Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

I've really struggled with how to respond to your post, but I'm going to
leave my quoting to a minimum and make some general points.

At 11:04 PM 1/17/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>Further, you give very little in the way of analyis yourself.  The main
>arguement you seem to be making is that numbers don't matter because they
>can always be argued away.  The problem with this type of arguement is that
>we, then, should never consider correlations because there can always be a
>good retorical arguement to ignore them.

First, as far as I understand the peer review process there is no
obligation on those who criticize shoddy data analysis to conduct better
data analysis themselves.

Secondly, I regret to state that Brin-L isn't in the top tier of my hobbies
these days.   I have no doubt that there is a lot of research that could -
and maybe already has - been done.   I just don't feel that devoting
several horus to the subject in the hope of persuading people I am pretty
sure would not be convinced anyways is how I want to spend the free time I
have left over from work and school.  

>> Likewise, he never connects
>> his analysis to policies, such as, for insistance taking account of the
>> fact that George H. W. Bush raised taxes
>
>He had to because his "read my lips" promise to keep Reagan's policies
>intact were impossible to sustain.

Assign whatever reason to it that you want, if your theory is that
minorities benefit from increased taxes on the rich - then that is the
theory that you should be testing.   The motivations for an action should
have no effect on the predicted outcome of those actions.

As it is, using Inauguration Addresses as your sole indicator of economic
policy on the country - without looking at Congress or even any specific
economic policy indicators, does not strike me as a particularly useful,
scientific, or relevant line of inquiry.   In other words, to return to
what I said above - another reason why I am not providing my own data is
because I don't find your line of inquiry to be particularly relevant.

>One final proposition.  I'll be willing to look at the best 8 years of the
>14 of Reagan-Bush I & II (we don't have data for '03) and compare then to
>Clinton's 8 years. I bet that I will see significant differences in the
>distribution of economic growth.

I'd actually probably agree with that bet.   The '90's expansion, fueled in
large part by development in information technology was extraordinary in a
number of ways.Foremost among them was an extraordinary decrease in the
unemployment rate.   Since minorites tend to be poor, they almost certainly
benefitted as never-before from this extraordinary reduction.

To quote this week's issue of _The Economist_:
"the younger George Bush presides over 2.3m fewer jobs than when he came to
office.  The figures may paint a bleaker picture than is warranted. To
begin with, comparing job creation with a high point early in Mr Bush's
term is probably the wrong starting-point. Unemployment then, at 4.2%, was
unnaturally low; most economists think the “natural” employment rate—the
rate consistent with stable inflation—is around 5.0-5.5%. As many as 1.5m
jobs at the height of the boom were, in the long run, not sustainable."

If you believe, as most economists do, that the United States reached a
temporary level of unsustainable employment for a period of a few years
during the 1990's - then it is very reasonable to suspect that those groups
that tend to have high unemployment rates, such as minorities, tended to do
very well during that time period.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Definition of Science [was: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry]

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan Minette wrote:
>
> But, there are reasons that the "social sciences" are different
> from sciences.
>
> Some characterization of science
>
Ok, I accept most of them, except one.

> 1) Theories are falsifiable by comparing detailed predictions with
> observations
>
> 2) Experiments (or at least pseudo-experiments)* can be done to test the
> theories.
>
> 3) There is either a single paradigm or a singular shift from an old
> paradigm to a new paradigm.
>
> 4) Old theories are special cases of the new theory
>
> 5) Theory of complex phenomenon are explained in terms of theories of
> simple phenomenon.  One can outline the linkage, in principal at least.
>
> 6) The outcome of experiments is not influenced by human desires or
> persuasions...it is independant of the free will of people.
>
> 7) Professionals do not make retorical arguements to advance their case.
>
Number _6_ is not necessary to define science, because then
you will be excluding sciences that deal with _human_ behaviour.
In other words, if you exclude human desires, persuasions, emotions or
free will, you will _never_ be able to take a scientific approach to
them.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:04:45PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

> Finally, Eric, IIRC, tried putting in a 2-year time delay and there
> results I obtained were changed only moderately.

Yes, I did 1, 2, 3, and 4 year delays as an extension to your
calculation. 1, 2, and 3 year delays didn't make a lot of difference,
the Democrat presidents were still way ahead.

I doubt JDG read it, though, since he is afraid to read my posts because
he might see a distressing word.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> At 08:16 PM 1/15/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
> >I'll also state for the record that, while we all make mistakes, Dan's
> >data is usually pretty solid, and I can remember a few instances when he
> >was mistaken and owned up to it.  I don't think "fast-and-loose"
describes
> >his use of facts at all.
>
> While this may be true in physics, I haven't found that to be so in
> economics.In particular, Dan has been fond of declaring that
"economics
> is not a sciece" - largely on his critique that economics cannot produce
> useful prediction.

I did not say that.  I said that its predictive ability and its ability to
falsify theories are not sufficient for it to be a science. I said that one
cannot precict very simple things that one would expect to be able to
predict in a science.

But, that does not mean that one can not use emperical data at all.  The
idea that science = the ability to use emperical data is not mine.  It
appears to be yours.  The definition of science is also not "if I can make
predictions, I have a science."  People can make predictions in sporting
events; but that doesn't mean football is a science.

I'd be happy to engage in a general discussion on what makes a science a
science, and why fields such as ecconomics, sociology, social work and
history are not sciences, even though they share some techniques with
science.  Like many definitions, this does not involve a hard and fast set
of rules.  But, there are reasons that the "social sciences" are different
from sciences.

Some characterization of science

1) Theories are falsifiable by comparing detailed predictions with
observations

2) Experiments (or at least pseudo-experiments)* can be done to test the
theories.

3) There is either a single paradigm or a singular shift from an old
paradigm to a new paradigm.

4) Old theories are special cases of the new theory

5) Theory of complex phenomenon are explained in terms of theories of
simple phenomenon.  One can outline the linkage, in principal at least.

6) The outcome of experiments is not influenced by human desires or
persuasions...it is independant of the free will of people.

7) Professionals do not make retorical arguements to advance their case.


* One may argue that there are no experiments in conmology.  Well that's
only a quarer true.  First, cosmology ties in very well with experimental
particle physics.  Second, one can propose things to look for in the cosmos
to test theories.




>Yet, this never seems to stop him from using economic
> data to make predictions that "Republicans are horrible for the country
in
> that the produce X effect."   Well, you can't have it both ways.You
> can't continually insist that economis is not a science

Which I said

>and does not produce useful predictions,

Which I did not say.

Its not that there is no predictive ability in ecconomics.  Both of us can
come with example of how general things can be predicted.  Specific
predictions from basic theory do not exist.  Some very simple things can be
near impossible to predictmostly true because ecconomics involves human
behavior.

>and then insist that it predicts that Republicans are just awful.

I just pointed to 80 years worth of data that indicate that the US ecconomy
fairs worse under Republicans than Democrats. I fully realize that this is
not a scientific proof and that the actual chain of causality is such that
I cannot scientifically prove my assertation.  Even though the data are
several sigma from random chance, there can always be an explanation for
every difference.  So, I have not rigorously proven my assertaiton, I've
mearly given credence to its versimilitude.



> In addition, many of these predictions play fast and loose with the data.
> One of the classic ones is to assign the economic peformance of the
country
> in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was President, to Ronald Reagan - never
minding
> that Ronald Reagan's economic policies really couldn't have taken much
> effect until 1982 at a minimum.

Ah, what I did was compare a number of dates to 1980.  The difference in
GDP, for example, between the '92 value and the '80 values tell what
happened during the Reagan/Bush I era.  Now, strictly speaking, there are a
few weeks of Carter thrown in those years, but that's in the noise.

Now, lets look at your arguement that the effects of Reagan would have at
least a 2 year time delay.  In the sciences, any assertation such as that
would be accopanied by a real proof.  Not a decent retorical arguement.
Not an appeal to common sense

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 08:19 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>I'm not saying that Bush is a racist.  He probably isn't. 

How noble of you.   The President of the United States is "probably" not a
racist.

So, does this "guilty until proved innocent" philosophy of yours apply
equally to Democrats or do you just not recognize the bigotry of this
statement?

Personally, I think that you are probably not a bigot.   In fact, I'd put a
bet on straight-up odds against you being an old-fashioned liberal Democrat
bigot.

Nevertheless, presuming that you recognize the bigotry of the above
statement, I find this "guilty until proved innocent" meme that you
apparently have regarding Republicans and race to be HIGHLY offensive.

JDG - Making a point.

___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 10:20 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>He made _specific_ remarks about the nation being better if Strom had won
>the '48 election when he ran for president as the  "states rights" party
>candidate.  He ran because the Democrats had planks in their platform that
>called for civil rights for blacks.  He ran because of his strong belief in
>segregation.

Yes, and the Republican Party ran him out of his leadership position for that.

I'd put the Lott situation alongside Nixon and Rowland and yes, Duke, as
positive examples of the Republican Party policing themselves.   

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Deborah Harrell]

--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> 
> Well, I don't know what it said, but I'm willing to
> guess it was some variation of "Vote for the Crook! 
> It's Important" which, as I recall, was popular at
> the time.

Bingo!  It's rather grim - or hysterically comical -
when your choice for state governor is either a known
Mafia-afficienado or a "former" KKKer...  :P

Of Course, There's The Porn Star Or The Action-Hero
Choice Too Maru   ;)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Deborah Harrell]

How odd!  My original message somehow was truncated!

> Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  
> > And it's not as if the West Virginians have the
> > excuse
> > that he was running agaist Edwards, either.
> 
> 
> Did I mention that my mom (my folks were living in
> Louisiana at that time) slapped a bumper-sticker on
> her car that read:

"Vote For The Crook - It's Important!"
-and she despised Edwards.

That Was Quite Curious! Maru

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> At 07:00 PM 1/16/2004 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote:
> >--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> And it's not as if the West Virginians have the
> >> excuse
> >> that he was running agaist Edwards, either.
> >
> >
> >Did I mention that my mom (my folks were living in
> >Louisiana at that time) slapped a bumper-sticker on
> >her car that read
> >
>
> 
>

And Yankees who can't spell 



xponent
With Frequency Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 07:00 PM 1/16/2004 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote:
>--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> And it's not as if the West Virginians have the
>> excuse
>> that he was running agaist Edwards, either.
>
>
>Did I mention that my mom (my folks were living in
>Louisiana at that time) slapped a bumper-sticker on
>her car that read 
>



JDG :-)
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Did I mention that my mom (my folks were living in
> Louisiana at that time) slapped a bumper-sticker on
> her car that read 

Well, I don't know what it said, but I'm willing to
guess it was some variation of "Vote for the Crook! 
It's Important" which, as I recall, was popular at the time.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Deborah Harrell]

--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> And it's not as if the West Virginians have the
> excuse
> that he was running agaist Edwards, either.


Did I mention that my mom (my folks were living in
Louisiana at that time) slapped a bumper-sticker on
her car that read 

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 08:16 PM 1/15/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>I'll also state for the record that, while we all make mistakes, Dan's 
>data is usually pretty solid, and I can remember a few instances when he 
>was mistaken and owned up to it.  I don't think "fast-and-loose" describes 
>his use of facts at all.

While this may be true in physics, I haven't found that to be so in
economics.In particular, Dan has been fond of declaring that "economics
is not a sciece" - largely on his critique that economics cannot produce
useful prediction.   Yet, this never seems to stop him from using economic
data to make predictions that "Republicans are horrible for the country in
that the produce X effect."   Well, you can't have it both ways.You
can't continually insist that economis is not a science and does not
produce useful predictions, and then insist that it predicts that
Republicans are just awful.

In addition, many of these predictions play fast and loose with the data.
One of the classic ones is to assign the economic peformance of the country
in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was President, to Ronald Reagan - never minding
that Ronald Reagan's economic policies really couldn't have taken much
effect until 1982 at a minimum.   This is an egregious and repeated error,
which I just simply find to be inexplicable.   Likewise, he never connects
his analysis to policies, such as, for insistance taking account of the
fact that George H. W. Bush raised taxes or that the recession of '81-'82,
which was produced in large part by Paul Volcker, is widely considered to
have been absolutely necessary for the long-term health of the economy.   

Lastly, while making these mistakes once might be understandable, they have
instead been repeated time and time again and so sometimes i just let
my frustration show a little bit too much.  And for that I apologize..

JDG

___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Erik Reuter]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 08:16:15PM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:

> I'm biased, but I would guess that even an unbiased person would be
> convinced by Dan's data before they were convinced by your rhetoric.
>
> I'll also state for the record that, while we all make mistakes, Dan's
> data is usually pretty solid, and I can remember a few instances when
> he was mistaken and owned up to it.  I don't think "fast-and-loose"
> describes his use of facts at all.

I was thinking the same thing myself, but you said it better than I
would have.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Doug Pensinger]

John wrote:


Of course, I forgot, that I am an economist, and since economics isn't a
science I won't be convinced by data.  Of course, I should also point out
that you have a long history of playing fast-and-loose with economic data
on this List, doing things like ascribing economic data from Carter's
Presidency to Ronald Reagan.
I'm biased, but I would guess that even an unbiased person would be 
convinced by Dan's data before they were convinced by your rhetoric.

I'll also state for the record that, while we all make mistakes, Dan's 
data is usually pretty solid, and I can remember a few instances when he 
was mistaken and owned up to it.  I don't think "fast-and-loose" describes 
his use of facts at all.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Doug Pensinger]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:40:18 -0600, Ronn!Blankenship 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

At 05:22 PM 1/15/04, The Fool wrote:

There is more wisdom and insight in 1 Brad Delong Post than any fifty of
the best JDG posts.  But Brin-Lers already knew that.


Ad hominem.  Ad nauseum.

I agree, let's try to keep it civil.  The argument, not the individual, 
s'il vous plait.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 05:22 PM 1/15/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
>> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 
>> Of course, I forgot, that I am an economist, and since economics isn't
>a
>> science I won't be convinced by data.
>
>Supply-side economics is like the economists version of young-earth
>creationism.  Keynesian Economic theories WORK, plain and simple.  

Yes, they work so long as you ignore the 1970's from your dataset.

>There is more wisdom and insight in 1 Brad Delong Post than any fifty of
>the best JDG posts.  But Brin-Lers already knew that.

I am grateful and honored to be a deemed worthy of being comparable to a
nationally-recognized PhD economist.   Wow.   Thank you.

JDG - Maybe I really do need to start blogging.
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[The Fool]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> In a message dated 1/15/2004 12:40:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> >  I guess that they are relevant if you really truly believe that Al
Gore
> > > invented the Internet,
> > 
> > Actually, do you really believe he claimed that?  I do 
> > believe that he was
> > part of the inspiration for "Love Story"
> 
> For those who are interested in Gore's "claims" read Al Franken's book.
He points out that the things Gore said he did he did. People distorted
his remarks and then ridiculed him for them. He was one of the first
politician's to see the potential for and to support the internet. The
Love Story claim is complicated. Segal has said that Gore (and Tommy Lee
Jones) were the roll models for his hero. He said that a Tennessee
newspaper reporter that Tipper was the model for the girl. He repeated
this. Segal later said this was not true. But Gore never claimed that
Segal said it. The quote from Gore is quite clear and specific about
this. 

---

If you are going to properly debunk the 'Al gore invented the Internet'
Myth, you need to use Seth Finklestines exhaustive debunking here:

<>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 1/15/2004 12:40:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

>  I guess that they are relevant if you really truly believe that Al Gore
> > invented the Internet,
> 
> Actually, do you really believe he claimed that?  I do 
> believe that he was
> part of the inspiration for "Love Story"

For those who are interested in Gore's "claims" read Al Franken's book. He points out 
that the things Gore said he did he did. People distorted his remarks and then 
ridiculed him for them. He was one of the first politician's to see the potential for 
and to support the internet. The Love Story claim is complicated. Segal has said that 
Gore (and Tommy Lee Jones) were the roll models for his hero. He said that a Tennessee 
newspaper reporter that Tipper was the model for the girl. He repeated this. Segal 
later said this was not true. But Gore never claimed that Segal said it. The quote 
from Gore is quite clear and specific about this. 

 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 1/15/2004 12:40:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

>  I guess that they are relevant if you really truly believe that Al Gore
> > invented the Internet,
> 
> Actually, do you really believe he claimed that?  I do 
> believe that he was
> part of the inspiration for "Love Story"

For those who are interested in Gore's "claims" read Al Franken's book. He points out 
that the things Gore said he did he did. People distorted his remarks and then 
ridiculed him for them. He was one of the first politician's to see the potential for 
and to support the internet. The Love Story claim is complicated. Segal has said that 
Gore (and Tommy Lee Jones) were the roll models for his hero. He said that a Tennessee 
newspaper reporter that Tipper was the model for the girl. He repeated this. Segal 
later said this was not true. But Gore never claimed that Segal said it. The quote 
from Gore is quite clear and specific about this. 

 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[The Fool]

From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

At 05:22 PM 1/15/04, The Fool wrote:

>There is more wisdom and insight in 1 Brad Delong Post than any fifty of
>the best JDG posts.  But Brin-Lers already knew that.



Ad hominem.  Ad nauseum.


Hyperbole.  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:22 PM 1/15/04, The Fool wrote:

There is more wisdom and insight in 1 Brad Delong Post than any fifty of
the best JDG posts.  But Brin-Lers already knew that.


Ad hominem.  Ad nauseum.



-- Ronn!  :)

The contents of this message © 2004 by the author.  All rights 
reserved.  Any reproduction, reproduction, or transmission of the contents 
of this message in any form by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[The Fool]

> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Of course, I forgot, that I am an economist, and since economics isn't
a
> science I won't be convinced by data.

Supply-side economics is like the economists version of young-earth
creationism.  Keynesian Economic theories WORK, plain and simple.  Voodoo
reganomic theories do not.  Plain and simple.

There is more wisdom and insight in 1 Brad Delong Post than any fifty of
the best JDG posts.  But Brin-Lers already knew that.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see no indication that Republicans are abandoning
> Nixon's Southern
> strategy. It doesn't make sense.  From an economic
> standpoint, lower middle
> class whites belong in the Democratic camp. 
> Republicans can get them by
> appealing to their nervousness about pushy
> minorities.

See Dan, this is where we disagree, because you're an
old Marxist at heart :-)

While I don't happen to agree with your economic
standpoint, for now I'll accept it as a debating
point.  So what?  There Are More Important Things Than
Economics.  Always have been, always will be.

Right now, of course, that issue is national security.
 Lower middle class whites are smart enough to realize
that when someone is trying to kill them, it's
probably a good idea to defend yourself - something
that distinguishes them from a fair amount of the
Democratic Party, apparently.  During the Cold War and
after they voted Republican in large part because of
national defense issues.

Social issues are at least as important.  It's true
that behaviors that, in an earlier time, might have
been called indicators of social deviance are no less
likely to happen in that group.  They are, however,
more likely to be condemned by large members of that
group.  Again, social values trend Republican.

More important than any of those is secularism, in my
opinion.  The Democratic Party has a remarkable
ability to have leaders who are fairly secular
(Mondale, Dukakis) or actively disdain religion (Dean,
if he wins the nomination).  Americans are, on the
whole, quite religious.  Lower middle class whites are
_really_ religious.  Bill Clinton, who spoke the
language of faith well, was able to neutralize much of
the traditional Republican advantage on this issue, do
fairly well among lower middle class whites and, not
by coincidence, win the election.  Other Democrats
have been unable or unwilling to do this, and paid the
appropriate penalty for that.

"The Southern Strategy" was certainly based on race at
one point.  But racism is something that's evenly
distributed among the parties and the states. 
Actually, if you redid the empirics given the rise of
anti-semitism on the left, I'd bet it's _more_, not
less, common among Democrats.  But I haven't seen
numbers which postdate 1995 or so on that topic, so
that's uninformed speculation and not worth much.  If
the southern strategy was a raced-based appeal
_today_, it wouldn't be Southern.  It would work every
bit as well in the North and the West.  But it
doesn't, because it's not about race any more.  It's
about culture - and culture is always more important
than economics.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not saying that Bush is a racist.  He probably
> > isn't.  I'd put money on
> > a straight up bet against him being an old fashioned
> > Texas racist.  But,
> > Trent saying that things would have been better if
> > Strom had won instead of
> > Harry wasn't an accident.  The only problem is that
> > he got caught with the
> > wrong people hearing it.
> >
> > Dan M.
>
> Sure - but the Republican Party removed him from
> power, very much to its credit.  Jesse "Himeytown"
> Jackson is doing okay, by contrast.  Al "Tawana
> Brawley" Sharpton is kowtowed to by Democrats every
> day.  And, as I've already mentioned, Robert "White
> N-" Byrd is one of the leaders of the Democratic
> Party.  The modern record of the Democratic Party is
> every bit as bad, despite the disgraceful heritage of
> Nixon's southern strategy.

I'll freely admit that the Democrats do not criticize unelected black
leaders enough. In particular, I think the deference paid to Sharpton this
year is disgraceful.  And, Byrd did indeed join the KKK in the 40s.  But, I
don't remember a recent Democratic presidential candidate having focus
groups to find the way to run ads that would trigger white nervousness
about criminal blacks.  Crime itself wasn't enough, just any old murder
wouldn't do. It was the old black man raping white woman that got the good
numbers in the focus group.

I see no indication that Republicans are abandoning Nixon's Southern
strategy. It doesn't make sense.  From an economic standpoint, lower middle
class whites belong in the Democratic camp.  Republicans can get them by
appealing to their nervousness about pushy minorities.

Its not really about things like drugs or premarital sex, because that
group is roughly as active as any other in those activities. There are
other indications too, like opposition to bus service to the Woodlands
because it would increase crime.  Who seriously thinks that criminals will
ride the bus from the city, rob a house blind, and take the bus home with
their stolen goods?  Its a code word for something else.

Democrats are naturally handicapped in going for the racist vote because
blacks are accurately seen as part of the Democratic coalition.  Thus, it
is a ripe field for the Republicans.  I'm not saying that Republicans are
inherently more immoral than Democrats, just that they are much better
positioned to play the race card with whites.  Given the fact that a subtly
played race card can be the difference between victory and defeat, its hard
to imagine the majority of politicians refraining from playing it for
ethical reasons.  So, my argument is not that Democrats don't play it as
well or often as Republicans because they often can't, not because they
won't on principal.

You can also see the racist vote in Texas, where, in key districts, a
moderate black candidate did significantly worse than a very liberal white
candidate.  Neither had special name recognition, but voters knew who was
white and who was black.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 11:40 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>Because Republicans favor tax and spending policies that favor focusing
>wealth in the "entrepreneur class" because "they are the ones that give
>jobs to the rest of us."

That's funny, because I seem to recall George H. W. Bush raising taxes on
the rich.I also don't remember Richard Nixon as being a big tax cutter
nor a person who was much interested in cutting spending on the poor.

As for the idea that Reagan and George W. Bush favored "focusing wealth in
the entrepreneur class", I don't think that I'm going to even dignify such
a ridiculous statement with further comment.

>> and if you believe that the recessions of '82, '91,
>
>> and '01 were all the Republicans' fault.
>
>No, their policies just exaperated the recessions and weakened the
>recoveries.  

It is pretty bold of you Dan to claimun the George W. Bush has just
"exasperated and weaked the recovery" of the *mildest* recession since
WWII, if not ever.Indeed, it kind of makes wonder who we are speaking
of when we talk of those who "won't be convinced by data." 

Of course, I forgot, that I am an economist, and since economics isn't a
science I won't be convinced by data.  Of course, I should also point out
that you have a long history of playing fast-and-loose with economic data
on this List, doing things like ascribing economic data from Carter's
Presidency to Ronald Reagan.

At any rate, in examining economic data since 1982, you should surely be
prepared to make adjustments for the fact that all three recessions
happened to land during Republican Presidencies - which you have conceded
were not the Republicans' fault.Most everyone would concede that
recessions, almost by definition, have a greater impact on those at the
bottom of the income bracket than at the top, as these people have less
assets to insulate themselves from economic hard time.Moreover, I am
sure that blacks benefitted greatly during the bubble years of the 1990's,
when the US labor market overheated and produced unsustainable levels of
employment.   

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Aw c'mon Kevin.
> You have to recognize that there is absolutely no
> way Lott did not
> know of Thurmonds past. (Maybe with the exception of
> his fathering a
> child by his black maid).
> Its a matter of public record, and that little bit
> of history is
> extremely well known.
> 
> xponent

No, he definitely knew about the fathering, too.  I
mean, _I_ knew about the fathering - I've known for
several years - long enough back that I don't remember
when I learned about it.  I'm not exactly an insider,
so I'm sure Lott knew.  Quite a few Republicans
(myself included, but least important among them) were
trying to get rid of Lott for years, because they knew
that he was a racist and that he would eventually
screw up and make it unmistakeable in public.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Evangelical Protestants also tend to be the most
> bigoted, racist,
> > extremist religious block.
> 
> As a block, maybe.
> 
> As individuals, certainly some are not.
> 
> The person I know the best whom I'd characterize as
> being an evangelical
> protestant is *not* bigoted or racist or extremist.
> 
>   Julia

Not as a block either.  The empirical evidence is
quite overwhelming that evangelicals are no more
racist than any other religious group.  From the
evidence presented on this list, surely the most
bigoted groups are the ones that The Fool is a member of...

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not saying that Bush is a racist.  He probably
> isn't.  I'd put money on
> a straight up bet against him being an old fashioned
> Texas racist.  But,
> Trent saying that things would have been better if
> Strom had won instead of
> Harry wasn't an accident.  The only problem is that
> he got caught with the
> wrong people hearing it.
> 
> Dan M.

Sure - but the Republican Party removed him from
power, very much to its credit.  Jesse "Himeytown"
Jackson is doing okay, by contrast.  Al "Tawana
Brawley" Sharpton is kowtowed to by Democrats every
day.  And, as I've already mentioned, Robert "White
N-" Byrd is one of the leaders of the Democratic
Party.  The modern record of the Democratic Party is
every bit as bad, despite the disgraceful heritage of
Nixon's southern strategy.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For example, while I know of racists in Minnesota, I
> > cannot fathom a former
> > Grand Wizard of the KKK getting the clear majority
> > of white votes in a race
> > for governor.  I can't fathom it in New York either.
> > Dan M.
>
> West Virginia?  After which he would become President
> Pro Tem of the Senate and one of the most respected
> members of the Democratic Party?

Byrd was Grand Wizzard?  If Duke had just joined as a young man and
repudiated the Klan, then I wouldn't have brought it up.


> And it's not as if the West Virginians have the excuse
> that he was running agaist Edwards, either.

Can you give examples from, say the 80s on, of Byrd giving a wink and a nod
to racist practices to keep the racist vote?  If you can, then he's no
better than the Republicans like Trent Lott that do that.  Indeed, I
wouldn't be surprised if, in West Virginia, that he had to pander to
racists to at least some extent.  The person I know best from West Virginia
use to boast how his dad use to offer uppity blacks 20 dollars to leave
town for the North.

The same goes with Gephart's history.  I'd be curious to see if Gephart
still maintains his old ties.  If he does, I'm shocked that his opponents
don't point it out.  But, I'll be happy to accept Byrd and Gephart as
historical examples of the importance of pandering to racists in American
politics. If you give me current data, I'll accept it as evidence of
present examples too.

BTW, West Virginia is not the North...even though it broke off from the
Confederacy.



Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> At 05:50 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
> >So, in 14 years under Republican rule, blacks lost about half a percent.
> >In 8 years under Democratic rule, they gained over 30%. It seems to me
that
> >deciding that the Democrats are better for them than Republicans is
> >straightforward.
>
> And these numbers are relevant, how?

Because Republicans favor tax and spending policies that favor focusing
wealth in the "entrepreneur class" because "they are the ones that give
jobs to the rest of us."

> I guess that they are relevant if you really truly believe that Al Gore
> invented the Internet,

Actually, do you really believe he claimed that?  I do believe that he was
part of the inspiration for "Love Story"

> and if you believe that the recessions of '82, '91,

> and '01 were all the Republicans' fault.

No, their policies just exaperated the recessions and weakened the
recoveries.  But, I don't believe that a muli-sigma signal is just
coincidence.

>If only we had Democratic
> Presidents, then I am sure that we would never have had recessions and
the
> 1990's asset bubble would have last forever, eh?

No, its just that Gore wouldn't have handled it by running deficits up to
record levels in order to concentrate wealth in the upper income bracket
because he felt they are the only ones who make the ecconomy go.

> And of course, I would also point out that it takes some pretty
interesting
> temporal dynamics to use economic results from the Clinton years to
explain
> voting patterns that have held for the past 30 years.

Historically, blacks have done much better under Democrats.  I can trace it
with certainty as far back as the number go...to the '60s.  And, that far
back, there was some gratitude for the willingness of the Democratic
leadership to give up the South in presidential elections for civil rights.

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> At 05:50 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
> >So, in 14 years under Republican rule, blacks lost about half a percent.
> >In 8 years under Democratic rule, they gained over 30%. It seems to me
that
> >deciding that the Democrats are better for them than Republicans is
> >straightforward.
>
> And these numbers are relevant, how?
>
> I guess that they are relevant if you really truly believe that Al Gore
> invented the Internet, and if you believe that the recessions of '82,
'91,
> and '01 were all the Republicans' fault.   If only we had Democratic
> Presidents, then I am sure that we would never have had recessions and
the
> 1990's asset bubble would have last forever, eh?

No, but the recovery would be much more broad based.  I realize that in
ecconomics one can always argue coincidence, but its happening again.  Its
been happening for over 80 years John.  I'd be happy to calculate how
probable that is from pure chance, but I don't think any numbers could
change your mind.

> And of course, I would also point out that it takes some pretty
interesting
> temporal dynamics to use economic results from the Clinton years to
explain
> voting patterns that have held for the past 30 years.

The _only_ exception to this was that Ford and Carter were close, with
Carter just being slightly better.  But, Johnson was way better than Nixon
for blacks.

Its going to continue, too.  I predict that, during the present recovery,
blacks will not outpace whites in economic gains the way they did with
Clinton (i.e. catching up). So far, they are losing ground faster than
whites, which is not a good sign.  In fact, I'll be willing to wager with
you, John, that during the remainder of Bush's term, the mean income of
blacks does not get back up to the 65% of white mean income that they
achieved under Clinton.

Dan M.

Dan M.


Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry



> He probably isn't racist. How nice of you to say that.
>
> And the next time you are at a function honoring someone 40 years older
> than you, make sure his past is clean so your general remark can't be
> turned into a proof that you are a racist or bigot or homophobe.

He made _specific_ remarks about the nation being better if Strom had won
the '48 election when he ran for president as the  "states rights" party
candidate.  He ran because the Democrats had planks in their platform that
called for civil rights for blacks.  He ran because of his strong belief in
segregation.

Are you actually suggesting that Trent didn't know about this when he
specifically remarked on this? General remarks about him being a wonderful
fellow, a good father, etc., I could take.  Talks about his leadership on
this bill or that, I wouldn't have taken as indicating anything.  But
direct praise for his running on a segregation platform? No.  It strains
credibility to think that Trent, who has been active in Mississippi
politics for over 30 years. knew nothing about the Dixiecrat party.

Dan M.

Dan M.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> At 09:19 PM 1/14/2004, you wrote:
>
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:24 PM
> >Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry
> >
> >
> > > At 03:31 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
> > > >> Its certainly not as simple as saying that the South is
racist and the
> > > >> North is not.  There is a lot of racism in the North.  But,
the
> >Southern
> > > >> strategy of the Republican party does include ensuring that
the racist
> > > >> Southern vote in the South is squarely in their camp.
> > > >
> > > >The redundancy here was not intended.  Also, I think that there
is an
> > > >attempt to get the racist Northern vote with the "Southern
strategy."
> > >
> > > Please tell me that you meant the past tense in this.   "Was"
not "is."
> >
> >There are still clear signs that the Republican party knows that
keeping
> >the racist vote is critical.  Thus, you get senators adressing
racist
> >groups and visiting racist institutions full of praise.  If you
want to
> >argue that the Democrats are not harsh enough on irresponsible
black
> >leaders, I won't argue.  But, I'm not giving the Republicans a free
pass on
> >courting racists.
> >
> >I'm not saying that Bush is a racist.  He probably isn't.  I'd put
money on
> >a straight up bet against him being an old fashioned Texas racist.
But,
> >Trent saying that things would have been better if Strom had won
instead of
> >Harry wasn't an accident.  The only problem is that he got caught
with the
> >wrong people hearing it.
> >
> >
> >Dan M.
>
> He probably isn't racist. How nice of you to say that.
>
> And the next time you are at a function honoring someone 40 years
older
> than you, make sure his past is clean so your general remark can't
be
> turned into a proof that you are a racist or bigot or homophobe.
>

Aw c'mon Kevin.
You have to recognize that there is absolutely no way Lott did not
know of Thurmonds past. (Maybe with the exception of his fathering a
child by his black maid).
Its a matter of public record, and that little bit of history is
extremely well known.

xponent
History Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Kevin Tarr]

At 09:19 PM 1/14/2004, you wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry
> At 03:31 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
> >> Its certainly not as simple as saying that the South is racist and the
> >> North is not.  There is a lot of racism in the North.  But, the
Southern
> >> strategy of the Republican party does include ensuring that the racist
> >> Southern vote in the South is squarely in their camp.
> >
> >The redundancy here was not intended.  Also, I think that there is an
> >attempt to get the racist Northern vote with the "Southern strategy."
>
> Please tell me that you meant the past tense in this.   "Was" not "is."
There are still clear signs that the Republican party knows that keeping
the racist vote is critical.  Thus, you get senators adressing racist
groups and visiting racist institutions full of praise.  If you want to
argue that the Democrats are not harsh enough on irresponsible black
leaders, I won't argue.  But, I'm not giving the Republicans a free pass on
courting racists.
I'm not saying that Bush is a racist.  He probably isn't.  I'd put money on
a straight up bet against him being an old fashioned Texas racist.  But,
Trent saying that things would have been better if Strom had won instead of
Harry wasn't an accident.  The only problem is that he got caught with the
wrong people hearing it.
Dan M.
He probably isn't racist. How nice of you to say that.

And the next time you are at a function honoring someone 40 years older 
than you, make sure his past is clean so your general remark can't be 
turned into a proof that you are a racist or bigot or homophobe.

Kevin T. - VRWC
Time for bed, snow day tomorrow?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 05:35 PM 1/14/2004 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For example, while I know of racists in Minnesota, I
>> cannot fathom a former
>> Grand Wizard of the KKK getting the clear majority
>> of white votes in a race
>> for governor.  I can't fathom it in New York either.
>> Dan M.
>
>West Virginia?  After which he would become President
>Pro Tem of the Senate and one of the most respected
>members of the Democratic Party?

Or how about someone with a history of association with several "white's
rights groups" and opposition to busing and minority-housing developments
becoming the leader of his party in the House of Represenatives, a two-time
Presidential Candidate, and the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Julia Thompson]

The Fool wrote:
> 
> > From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > 3) People in the South are much more likely to be Evangelical
> Protestants
> > than people in the North.Republicans agree with Evangelical
> Protestants
> > on a number of key issues, including Abortion, Legal Recognition of
> > Homosexuality,and the importance of promoting abstinence and marriage.
> 
> Evangelical Protestants also tend to be the most bigoted, racist,
> extremist religious block.

As a block, maybe.

As individuals, certainly some are not.

The person I know the best whom I'd characterize as being an evangelical
protestant is *not* bigoted or racist or extremist.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> At 06:50 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >If one were to converse with working class people in the south, I
> >think one would find that voting habits are not something that a
lot
> >of thought is given to, and that justifications for ones voting
record
> >are mostly fatuous rationalizations, even though they are sincerely
> >believed.
> >AFAIK, this is probably true everywhere (though the situational
> >premises would be different).
>
> Come on, why need to bring ignorance into the equation?

If I were making a claim for ignorance, I certainly would have said
so.
There may be some element of obtuseness, intentional or otherwise.
And it doesn't apply only to republicans. I would think that was
clear, even though I was pointing my premise toward a particular
series of historical events where the republicans profited at the
expense of democrats.

My statements should not be taken as a slam of the republicans, but as
an "additional" influence that caused their preeiminence in the south.


>
> 1) Voting tendencies among adults tend to be "sticky" over time.
Hence
> the old phrase "you can't teach an old dog new tricks."Most
people
> don't change their political views later in life.
>
> 2) Voting tendencies are correlated with the voting tendencies of
your
> parents.Children learn values from their parents, and these
values
> often translate into voting preferences.
>
> 3) People in the South are much more likely to be Evangelical
Protestants
> than people in the North.Republicans agree with Evangelical
Protestants
> on a number of key issues, including Abortion, Legal Recognition of
> Homosexuality,and the importance of promoting abstinence and
marriage.
>

1 and 2 say pretty much what I was saying.

3, I might word differently, changing its meaning a bit, but I would
agree that it is essentially true with either wording.

> But of course, this being Brin-L, Republicans are guilty of
race-mongering
> that Democrats are very much above and beyond.

Now John, don't let the extremes typify your opinion of the average.
We know there is enough guilt to go around and be shared by everyone.
Unless anyone here considers themselves or their "side" to be lily
white.

>
> JDG - Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Maru

xponent
Don't You have Any White People To Criticise Honky? Maru
rob



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> At 03:31 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
> >> Its certainly not as simple as saying that the South is racist and the
> >> North is not.  There is a lot of racism in the North.  But, the
Southern
> >> strategy of the Republican party does include ensuring that the racist
> >> Southern vote in the South is squarely in their camp.
> >
> >The redundancy here was not intended.  Also, I think that there is an
> >attempt to get the racist Northern vote with the "Southern strategy."
>
> Please tell me that you meant the past tense in this.   "Was" not "is."

There are still clear signs that the Republican party knows that keeping
the racist vote is critical.  Thus, you get senators adressing racist
groups and visiting racist institutions full of praise.  If you want to
argue that the Democrats are not harsh enough on irresponsible black
leaders, I won't argue.  But, I'm not giving the Republicans a free pass on
courting racists.

I'm not saying that Bush is a racist.  He probably isn't.  I'd put money on
a straight up bet against him being an old fashioned Texas racist.  But,
Trent saying that things would have been better if Strom had won instead of
Harry wasn't an accident.  The only problem is that he got caught with the
wrong people hearing it.


Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[The Fool]

> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 3) People in the South are much more likely to be Evangelical
Protestants
> than people in the North.Republicans agree with Evangelical
Protestants
> on a number of key issues, including Abortion, Legal Recognition of
> Homosexuality,and the importance of promoting abstinence and marriage.

Evangelical Protestants also tend to be the most bigoted, racist,
extremist religious block.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 06:50 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>If one were to converse with working class people in the south, I
>think one would find that voting habits are not something that a lot
>of thought is given to, and that justifications for ones voting record
>are mostly fatuous rationalizations, even though they are sincerely
>believed.
>AFAIK, this is probably true everywhere (though the situational
>premises would be different).

Come on, why need to bring ignorance into the equation?  

1) Voting tendencies among adults tend to be "sticky" over time.Hence
the old phrase "you can't teach an old dog new tricks."Most people
don't change their political views later in life.

2) Voting tendencies are correlated with the voting tendencies of your
parents.Children learn values from their parents, and these values
often translate into voting preferences.

3) People in the South are much more likely to be Evangelical Protestants
than people in the North.Republicans agree with Evangelical Protestants
on a number of key issues, including Abortion, Legal Recognition of
Homosexuality,and the importance of promoting abstinence and marriage.

But of course, this being Brin-L, Republicans are guilty of race-mongering
that Democrats are very much above and beyond.

JDG - Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Maru
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 05:50 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>So, in 14 years under Republican rule, blacks lost about half a percent.
>In 8 years under Democratic rule, they gained over 30%. It seems to me that
>deciding that the Democrats are better for them than Republicans is
>straightforward.

And these numbers are relevant, how?   

I guess that they are relevant if you really truly believe that Al Gore
invented the Internet, and if you believe that the recessions of '82, '91,
and '01 were all the Republicans' fault.   If only we had Democratic
Presidents, then I am sure that we would never have had recessions and the
1990's asset bubble would have last forever, eh?

And of course, I would also point out that it takes some pretty interesting
temporal dynamics to use economic results from the Clinton years to explain
voting patterns that have held for the past 30 years. 

JDG


___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, while I know of racists in Minnesota, I
> cannot fathom a former
> Grand Wizard of the KKK getting the clear majority
> of white votes in a race
> for governor.  I can't fathom it in New York either.
> Dan M.

West Virginia?  After which he would become President
Pro Tem of the Senate and one of the most respected
members of the Democratic Party?

And it's not as if the West Virginians have the excuse
that he was running agaist Edwards, either.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 03:31 PM 1/14/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>> Its certainly not as simple as saying that the South is racist and the
>> North is not.  There is a lot of racism in the North.  But, the Southern
>> strategy of the Republican party does include ensuring that the racist
>> Southern vote in the South is squarely in their camp.
>
>The redundancy here was not intended.  Also, I think that there is an
>attempt to get the racist Northern vote with the "Southern strategy."

Please tell me that you meant the past tense in this.   "Was" not "is."

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry
> >
> > Its certainly not as simple as saying that the South is racist and
the
> > North is not.  There is a lot of racism in the North.  But, the
Southern
> > strategy of the Republican party does include ensuring that the
racist
> > Southern vote in the South is squarely in their camp.
>
> The redundancy here was not intended.  Also, I think that there is
an
> attempt to get the racist Northern vote with the "Southern
strategy."
>
There is probably some truth to what you are describing. But I think a
greater effect relates to multigenerational voting along party lines.

"Daddy was a republican so I am too"

After 64, southern people became habituated to voting republican even
after race became something of a minor issue. ( As in "not the top
issue")
If one were to converse with working class people in the south, I
think one would find that voting habits are not something that a lot
of thought is given to, and that justifications for ones voting record
are mostly fatuous rationalizations, even though they are sincerely
believed.
AFAIK, this is probably true everywhere (though the situational
premises would be different).

xponent
Addiction Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> At 06:34 PM 1/11/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >In a message dated 1/10/2004 4:25:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> Personally, if you want to talk about pandering, I'll talk abotu a
party
> >> that collects 90% of the vote of people of a certain race.
> >>  That's only
> >> *possible* via pandering
> >
> >Alternately, it may be the result of the policies of the republican
party
> with regard to the welfare of that race (by the way which race are we
> talkng about). And of course the fact that the republican party gets over
> 90% of the vote of a religous groups with certain philosophies or certain
> aspects of the economic sector is not pandering?
> >
>
> Of course the Republican Party is terrible for African Americans.   That
is
> why 30 years of unquestioning, nearly unanmious,  support for the
> Democratic Party has produced such a substantial improvement in the
welfare
> of African Americans.

I'll freely admit that the results of the '70s were mixedbut the
results since then are as clear as can be.  Lets look at how different
races/ethnic groups fared under Republican and Democratic administrations.

blackNon-Hispanic white
Hispanic
80-92  +5.9%  +6.4%
+5.9%
92-00 +31.5%+13.9%
+22.0%
00-02   -6.3%-1.6% 
-4.4%


So, in 14 years under Republican rule, blacks lost about half a percent.
In 8 years under Democratic rule, they gained over 30%. It seems to me that
deciding that the Democrats are better for them than Republicans is
straightforward.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


Let me retry to line up the #s.
> black  whiteHispanic
> 80-92  +5.9%  +6.4% +5.9%
> 92-00 +31.5%+13.9%  +22.0%
> 00-02   -6.3%-1.6%-4.4%

Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry
>
> Its certainly not as simple as saying that the South is racist and the
> North is not.  There is a lot of racism in the North.  But, the Southern
> strategy of the Republican party does include ensuring that the racist
> Southern vote in the South is squarely in their camp.

The redundancy here was not intended.  Also, I think that there is an
attempt to get the racist Northern vote with the "Southern strategy."

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's race, John.  Richard Nixon saw this and
> > developed a Southern strategy
> > that appealed to the racist voters who, after the
> > passage of Civil Rights,
> > were so mad at the Democrats that they were willing
> > to vote for a
> > Republican, party of Lincoln not withstanding. This
> > really started with
> > Dixiecrats like Thurman becoming Republicans, and
> > was accelerated by Civil
> > Rights.  As Johnson said, he handed the South to the
> > Republicans for 100
> > years with one stroke of his pen.
> >
> > Dan M.
>
> I don't think you're right about this one, Dan.  The
> South (according to the social science on the topic
> I've seen, as well as personal experience) is no more
> (or less) racist than the rest of the country.  It is,
> though, more socially conservative.  In 1964, was it
> about race?  I have no doubt that it was.  In 1994,
> was it about race?  I honestly think that it was not.

Its certainly not as simple as saying that the South is racist and the
North is not.  There is a lot of racism in the North.  But, the Southern
strategy of the Republican party does include ensuring that the racist
Southern vote in the South is squarely in their camp.

There is an obvious potential  problem for the Republicans in that poor
whites would tend to stray from the Republican party to the Democratic
party because the Republican party traditionally favors the acceleration of
the concentration of national income in the top 1%-2% or so (5% is the
smallest slice I can get numbers on, but I think they favor a tighter
concentration than that.)

For example, while I know of racists in Minnesota, I cannot fathom a former
Grand Wizard of the KKK getting the clear majority of white votes in a race
for governor.  I can't fathom it in New York either.

One hypothesis is that the racism in the South has long been a foundation
of the politics there, but the racism in the North is harder to tap.  Its
still there, but not as easy to exploit with a few key words spoken at Bob
Jones University or a visit that reminds people which Jesse one's party
supports.

My understanding is that, after the Democrats got the black vote solidly
lined up after sacrificing their party for civil rights in '64, the
Republicans rightly concluded that getting the racist vote should would
compensate for this, as long as they didn't offend too many whites by how
they did this.

Dan M.





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's race, John.  Richard Nixon saw this and
> developed a Southern strategy
> that appealed to the racist voters who, after the
> passage of Civil Rights,
> were so mad at the Democrats that they were willing
> to vote for a
> Republican, party of Lincoln not withstanding. This
> really started with
> Dixiecrats like Thurman becoming Republicans, and
> was accelerated by Civil
> Rights.  As Johnson said, he handed the South to the
> Republicans for 100
> years with one stroke of his pen.
> 
> Dan M.

I don't think you're right about this one, Dan.  The
South (according to the social science on the topic
I've seen, as well as personal experience) is no more
(or less) racist than the rest of the country.  It is,
though, more socially conservative.  In 1964, was it
about race?  I have no doubt that it was.  In 1994,
was it about race?  I honestly think that it was not.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry



> The South of the United States no longer casts votes on racial issues,
but
> does cast votes on religious/cultural conservatism issues.   This has led
> to the once "Democratic Solid South" becoming the "Republican Solid
South."

And this happened instantaneously in 1964?

Outside of Arizona, the only states that Goldwater won were in the
previously "Democratic Solid South."

It's race, John.  Richard Nixon saw this and developed a Southern strategy
that appealed to the racist voters who, after the passage of Civil Rights,
were so mad at the Democrats that they were willing to vote for a
Republican, party of Lincoln not withstanding. This really started with
Dixiecrats like Thurman becoming Republicans, and was accelerated by Civil
Rights.  As Johnson said, he handed the South to the Republicans for 100
years with one stroke of his pen.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Matt Grimaldi]

Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> 
> The Fool  wrote:
> >
> > Bullshit.  The Republican party is _built_ on confederate loving, racist,
> > bigoted, bible thumping fundamentalists in the south.  Republicans
> > couldn't win without the bigot vote.  Republicans like Rush, and
> > Buchanan, routinely pander to bigoted southerners.
> >
> How interesting. We learned here in Brazil that the Republican
> Party was Lincoln's Party, and that Lincoln made war against the
> South Separatists.
> 
> Which one of these two statements is wrong?
> 
> Alberto Monteiro
> 

It was originally built as the anti-slavery
party, but over the last 40 years or so, 
they've replaced all of the support timbers
in the building frame with new ones that make
the whole structure lean towards such fundamentalist
people.

-- Matt
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Julia Thompson]

Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> 
> The Fool  wrote:
> >
> > Bullshit.  The Republican party is _built_ on confederate loving, racist,
> > bigoted, bible thumping fundamentalists in the south.  Republicans
> > couldn't win without the bigot vote.  Republicans like Rush, and
> > Buchanan, routinely pander to bigoted southerners.
> >
> How interesting. We learned here in Brazil that the Republican
> Party was Lincoln's Party, and that Lincoln made war against the
> South Separatists.
> 
> Which one of these two statements is wrong?

Parties shift over time.  The party of Lincoln has changed since he took
office in 1860; heck, it's changed since 1960.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[The Fool]

> From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> The Fool  wrote:
> >
> > Bullshit.  The Republican party is _built_ on confederate loving,
racist,
> > bigoted, bible thumping fundamentalists in the south.  Republicans
> > couldn't win without the bigot vote.  Republicans like Rush, and
> > Buchanan, routinely pander to bigoted southerners.
> >
> How interesting. We learned here in Brazil that the Republican
> Party was Lincoln's Party, and that Lincoln made war against the
> South Separatists.
> 
> Which one of these two statements is wrong?

It's simple really.  Nixon beytayed Lincoln's party and remade it in the
image of the confederacy.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 01:51 AM 1/12/2004 + Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>The Fool  wrote:
>>
>> The Republican party is _built_ on confederate loving, racist,
>> bigoted, bible thumping fundamentalists in the south.  Republicans
>> couldn't win without the bigot vote.  Republicans like Rush, and
>> Buchanan, routinely pander to bigoted southerners.
>>
>How interesting. We learned here in Brazil that the Republican
>Party was Lincoln's Party, and that Lincoln made war against the
>South Separatists.
>
>Which one of these two statements is wrong?

Both are correct.

The South of the United States no longer casts votes on racial issues, but
does cast votes on religious/cultural conservatism issues.   This has led
to the once "Democratic Solid South" becoming the "Republican Solid South."

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Alberto Monteiro]

The Fool  wrote:
>
> Bullshit.  The Republican party is _built_ on confederate loving, racist,
> bigoted, bible thumping fundamentalists in the south.  Republicans
> couldn't win without the bigot vote.  Republicans like Rush, and
> Buchanan, routinely pander to bigoted southerners.
>
How interesting. We learned here in Brazil that the Republican
Party was Lincoln's Party, and that Lincoln made war against the
South Separatists.

Which one of these two statements is wrong?

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 06:34 PM 1/11/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In a message dated 1/10/2004 4:25:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Personally, if you want to talk about pandering, I'll talk abotu a party
>> that collects 90% of the vote of people of a certain race.  
>>  That's only
>> *possible* via pandering
>
>Alternately, it may be the result of the policies of the republican party
with regard to the welfare of that race (by the way which race are we
talkng about). And of course the fact that the republican party gets over
90% of the vote of a religous groups with certain philosophies or certain
aspects of the economic sector is not pandering? 
>

Of course the Republican Party is terrible for African Americans.   That is
why 30 years of unquestioning, nearly unanmious,  support for the
Democratic Party has produced such a substantial improvement in the welfare
of African Americans.

Your last sentence, BTW, is not at all true.   

JDG - Three guesses as to what a major religious component of
African-Americans is.
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 1/10/2004 4:25:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Personally, if you want to talk about pandering, I'll talk abotu a party
> that collects 90% of the vote of people of a certain race.  
>  That's only
> *possible* via pandering

Alternately, it may be the result of the policies of the republican party with regard 
to the welfare of that race (by the way which race are we talkng about). And of course 
the fact that the republican party gets over 90% of the vote of a religous groups with 
certain philosophies or certain aspects of the economic sector is not pandering? 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:45:19PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> At 04:08 PM 1/10/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
> >> >Bullshit.  
> 
> I wrote:
> >> There's no need to swear.
> 
> The Fool wrote:
> >That's not swearing.
> 
> Uh, does *anyone* here agree with The Fool?

I am quite offended by the word "sw**r", John. 


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 04:08 PM 1/10/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
>> >Bullshit.  

I wrote:
>> There's no need to swear.

The Fool wrote:
>That's not swearing.

Uh, does *anyone* here agree with The Fool?

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Kevin Tarr]

>

As promised, my ex-wife replies:

The Texas Miracle  or The National Nightmare.?


rob
I don't know how much was hers, if it all was. I'm not arguing against 
anything written. I just want to point out that this has been going on for 
years under all leadership, as the point seemed to be. I consider the 
problem to come from 1960s (earlier?) when the DoE was created. The Federal 
gov should not receive or pay out one penny, it should all be handled on 
the state level. If the DoE remains, it can monitor individual states, and 
offer suggestions but not mandates.

The problem is money, not too little but too much. Too much for 
administrators to sit around doing nothing else but trying to figure how to 
get more. Too much for teachers and their unions to drool over. Too much to 
build gilded palaces and sports emporiums.

As the writer said, the tax payers are the ones feeling the brunt. I'm not 
saying I think I should pay nothing, but there aren't too many areas with 
so little oversight. Unpaid, nonprofessional busybodies controlling tens of 
millions of dollars. (And before anyone says I should do something, because 
of my job I cannot hold an elected position.)

Kevin T. - VRWC
Enough for now
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[William T Goodall]

On 10 Jan 2004, at 9:25 pm, John D. Giorgis wrote:

At 03:02 PM 1/10/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
This country has zero-tolerance for white-on-black race based 
insults.
Bullshit.  The Republican party is _built_ on confederate loving, 
racist,
bigoted, bible thumping fundamentalists in the south.  Republicans
couldn't win without the bigot vote.  Republicans like Rush, and
Buchanan, routinely pander to bigoted southerners.
There's no need to swear.
Nice to see you engaging in the list again.  Without different voices 
this list would be as shallow as that 'other' list ;)

Swearing? Where? I don't see any need for people to use coarse language 
on the list, but I didn't see it here.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run 
out of things they can do with UNIX." - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 
1984.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry


> > From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > At 03:02 PM 1/10/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
> > >> This country has zero-tolerance for white-on-black race based
> insults.
> > >
> > >Bullshit.  The Republican party is _built_ on confederate loving,
> racist,
> > >bigoted, bible thumping fundamentalists in the south.
Republicans
> > >couldn't win without the bigot vote.  Republicans like Rush, and
> > >Buchanan, routinely pander to bigoted southerners.
> >
> > There's no need to swear.
>
> That's not swearing.
>
> > I am just pointing out that the media would not tolerate an
> over-the-top
> > Democrtatic ad like the one described, due to our non-tolerance of
that
> > sort of thing, whreas poking fun at Vermonters or West Virginians
is
> > entirely tolerated.
> >
> > Personally, if you want to talk about pandering, I'll talk abotu a
> party
> > that collects 90% of the vote of people of a certain race.
That's
> only
> > *possible* via pandering.
>
> They vote that way not because they are being pandered to, but
because
> the other party panders to the the racists.  The Republican party
> requires 80+% of white voters in some states to win elections.
>

As promised, my ex-wife replies:

The Texas Miracle  or The National Nightmare.?



References: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0102-07.htm
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/rodpaige/rod_paige_page.htm
{TAAS tests, Texas, HISD, Paige, governor bush, Rand report)
http://thousandreasons.org/(under education) What Bush has truly
done for education with relevant links
www.senate.gov (nominations) for dept. of education
News stories:
www.khou.com/news/defenders/investigate
www.houstonchronicle.com
www.nytimes.com
Keywords: Sharpstown, HISD, PAIGE, drop outs, Kimball, Cuadra,
TEA, Stripling.

For those of us in Houston Texas, who watched 60 minutes, it was
more than a news story, but a minor victory in the war for this
generation of children.
We are seated here in Houston Texas, birthplace of the "LEAVE NO
CHILD BEHIND PROGRAM".
The Houston Independent School District , under the lead of Rod
Paige, Head of the Dept. of Education are responsible, for this
program built on lies and deceptions, in which children are
deliberately sabotaged for the sake of money.
Even when President Bush was Governor of Texas, he did not heed
counsel concerning state mandated tests, but willingly plunged our
nation's education system into a nightmare
As a parent of a teenager, who entered my alma mater of Sharpstown
High School four years ago, I thought my greatest worries would be
in protecting her from everyday teen temptations.  Instead, our
campus has been the site of a destructive and National battle for
our educational system.
With the help of Dr. Robert Kimball and our local news, the
padding of records( that is reporting of zero drop outs) and the
purposeful hold back of students who would score low on the TAAS
tests was exposed. This has happened district wide and is
happening nationwide. The main and only emphasis, is in performing
well on standardized state tests in order to receive federal
money. It is the system that is corrupt. Instead of financing and
focussing on basic education, recruiting and paying excellent
teachers and promoting students based on their courses and
abilities, administrators and principals receive bonuses for "
skewed " statistics on National Tests.
Justice was not done, HISD laid the blame on two innocent
employees.
This year's graduation class will be 150 out of 1400 that began.
Our campus is a cemetery/ prison. The more people talked, the
greater the censorship. Civil rights of students, teachers and
parents occurred without a wink of the eye. I don't think the
political careers of few people and their cronies who lap at the
financial trough of education are worth the future of this whole
generation.
They would rather put millions into spinmasters and propaganda
than fix the problems. Bush has no intentions of relenting. His
nominees for the Dept of Education clearly show his heart is not
with the children. ( www.senate.gov )  Nominations.
 This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is a national
moral dilemma.
The tax payers are overtaxed, teachers are forced out the door,
and our economy will pay the price of under-educated, forced out
the door youth.
I would urge everyone to educate themselves on this issue. Use
critical thinking in the year to come. If we turn our backs on
this generation, we will all pay a high price. Do not believe the
strawmen of &quo

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[The Fool]

> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 03:02 PM 1/10/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
> >> This country has zero-tolerance for white-on-black race based
insults.
> >
> >Bullshit.  The Republican party is _built_ on confederate loving,
racist,
> >bigoted, bible thumping fundamentalists in the south.  Republicans
> >couldn't win without the bigot vote.  Republicans like Rush, and
> >Buchanan, routinely pander to bigoted southerners.
> 
> There's no need to swear.

That's not swearing.
 
> I am just pointing out that the media would not tolerate an
over-the-top
> Democrtatic ad like the one described, due to our non-tolerance of that
> sort of thing, whreas poking fun at Vermonters or West Virginians is
> entirely tolerated.
> 
> Personally, if you want to talk about pandering, I'll talk abotu a
party
> that collects 90% of the vote of people of a certain race.   That's
only
> *possible* via pandering.

They vote that way not because they are being pandered to, but because
the other party panders to the the racists.  The Republican party
requires 80+% of white voters in some states to win elections.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 03:02 PM 1/10/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
>> This country has zero-tolerance for white-on-black race based insults.
>
>Bullshit.  The Republican party is _built_ on confederate loving, racist,
>bigoted, bible thumping fundamentalists in the south.  Republicans
>couldn't win without the bigot vote.  Republicans like Rush, and
>Buchanan, routinely pander to bigoted southerners.

There's no need to swear.

I am just pointing out that the media would not tolerate an over-the-top
Democrtatic ad like the one described, due to our non-tolerance of that
sort of thing, whreas poking fun at Vermonters or West Virginians is
entirely tolerated.

Personally, if you want to talk about pandering, I'll talk abotu a party
that collects 90% of the vote of people of a certain race.   That's only
*possible* via pandering.

JDG

___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[The Fool]

> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 02:17 PM 1/6/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
>
><>
> >
> >Double Standards on Regional Bigotry 
> >
> >Imagine if I ran an ad which went something like "George Bush should
take
> >his negro lynching, anti-intellectual, pig feet eating,
sister-screwing,
> >wife beating..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence:
> >"... KKK-loving, right-wing freak show back to Texas where it
belongs."
> >
> >Mine's slightly more over the top than the actual Club for Growth ad,
but
> >it's no more incorrect.
> 
> Slightly?

More than slightly.
 
> This country has zero-tolerance for white-on-black race based insults.

Bullshit.  The Republican party is _built_ on confederate loving, racist,
bigoted, bible thumping fundamentalists in the south.  Republicans
couldn't win without the bigot vote.  Republicans like Rush, and
Buchanan, routinely pander to bigoted southerners.

---

I Pledge Impertinence to the Flag-Waving of the Unindicted
Co-Conspirators of America
and to the Republicans for which I can't stand
one Abomination, Underhanded Fraud
Indefensible
with Liberty and Justice Forget it.

 -Life in Hell (Matt Groening)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[John D. Giorgis]

At 02:17 PM 1/6/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
>http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_01_04_atrios_archive.html#1073407288252422
>65
>
>Double Standards on Regional Bigotry 
>
>Imagine if I ran an ad which went something like "George Bush should take
>his negro lynching, anti-intellectual, pig feet eating, sister-screwing,
>wife beating..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence:
>"... KKK-loving, right-wing freak show back to Texas where it belongs."
>
>Mine's slightly more over the top than the actual Club for Growth ad, but
>it's no more incorrect.

Slightly?

This country has zero-tolerance for white-on-black race based insults.

That's the real reason for the difference.

Cultural steroetypes of West Virginia are just as permissible as of Vermont
in American culture for better-or-for-worse, and it has nothing to do with
your delusions of right-wing-media-bias.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[Miller, Jeffrey]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Fool
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 09:47 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry
> 
> In the ad they say: "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, 
> government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, 
> Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, 
> Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where 
> it belongs."

I'd just like to chime in and say that none of the things in that list I, as a 
Vermonter, find objectionable, except for the sushi eating.  Sushi in Vermont is like 
challenging the Grim Reaper to a game of chess where you'll spot him 2 queens.

> ...for the record, Vermont has precisely two Starbucks for all those 
> latte drinkers to go to.

...but we also elect the only Socialist member of congress, kept WalMart out for 
years, there's no McDonalds in the state capitol (the ONLY captiol city not to have 
one..), have a "socialist" redistribution of property tax money for education, and at 
last check, are the only state where they had to truck in anti-gay marraige protesters.

-j-
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[The Fool]

> From: The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>
<<http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_01_04_atrios_archive.html#10734072882524
2265>>
> 
> Double Standards on Regional Bigotry 
> 
> Imagine if I ran an ad which went something like "George Bush should
take
> his negro lynching, anti-intellectual, pig feet eating,
sister-screwing,
> wife beating..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence:
> "... KKK-loving, right-wing freak show back to Texas where it belongs."
> 
> Mine's slightly more over the top than the actual Club for Growth ad,
but
> it's no more incorrect.
> 
> --
> 
> <<http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040105-103754-1355r.htm>>
> 
> In the ad, a farmer says he thinks that "Howard Dean should take his
> tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating,
> Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." before the farmer's wife
then
> finishes the sentence: "... Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back
> to Vermont, where it belongs."

Correction:

In the ad they say: "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking,
government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New
York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show
back to Vermont, where it belongs."

Once again showing that anything printed by Sugar Daddy Moon's Propaganda
Arm, The Washington Times, should be gone over with a fine grained comb.

<<http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/000487.html>>
 
> --
> 
> For some reason it's perfectly valid to make just about any regional
> stereotype about the Hollywood and Northeastern "elite," (which, we
> should remember, was just code for "JOOs and Negro-lovers"), but people
> get all sensitive when one stereotypes the South and Texas. I don't
think
> such regional stereotypes are particularly enlightening or useful, but
> nor do I think their invocation should provoke the kind of outrage that
> genuine racism should. But, why the double standard?
> 
> Of course, the amusing thing about the Club for Growth ad is how wrong
it
> is - Vermont is not part of the "elite Northeast" to the extent that it
> exists, it's a small rural farm state. 
> 
> ...for the record, Vermont has precisely two Starbucks for all those
> latte drinkers to go to.
> 
>
<<http://www.starbucks.com/retail/locator/ViewAll.aspx?a=1&CountryID=244&S
tateID=25&FC=RETAIL&City=>>

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Double Standards on Regional Bigotry

[The Fool]

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_01_04_atrios_archive.html#1073407288252422
65

Double Standards on Regional Bigotry 

Imagine if I ran an ad which went something like "George Bush should take
his negro lynching, anti-intellectual, pig feet eating, sister-screwing,
wife beating..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence:
"... KKK-loving, right-wing freak show back to Texas where it belongs."

Mine's slightly more over the top than the actual Club for Growth ad, but
it's no more incorrect.

--

<<http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040105-103754-1355r.htm>>

In the ad, a farmer says he thinks that "Howard Dean should take his
tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating,
Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." before the farmer's wife then
finishes the sentence: "... Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back
to Vermont, where it belongs."

--

For some reason it's perfectly valid to make just about any regional
stereotype about the Hollywood and Northeastern "elite," (which, we
should remember, was just code for "JOOs and Negro-lovers"), but people
get all sensitive when one stereotypes the South and Texas. I don't think
such regional stereotypes are particularly enlightening or useful, but
nor do I think their invocation should provoke the kind of outrage that
genuine racism should. But, why the double standard?

Of course, the amusing thing about the Club for Growth ad is how wrong it
is - Vermont is not part of the "elite Northeast" to the extent that it
exists, it's a small rural farm state. 

...for the record, Vermont has precisely two Starbucks for all those
latte drinkers to go to.

<<http://www.starbucks.com/retail/locator/ViewAll.aspx?a=1&CountryID=244&S
tateID=25&FC=RETAIL&City=>>

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l