g., advanced, proficient, intermediate, low). (See descriptions of achievement levels for PIRLS, TIMSS, PISA, and ALL .)

Test administrators also collect background information on students, teachers, schools, and adults that provide insights into how and what students learn.

Because we have higher incidents of accidental deaths and other fatalities not related to things like health care or overall health. This same bullshit stat was pulled up in the WHO report on health care systems and was demolished as irrelevant **** within weeks of publication. Once more, Luther, it would help if you understood the stats and the methods behind them before you posted them.

Invalid Link Removed

Researchers said several factors have contributed to the United States falling behind other industrialized nations. A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say.

But “it’s not as simple as saying we don’t have national health insurance,” said Sam Harper, an epidemiologist at McGill University in Montreal. “It’s not that easy.”

Among the other factors:

Adults in the United States have one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Nearly a third of U.S. adults 20 years and older are obese, while about two-thirds are overweight, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

“The U.S. has the resources that allow people to get fat and lazy,” said Paul Terry, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Emory University in Atlanta. “We have the luxury of choosing a bad lifestyle as opposed to having one imposed on us by hard times.”

Racial disparities. Black Americans have an average life expectancy of 73.3 years, five years shorter than white Americans.

Black American males have a life expectancy of 69.8 years, slightly longer than the averages for Iran and Syria and slightly shorter than in Nicaragua and Morocco.

A relatively high percentage of babies born in the U.S. die before their first birthday, compared with other industrialized nations.

Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. in 2004. The U.S. rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. It was 13.7 for Black Americans, the same as Saudi Arabia.

Median income means diddly **** because it doesn't correct for population distribution in the professions. This was mentioned quite a while ago, I'm surprised you would pull such an irrelevant and basically meaningless statistic out of your ass. Unless of course you are just parrotting a party line and not thinking about the stats you're posting, rather trusting someone else to tell you what they mean or could mean.

Invalid Link Removed

"Median household income is similar in importance to median wages -- it is a measure of the overall economic well-being of households. For some purposes, it is preferable indicator to wages because of the prevalence of two (or more) wage-earner households."

So again:

"the data that shows Asians doing better in terms of income than whites, is family and/or household data, not per capita income data. This is important because APA households and families tend to have more family members (thus, slightly higher incomes are made to stretch over more persons), and more earners per family (thus, it takes more family members in the workforce in order to earn only slightly more than whites, with fewer income earners).

The average Asian household size, for example, is 3.3 persons, compared to only 2.5 per household for whites. Likewise, Asian American families are more likely than white families to have two income earners, and nearly twice as likely to have three earners. So while Asian household and family income is higher than that for whites, the median income per person is lower for Asians: as much as $2000 less annually. "

 

[CDB]

"A report issued Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) documents how the infant mortality rate in the United States is growing in relation to other countries.

Once more, it would help if you understood the stat and what it meant. This number too was included in the infamous WHO report that 'proved' how bad the US health system is. The problem with it is if you have the medical facilities to bring more marginal pregancies to term you will have higher infant mortality. We don't have more babies dying here because our health care system is sub par, we have more dying because it is above par and giving more and more kids who would have died outright or been aborted a chance at living.

This is classic example of someone who doesn't have a ****ing clue what the stat means (Luther) posting it without thought because someone else, some 'scholar' he trusts, used it to prove a point, and Luther never thought to check on it or give it some analytic thought himself.

Invalid Link Removed

The international tests in which the United States participates and their areas of focus are as follows:

Program in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) assesses reading literacy of fourth graders.

Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) assesses how well fourth and eighth graders understand math and science concepts they've been taught in school.

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assesses how well fifteen year-olds apply knowledge and skills in reading, math, and science.
Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL) assesses how well adults ages sixteen to sixty-five apply reading and math skills in life and at work.

Each of the assessments shares the following characteristics:

The samples assessed are nationally representative of all students/adults within the targeted age group or grade.

The samples include all types of students/adults (e.g., native and non-native language speakers, students with disabilities) within all types of schools (e.g., charter schools, private schools).

The assessments contain both multiple choice and constructed-response (e.g., short answer) items designed to measure higher-order skills.

The test questions were developed by experts from a wide cross-section of nations and were tested in various countries to minimize the chance any particular item would be biased toward one country or cultural group.

The results for each of the assessments are reported both as average scores and by achievement levels for each country,(e.g., advanced, proficient, intermediate, low). (See descriptions of achievement levels for PIRLS, TIMSS, PISA, and ALL .)

Test administrators also collect background information on students, teachers, schools, and adults that provide insights into how and what students learn.

And if you'd bother to read the criticisms of such tests rather than the parrots who need to get funding for them you'd see the issues isn't so cut and dry. Try Mary Hilton, 2008, for starters. “The fact is test score comparisons tell us little about the quality of education in any country.” (Education Week, June 11 2008)

Invalid Link Removed

Researchers said several factors have contributed to the United States falling behind other industrialized nations. A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say.

Indeed this would help, especialli if one of the criterion used for judgement is how healtcare is paid for, which is exactly what the WHO report did. It assigned a higher grade of performance to single payer systems, assuming its own conclusion, and then used that to contribute to an overall score that supposedly 'proved' single payer systems were better. What they don't mention is when you get down to actual criteria which measure directly measure the effectiveness of a health care system, like survivability for specific diseases, the US does great. Must be because we suck...

Invalid Link Removed

"Median household income is similar in importance to median wages -- it is a measure of the overall economic well-being of households. For some purposes, it is preferable indicator to wages because of the prevalence of two (or more) wage-earner households."

So again:

"the data that shows Asians doing better in terms of income than whites, is family and/or household data, not per capita income data. This is important because APA households and families tend to have more family members (thus, slightly higher incomes are made to stretch over more persons), and more earners per family (thus, it takes more family members in the workforce in order to earn only slightly more than whites, with fewer income earners).

The average Asian household size, for example, is 3.3 persons, compared to only 2.5 per household for whites. Likewise, Asian American families are more likely than white families to have two income earners, and nearly twice as likely to have three earners. So while Asian household and family income is higher than that for whites, the median income per person is lower for Asians: as much as $2000 less annually. "

And, again, this is worthless bullshit. The issue here is racism, whether one person, one individual, not one ****ing household, can be expected to do better or worse, get paid more or less, treated better or shittier, based on their race, skin color, nationality, etc. For that measure one has to compare wages, or whatever other criterion is in dispute, with all other variables normalized or corrected for. That means median wages are useless. The only relevant study is one that compares an Asian in profession X with a caucasian in profession X, each with as close to the same schooling and work experience as possible. If you want to talk race, Luther, you can't use studies that invite disparities from any and every other variable to work into the mix. Either get a study that examines the particular variable in question with controls of some kind on the others, or admit you don't have **** to show. The only reason to use the garbled BS studies you're pulling up is to deliberately cloud the issue.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Once more, it would help if you understood the stat and what it meant. This number too was included in the infamous WHO report that 'proved' how bad the US health system is. The problem with it is if you have the medical facilities to bring more marginal pregancies to term you will have higher infant mortality. We don't have more babies dying here because our health care system is sub par, we have more dying because it is above par and giving more and more kids who would have died outright or been aborted a chance at living.

This is classic example of someone who doesn't have a ****ing clue what the stat means (Luther) posting it without thought because someone else, some 'scholar' he trusts, used it to prove a point, and Luther never thought to check on it or give it some analytic thought himself.

Actually it is a classic example of someone (you) defending a system in obvious decline and blindly rejecting anything that contradicts his preconceived ideas.That is not a good example of using analytic thought especially for someone who keeps preaching it to others.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obnkbRH3MgQ"]YouTube - Premature Death Rate[/ame]

And if you'd bother to read the criticisms of such tests rather than the parrots who need to get funding for them you'd see the issues isn't so cut and dry. Try Mary Hilton, 2008, for starters. “The fact is test score comparisons tell us little about the quality of education in any country.” (Education Week, June 11 2008)

"according to many policymakers, business leaders, and analysts, more is at stake than American boasting rights. These individuals argue that the nation's economic future depends directly on our ability to raise our present academic standing, particularly in math and science" (Business Roundtable 2005; National Research Council 2005; White House 2006).

"Like any assessment, international tests have their limits, but they should not be dismissed. Viewed properly, they provide another way of identifying where American youth are and a gauge for determining where we want them to be."--The Center for Public Education


"Indeed, early attempts at international assessment did suffer from weak methods for capturing a good representation of students. However, due to greatly improved sampling techniques (Porter and Gamoran 2002) and the widespread embrace of universal schooling (Garrett 2004), these flaws have largely been overcome and every effort is made to ensure that scores represent the average achievement of the overall population in each country". (See Invalid Link Removed.)

Indeed this would help, especialli if one of the criterion used for judgement is how healtcare is paid for, which is exactly what the WHO report did. It assigned a higher grade of performance to single payer systems, assuming its own conclusion, and then used that to contribute to an overall score that supposedly 'proved' single payer systems were better. What they don't mention is when you get down to actual criteria which measure directly measure the effectiveness of a health care system, like survivability for specific diseases, the US does great. Must be because we suck...

Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, said improved access to health insurance could increase life expectancy. But, he predicted, the U.S. won't move up in the world rankings as long as the health care debate is limited to insurance.

Policymakers also should focus on ways to reduce cancer, heart disease and lung disease, said Murray. He advocates stepped-up efforts to reduce tobacco use, control blood pressure, reduce cholesterol and regulate blood sugar.

"Even if we focused only on those four things, we would go along way toward improving health care in the United States," Murray said. "The starting point is the recognition that the U.S. does not have the best health care system. There are still an awful lot of people who think it does."

Invalid Link Removed

And, again, this is worthless bullshit. The issue here is racism, whether one person, one individual, not one ****ing household, can be expected to do better or worse, get paid more or less, treated better or shittier, based on their race, skin color, nationality, etc.

I am not the one who originally brought it up so address the person who did.

The only relevant study is one that compares an Asian in profession X with a caucasian in profession X, each with as close to the same schooling and work experience as possible. If you want to talk race, Luther, you can't use studies that invite disparities from any and every other variable to work into the mix. Either get a study that examines the particular variable in question with controls of some kind on the others, or admit you don't have **** to show. The only reason to use the garbled BS studies you're pulling up is to deliberately cloud the issue.

"On average, Asian Americans with a college degree earn 11% less than comparable whites; and APA's with only a high school diploma earn, on average, 26% less than their white counterparts.

Another telling statistic is how much more money a person earns with each additional year of schooling completed, or what sociologists call "returns on education." One of the first in-depth studies that looked at per capita income between Asian Americans and other racial/ethnic groups came from Robert Jiobu and is cited in Asian Americans: An Interpretive History by Sucheng Chan.

Using this measure, research consistently shows that for each additional year of education attained, Whites earn another $522.

That is, beyond a high school degree, a White with 4 more years of education
(equivalent to a college degree) can expect to earn $2088 per year in salary. In contrast, returns on each additional year of education for a Japanese American is only $438. For a Chinese American, it's $320. For Blacks, it's even worse at only $284.

What this means is that basically, a typical Asian American has to get more years of education just to make the same amount of money that a typical White makes with less education.

Recent research from scholars such as Timothy Fong, Roderick Harrison, and Paul Ong, to name just a few, continues to confirm these findings that controlling for other variables, Asian Americans still earn less money than Whites with virtually equal qualifications."

Invalid Link Removed

 

[CDB]

Actually it is a classic example of someone (you) defending a system in obvious decline and blindly rejecting anything that contradicts his preconceived ideas.That is not a good example of using analytic thought especially for someone who keeps preaching it to others.

Incorrect. One, I do not support the US health care system. I do think it is better than most people would want to admit. I however in no way support this hybridized bastardized system. I say either privatize or socialize, but pick one and stop trying to make some unworkable third way. I prefer the system be private for personal reasons. Two, the number you are quoting is one of the more contentious numbers to arise from the WHO report on health care systems around the world. This report has been massively criticized for assuming it's own conclusions and for using criteria either not directly related to health care as a judge of health care's effectiveness, such as lifespan, and also has been criticized for its misuse of such statistics as infant mortality, assuming a higher number is worse when a higher number could result from two scenarios, one indicating poor health care, the other indicating superior health care.

Something from YouTube

Can't see YouTube where I'm at.

"according to many policymakers, business leaders, and analysts, more is at stake than American boasting rights. These individuals argue that the nation's economic future depends directly on our ability to raise our present academic standing, particularly in math and science" (Business Roundtable 2005; National Research Council 2005; White House 2006).

Begs the question. A nation's educational abilities may or may not have anything to do with their productivity depending on how education is defined and delivered. Economic health comes from capital investment and increased productivity per head of labor. This may or may not do better with a knowledge of the classics.

"Like any assessment, international tests have their limits, but they should not be dismissed. Viewed properly, they provide another way of identifying where American youth are and a gauge for determining where we want them to be."--The Center for Public Education

Sounds like central planning at its finest. If I may be so nit picky, the government cannot possibly make an 'investment' as that requires risk, nor can an economy be planned for, therefore nor can an educational cirrculum specifically aimed at improving economic health be developed in advance.

"Indeed, early attempts at international assessment did suffer from weak methods for capturing a good representation of students. However, due to greatly improved sampling techniques (Porter and Gamoran 2002) and the widespread embrace of universal schooling (Garrett 2004), these flaws have largely been overcome and every effort is made to ensure that scores represent the average achievement of the overall population in each country". (See Invalid Link Removed.)

So say the people who earn a living delivering the tests. As before, I found the webpage you are quoting from before you posted the link. Interestingly enough they don't detail these methods they are using in any detail. Nor do they take the time, as the intellectually honest would, to at least give an adequate reference for criticisims of their work.

Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, said improved access to health insurance could increase life expectancy. But, he predicted, the U.S. won't move up in the world rankings as long as the health care debate is limited to insurance.

Policymakers also should focus on ways to reduce cancer, heart disease and lung disease, said Murray. He advocates stepped-up efforts to reduce tobacco use, control blood pressure, reduce cholesterol and regulate blood sugar.

"Even if we focused only on those four things, we would go along way toward improving health care in the United States," Murray said. "The starting point is the recognition that the U.S. does not have the best health care system. There are still an awful lot of people who think it does."

By what criteria does he judge it not the best? Survivability for many diseases is highest in the US. When corrected for non health care related issues like traffic accidents and what not, our life span is among the highest in the world.

I am not the one who originally brought it up so address the person who did.

However you did bring it up, at least implicitly because all the stats you use to supposedly 'prove' systemic racism can be turned against you, once the scope is widened beyond white and black, to 'prove' systemic bias in favor of Asians and certain Jewish backgrounds. Put bluntly, you can't have it both ways; you can't have your cake and eat it to. It statistic X shows whites being treated differently and better than blacks on a certain issue and this is 'proof' of racism, then when that same statistic shows Asians or Jews getting better treatment than whites, it must also be proof of an anti-white/pro-Asian and Jewish bias in the system. If you have the slightest respect for rationality and/or logic then you simply can't say the method is sound to prove what you want it to prove but illegitamate to prove anything else.

"On average, Asian Americans with a college degree earn 11% less than comparable whites; and APA's with only a high school diploma earn, on average, 26% less than their white counterparts.

Another telling statistic is how much more money a person earns with each additional year of schooling completed, or what sociologists call "returns on education." One of the first in-depth studies that looked at per capita income between Asian Americans and other racial/ethnic groups came from Robert Jiobu and is cited in Asian Americans: An Interpretive History by Sucheng Chan.

Using this measure, research consistently shows that for each additional year of education attained, Whites earn another $522.

That is, beyond a high school degree, a White with 4 more years of education
(equivalent to a college degree) can expect to earn $2088 per year in salary. In contrast, returns on each additional year of education for a Japanese American is only $438. For a Chinese American, it's $320. For Blacks, it's even worse at only $284.

What this means is that basically, a typical Asian American has to get more years of education just to make the same amount of money that a typical White makes with less education.

Recent research from scholars such as Timothy Fong, Roderick Harrison, and Paul Ong, to name just a few, continues to confirm these findings that controlling for other variables, Asian Americans still earn less money than Whites with virtually equal qualifications."

Invalid Link Removed

And perusing that study, which is hard because half the right side is cut off, once more you are referring to study that uses median ****ing income. Let me explain it to you so you can understand: If you have a hundred purple people and a hundred green people and almost all the high paying jobs are held by greens and the lower paying jobs by purples, their median income will be differemt. This says nothing however as to whether or not two people employed in the same job do or not make the same wage. This study supposedly corrects for education and income, but if you have an electrical engineer not working in that field for some reason, say because he's helping the family business, well then he's not likely to be earning the same as another electrical engineer who is working in his chosen field, now is he? Ong (2000) found no wage gap except for foreign born Asian men. Duleep and Sanders (1992) found only differences for people of Asian Indian decent. Sakamoto and Furuichi (2002) don't find any significant wage discrimination.

And all of this begs the question, has economic law been repealed? Any group of workers getting paid significantly less than their productive output would be snapped up as labor by any right thinking entrepreneur who could then pocket the difference as profit. The problem is that this is possible and so it happens and eventually pay roughly equals marginal productivity. Fact of the matter is as long as there's any significant wage gap between pay and actual output for a given person or group of people, unless someone is actively stopping this process from proceeding there is no way in hell their wages are going to stay that low because until they normalize it's pure profit for any potential employer.

 

[lutherblsstt]

So say the people who earn a living delivering the tests. As before, I found the webpage you are quoting from before you posted the link. Interestingly enough they don't detail these methods they are using in any detail. Nor do they take the time, as the intellectually honest would, to at least give an adequate reference for criticisims of their work.

You did not read thoroughly when you found the page:

"Others aren't so sure. These observers assert that the reported failure of American students is exaggerated, claiming that the differences among countries aren't so large. Besides, they say, our top students do just fine compared with their top-scoring peers in other countries (Bracey 1998).

Still others point to inherent difficulties in trying to make apples-to-apples comparisons across countries and argue that international rankings are not meaningful (Rotberg 1995)."

Invalid Link Removed

By what criteria does he judge it not the best? Survivability for many diseases is highest in the US. When corrected for non health care related issues like traffic accidents and what not, our life span is among the highest in the world.

I see where you are coming from on this one:


"Texas A&M health economist Robert Ohsfeldt and health economics consultant John Schneider point out that deaths from accidents and homicides in America are much higher than in any other of the developed countries.

Taking accidental deaths and homicides between 1980 and 1999 into account, they calculate that instead of being at near the bottom of the list of developed countries, U.S. life expectancy would actually rank at the top.

However as Carl Bialik, the invaluable Wall Street Journal "Numbers Guy" columnist, notes Ohsfeldt and Schneider's analysis does not account for the fact a better health care system would have saved more accident victims and thus would have boosted life expectancy.

In fact, in 2002, Harvard researchers argued that the U.S. murder rate is much lower than it would otherwise have been because so many assault victims are being saved by improved medical care. Nevertheless, Ohsfeldt and Schneider are likely right that U.S. life expectancy is being depressed by our higher accident and homicide rates."

Invalid Link Removed

However you did bring it up, at least implicitly because all the stats you use to supposedly 'prove' systemic racism can be turned against you, once the scope is widened beyond white and black, to 'prove' systemic bias in favor of Asians and certain Jewish backgrounds. Put bluntly, you can't have it both ways; you can't have your cake and eat it to. It statistic X shows whites being treated differently and better than blacks on a certain issue and this is 'proof' of racism, then when that same statistic shows Asians or Jews getting better treatment than whites, it must also be proof of an anti-white/pro-Asian and Jewish bias in the system. If you have the slightest respect for rationality and/or logic then you simply can't say the method is sound to prove what you want it to prove but illegitamate to prove anything else.

Examples from U.S. history can help clarify the nature and effects of institutional racism.

1.In 1935, the U.S. Congress passed the Social Security Act, guaranteeing an income for millions of workers after retirement. However, the Act specifically excluded domestic and agricultural workers, many of whom were Mexican-American, African-American, and Asian-American. These workers were therefore not guaranteed an income after retirement, and had less opportunity to save, accumulate, and pass wealth on to future generations.

2.The U.S. property appraisal system created in the 1930s tied property value and eligibility for government loans to race. Thus, all-White neighborhoods received the government's highest property value ratings, and White people were eligible for government loans. Between 1934 and 1962, less than 2% of government-subsidized housing went to non-White people

These examples depend not on the individual, isolated, and idiosyncratic beliefs or biases of individuals, but rather on biases embedded in social structures and in institutions. Moreover, in the first example, no "race" was specifically named to be excluded from the Social Security Act, but the Act effectively allowed wealth benefits to accrue to certain racial groups and not to others. There need not be, therefore, any explicit intent associated with institutional racism in order for it to benefit certain races over others.

Invalid Link Removed

Also see:

Institutional Racism and the Police: Fact or Fiction?
Invalid Link Removed

A multifaceted definition of institutional racism
Invalid Link Removed

Interactive resource tracing the history of race in America and the effects of institutional racism
Invalid Link Removed

And perusing that study, which is hard because half the right side is cut off,

Something must be wrong with your computer,I can see it just fine. Invalid Link Removed

once more you are referring to study that uses median ****ing income. Let me explain it to you so you can understand: If you have a hundred purple people and a hundred green people and almost all the high paying jobs are held by greens and the lower paying jobs by purples, their median income will be differemt. This says nothing however as to whether or not two people employed in the same job do or not make the same wage. This study supposedly corrects for education and income, but if you have an electrical engineer not working in that field for some reason, say because he's helping the family business, well then he's not likely to be earning the same as another electrical engineer who is working in his chosen field, now is he? Ong (2000) found no wage gap except for foreign born Asian men. Duleep and Sanders (1992) found only differences for people of Asian Indian decent. Sakamoto and Furuichi (2002) don't find any significant wage discrimination.

And all of this begs the question, has economic law been repealed? Any group of workers getting paid significantly less than their productive output would be snapped up as labor by any right thinking entrepreneur who could then pocket the difference as profit. The problem is that this is possible and so it happens and eventually pay roughly equals marginal productivity. Fact of the matter is as long as there's any significant wage gap between pay and actual output for a given person or group of people, unless someone is actively stopping this process from proceeding there is no way in hell their wages are going to stay that low because until they normalize it's pure profit for any potential employer.

From the study:

"Many people go even further and argue that since Asian Americans are doing so well, we no longer experience any discrimination and that Asian Americans no longer need public services such as bilingual education, government documents in multiple languages, and welfare. Further, using the first stereotype of Asian Americans, many just assume that all Asian Americans are successful and that none of us are struggling.

On the surface, it may sound rather benign and even flattering to be described in those terms. However, we need to take a much closer look at these numbers. As we will see, many other statistics show that Asian Americans are still the targets of racial inequality and institutional discrimination and that the model minority image is a myth.

Again, we need to remember that not all Asian Americans are the same. For every Chinese American or South Asian who has a college degree, the same number of Southeast Asians are still struggling to adapt to their lives in the U.S. For example, as shown in the tables in the Socioeconomic Statistics & Demographics article, Vietnamese Americans only have a college degree attainment rate of 20%, less than half the rate for other Asian American ethnic groups.

The rates for Laotians, Cambodians, and Khmer are
even lower at less than 10%.

Also from the study:

"A more telling statistic is median personal
income (also known as per capita income).
The results above show that Asian Americans
still trail Whites on this very important
measure."

And:

"Another example is that of many Korean
immigrants who come to the U.S. with very high levels of education. But for various reasons (i.e., not being fluent in English), many are not able to get decent jobs that pay well. Therefore, they are forced to to work as janitors, waiters, busboys, or go into business for themselves to survive. The only reason why many Korean small business owners are able to make a small profit is that they have no paid employees and work 20 hours a day.


The point is that just because many Asian Americans have "made it," it does not mean that all Asian Americans have made it. In many ways, Asian Americans are still the targets of much prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. For instance, the persistent belief that "all Asians are smart" puts a tremendous amount of pressure on many Asian Americans. Many, particularly Southeast Asians, are not able to conform to this unrealistic expectation and in fact, have the highest high school dropout rates in the
country."

"The Model Minority Image" Asian-Nation: The
Landscape of Asian America. Invalid Link Removed

 

[Vtaper]

Thanks for answering most of the questions Luther, I wanted to clear up a few things and expand on some of the new data you provided.

lutherblsstt;1900453

Relevance?

The relevence is the topic of the U.S. being a racist nation, which your implying, and it happens to be the most sought after destination for non-white immigrants.

With all of the studies you have obviously read, I can only conclude that you do not support this at all, is this correct?

1. Yes
2. No

Depends on where they are coming from and who "they" are.

Lets say a Nigerian who works as a farmer. He's 25, single and has a high school education.

Does he:
a) Stay put
b) Come to the U.S.
c) Go somewhere else(If 'c' go to next post)

Again,depends on who "they" are and where "they" are coming from. As far as where else to go I would say to a country with a high level of social mobility and that is high on the human development index. The United States has fallen from second place in 1990 (behind Canada) to 12th place.

Now that you know who "they" are and where "they" are coming from, please list your top 3 countries where he would fair better.

Asian success in the U.S. relative to others is largely due to immigration policies that favor immigrants with pre-existing skills and education.

As the Glass Ceiling Commission discovered in 1995, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the highly educated APA community already had college degrees before coming to the U.S., or were in college upon arrival.

Thanks to preferences for educated immigrants, APAs are two-thirds more likely than whites and three times more likely than blacks to have a college degree. More than 8 in 10 Indian immigrants from 1966-1977 had advanced degrees and training in such areas as science, medicine or engineering.

So being educated means you can succeed despite being a minority?
1. Yes
2. No

Data showing Asians doing better than whites is family and household data, not per capita income data.


The average Asian household size, for example, is 3.3 persons, compared to only 2.5 per household for whites.

The census report I saw had Asians at 2.9www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2004/tabAVG1.csv - 5k

either way, your right about the way the statistics look, so here is my question:

If Hispanics had the same education level that the Asians reportedly have, would their average household income be the highest since they have the most people per household?

1. Yes
2. No

To claim superior Asian genes or culture as the reasons for achievement in the U.S. requires one to ignore the rampant poverty of persons from the same backgrounds in their countries of origin.

I never mentioned genes. One can not ignore that discipline in education is much easier to find in Asian culture than American.

Do you agree?
1. Yes
2. No

There is no shortage, after all, of desperately poor Asians in the slums of Manila, Calcutta and Hong Kong: testament to the absurdity of cultural superiority claims for Asians as a group.

Mentioning that cities with several million people have poverty is not news to anyone.

Can you name one major city with a comparible population of the aformentioned three that does not have a slum?

 

[lutherblsstt]

Thanks for answering most of the questions Luther, I wanted to clear up a few things and expand on some of the new data you provided.



The relevence is the topic of the U.S. being a racist nation, which your implying, and it happens to be the most sought after destination for non-white immigrants.

With all of the studies you have obviously read, I can only conclude that you do not support this at all, is this correct?

1. Yes
2. No

As for your implied point of why they would want to come to the US in the first place I would answer that the government of the United States of America, if it does anything well, does a superb job in its advertising department. (What Goebbels called propaganda.)

Lets say a Nigerian who works as a farmer. He's 25, single and has a high school education.

Does he:
a) Stay put
b) Come to the U.S.
c) Go somewhere else(If 'c' go to next post)

I would say go somewhere where the crime rate is lower and social mobility is higher. Recent research suggests that Britain and particularly the United States have less social mobility than the Nordic countries and Canada.The U.S. has homicide rates that are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Japan.

Now that you know who "they" are and where "they" are coming from, please list your top 3 countries where he would fair better.

Canada
The Netherlands
Uruguay

So being educated means you can succeed despite being a minority?
1. Yes
2. No

Of course,the point is that just because many Asian Americans,African-Americans,etc. have "made it," it does not mean that all Asian Americans have or can make it.

In many ways, Asian Americans,African-Americans are still the targets of much prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. For instance, the persistent belief that "all Asians are smart" puts a tremendous amount of pressure on many Asian Americans. Many, particularly Southeast Asians, are not able to conform to this unrealistic expectation and in fact, have the highest high school dropout rates in the
country."

"The Model Minority Image" Asian-Nation: The
Landscape of Asian America. Invalid Link Removed

Interactive resource tracing the history of race in America and the effects of institutional racism
Invalid Link Removed

The census report I saw had Asians at 2.9www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2004/tabAVG1.csv - 5k

either way, your right about the way the statistics look, so here is my question:

If Hispanics had the same education level that the Asians reportedly have, would their average household income be the highest since they have the most people per household?

Relevance?

I never mentioned genes. One can not ignore that discipline in education is much easier to find in Asian culture than American.

Do you agree?
1. Yes
2. No

Yes

Mentioning that cities with several million people have poverty is not news to anyone.

Can you name one major city with a comparible population of the aformentioned three that does not have a slum?

Asian American child poverty rate is nearly double the white rate, and according to a New York Times report in May of 1996, Southeast Asians as a whole have the highest rates of welfare dependence of any racial or ethnic group in the United States.

Nearly half of all Southeast Asian immigrants and refugees in the U.S. live in poverty, with annual incomes in 1990 of less than $10,000 per year. Amazingly, even those Southeast Asians with college degrees face obstacles. Two-thirds of Lao and Hmong-American college grads live below the poverty level, as do nearly half of Cambodian Americans and over a third of Vietnamese Americans with degrees.

Indeed, Asian "success" rhetoric ignores the persistent barriers to advancement faced by Asians relative to whites. On average, Asian Americans with a college degree earn 11% less than comparable whites; and APA's with only a high school diploma earn, on average, 26% less than their white counterparts.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[CDB]

You did not read thoroughly when you found the page:

"Others aren't so sure. These observers assert that the reported failure of American students is exaggerated, claiming that the differences among countries aren't so large. Besides, they say, our top students do just fine compared with their top-scoring peers in other countries (Bracey 1998).

Still others point to inherent difficulties in trying to make apples-to-apples comparisons across countries and argue that international rankings are not meaningful (Rotberg 1995)."

Invalid Link Removed

Caught that. Still doesn't defend their point. I still see no detailed selection methods.

I see where you are coming from on this one:

"Texas A&M health economist Robert Ohsfeldt and health economics consultant John Schneider point out that deaths from accidents and homicides in America are much higher than in any other of the developed countries.

Taking accidental deaths and homicides between 1980 and 1999 into account, they calculate that instead of being at near the bottom of the list of developed countries, U.S. life expectancy would actually rank at the top.

However as Carl Bialik, the invaluable Wall Street Journal "Numbers Guy" columnist, notes Ohsfeldt and Schneider's analysis does not account for the fact a better health care system would have saved more accident victims and thus would have boosted life expectancy.

In fact, in 2002, Harvard researchers argued that the U.S. murder rate is much lower than it would otherwise have been because so many assault victims are being saved by improved medical care. Nevertheless, Ohsfeldt and Schneider are likely right that U.S. life expectancy is being depressed by our higher accident and homicide rates."

Invalid Link Removed

And there is no direct link to the health care system and surviving accidents, unless of course one honestly thinks health care on demand means just that: on demand anywhere at any time. The same report I believe put the responsiveness of the US health care system near the top, so one can assume what can be done is being done.

Examples from U.S. history can help clarify the nature and effects of institutional racism.

1.In 1935, the U.S. Congress passed the Social Security Act, guaranteeing an income for millions of workers after retirement. However, the Act specifically excluded domestic and agricultural workers, many of whom were Mexican-American, African-American, and Asian-American. These workers were therefore not guaranteed an income after retirement, and had less opportunity to save, accumulate, and pass wealth on to future generations.

No, they can't. Examples from history can help illuminate history. What you are claiming supposedly exists here and now, not nearly a century in the past.

In any event this happened to be driven by a correct economic concern, that being if you make it easy to quit a job people will be more likely to quit that job. The backing for removing agricultural workers from the bill came from the north and the south. In the end it was the result of southern landlords having more political juice than southern agricultural workers. If the latter had all been lilly white this still would have happened. Once more, you posit racism. I posit money to be made.

2.The U.S. property appraisal system created in the 1930s tied property value and eligibility for government loans to race. Thus, all-White neighborhoods received the government's highest property value ratings, and White people were eligible for government loans. Between 1934 and 1962, less than 2% of government-subsidized housing went to non-White people.

That's nice. Unfortunately, and for the nth ****ing time, no one is claiming **** like this didn't happen in the past. The issue is here and now.

There need not be, therefore, any explicit intent associated with institutional racism in order for it to benefit certain races over others.

There need be an explicit intent associated with these things if you want to claim they are racist. Of course though, this is the universal cop out of all people who want to cry racism at every turn; you don't need to be racist to be racist! All you have to do is throw the clunky structure of race over everything and anything you want, and if you find disparities, well it's racism. Of course as has been pointed out you will find disparities no matter how you choose to look at such things. You'll find disparities between blacks and whites, tall and short, Christian and Jew, Muslim and Atheist, priest and rabbi, rich and poor, wigger and tweaker, etc., etc., etc. Unless you are prepared to attribute all of these disparities to a deep underlying bias against the 'losing' group no matter who they might be, then you can't single out blacks and say it qualifies as evidence for bias against them but no one else.

The foolishness of what you are saying here is amazing. You don't need racist intent for racism. That's like saying you don't need gin to make a gun based drink. It's foolish in the extreme, but exactly the kind of post modern deconstructivist nonsense that ivory tower academia routinely spits out.

"A more telling statistic is median personal income (also known as per capita income). The results above show that Asian Americans still trail Whites on this very important measure.

Has it not yet gotten through your head that median income means diddly ****? Once more, people are not distributed evenly through the workforce. Hence median income will always differ no matter how you group people, and it means jack ****, period. It's a "very important measure" to dipshits like the above quoted author because it can be used to convince the simple minded and the statistically uneducated of something that is false but politically expedient. The same bullshit stat is used to 'prove' the male female wage gap, and that gap disappears when you compare men and women with the same educations in the same jobs with the same uninterrupted experience.

Plus your assertion here goes against all economic law. If asians or any other group earned less for the same output as whites there would a run to hire them, not keep them out of work, because the difference between their wages and the wages of whites is more profit in the pockets of business owners. What you are saying in essence is that blacks, asians, and whoever, are so universally hated in the US that even though they do the same work for significantly less wages, no one is willing to hire them in greater numbers. I call bullshit on that. Sorry to say, it's one of those things that seems to make sense until you think about it for more than two nona seconds.

Employees are a capital resource like everything else. You're telling me that when offered two or more sets of essentially the same raw material at different prices business owners are going to systemically pay more than they have to and take potential losses just because they hate blacks and asians so much? Nonsense. And even if they did, so long as that hate isn't absolutely universal there will be someone who wants to pocket those profits and those people will duke it out until the wages normalized with whites.

"Another example is that of many Korean
immigrants who come to the U.S. with very high levels of education. But for various reasons (i.e., not being fluent in English), many are not able to get decent jobs that pay well.

No ****, and so they shouldn't. The lanugage barrier means lower productivity in a largely English speaking workforce. This isn't discrimination, this is being less productive and earning less as a result of it. I see it happen all the time in my job as an HR Recruiter. Of course someone who can barely speak English will earn less, even if he is hired into the same job title as an English speaker. You have to account for time explaining and re explaining goals and garbled communications back and forth, etc. This happens with Russians too, and any other language barrier. Yes, unfortunately you do need to actually communicate on a certain level for your productivity to match others who already can communicate on that level. Oh, how tragic...

This has nothing to do with racism, it has everything to do with, "Can you do the ****ing job I hired you to do without forcing the rest of my staff to learn a foreign language?" You see the latter takes time and money, and if the candidate either can't or won't learn English, they lack a rather important skill, that being the ability to effectively communicate, take direction, give feedback, etc., etc., etc.

 

[RobInKuwait]

I swear, I had more fun getting my teeth drilled at the dentist yesterday than trying to follow the logic in this thread.

:sucks:

 

[CDB]

I swear, I had more fun getting my teeth drilled at the dentist yesterday than trying to follow the logic in this thread.

:sucks:

Very little logic has been offered up by Luther. The claim is systemic racism exists now in a significant way. As proof he offers up irrelevant 'studies' with poor models and data from decades ago to justify claims, many of which fail on logic alone.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Very little logic has been offered up by Luther. The claim is systemic racism exists now in a significant way. As proof he offers up irrelevant 'studies' with poor models and data from decades ago to justify claims, many of which fail on logic alone.

Your definition of logic is fairly skewed. You ignore study after study that show that systemic racism is still a very real part of daily life in America for minorities and prefer to go on about some "race card" as if the conclusions of people who allege systemic racism have been reached not because of careful consideration of the facts as they see them, but rather, because of some irrational (even borderline paranoid) tendency to see racism everywhere.

By the way,interesting vid here:

Eric Holder speaks on systemic racism; media pulls ‘a nation of cowards’ line
Invalid Link Removed

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Very little logic has been offered up by Luther. The claim is systemic racism exists now in a significant way. As proof he offers up irrelevant 'studies' with poor models and data from decades ago to justify claims, many of which fail on logic alone.

:werd:

 

[lutherblsstt]

Interesting blog post:
Invalid Link Removed



Things You Need To Understand #7



"That which does not affect you, you often do not see or understand
In other words, if you are White, 99% of the time Racism doesn’t affect you. Therefore, you may not see nor understand Racism when it happens.

If you are a Man, 99% of the time Sexism doesn’t affect you. Therefore, you may not grok Sexist behavior when it occurs nor will you always see Sexism when it is plain to others.

This goes for any -ist or -ism or -phobia you can think of. This goes for you, even if you’re a minority, when it concerns people who are not like you.

What does not affect you personally often will not impact on your consciousness unless you’ve trained yourself to see and understand.

Therefore, the next time you feel yourself declaring something “not racist” or “not sexist” or “not offensive”, think about whether you feel that way because you’re not the one on the receiving end of racist, sexist, or offensive behavior/words/actions/images."


Then there is:


Race to Our Credit: Denial, Privilege and Life as a Majority

"Sometimes it can be difficult, having a conversation with those whose political views are so diametrically opposed to one’s own.

But even more challenging, is having a discussion with someone who simply refuses to accept even the most basic elements of your worldview. At that point, disagreement is less about the specifics of one or another policy option, and more about the nature of social reality itself.

This is what it can be like sometimes, when trying to discuss the issue of white privilege with white people. Despite being an obvious institutionalized phenomenon to people of color and even some whites, white privilege is typically denied, and strongly, by most of us.

…

Denying one’s privileges is, of course, nothing if not logical. To admit that you receive such things is to acknowledge that you are, at some level, implicated in the process by which others are oppressed or discriminated against. It makes fairly moot the oft-heard defense that “I wasn’t around back then, and I never owned slaves, or killed any Indians,” or whatever.

If one has reaped the benefits of those past injustices (to say nothing of ongoing discrimination in the present) by being elevated, politically, economically and socially above persons of color, for example — which whites as a group surely have been thanks to enslavement, Indian genocide and Jim Crow — then whether or not one did the deed becomes largely a matter of irrelevance.

Of course, what is ultimately overlooked is that denial of one’s privilege itself manifests a form of privilege: namely, the privilege of being able to deny another person’s reality (a reality to which they speak regularly) and suffer no social consequence as a result."

 

[lutherblsstt]

Eric Holder speaks on systemic racism; media pulls ‘a nation of cowards’ line
Invalid Link Removed

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Eric Holder speaks on systemic racism; media pulls ‘a nation of cowards’ line
Invalid Link Removed

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/politics/117550-were-nation-cowards.html


Wait what?


Luther, slow down. I know you're looking for more irrelevant studies for CDB to butcher, but now you're going in circles.

:lol:

 

[lutherblsstt]

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/politics/117550-were-nation-cowards.html


Wait what?


Luther, slow down. I know you're looking for more irrelevant studies for CDB to butcher, but now you're going in circles.

:lol:

The main point was "Eric Holder speaks on systemic racism; media pulls ‘a nation of cowards’ line"

Again:

Race to Our Credit: Denial, Privilege and Life as a Majority

"Sometimes it can be difficult, having a conversation with those whose political views are so diametrically opposed to one’s own.

But even more challenging, is having a discussion with someone who simply refuses to accept even the most basic elements of your worldview. At that point, disagreement is less about the specifics of one or another policy option, and more about the nature of social reality itself.

This is what it can be like sometimes, when trying to discuss the issue of white privilege with white people. Despite being an obvious institutionalized phenomenon to people of color and even some whites, white privilege is typically denied, and strongly, by most of us.

…

Denying one’s privileges is, of course, nothing if not logical. To admit that you receive such things is to acknowledge that you are, at some level, implicated in the process by which others are oppressed or discriminated against. It makes fairly moot the oft-heard defense that “I wasn’t around back then, and I never owned slaves, or killed any Indians,” or whatever.

If one has reaped the benefits of those past injustices (to say nothing of ongoing discrimination in the present) by being elevated, politically, economically and socially above persons of color, for example — which whites as a group surely have been thanks to enslavement, Indian genocide and Jim Crow — then whether or not one did the deed becomes largely a matter of irrelevance.

Of course, what is ultimately overlooked is that denial of one’s privilege itself manifests a form of privilege: namely, the privilege of being able to deny another person’s reality (a reality to which they speak regularly) and suffer no social consequence as a result."

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The main point was "Eric Holder speaks on systemic racism; media pulls ‘a nation of cowards’ line"

The media is racist. Didn't you know that?

 

[lutherblsstt]

The media is racist. Didn't you know that?

Was there supposed to be a point?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Was there supposed to be a point?

The media is racist?

 

[EasyEJL]

Was there supposed to be a point?

no more real a point than you've made by misquoting + misinterpreting statistics.

 

[lutherblsstt]

no more real a point than you've made by misquoting + misinterpreting statistics.

How can directly quoting be called "misquoting"?

Oh,I get it,you disagree with what is quoted so I must be "misquoting" and "misinterpreting stats".Gotcha

Study Shows Racism Still Bleeds America
Indifference is the worst enemy of desegregation
Invalid Link Removed

Institutional Racism in America
Invalid Link Removed

 

[EasyEJL]

How can directly quoting be called "misquoting"?

Oh,I get it,you disagree with what is quoted so I must be "misquoting" and "misinterpreting stats".Gotcha

Study Shows Racism Still Bleeds America
Indifference is the worst enemy of desegregation
Invalid Link Removed

Institutional Racism in America
Invalid Link Removed

You have numerous times within this whole pile of pages embellished findings of studies, and warped what some of the authors said themselves to further your point, even though what it mostly did was cost you credibility. If I need to go through this thread to point out specifics I can.

Of these two "studies" the first is a total joke as its an opinion piece on a study. And the study was based on how people feel after watching an incident. Does not wanting to be involved in a brawl mean people are racist? It doesn't to me, yet somehow thats what they found

The subjects who witnessed the actual act of aggression proved to be extremely indifferent to what had just happened. Two actors were made to reenact the brawl, and then the researchers asked the participants what they felt about it. Most of them said that they didn't react because it was not in their interest to

I'm not sure what that proves. of course to you it proves racism, to me it proves general indifference of the population.

the second is even lamer, an op ed piece where they draw their own conclusions from statistics.

Subprime loans are three times more likely in low income neighborhoods than in high-income neighborhoods. Subprime loans are five times more likely in black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. Homeowners in high-income black areas are twice as likely as homeowners in low-income white areas to have subprime loans.

The statistics don't show or prove racism, they show that more black people have poor credit. I'm not sure how thats racist, as Equifax or Transunion don't know what your skin color is. far simpler explanation is they because of lower average income and education levels took what credit they could get and abused it, and got to where they defaulted. Pretty common one is running up cellphone bills when you are 18 then not paying them. Hangs around for 7-10 years hurting your credit.

 

[lutherblsstt]

You have numerous times within this whole pile of pages embellished findings of studies, and warped what some of the authors said themselves to further your point, even though what it mostly did was cost you credibility. If I need to go through this thread to point out specifics I can.

Of these two "studies" the first is a total joke as its an opinion piece on a study. And the study was based on how people feel after watching an incident. Does not wanting to be involved in a brawl mean people are racist? It doesn't to me, yet somehow thats what they found



I'm not sure what that proves. of course to you it proves racism, to me it proves general indifference of the population.

the second is even lamer, an op ed piece where they draw their own conclusions from statistics.



The statistics don't show or prove racism, they show that more black people have poor credit. I'm not sure how thats racist, as Equifax or Transunion don't know what your skin color is. far simpler explanation is they because of lower average income and education levels took what credit they could get and abused it, and got to where they defaulted. Pretty common one is running up cellphone bills when you are 18 then not paying them. Hangs around for 7-10 years hurting your credit.

One of the problems with comparing creditworthiness in the first place, so as to "justify" racial disparity in lending, is that research has found lenders are more willing to give information to whites with bad credit on how to clean up their files, and underwriters tend to give whites the benefit of the doubt with spotty credit in a way they don't with borrowers of color.

One infamous example of this process, though hardly anomalous, involved Northern Trust, in Chicago, which settled with the Justice Department over violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Northern had allowed whites with spotty credit to offer extensive explanations for their credit blemishes, while denying such an opportunity to minority loan seekers.

What's more, Northern had refused to consider bonuses, overtime pay or child support as sources of income when determining a black applicant's creditworthiness, whereas these were taken into consideration for white loan-seekers.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Subprime loans are three times more likely in low income neighborhoods than in high-income neighborhoods. Subprime loans are five times more likely in black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. Homeowners in high-income black areas are twice as likely as homeowners in low-income white areas to have subprime loans.

To actually write this, and think it has any relevance shows just how completely idiotic and ignorant this person is. Subprime was created solely for this reason...low income, primarily minority borrowers to actually give them a shot at home ownership (by LOWERING standards). It was mandated BY LAW that banks have a percentage of these loans to maintain their credit ratings or be fined or be subject to increased interest rates with interbank lending.

For someone to even use this as some sort of argument of racism just shows how clueless they are as the whole process was created as a SOLUTION out of accusations in the late 80's and early 90's of banks redlining.

Its just mind boggling someone would even use this argument as it was civil rights groups that pushed for their creation in the first place.

Home ownership for minority communities...... Increased property values for lower income sections...... Increase equity overall for the community..... An attempt to prop up the poor. It failed...horribly.


"In a circa 1999 document, “To Each Their Home: Success Stories from the ACORN Housing Corporation,” the ACORN affiliate called the American Dream a sham and bragged about undermining banks’ underwriting standards. . . .
ACORN Housing took credit for developing “several innovative strategies” to get around pesky traditional lending guidelines, which were unfair because they “were geared to middle class borrowers.”
Instead of using passe measures of creditworthiness such as, say, credit history and having an adequate income, ACORN convinced lenders to adopt “more flexible underwriting criteria that take into account the realities of lower income communities.” Henceforth, some banks serving inner cities would accept “less traditional income sources such as food stamps.”

 

[lutherblsstt]

To actually write this, and think it has any relevance shows just how completely idiotic and ignorant this person is. Subprime was created solely for this reason...low income, primarily minority borrowers to actually give them a shot at home ownership (by LOWERING standards). It was mandated BY LAW that banks have a percentage of these loans to maintain their credit ratings or be fined or be subject to increased interest rates with interbank lending.

For someone to even use this as some sort of argument of racism just shows how clueless they are as the whole process was created as a SOLUTION out of accusations in the late 80's and early 90's of banks redlining.

Its just mind boggling someone would even use this argument as it was civil rights groups that pushed for their creation in the first place.

Home ownership for minority communities...... Increased property values for lower income sections...... Increase equity overall for the community..... An attempt to prop up the poor. It failed...horribly.


"In a circa 1999 document, “To Each Their Home: Success Stories from the ACORN Housing Corporation,” the ACORN affiliate called the American Dream a sham and bragged about undermining banks’ underwriting standards. . . .
ACORN Housing took credit for developing “several innovative strategies” to get around pesky traditional lending guidelines, which were unfair because they “were geared to middle class borrowers.”
Instead of using passe measures of creditworthiness such as, say, credit history and having an adequate income, ACORN convinced lenders to adopt “more flexible underwriting criteria that take into account the realities of lower income communities.” Henceforth, some banks serving inner cities would accept “less traditional income sources such as food stamps.”

Disparities in lending by race have been striking in many parts of the country: In New York City, for example, an analysis by the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy found that around 40 percent of subprime loans issued between 2004 and 2006 were made to blacks, and an additional third of such loans were given to Hispanics. Whites, by contrast, received around 10 percent of such loans, as did Asians.

In a rigorous national analysis based on data collected in the 1990s, researchers Carolyn Bond and Richard Williams found the same phenomenon nationwide. But in addition to demonstrating large racial disparities in who got such loans, Bond and Williams also found the loans -- far from reversing racial segregation -- may have actually contributed to increased levels of segregation in the United States.
"By 1999 the proportion of black borrowers receiving loans from subprime lenders was six times what it was in 1992," the researchers wrote in a paper they published in the journal Social Forces.

While the cheap loans did increase black homeownership rates, especially in predominantly minority neighborhoods, they simultaneously increased the risk that homeowners would default on their loans, send houses into foreclosure and drive down the value of entire neighborhoods, making them less attractive for people from other social classes and racial groups who might have once considered moving in.

"Many subprime borrowers are losing their homes, and the deteriorating and destabilized neighborhoods that result are unlikely to foster integration," Bond and Williams concluded. "In the absence of effective action, the findings suggest that persistent or even increasing levels of segregation may be one of the most important long-term consequences of the current home lending crisis."

Invalid Link Removed

 

[EasyEJL]

While the cheap loans did increase black homeownership rates, especially in predominantly minority neighborhoods, they simultaneously increased the risk that homeowners would default on their loans, send houses into foreclosure and drive down the value of entire neighborhoods, making them less attractive for people from other social classes and racial groups who might have once considered moving in.

So you are saying the CRA is a problem and subprime loans shouldn't have been forced on banks? I can agree with you there.

How does giving a cheaper than market rate loan to an individual encourage failure to repay?

 

[RobInKuwait]

Disparities in lending by race have been striking in many parts of the country: In New York City, for example, an analysis by the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy found that around 40 percent of subprime loans issued between 2004 and 2006 were made to blacks, and an additional third of such loans were given to Hispanics. Whites, by contrast, received around 10 percent of such loans, as did Asians.

In a rigorous national analysis based on data collected in the 1990s, researchers Carolyn Bond and Richard Williams found the same phenomenon nationwide. But in addition to demonstrating large racial disparities in who got such loans, Bond and Williams also found the loans -- far from reversing racial segregation -- may have actually contributed to increased levels of segregation in the United States.
"By 1999 the proportion of black borrowers receiving loans from subprime lenders was six times what it was in 1992," the researchers wrote in a paper they published in the journal Social Forces.

While the cheap loans did increase black homeownership rates, especially in predominantly minority neighborhoods, they simultaneously increased the risk that homeowners would default on their loans, send houses into foreclosure and drive down the value of entire neighborhoods, making them less attractive for people from other social classes and racial groups who might have once considered moving in.

"Many subprime borrowers are losing their homes, and the deteriorating and destabilized neighborhoods that result are unlikely to foster integration," Bond and Williams concluded. "In the absence of effective action, the findings suggest that persistent or even increasing levels of segregation may be one of the most important long-term consequences of the current home lending crisis."

Invalid Link Removed

If I read what you're saying correctly basically agreeing with the point I made earlier:

Legislation designed to cure "racial injustices", are fraught with unintended consequences. This is why I have been asking you the same question this whole thread. OK, let's say racism is real, what law do you propose?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Disparities in lending by race have been striking in many parts of the country: In New York City, for example, an analysis by the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy found that around 40 percent of subprime loans issued between 2004 and 2006 were made to blacks, and an additional third of such loans were given to Hispanics. Whites, by contrast, received around 10 percent of such loans, as did Asians.

In a rigorous national analysis based on data collected in the 1990s, researchers Carolyn Bond and Richard Williams found the same phenomenon nationwide. But in addition to demonstrating large racial disparities in who got such loans, Bond and Williams also found the loans -- far from reversing racial segregation -- may have actually contributed to increased levels of segregation in the United States.
"By 1999 the proportion of black borrowers receiving loans from subprime lenders was six times what it was in 1992," the researchers wrote in a paper they published in the journal Social Forces.

While the cheap loans did increase black homeownership rates, especially in predominantly minority neighborhoods, they simultaneously increased the risk that homeowners would default on their loans, send houses into foreclosure and drive down the value of entire neighborhoods, making them less attractive for people from other social classes and racial groups who might have once considered moving in.

"Many subprime borrowers are losing their homes, and the deteriorating and destabilized neighborhoods that result are unlikely to foster integration," Bond and Williams concluded. "In the absence of effective action, the findings suggest that persistent or even increasing levels of segregation may be one of the most important long-term consequences of the current home lending crisis."

Invalid Link Removed

Yes, I know. You don't have to tell me it was a bad idea. That was sort of the point.

Its not racist when the program in its purpose is meant to help minority buyers and ease lending standards.

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

 

[lutherblsstt]

So you are saying the CRA is a problem and subprime loans shouldn't have been forced on banks? I can agree with you there.

How does giving a cheaper than market rate loan to an individual encourage failure to repay?

It is all explained here: Invalid Link Removed

 

[lutherblsstt]

Yes, I know. You don't have to tell me it was a bad idea. That was sort of the point.

Its not racist when the program in its purpose is meant to help minority buyers and ease lending standards.

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

In a rigorous national analysis based on data collected in the 1990s, researchers Carolyn Bond and Richard Williams found the same phenomenon nationwide. But in addition to demonstrating large racial disparities in who got such loans, Bond and Williams also found the loans -- far from reversing racial segregation -- may have actually contributed to increased levels of segregation in the United States.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

But in addition to demonstrating large racial disparities in who got such loans

Which is sort of comical since that was the sole purpose of this anyway...its why ACORN lobbied for such revisions and a crackdown on redlining in the 90's. Subprime didn't become a dirty word until 2007.

Why anyone would include such a statement as proof of anything is asinine. It shows a complete lack of understanding of lending/borrows regulations in the last 15 years.

using a statement like this:

"Subprime loans are three times more likely in low income neighborhoods than in high-income neighborhoods. Subprime loans are five times more likely in black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. Homeowners in high-income black areas are twice as likely as homeowners in low-income white areas to have subprime loans."


....leads me to believe you or the person who wrote that didn't know why sub prime (or the revisions in the mid 90's) was created in the first place.

The mere fact they describe all subprime as having higher interest rates is inaccurate. Subprime initially was below prime...hence the name. Chris Dodd got a subprime loan from Countrywide. It didn't' have a higher interest rate. It didn't reset. It didn't have higher fee's. It was a "sweetheart" deal...below prime.