Asiaten: die neuen Juden?

From La Shawn Barber:


‘Yellow Peril’ Redux


Asian students face discrimination in college admissions.

Most people are familiar with so-called affirmative action policies that favor blacks (purportedly to redress past discrimination) and Hispanics and penalize whites. Racial preferences are discriminatory toward individuals of Asian descent as well.

According to Bloomberg, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights is investigating complaints that Harvard and Princeton discriminate against Asian students in admissions.

Naturally, the schools deny the claims. Harvard “does not discriminate against Asian-American applicants,” spokesman Jeff Neal told Bloomberg. “Our review of every applicant’s file is highly individualized and holistic, as we give serious consideration to all of the information we receive and all of the ways in which the candidate might contribute to our vibrant educational environment and community.”

Asian students typically have a higher level of academic success and tend to be overrepresented in colleges and universities, particularly in California. Asians are about 5.6 percent of the U.S. population (Asian only and Asian multiracial) and 13 percent of California’s population, but they account for about 30 percent of undergraduates in the University of California (UC) system.

In 2009, UC’s Board of Regents voted to change the admissions policy, which included eliminating the requirement that applicants take two SAT subject tests, effective this year. The obvious intent of the changes is to expand the black and Hispanic applicant pool. The Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus said the new rules would reduce the percentages of Asian Pacific Islanders from 32.6 percent to 25.2 percent of the eligibility pool.

More at the link; hat tip to Instapundit. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this kind of thing in the United States. In the first half of the twentieth century, many American universities, most notably Harvard, saw teir student bodies as having too large a proportion of Jews, and various “numerus clausus” were adopted, to keep the racial, religious and ethnic background of the student body within the desired norms.

Now, what did the Jews do which led to the early restrictions? Why, they committed the horrible sin of working too hard in primary and secondary schools, and getting the best grades, and thus out-competed other groups for seats in prestigious universities. Jews in the United States were seen as having done just a little bit too well, in a time when people were rather conscious of who the Jews were, because the anti-Semites were always around to point them out. Things were worse in Europe, culminating in the Holocaust, but many of the Jewish quotas in the US began well before the Nazis took power in Germany.

Today? Apparently, it’s the turn of the Asians. Jews are (usually) Caucasians, and aren’t always immediately recognizable as a particular ethnic group, but Asians, why anyone can spot an Asian. And our top universities are getting a little too yellow Asian in appearance these days, and it’s very noticeable.

So, what did the Asians do which has made them so awfully visible? Why, they did just what the Jews did: they reared their children to study hard in school, to work hard and get the best grades, so that they could win admission to the top colleges and universities. They did, in fact, exactly what the American work ethic and ideal of the American dream says they should do. Considering that a large portion of our Asian population arrived here just a generation ago, fleeing Communism in China and Vietnam and Cambodia, almost always dirt poor, and they have come so far, so fast, your editor would say that they have done things exactly the way we have always said that things should be done. It’s a bit of a stereotype, to be sure, but stereotypes have their basis in reality: the new Asian immigrants worked hard, lived very frugally, and saved their money so they could send their children to college, to build better lives than they had.

In 2009, Thomas Espenshade, a Princeton University professor, and Alexandria Walton Radford, who holds a doctorate from Princeton, published a study that revealed students of Asian descent faced discrimination at elite colleges and universities. An Asian student needs to score 140 points higher than whites on the math and reading portions of the SAT, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points higher than blacks to have the same chances of admission. If that’s not racial/ethnic discrimination, what is?

However, this is unsurprising. It is, after all, government policy that colleges and universities should employ Affirmative Action, to insure that blacks and Hispanics are not “under-represented” in their student bodies, that they educate a “diverse” group of people. That means, as Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor specifically allowed in Grutter v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the race of a university applicant can be considered to achieve “diversity,” though race cannot constitute a hard quota.1 If Affirmative Action is allowable and reasonable, to insure that blacks and Hispanics are not under-represented in student bodies, does it not make perfect sense that Affirmative Action to depress the number of Asian students to prevent whites from becoming under-represented in student bodies would also be reasonable and allowable?

Your editor is somewhat fond of the reductio ad absurdum form of argument, at least when well constructed, but he doesn’t need to construct one here at all: it seems that some of our elite colleges have gone ahead and done it for us.
___________________________________

  1. See the companion case, Gratz v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

95 Comments

  1. How dare you quote La Shawn Barber?!!!! Don’t you know she’s a racist Conservative?!!!!


    She’s a race-traitor!!!! How dare you quote a race-traitor on your site!!! You only selected her because you wanted to pick a black man (Oh!!! You picked a woman to try to prove you’re not sexist!!! I see right through your game!!!) to pretend you’re not a raaaaacist like we all know Conservatives are!!! Just listen to MSNBC, the Sacred Entity everyone worships, for proof that she’s a token black who isn’t really black and besides she doesn’t count because she’s a race-traitor!!! What?! They didn’t talk about her?! There’s more proof that she’s not worth listening to!!! MSNBC, the Sacred Entity everyone who got a college degree worships, didn’t talk about her so she’s irrelevant!!! So saith the Sacred Entity!!!

    (The exclamation mark sarcastically brought to you for the benefit of the one who recently got parole on this site. The hidden / brought to you by Hot Air, where you need the / to show you’re being sarcastic.)

  2. Progressives are fond of “creating” pseudo-science when it suits them. (Ironically, they have the gall to chastise the Right for being “anti-science.”) There is absolutely NO evidence that so-called “diversity” enhances academic achievement in whatever educational setting. Further, progressives fervently believe in equal outcomes over equal opportunity. Hence, we see lawsuits based on “disparate impact” and “proportionate representation” and other such nonsense.

  3. Koolo’s correct, progressives, liberals, leftists, Democrats, et al, (the whole noisy pack of double-talking demagogues) loudly proclaim support for equal opportunity, but it isn’t true, it’s a dirty trick and an obvious lie, and the Asian admissions scandal proves it.

    Equal opportunity is the last thing the organized Left wants. The Democrat Party doesn’t reward achievement, they condemn it, they’re largely focused on tearing achievers down, denying them recognition, taxing their productivity, ignoring their civil rights, and granting preferences to their political dependents.

    First they called for Affirmative Action which was supposed to make sure Democrat preferred groups got access to equal employment opportunities, but what it resulted in was a sinister program that dismissed more accomplished applicants based on racist exclusions. White men need not apply.

    Next the call came for diversity. Accomplishments and qualifications really just didn’t matter any more, a diverse outcome that must result. It was nothing less than the institution of a rigid race based quota system, pure and simple.

    Diversity is a codeword for institutional racism, and now Asians have joined white American men in the class of government designated second class citizens.

  4. No informed American would deny that Jewish-Americans and Asian-Americans have been high achieving sub-groups in American society.

    But one has to wonder about the nastiness exhibited here in response to the topic. Why is this? I say these people are either racists themselves, or misinformed, or at least unthinking.

    What can one honestly expect after 300 years of slavery, racism, and discrimination aimed at one segment of our society? How long, how many generations does it take to get out from under the racist yoke, I ask?

    Many have made it out of the ghetto, but there are many more to go, which brings me to the subject of poverty, an American issue which still has not been adequately addressed, rather still being glossed over or ignored.

    Fareed Zakaria pointed out yesterday, that out of a list of 34 wealthy countries, our country is 31st (17.3% in poverty), according to the OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Only three countries were lower: Chile (18.4%), Israel (19.9%), and Mexico (20.6%).

    Moreover, our child poverty rate is even worse, 20.6% in poverty, greater than Germany (16.3%), Japan (13.7%), Australia (11.8%), United Kingdon (10.1%), and France (7.6%), all OECD data.

    Over the two decades from 1990 to 2009, our child poverty rate has increased 25%, from about 16% to about 20%, while, during the same period, the United Kingdom rate halved, from about 16% to 8%.

    Our high infant mortality rate, 6.1 per thousand births, is an outcome of our high poverty rate. Contrast this to Australia (4.6), United Kingdom (4.0), Germany (3.5), and Japan (2.8).

    Finally, look at our upward mobility rate (% of sons raised in poverty who themselves did not make it out of poverty as adults): US (42%), United Kingdom (30%), France (28%), Finland (28%), and Denmark (25%), according to the CIA world fact book.

    Those in poverty are more likely to drop out of HS, be unemployed, use drugs, have out-of-wedlock children, and get sick, thus being unproductive and huge burden on the taxpayer.

    Moreover, children in poverty who do well in eighth grade standard tests, are less likely to get through college than their non-impoverished peers who performed poorly in their standard tests.

    This is hardly “pseudo-science”, nor is it a request for “equal outcomes over equal opportunity”. Instead, it is using data to describe the problem, from which we should be taking the necessary steps, especially focused on making available high quality education at very low cost to the poverty stricken individual.

    Obviously, we have been neglecting our poverty problem, made even much worse today by our serious economic downturn, for which we have to blame some of our well educated achievers on Wall Street and in banks, who, overcome with greed, seem to have allowed for a breakdown in their ethical and moral standards. This malfeasance feeds into and expands the poverty cycle, making it even worse.

    If we wish to claim for ourselves the American exceptionalism label, we must neglect our serious poverty problem not a day longer!

    So, folks, we have a deeply ingrained American problem, a heritage of poverty (and racism, I would argue), which, in spite of occasional spurts, have not seen extended efforts to enable us to make significant inroads.

  5. America’s “poor” have more living space than Europe’s “middle class.” Poverty is not an absolute; it’s a sliding scale. If everyone in Dover drove brand new Lambourghinis but you drove a 2-year-old Cadillac, you would be classified as poor. Because comparatively speaking, you would be. And that’s what most of America’s poor are. Comparatively worse off than other Americans, but leaps and bounds wealthier than the overwhelming majority of the world’s population.

  6. WW writes

    But one has to wonder about the nastiness exhibited here in response to the topic. Why is this? I say these people are either racists themselves, or misinformed, or at least unthinking.

    Well of course you do. It’s what phoney progressives do. And all your blather does not refute in any way what (at least I, personally) wrote. “Diversity” is pseudo-science. All the University of Michigan could muster in its SCOTUS hearings were generalized “people in the same environment from differing backgrounds will assist one another” in some unspecified forms, whereas the opposition had specific statistical details that proved “diversity” is just that — a generalized “feel-good” mechanism by which academic elites can, well, feel good about their efforts at “helping” supposedly historically oppressed minorities. Of course, the big fly in the ointment regarding the whole “diversity” nonsense is, if it is such an academic benefit, then why do Historically Black Colleges continue to exist — indeed, African-Americans lobby to keep them “historically black” and to keep them functioning altogether.

    Obviously, we have been neglecting our poverty problem

    Right. Approx. $15 trillion on poverty programs sicne the “war” on poverty and we’ve been “neglecting” the problem. It’s always a money problem with you fake progressives. Just like the problems many minorities face are due to, of course, white racism and “the man,” not a sickness of culture that disdains education and which seems to care not much about single parenthood.

  7. And oh, by the way, La Shawn Barber is listed on my site as a “race traitor” because SHE is a Black Conservative! And heavens knows, Liberals can’t stand them no Blacks leaving the Liberal plantation!

  8. You two (koolo and Mr Hitchcock) are in denial and/or don’t care about the facts presented about poverty in the US. This attitude does not diminish the facts of the problem, but does diminish the willingness to address them.

    Coincident with the increase in poverty, to the point where we are 34th of 37 countries, is our growing income inequality. We are not alone with this problem; nevertheless, we need to address this as well, because it feeds into the increase in our poverty, since the income and wealth distributions are both zero sum.

    If you click through the “country notes” here, you will see that we are one of the worst, not only in the level of income inequality, but also in the growth of it.

    How can this possibly be sustainable wrt avoiding civil chaos by those increasing numbers who are suffering in or near poverty? It is not sustainable!

    Either we address this now with policies aimed at growing people out of poverty into reasonable paying jobs, or we address in later with tear gas, massive arrests, and guns.

    Look here at this:


    Key findings:

     The wealthiest Americans have collected the bulk of the past three decades’ income gains. The share of
    national income of the richest 1% more than doubled between 1980 and 2008: from 8% to 18% [Table9.1].
    The richest 1% now makes an average US$1.3 million of after-tax income (compared to US$17,700 for the
    poorest 20% of US citizens). During the same time, the top marginal income tax rate dropped from 70% in
    1981 to 35% in 2010.

     The rising incomes of executives and finance professionals account for much of the rising share of top
    income recipients. Moreover, people who achieve such a high income status tend to stay there: only 25%
    drop out of the richest 1% in the US, compared to some 40% in Australia and Norway, for instance.

     The main reason for widening inequality in the US is the widening wage gap. The gap between the richest
    and poorest 10% of full-time workers has increased by almost one third, more than in most other OECD
    countries.

     Contrary to the OECD trend, annual hours among lower-wage workers in the US increased by more than 20%
    over the past decades [Table4.A1.2] – probably linked to incentive policies such as the Earned Income Tax
    Credit (EITC) but also the relatively low level of the minimum wage. This trend partially offset the rising wage
    gap and led to a more moderate increase in overall annual earnings inequality”

  9. Koolo says:

    “Well of course you do. It’s what phoney progressives do. And all your blather does not refute in any way what (at least I, personally) wrote. “Diversity” is pseudo-science”

    http://www.journal14.com/sample-page/

    —-
    While I always support the free expression of ideas, constant name-calling, personal attacks or attempts to expose individuals who prefer to post or comment anonymously will receive the same treatment they’d get were someone to submit such as a Letter to the Editor in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL or The New York Times.
    —-

  10. WW wrote:

    No informed American would deny that Jewish-Americans and Asian-Americans have been high achieving sub-groups in American society. . . .

    What can one honestly expect after 300 years of slavery, racism, and discrimination aimed at one segment of our society? How long, how many generations does it take to get out from under the racist yoke, I ask?

    Really? Why, then, do Jewish Americans, coming as they do from a history of anti-Semitism, pogromi, and finally the Holocaust, manage to overachieve? Why, I could ask, do Asian-Americans, who came over as manual laborers (the Chinese in the late 19th century), who were locked away in internment camps (the Japanese during World War II), or who arrived with little more than the shirts on their backs, fleeing Communism and war (the Cambodians, the Vietnamese, the Koreans in the last half of the 20th century), and all discriminated against, seem to do so well, seem to excel?

    Many have made it out of the ghetto, but there are many more to go, which brings me to the subject of poverty, an American issue which still has not been adequately addressed, rather still being glossed over or ignored.

    Strange as it may seem, the Jews, discriminated against as they were, have done very well financially. Oddly enough, the Asians seem to have made it out of poverty, as a whole, and most of them have done it in one generation.

  11. Obviously, Mr Editor, you have not given this question much thought.

    I am not sure I know the answer, but I would point out that Holocaust survivors who emigrated here or to Israel had a lot of assistance from established American Jews who sacrificed a lot to help their brethren. They also quickly blended in.

    Concerning the Chinese, their culture has long enabled the willing to branch out and open businesses world wide, on a voluntary basis. They also quickly blended in.

    Regarding Africans, they were forced out of their primitive and tribal cultures into slavery, and therefore were kept at the bottom of the ladder for centuries. They were not permitted to blend in, until quite recently, and with their black/brown skin, could not blend in.

    I wonder why you had to be told these facts, which we all should know, because it is so obvious, and which I am sure you know, but dismiss this history and its impacts anyway. Why is this, Mr Editor? The answer is obvious to me!

  12. WW wrote:

    Obviously, Mr Editor, you have not given this question much thought.

    I am not sure I know the answer, but I would point out that Holocaust survivors who emigrated here or to Israel had a lot of assistance from established American Jews who sacrificed a lot to help their brethren. They also quickly blended in.

    Many arrived here with nothing: the Germans robbed the Jews down to their skins even before the death camps were opened, and often they had no living relatives at all. Their Jewish cousins did indeed help some, but the real reason for Jewish success is that they had the will to succeed.

    That’s what the picture posted immediately above your comment is all about: the will to try, the will to strive, the will to achieve. That little boy in the picture above: how many times did he fall down, and get back up again?

    Regarding Africans, they were forced out of their primitive and tribal cultures into slavery, and therefore were kept at the bottom of the ladder for centuries. They were not permitted to blend in, until quite recently, and with their black/brown skin, could not blend in.

    I wonder why you had to be told these facts, which we all should know, because it is so obvious, and which I am sure you know, but dismiss this history and its impacts anyway. Why is this, Mr Editor? The answer is obvious to me!

    Oh, I’m sure that you think the answer is obvious, but you got the wrong one. While Jews are primarily Caucasian, and can more easily blend in — and many “Americanized” their names help with that — Asians are very obviously not Caucasians; they stand out just as obviously as do blacks, and if they weren’t enslaved over here, they also had to struggle with not knowing English, a problem that American blacks of the last several generations did not have.

    The real difference? No one ever made excuses for the Jews, no one ever made excuses for the Vietnamese or Japanese or Koreans. They didn’t have good-hearted white folks like you telling them that they really didn’t have a chance to succeed, that failure was not their fault, and that we, in our white guilt, owed them extra credit and advantages and maybe even reparations. That little boy in the picture is running because someone, his parents, I assume, told him that he could, and encouraged him to try, and when he fell down, they told him to get back up and try again.

    The messages of Affirmative Action to blacks are four:

    1. You cannot compete equally with other races;
    2. We recognize that you cannot compete equally, so we will give you extra help and advantages;
    3. We will disqualify some whites who have done better, to give you more slots to fill; and
    4. If you are still unsuccessful, it wasn’t really your fault.

    Wagonwheel, you are the very well-meaning, very good-hearted spectator at the race in the picture above, the one who said to his equally good-hearted neighbor in the stands, “I knew that poor kid would fall down. Why are his parents trying to force him to do something like that?”

    And what do we cold-hearted conservatives say? “Get up, try again, you can do it, it’s all up to you.” We want people to succeed; you expect people to fail.

  13. In January 1964 President Johnson declared the War on Poverty. This, along with the War on Drugs seem like money pits that spend a lot of money, with little to show for it. That’s the perception.

  14. Starting next week, I believe, I will be earning just over 10 an hour, up from the under-9 an hour I currently earn. What percentage of the people in India earn less than me? What percentage of the people in China earn less than me? That’s over 2 billion people, with the clear majority of them earning less than me, in those two countries alone. How about all the people who live on the African continent? What percentage of them earn less than me?

    Face it, Wagonwheel, compared to the rest of the world, America’s “poor” are far better off than the vast majority of the world’s population. Far better off. And it is because of American free-market capitalism, not European socialism or Chinese socialism or Soviet socialism. But worry not, for Obama is working to make sure the US falls back down to world levels from its lofty economic position, destroying millions of American incomes, dreams, hopes, as he works to change the US into the next Socialist nation and douse the shining light on the hill.

  15. “They didn’t have good-hearted white folks like you telling them that they really didn’t have a chance to succeed, that failure was not their fault, and that we, in our white guilt, owed them extra credit and advantages and maybe even reparations. “

    So that’s your debate tactic, isn’t it Mr Editor. You put words into my mouth, with your assumptions, and attribute same to me. Well you are completely wrong!

    I distinguish between making excuses and attempting to understand, and I follow the latter. On the other hand, you seek to villify those whom you have defined as failures, and your motivation to do so is pretty obvious. So that’s my assumption about you; please do your best to refute it.

    I believe that you tell yourself that since you have been able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, everyone should be able to do the same. What about those who work hard yet still are not accepted, yet still don’t make it? That is the way it has been for our blacks. Ask a few to find out. Do a little research on that topic. I’ve done mine!

    You could start by reading The New Jim Crow, which I have offered twice to send to you. Apparently you are unwilling to open your mind.

    Or you could listen to the likes of Melissa Harris-Perry, or the Reverend Al Sharpton, just to name several. Or review some of the speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Where does this come from?

    “The messages of Affirmative Action to blacks are four:

    * You cannot compete equally with other races;
    * We recognize that you cannot compete equally, so we will give you extra help and advantages;
    * We will disqualify some whites who have done better, to give you more slots to fill; and
    * If you are still unsuccessful, it wasn’t really your fault.”

    Or this?

    “We want people to succeed; you expect people to fail.”

    Wrong again, Mr Editor!

    But you were definitely right about this self-assigned characteristic:

    “And what do we cold-hearted conservatives say?”

  16. “Wagonwheel, you are the very well-meaning, very good-hearted spectator at the race in the picture above, the one who said to his equally good-hearted neighbor in the stands, “I knew that poor kid would fall down. Why are his parents trying to force him to do something like that?”

    And what do we cold-hearted conservatives say? “Get up, try again, you can do it, it’s all up to you.” We want people to succeed; you expect people to fail.”

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39912_Fox_News_Commenters_Respond_to_Whitney_Houstons_Death_With_Deluge_of_Hatred_and_Racism

    —-
    Fox News Commenters Respond to Whitney Houston’s Death With Deluge of Hatred and Racism

    I don’t even know what to say about this any more. There’s a real sickness running rampant in the right wing; the Fox News comment thread on Whitney Houston’s death is yet another disgusting deluge of outright racism: Singer Whitney Houston Dies at 48 | Fox News.

    There are almost 5000 comments posted in the thread — these are from the first few pages. Notice that the racist bastards deliberately misspell their slurs or insert random spaces, so they aren’t caught by word filters. And many of the worst comments have numerous “likes” from other commenters.
    —-

  17. Anna Nova links to LGF, a site that is very well known for banning people due to comments they made on sites not named LGF, and a site that is very well known for its paranoiac conspiracy theories and its hard left turn. No self-respecting Conservative would ever hold up LGF as a source of information of any value, at all.

    And, Wagonwheel, the truth behind Affirmative Action (which is very clearly racist) is the fact those who push it think some races cannot achieve at the same rate as other races. So they punish whites and asians, to benefit blacks. Yes, it is a punishment to declare your scores on a test, while clearly higher than the scores of someone else, are too low for you to enter that college, while that other person’s scores are more than enough to sit in your stead. And, yes, it is racist to do that. And, yes, it is the Liberals and the Liberals only who are doing that racist crap. Conservatives don’t care about pigmentation or eyelid formation or plumbing-fixture placement in determining job or education qualifications; Liberals care about all of those outward appearances and more.

  18. And for the record, my ACT scores were plenty high enough to gain admittance to the most competitive of all colleges in the US, so I would never have been displaced by someone of another race who scored lower than me, as the colleges were pushing their absolutely racist AA agendae.

  19. Anna Nova, if you ever want to be taken seriously on a Conservative blogsite, don’t even bother with linkage to LGF. LGF is as worthless as Medea Mutters, the Kos Kids, Sadly No, and many other worthless intellect-free leftist sites, and will get short shrift here.

  20. OK, so a few clowns made unsavory comments about the late Miss Houston. The fact remains that her talent was appreciated by millions, across all racial lines. Her most famous movie, The Bodyguard, was about a her, a black woman, falling in love wit Kevin Costner, a white male, and millions upon millions of people, white and black, paid good money to go see it; the soundtrack was the best selling movie soundtrack ever.

    Whitney Houston didn’t become successful wealthy because she was black; she became wealthy because she had a voice the angels envied.

  21. WW wrote:

    Or this?

    “We want people to succeed; you expect people to fail.”

    Wrong again, Mr Editor!

    Really? You were the one who wrote:

    What can one honestly expect after 300 years of slavery, racism, and discrimination aimed at one segment of our society? How long, how many generations does it take to get out from under the racist yoke, I ask?

    Many have made it out of the ghetto, but there are many more to go, which brings me to the subject of poverty, an American issue which still has not been adequately addressed, rather still being glossed over or ignored.

    That sure sounds like an expectation of, and a pre-existing excuse made for failure to me. I can’t see how it could be described as anything else.

    But you were definitely right about this self-assigned characteristic:

    “And what do we cold-hearted conservatives say?”

    The description was meant sarcastically, but if you think that expecting people to stand on their own two feet — an expression I deliberately used, even remembering the photo I posted above — and try hard and succeed is cold-hearted, then I accept the description. If you believe that thinking that people do the best when they are expected to do their best is cold-hearted, then I accept the description. If you think that believing that people are responsible for themselves as individuals, and are to be neither boosted up or held down because of their membership in a particular group is cold-hearted, then yes, I am cold-hearted.

  22. There is a difference, Mr Editor, between expecting people to fail, your assumption, and expecting people to have more of a struggle than their non-black peers, my position on the issue.

    “If you think that believing that people are responsible for themselves as individuals, and are to be neither boosted up or held down because of their membership in a particular group is cold-hearted, then yes, I am cold-hearted.”

    Here you assume that people of color, in general, do not consider themselves responsible as individuals, therefore, yes, you are indeed cold-hearted, for not good reason. The truth is, you don’t really know, and don’t care to know either. You are comfortable in proceeding with your assumptions, unwilling to even test them, meaning that you are indeed a cracker.

    I would think otherwise if you were willing review the recent history of the continued struggles of the black American, as for example, again, in The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. Why, for a person who is a voracious reader, are you so reluctant to open your mind, Mr Editor? Is it because you do not want to risk having to change your mind when more facts and personal experiences are presented? Don’t give me any facts, Wagonwheel, just let me bathe in my own ideology, unperturbed. Is that it, Mr Editor?

  23. “The truth is, you don’t really know, and don’t care to know either.”

    So you accuse the Editor of being willfully ignorant because he sees things differently than you? That’s openminded.

    “… meaning that you are indeed a cracker.”

    There we are! It begins again. Now he’s a “cracker”. Spoken like a true Black Panther.

  24. WW writes

    You are comfortable in proceeding with your assumptions, unwilling to even test them, meaning that you are indeed a cracker.

    Some people just never learn …

  25. Mr Hitchcock says:

    “Face it, Wagonwheel, compared to the rest of the world, America’s “poor” are far better off than the vast majority of the world’s population. Far better off. “

    This assertion may be true, or not true; without some evidence, who knows?

    Nevertheless, using our own country’s definition of poverty, 17.3% of us are in it, therefore this has to be a major concern to us Americans. Moreover, we all know that race is a factor, where black and hispanic folks bear the brunt of our poverty, relatively speaking. In fact, the southern tier states, which have predominately Conservative politics, also have the preponderance of those living in poverty, that is, 30% or more living in poverty. [See Figure 1 of the latest Census Bureau Report] This is a rather amazing figure, over 30% living in poverty!

    “Anna Nova, if you ever want to be taken seriously on a Conservative blogsite, don’t even bother with linkage to LGF. LGF is as worthless as Medea Mutters, the Kos Kids, Sadly No, and many other worthless intellect-free leftist sites, and will get short shrift here.”

    Anna Nova, you will note that Mr Hitchcock thinks that he can speak for all Conservatives. I suggest you ignore him, and continue to use whatever linkage you consider pertinent to your viewpoint, as we all do on here.

  26. “So you accuse the Editor of being willfully ignorant because he sees things differently than you? That’s openminded.”

    No, Hoagie, not that he sees things differently, but that he will not open his mind to new information on this particular topic; instead, he would rather go with his assumptions, which I find is fairly common among Conservatives in general, you included, Hoagie.

  27. Perry,

    You repeatedly to use the term “cold hearted”, as an evaluative term. Would you expand on what you intend to convey by that term?

    For example, do you believe there is some objective moral principle ordering certain kinds of “heartedness”, in the way that you seem to believe that others inhabiting the same landmass as you, are personally obligated to you because you have paid infrastructure support taxes, or refrained from causing them trouble?

  28. WW writes

    And what do you call this from you, koolo?

    Right. A racial epithet now equals a description of your political beliefs?

    No, Hoagie, not that he sees things differently, but that he will not open his mind to new information on this particular topic; instead, he would rather go with his assumptions, which I find is fairly common among Conservatives in general, you included, Hoagie.

    Yeah, like people who title their blog “Bridging the Gap” but then include not a thing about actually bridging anything. It’s all “do it my way and then pretend we’re all working together.” Hence, the “phoney progressive” label.

  29. Nevertheless, using our own country’s definition of poverty, 17.3% of us are in it,

    Yes, yes, I know. And it doesn’t mean a hill of beans to me, either. You want to know why? It’s a very simple answer, if you really want to know. It’s because the poor-to-wealthy scale is a Bell Curve. The poor will always be a standard deviation left of mid-point, no matter how wealthy they become. They will still be considered poor.

  30. K:
    Yeah, like people who title their blog “Bridging the Gap” but then include not a thing about actually bridging anything. It’s all “do it my way and then pretend we’re all working together.” Hence, the “phoney progressive” label.

    That’s BO and Hairy Reed’s way of compromise. BO said I won, the R’s to the back of the bus. Now that was Racism there.

    And also their compromise position is my way or the highway as we just saw on the Obamidible Care Fiasco.

  31. There are multiple reasons why businesses move operations outside the US, one of which is the labor cost, meaning people outside the US earn less money (DUH). I went to the grocery store a couple years back and looked at the price of fish. One marked Product of Chile was 13 bucks and one marked Product of US was 45 bucks. Same fish.

  32. Correction:

    “You are comfortable in proceeding with your assumptions, unwilling to even test them, meaning that you are indeed a cracker.”

    Forgot my questionmark again, as I often do:

    You are comfortable in proceeding with your assumptions, unwilling to even test them, meaning that you are indeed a cracker?

  33. “Right. A racial epithet now equals a description of your political beliefs?”

    In your little mind, koolo, not my little mind however!

    A “cracker” is something most people like to eat with a piece of cheese, and some will even have a glass of wine as well. Didn’t you even know that basic? Poor boy! :)

  34. “Yeah, like people who title their blog “Bridging the Gap” but then include not a thing about actually bridging anything. It’s all “do it my way and then pretend we’re all working together.” Hence, the “phoney progressive” label.”

    One can hardly “bridge the gap” with people having the mentality and attitude which you exhibit on here, koolo, the same that you are attempting to attribute to me.

    I don’t even accept as an accurate characterization of my topics on “Bridging the Gap”. My main theme is about the need to arrive at compromise solutions, using a variety of topics in order to broach that theme. Have another look!

    Maybe it is that you don’t like my selection of cartoons!

  35. “And also their compromise position is my way or the highway as we just saw on the Obamidible Care Fiasco.”

    President Obama wasted a half of a year or so seeking input and compromise from the Republican members of Congress, to no avail. Even so, we ended up with a compromise bill, much to the consternation to those to the left of the President on this issue, myself included. The Republican position was a resounding “NO” on any reform of our healthcare system. So who was it that took the “my way or the highway” position on this issue, I ask you Yorkshire? Now be honest!

  36. WW writes

    A “cracker” is something most people like to eat with a piece of cheese, and some will even have a glass of wine as well.

    Is that so. Yeah, that sure fits in the context which you used it.

    One can hardly “bridge the gap” with people having the mentality and attitude which you exhibit on here, koolo, the same that you are attempting to attribute to me.

    Except that you’ve given absolutely NO indication whatsoever that you’re any more open-minded than anyone else here, WW. None. So, once again we’re in that oh-so typical situation where you never apply standards to yourself which have to be applied to everyone else. Or, to put it more succinctly, you’re just a hypocrite.

    Same bat time. Same bat channel.

  37. “Yes, yes, I know. And it doesn’t mean a hill of beans to me, either. You want to know why? It’s a very simple answer, if you really want to know. It’s because the poor-to-wealthy scale is a Bell Curve. The poor will always be a standard deviation left of mid-point, no matter how wealthy they become. They will still be considered poor.”

    Well yes, that’s true Mr Hitchcock, for cases where the distribution is normal, which is not the case here.

    Unfortunately, our editor no longer allows me the privilege of displaying graphic images, which puts me at somewhat of a disadvantage. Nevertheless, if you look at the three bar graphs in this reference, you can see how far from a normal or ideal distribution of wealth we have strayed, due to the influence of the wealthy and powerful, and due to the inability of our system to generate a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor. You, Mr Hitchcock, should be more acutely aware of this than, say, Mr Editor, or better, Mr Hoagie.

  38. “So, once again we’re in that oh-so typical situation where you never apply standards to yourself which have to be applied to everyone else. Or, to put it more succinctly, you’re just a hypocrite.”

    Right, and to add to your “hypocrite” remark, we have your “phoney Progressive” remark, just to pick a couple from the last day or so.

    Are you going to persist in this, koolo, and drag this blog once again into the abyss, or will you lead the way to intelligent discourse and debate?

    And please note the correction I made. No acknowledgement by you; instead, you continue to project your own behavioral characteristics onto others, while you, by implication, place yourself (you think) above the fray. ‘Tis all too obvious, koolo.

    Now let us get back to where we can disagree and debate with civility in mind, both of us.

  39. Wagonwheel, there are over 7 billion people on the face of the earth. And I’m wealthier than at least 5 billion of them, even with the fact I am only beginning to recover from my major reversal of 40 months ago. I’m not at all into violating the Tenth Commandment, which is required of all redistributionists and socialists (which are one and the same). And I’m not at all into race-based politics, which is exactly what AA is, and exactly what the Democrats push constantly.

    But you go right ahead with your passive-aggressive personal attacks while demanding others be civil toward you, just as you have always done and always will do. Rules for them but not for you. We all get it.

  40. WW:
    The Republican position was a resounding “NO” on any reform of our healthcare system. So who was it that took the “my way or the highway” position on this issue, I ask you Yorkshire? Now be honest!

    yeah those locked doors were really inviting. 39 Dems voted against it to save their own butts. 1 Rep voted for it. So there, it was bi-partisan.

  41. WW:
    The Republican position was a resounding “NO” on any reform of our healthcare system.

    If Wagonwheel wanted to actually, you know, tell the truth, he would admit that Republicans have, indeed, offered reform ideas. But those reform ideas were soundly rejected by the collectivist Democrat Party and Mainstream Media.

  42. What some Republicans and many Conservatives have offered:

    • Cross-state health insurance purchases.
    • Tort reform to reduce the cost of providing health care, and to reduce the number of defensive health care decisions (in the form of unnecessary tests) made by health care providers.
    • Providing individuals the same tax-breaks corporations get for health insurance, so individuals can get their health insurance with pre-tax dollars without actually depending on their employer for it.

    Again, if Wagonwheel actually wanted to be, you know, honest and schist, he would never have accused the Republicans of having a “resounding ‘NO’” position on “any reform of our healthcare system.” Because it is obvious that Republicans have, indeed, offered up alternatives to the socialist dictator’s healthcare system, also known as ObamaCare.

  43. “I’m not at all into violating the Tenth Commandment, which is required of all redistributionists and socialists (which are one and the same).”

    http://www.usccb.org/upload/economic_justice_for_all.pdf

    —-
    Basic justice also calls for the establishment of a floor of material well-being on which all can stand. This is a duty of the whole of society and it creates particular obligations for those with greater resources. This duty calls into question extreme inequalities of income and consumption when so many lack basic necessities. Catholic social teaching does not maintain that a flat, arithmetical equality of income and wealth is a demand of justice, but it does challenge economic arrangements that leave large numbers of people impoverished. Further, it sees extreme inequality as a threat to the solidarity of the human community, for great disparities lead to deep social divisions and conflict.
    —-
    These duties call not only for individual charitable giving but also for a more systematic approach by businesses, labor unions, and the many other groups that shape economic life—as well as government. The concentration of privilege that exists today results far more from institutional relationships that distribute power and wealth inequitably than from differences in talent or lack of desire to work. These institutional patterns must be examined and revised if we are to meet the demands of basic justice. For example, a system of taxation based on assessment according to ability to pay is a prime necessity for the fulfillment of these social obligations.
    —-

  44. Collectivist mumbo-jumbo, first off. More collectivist mumbo-jumbo throughout. No room for the rights of the individual, nor room for the acknowledgement of the individual and the “Life and Liberty” of that individual. And since I’m not Catholic, at all, all inaccurate statements about Catholics have absolutely nothing to do with me. Nor does it have anything to do with what is actually written in the Tenth Commandment.

    I’m a Tenther^2. And Liberals, Socialists, “Progressives” (who are Socialists but who refuse to admit it) violate both Tenths (Amendment and Commandment) in practically everything they push. But that’s hardly news to anyone with any actual, you know, understanding of basic facts.

  45. Miss Nova, had you looked at footnote #1 on this article — an article I assume taht you read, since you did comment on it — you’d have seen the following:

    Your editor, who is Catholic, would also be on the political left on economic issues, being the charitable soul that he is, if liberal economics and the welfare state actually worked. He is an economic conservative precisely because liberal economics, socialism and the welfare state don’t work to provide a better and wealthier society.

    It is unfortunate that our bishops, good-hearted men that they are, are unable to get past the fact that the concepts that fall under the broad category of “economic justice” don’t work. Like our good friend WagonWheel, they see disparity, and believe that somehow, some way, government can and should step in to fix it.

    However, capitalism, the only economic system which has ever lifted more than a tiny minority above the subsistence level, works on a completely different concept: it works on the very simple notion that men generally act for their own economic self-interest, and not for the good of everyone. Socialism may work in heaven, but it does not work here on earth.

    Of course, we do have our social safety net, and it does establish “a floor of material well-being on which all can stand,” and if that floor isn’t very high in American terms, it is a princely standard of living compared to many other countries. We will provide food, clothing, shelter and utilities for any American citizen who cannot (or, unfortunately, will not) provide them for himself. The unfortunate side effect of that is that too many Americans have taken the Faustian bargain of being satisfied with that bare minimum in exchange for not having to work for a living.

    As for “a system of taxation based on assessment according to ability to pay is a prime necessity for the fulfillment of these social obligations,” that is something with which I completely disagree. If people are to be taxed, then everybody should be taxed. The system which holds that only some people should be taxed is a system with a built-in bias for the majority to demand taxes from the minority, and not themselves. With our graduated income tax, we already have something close to that, with only 53% of Americans actually paying federal income taxes.

    Were we all good Catholics, then none of this would be necessary: everyone who was actually able to work would work, and everybody who claimed a real need for public assistance would be truly deserving and justified. The problem is that we are not all good Catholics.

  46. you can see how far from a normal or ideal distribution of wealth we have strayed, due to the influence of the wealthy and powerful, and due to the inability of our system to generate a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor. You, Mr Hitchcock, should be more acutely aware of this than, say, Mr Editor, or better, Mr Hoagie.

    Only a socialist fool would try to make me violate the Tenth Commandment in my heart or in my actions. I quote Jesus, my Lord and Savior, when confronting Peter who the Catholics name as the first Pope: “Get thee behind me, Satan.”

    Matthew 20:1-16

    The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

    1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

    3 “About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

    “He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6 About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

    7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

    “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

    8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

    9 “The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

    13 “But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

    16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

    According to Liberals, Socialists, “Progressives” (who refuse to admit they are, indeed, Socialists), no, the land-owner does not have the right to do what he wants with his own money. And Jesus very clearly disagrees with them.

    I’ll stand on the side of Jesus. Nobody ever goes wrong standing with Jesus. But everyone standing in opposition to Jesus has already gone wrong.

  47. WW wrote:

    Here you assume that people of color, in general, do not consider themselves responsible as individuals, therefore, yes, you are indeed cold-hearted, for not good reason. The truth is, you don’t really know, and don’t care to know either. You are comfortable in proceeding with your assumptions, unwilling to even test them, meaning that you are indeed a cracker.

    I would think otherwise if you were willing review the recent history of the continued struggles of the black American, as for example, again, in The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. Why, for a person who is a voracious reader, are you so reluctant to open your mind, Mr Editor? Is it because you do not want to risk having to change your mind when more facts and personal experiences are presented? Don’t give me any facts, Wagonwheel, just let me bathe in my own ideology, unperturbed. Is that it, Mr Editor?

    Perhaps you have forgotten, but I not only read your article, The New Jim Crow, but I linked to it and wrote a main article on it on this site. You should remember the article: it generated 148 comments, 44 of which were from you. Your article was thoroughly examined, and you persuaded nobody, not John, not DNW, not Hoagie, and not me.

    You should not assume that because you were unpersuasive, your article went unread. In fact, that article was written on January 16th, and BtG saw a significant spike in readership that day:

  48. “…. a system of taxation based on assessment according to ability to pay”, then the distribution of those taxes according to ones needs. There, I finished the thought for you. Oh wait! Karl Marx already said that. Sorry.

  49. Collectivism has never worked. It was tried on US soil in the early 1600s (semantics, before you attack me). The result: half the population died due to starvation and other collectivist-related issues. As soon as they dropped their collectivism and switched to free-market capitalism, they became so productive that they were net exporters, making them all far more prosperous than any could have been in a collectivist system. This is a fact I have repeated very often, and have sourced multiple times in the past. And if Wagonwheel and Anna Nova were honest types, they would be forced to admit the truth of what I said.

  50. WW writes

    Right, and to add to your “hypocrite” remark, we have your “phoney Progressive” remark,

    Someone who demands stuff from others but not himself is not a “hypocrite?” Someone who constantly refers to a democratically elected public servant as a “dictator” and advocates racially exclusive policies (among many others) is not a “phoney progressive?”

    Are you going to persist in this, koolo, and drag this blog once again into the abyss, or will you lead the way to intelligent discourse and debate?

    Like accusing others of racism because they disagree with you? Calling others racial epithets? Like that, you mean?

    And the “abyss?” LOL!! Last I recall, it wasn’t ME who was suspended for two weeks due to “dragging the blog down” and uncivil behavior … was it?

    Oops.

  51. Or, as Hitchcock most succinctly wrote

    But you go right ahead with your passive-aggressive personal attacks while demanding others be civil toward you, just as you have always done and always will do. Rules for them but not for you. We all get it.

    Yes, we do all get it. But this doesn’t mean we will all take it, WW. Remember that.

  52. John Hitchcock says:
    February 14, 2012 at 17:59 (Edit)

    Collectivism has never worked. It was tried on US soil in the early 1600s (semantics, before you attack me). The result: half the population died due to starvation and other collectivist-related issues. As soon as they dropped their collectivism and switched to free-market capitalism, they became so productive that they were net exporters, making them all far more prosperous than any could have been in a collectivist system. This is a fact I have repeated very often, and have sourced multiple times in the past. And if Wagonwheel and Anna Nova were honest types, they would be forced to admit the truth of what I said.

    What John said:

    Occupy Plymouth Colony: How A Failed Commune Led To Thanksgiving

    It’s wrong to say that American was founded by capitalists. In fact, America was founded by socialists who had the humility to learn from their initial mistakes and embrace freedom.
    One of the earliest and arguably most historically significant North American colonies was Plymouth Colony, founded in 1620 in what is now known as Plymouth, Massachusetts. As I’ve outlined in greater detail here before (Lessons From a Capitalist Thanksgiving), the original colony had written into its charter a system of communal property and labor.

    More here:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2011/11/23/occupy-plymouth-colony-how-a-failed-commune-led-to-thanksgiving/

    It’s easy to live on the productity of others, than to be responsible for yourself and your family. But being succesful has its rewards, on the dole, expect subsistence living.

  53. “It is unfortunate that our bishops, good-hearted men that they are, are unable to get past the fact that the concepts that fall under the broad category of “economic justice” don’t work. Like our good friend WagonWheel, they see disparity, and believe that somehow, some way, government can and should step in to fix it.”

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/Berg.htm

    —-
    We argue that income distribution may also—and independently—belong in this pantheon of critical determinants of growth duration. At the level of simple correlation, more inequality seems associated with less sustained growth. Chart 3 shows the length of growth spells and the average income distribution during the spell for a sample of countries. We define a growth spell as a period of at least five years that begins with an unusual increase in the growth rate and ends with an unusual drop in growth. The measure of inequality is the Gini coefficient, which varies from zero (all households having the same income) to 100 (all income received by one household).

    It may seem counterintuitive that inequality is strongly associated with less sustained growth. After all, some inequality is essential to the effective functioning of a market economy and the incentives needed for investment and growth (Chaudhuri and Ravallion, 2007). But too much inequality might be destructive to growth. Beyond the risk that inequality may amplify the potential for financial crisis, it may also bring political instability, which can discourage investment. Inequality may make it harder for governments to make difficult but necessary choices in the face of shocks, such as raising taxes or cutting public spending to avoid a debt crisis. Or inequality may reflect poor people’s lack of access to financial services, which gives them fewer opportunities to invest in education and entrepreneurial activity.
    —-

  54. “I’ll stand on the side of Jesus. Nobody ever goes wrong standing with Jesus. But everyone standing in opposition to Jesus has already gone wrong.”

    Matthew 10:17-25

    —-
    17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”

    20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

    21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

    22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

    23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

    24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
    —-

  55. The point of Matthew 10 is that the love of money can deafen one from the Word of God, not that the rich can’t and don’t go to heaven.

  56. It is silly to even try to counter Anna Nova’s scripture references. That person has previously called Providence a spaghetti monster in the sky. How easy was it for Satan himself to quote scripture to the very Son of Providence in an attempt to make the very Son of Providence stumble and fall? And Satan knows scripture and believes it. Much more easy for those who reject the Bible to give scripture the wrong reading in their Alinskyite attacks on Christians.

  57. There was the scene from Dr Zhivago, where Yuri Andreievich has returned to Moscow after World War I, and finds that the local Soviet has commandeered his house. The absolutely lovely local deputy yells that there was room for 13 families in that one house, and Yuri Andreievich replies, “Yes, you’re right. This is better, comrades, more just.”

  58. “The point of Matthew 10 is that the love of money can deafen one from the Word of God, not that the rich can’t and don’t go to heaven.”

    —-
    21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

    John Hitchcock says:
    February 14, 2012 at 19:25

    —-
    It is silly to even try to counter Anna Nova’s scripture references.
    —-

    John Hitchcock says:
    February 14, 2012 at 17:41

    —-
    I quote Jesus, my Lord and Savior, when confronting Peter who the Catholics name as the first Pope: “Get thee behind me, Satan.”
    —-

    Matthew 7:15-20

    —-
    15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
    —-

    http://www.workplacebullying.org/2009/07/03/dyinguninsured/

    —-
    Dying Poor & Uninsured in America

    The Institute of Medicine and the Urban Institute produced a report last year that tracked deaths attributable to being uninsured in America. In the latest year surveyed (2006) 22, 211 people died. Also we know that being underinsured can prevent getting life-saving treatment for diseases that insurers refuse to cover.

    Recall the fact reported in a story at this website that 62% of all individual bankruptcies by Americans were due to medical costs that overwhelmed families. In other words, while Congress plays political games with health care reform, and the president refuses to design a new system “from scratch,” people are DYING. Underinsurance or the lack of insurance compounds the problems of bullied individuals driven from their jobs. Just when they are the sickest, they cannot get much-needed care. This is an unconscionable uniquely American disgrace.

    Compounding the problem is that the poor are sliding into even greater depths of poverty. Barbara Ehrenreich wrote in her blog (and published in the NY Times on 6/14/09) the rate of blue collar unemployment is 3 times higher than the white collar variety.

    People are doubling and tripling up and couch-renting after losing their houses. The overcrowding may be causing a spike in domestic violence. Women are turning to stripping. People are urban hunting — squirrels, rabbits, raccoons — and eating food past their sell-by dates acquired at “food auctions.”

    All of this at the same time that Goldman Sachs in 2009 is paying the largest bonuses to its richest employees in its history thanks to largesse from the US Treasury engineered by Paulson and now Geithner. (Originally reported by the way in a British newspaper, not a US one.)

    Why does this country not understand an obligation to take care of its own people? As Katrina Vanden Heuvel wrote, can we please stop the illusion of bipartisanship that prevents the federal government from being a problem solver?
    —-

  59. Getting back to the subject of the article, I noted that some colleges, including public colleges — the article noted the University of California system — are taking measures to limit the number of Asian students, students who are winning seats in top schools at a greater rate than their percentage of the population. Now, our Democrat from Delaware has publicly supported Affirmative Action for blacks as downtrodden minorities, who have suffered the stigma of racial discrimination and slavery.

    So, my question to him would be: if you believe that black applicants must be given special consideration, and possibly be admitted ahead of more qualified applicants from other races, do you concomitantly believe that white applicants who are losing out to Asians with higher scores ought to be given special considerations as well, so that they don’t get squeezed by Affirmative Action admittees from below, and Asian applicants from above?

  60. Why don’t black Americans need affirmative action in the sports industry or the entertainment industry? Plus, they’re all multi-millionaires and well, 1%’ers too. Leftists seem to believe they do need AA in academics, business and science but perhaps they just need the leftists to step out of the way. See, in sports they actually have to out compete their competition and they seem to do a very good job of it. No freebees, no handouts, just pure competition and see them succeed.

  61. “America’s “poor” have more living space than Europe’s “middle class.” Poverty is not an absolute; it’s a sliding scale. If everyone in Dover drove brand new Lambourghinis but you drove a 2-year-old Cadillac, you would be classified as poor. Because comparatively speaking, you would be. And that’s what most of America’s poor are. Comparatively worse off than other Americans, but leaps and bounds wealthier than the overwhelming majority of the world’s population.”

    http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/2011/08/nickel-and-dimed-2011-version-.html#more

    —-
    How have the already-poor attempted to cope with their worsening economic situation? One obvious way is to cut back on health care. The New York Times reported in 2009 that one-third of Americans could no longer afford to comply with their prescriptions and that there had been a sizable drop in the use of medical care. Others, including members of my extended family, have given up their health insurance.

    Food is another expenditure that has proved vulnerable to hard times, with the rural poor turning increasingly to “food auctions,” which offer items that may be past their sell-by dates. And for those who like their meat fresh, there’s the option of urban hunting. In Racine, Wisconsin, a 51-year-old laid-off mechanic told me he was supplementing his diet by “shooting squirrels and rabbits and eating them stewed, baked, and grilled.” In Detroit, where the wildlife population has mounted as the human population ebbs, a retired truck driver was doing a brisk business in raccoon carcasses, which he recommends marinating with vinegar and spices.

    The most common coping strategy, though, is simply to increase the number of paying people per square foot of dwelling space — by doubling up or renting to couch-surfers.

    It’s hard to get firm numbers on overcrowding, because no one likes to acknowledge it to census-takers, journalists, or anyone else who might be remotely connected to the authorities.

    In Los Angeles, housing expert Peter Dreier says that “people who’ve lost their jobs, or at least their second jobs, cope by doubling or tripling up in overcrowded apartments, or by paying 50 or 60 or even 70 percent of their incomes in rent.” According to a community organizer in Alexandria, Virginia, the standard apartment in a complex occupied largely by day laborers has two bedrooms, each containing an entire family of up to five people, plus an additional person laying claim to the couch.

    No one could call suicide a “coping strategy,” but it is one way some people have responded to job loss and debt. There are no national statistics linking suicide to economic hard times, but the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline reported more than a four-fold increase in call volume between 2007 and 2009, and regions with particularly high unemployment, like Elkhart, Indiana, have seen troubling spikes in their suicide rates. Foreclosure is often the trigger for suicide — or, worse, murder-suicides that destroy entire families.
    —-

  62. “How have the already-poor attempted to cope with their worsening economic situation?”

    The “already-poor” qualify for Medicaid, their children for CHIP. They recieve food stamps, housing benefits, heating and utility subsities, cash welfare payments, in some states free used cars and now they even get free cell phones with 250 minutes per month. They recieve the same subsities in all these things regardless whether the economy is boom or bust, they are the “already-poor”. You’d be better off asking how the middle and upper middle class cope with the worsening economic situation since it is they who carry the brunt of it. The “already-poor” just like the “already-rich” are not nearly as harmed by a bad economy as the rest of us are.

  63. P.S. If we keep leting leftist politicians and lawyers dittle with the economy the question will become: How do the “newly-poor” cope with the worsening economy?

  64. A 20k-per-year income brands you “poor” in the US, but by world standards, you are very well-to-do. “Poor” is not an absolute; it is a sliding scale based on those around you. One standard deviation to the Left of the mean/median/mode (which ever you want to pick) is poor by definition. Someone making 60k a year in Manhattan or Staten Island or Martha’s Vineyard could be considered impoverished, based on those around said person. So, no, I don’t accept anecdotal sob stories from “community organizers” as having any debate value whatsoever. They want to take that one person out of 10,000 and make it sound like 1,700 people out of every 10,000 are in that dire situation. It’s horse pucky.

  65. “The “already-poor” just like the “already-rich” are not nearly as harmed by a bad economy as the rest of us are.”

    —-
    How have the already-poor attempted to cope with their worsening economic situation? One obvious way is to cut back on health care. The New York Times reported in 2009 that one-third of Americans could no longer afford to comply with their prescriptions and that there had been a sizable drop in the use of medical care. Others, including members of my extended family, have given up their health insurance.

    Food is another expenditure that has proved vulnerable to hard times, with the rural poor turning increasingly to “food auctions,” which offer items that may be past their sell-by dates. And for those who like their meat fresh, there’s the option of urban hunting. In Racine, Wisconsin, a 51-year-old laid-off mechanic told me he was supplementing his diet by “shooting squirrels and rabbits and eating them stewed, baked, and grilled.” In Detroit, where the wildlife population has mounted as the human population ebbs, a retired truck driver was doing a brisk business in raccoon carcasses, which he recommends marinating with vinegar and spices.

    The most common coping strategy, though, is simply to increase the number of paying people per square foot of dwelling space — by doubling up or renting to couch-surfers.

    It’s hard to get firm numbers on overcrowding, because no one likes to acknowledge it to census-takers, journalists, or anyone else who might be remotely connected to the authorities.

    In Los Angeles, housing expert Peter Dreier says that “people who’ve lost their jobs, or at least their second jobs, cope by doubling or tripling up in overcrowded apartments, or by paying 50 or 60 or even 70 percent of their incomes in rent.” According to a community organizer in Alexandria, Virginia, the standard apartment in a complex occupied largely by day laborers has two bedrooms, each containing an entire family of up to five people, plus an additional person laying claim to the couch.
    —-

  66. “OK, so a few clowns made unsavory comments about the late Miss Houston.”

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39918_Now_Fox_News_Commenters_Are_Spewing_Racist_Hatred_at_Whitney_Houstons_Daughter

    —-
    Yes, they’re at it again. In the Fox News article about Whitney Houston’s daughter, <bwe see the Fox News audience spewing the same kind of nauseating racial hatred they directed at Whitney: Concerns for Whitney Houston’s Daughter Mount After Mom’s Death | Fox News.

    Some of these comments were posted by the same people whose comments were deleted in the previous thread. Fox News moderators deleted the blatantly racist comments, but didn’t block the accounts.
    —-

  67. I don’t know Fox News’ policy on commenter accounts, so I cannot defend or condemn what they do or don’t do. But the fact that they previously deleted offensive comments indicates tat they do pay some attention to what gets posted, and exercise editorial control. How rapidly such gets done, I do not know.

    But one might ask: at what point do stories about race become offensive? This morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer (I’ll add the link later) on New York Knicks’ guard Jeremy Lin, the rookie phenom who is Chinese-American, and how nobody expected him — because he is Asian — to become a great NBA player. There were no racial slurs in the article, but when you read it, the obvious point is that Mr Lin is an enormous exception, because so few Asians are NBA caliber basketball players.

  68. As Ms Anna Nova so well pointed out, this is the course that this country is on, according to the facts:

    “It may seem counterintuitive that inequality is strongly associated with less sustained growth. After all, some inequality is essential to the effective functioning of a market economy and the incentives needed for investment and growth (Chaudhuri and Ravallion, 2007). But too much inequality might be destructive to growth. Beyond the risk that inequality may amplify the potential for financial crisis, it may also bring political instability, which can discourage investment. Inequality may make it harder for governments to make difficult but necessary choices in the face of shocks, such as raising taxes or cutting public spending to avoid a debt crisis. Or inequality may reflect poor people’s lack of access to financial services, which gives them fewer opportunities to invest in education and entrepreneurial activity.”

    Not only are the Republicans in Congress, (and on this blog), in denial of this fact, but they wish to reposition us back on the same bad track. Talk about a deficiency in logic and a lack attention to the lessons of history, this denial is just this in spades. This is the way absolutist ideologues behave; they will continue to be responsible for the continuing destruction of our country, in my view.

  69. And speaking of absolutist ideologues, we have this observation made by our Editor back here:

    “Your article was thoroughly examined, and you persuaded nobody, not John, not DNW, not Hoagie, and not me.”

    You forgot the illustrious mock man, Mr Koolo!

    Based on my experience on this blog, and the previous one, spanning, what is it, about three years now, I have come to expect little success with absolutist ideologues like you folks who are stuck fast with your preconceived notions. My motivation for continuing on here is that you folks deserve pushback, so that the many silent readers of this blog will see the debate.

    Let me site just one example of many. When Ms Anna Nova makes a point by referring to a quote from the Bible, we get this from Mr Hitchcock:

    “It is silly to even try to counter Anna Nova’s scripture references. That person has previously called Providence a spaghetti monster in the sky. How easy was it for Satan himself to quote scripture to the very Son of Providence in an attempt to make the very Son of Providence stumble and fall? And Satan knows scripture and believes it. Much more easy for those who reject the Bible to give scripture the wrong reading in their Alinskyite attacks on Christians.”

    How can one deal with a person exhibiting this attitude.

    Now I await Mr Koolo to come in to defend this, and to mock those who would call attention to this attitude. This is the way it is on here!

  70. WW writes

    Now I await Mr Koolo to come in to defend this, and to mock those who would call attention to this attitude. This is the way it is on here!

    My motivation for continuing on here is that you, WW, deserve pushback, so that the many silent readers of this blog will see what a hypocrite you are as you perpetually demand standards from everyone except yourself. In addition to such absolute hypocrisy, you label us as “absolutist ideologues” when — surprise! — you yourself neatly fits into that description … perhaps much moreso than your opponents. One only need examine your fradulently named blog site.

  71. Wagonwheel states: ” I have come to expect little success with absolutist ideologues like you folks who are stuck fast with your preconceived notions.”

    I have asked you many times to join with me, Editor, DNW, ropelight and anyone else interested by thinking outside the box and coming up with new ideas to address problems with the economy, politics, race, culture, energy, the military and intenational policies. All I’ve heard from you was the chirping of crickets. Instead, you constantly come back with the same worn out answers of more government, bigger government, more regulations, more penalties, more forced compliance, more laws, more taxes and more spending. And you claim to be less of an ideological absolutist than we???

    When a discussion begins you start with the usual code words: ideology, dysfunctional, absolutist, the poor and middle etc., etc.. Never anything new or any new approach to the question at hand. Similarly, you never consider the ability of the individual to solve a problem nor whether a government solution is either the best solution or if it’s even constitutioal for the government to solve it. Or even if there is an alternate solution which does not include government.

    Now Wagonwheel, you know I’m no computer maven. I don’t know how to post a link or a picture and I even have a hard time copying and pasting. So when I post here it’s just my opinion. But that opinion is not a “preconcieved notion”. It is an opinion founded in my expierience in life, business and with people. It is an opinion based on my education and all those “trys and fails” of my life. I may be wrong but you can bet the house I wouldn’t lie to you. It’s just a wrong opinion. Nobody’s always right (except the Kiwi, at least he thinks he is).

    But I am realistic enough to see that what we as a nation are doing now is not working. Now I’m not saying we should go allInvisable Hand , I’m just saying it ain’t working, we need new ideas. Europe ain’t working either so why copy them? Why copy anybody? We’re Americans and as such are by nature “trail blazers”.

    “My motivation for continuing on here is that you folks deserve pushback, so that the many silent readers of this blog will see the debate.”

    If you are on the cross of martyrdom and sacrifice, do it for “the children” not the silent readers.

  72. … so that the many silent readers of this blog will see what a hypocrite you are as you perpetually demand standards from everyone except yourself.

    You are much worse, koolo!

    “… you label us as “absolutist ideologues” when — surprise! — you yourself neatly fits into that description ….”

    Far from it, unless you can cite some examples, then we’ll discuss. One example I’ll give is the absolutist religious doctrines, as if they should apply to us all, even through the government when all else fails.

    And another, insisting that the First Amendment is meant to be an absolutist dictim.

    Another, that the Constitution should be treated as another Bible.

    Or that the Bible is the “word of God”.

    And the worst of it all is the conclusion by absolutists that those who do not accept these absolutist principles are somehow inferior because they do not possess any core principles.

    That is just the tip of the iceberg, koolo!

    Where do you come down on all these absolutisms?

  73. WW writes

    You are much worse, koolo!

    You’re entitled to your opinion, of course.

    Far from it, unless you can cite some examples, then we’ll discuss.

    Merely take a cursory examination of your blog, is all one needs do.

    One example I’ll give is the absolutist religious doctrines, as if they should apply to us all, even through the government when all else fails.

    I’ve never mentioned anything like that. OTOH, our president believes government has the right to dictate to religion what IT should do.

    And another, insisting that the First Amendment is meant to be an absolutist dictim.

    Another straw man as I’ve never argued such. And it’s funny you’d use the First Amendment as an example as you’ve been the one who constantly misunderstands it — by insisting that our Editor (and others) let anyone and everyone use his own property (blog) as a forum.

    Or that the Bible is the “word of God”.

    Depending on one’s religious beliefs, it may be.

  74. Hoagie says:
    February 15, 2012 at 10:32

    Wagonwheel states: ” I have come to expect little success with absolutist ideologues like you folks who are stuck fast with your preconceived notions.”

    I have asked you many times to join with me, Editor, DNW, ropelight and anyone else interested by thinking outside the box and coming up with new ideas to address problems with the economy, politics, race, culture, energy, the military and intenational policies. All I’ve heard from you was the chirping of crickets. Instead, you constantly come back with the same worn out answers of more government, bigger government, more regulations, more penalties, more forced compliance, more laws, more taxes and more spending. And you claim to be less of an ideological absolutist than we???”

    We’ve seen his personal flexibility and lack of absolutism on display when it came to considering alternatives to the present system of social security; or, to alternatives to the notion of coercively roping everyone into public harness in order to drag “society” along the path he wishes to see “it” go: to the termite heap.

    Apparently the fact that we are born on the surface of the same planet makes you indebted to him from the time leave you mother’s womb. But he’s not an absolutist … no, not at all. It’s just that by being alive you owe him, no ifs, ands, or buts.

  75. “All I’ve heard from you was the chirping of crickets.”

    The words of an absolutist here – see above!

    Thank you, Hoagie, for demonstrating my point with your petty statement. And your party behaves in exactly the same manner. Your model forward is to return this country back to the same positions which produced our economic downfall to begin with. How helpful is that?

    If a person disagrees with you, there is something wrong with THEM. Isn’t this true, Hoagie?

    “We’re Americans and as such are by nature “trail blazers”.”

    Hardly, with 17.3% of our fellow Americans in poverty, with our wealth racing madly away from the middle to the top, with our inability to have affordable health care for all, with our obsession on weapons systems and defense, with our compulsion to inject ourselves into battle within other sovereign nations, with our government being effectively run by corporations and wealthy individuals made much worse by Citizens’ United, ….

    This is neither viable nor sustainable, as we see with each passing day.

    At least now we have a President who has tried/is trying to work these things out, with little to no help from the opposition.

    Oh I know, you’re heard it all before, and you are going to hear it again over and over when some issue comes up which relates back to these bad practices.

    The time has come for us to stop trying arrogantly to remind ourselves how exceptional we are, even though we are in certain respects, and start realizing that we are a people in need of rehabilitation. When that attitude becomes more prevalent, then we can pull ourselves together and get back on track. Past glories do not get us anywhere as the future unfolds; instead, gloating on them stifles the progress we need to make, in my view.

  76. “Apparently the fact that we are born on the surface of the same planet makes you indebted to him from the time leave you mother’s womb. But he’s not an absolutist … no, not at all. It’s just that by being alive you owe him, no ifs, ands, or buts.”

    Typical nonsense here, based on a warped view of what it takes to work out an effectively functioning entity, whether it be from within as an individual or collectively (gasp!) as a state.

  77. “That is just the tip of the iceberg, koolo!

    Where do you come down on all these absolutisms?”

    I appreciate your response, koolo. This is the way to have a dialogue.

    A comment on the absolutism assigned by some to the First Amendment: I made that comment with reference to the long-standing positions of Mr Hitchcock and Mr Editor. I have never heard you comment on this issue.

    On the rest, I respect your opinion.

  78. WW wrote:

    “Your article was thoroughly examined, and you persuaded nobody, not John, not DNW, not Hoagie, and not me.”

    You forgot the illustrious mock man, Mr Koolo!

    Based on my experience on this blog, and the previous one, spanning, what is it, about three years now, I have come to expect little success with absolutist ideologues like you folks who are stuck fast with your preconceived notions. My motivation for continuing on here is that you folks deserve pushback, so that the many silent readers of this blog will see the debate.

    This comment pretty much shows your mindset, WW. Your arguments persuaded no one here — and my apologies for omitting Koolo — but your insistence that you persuaded nobody because we are “absolutist ideologues” rather than the possibility that your arguments were poorly made or founded on false premises shows a bit of “absolutist ideologue” in yourself; it just doesn’t seem to occur to you that your failure to persuade might be less your audience than yourself.

    But, in a way, that explains your position on Affirmative Action as well. Persons of color who are unsuccessful economically or professionally aren’t unsuccessful because of anything they did or failed to do, but because the larger, racist society must have stopped them from succeeding, must have thrown unconquerable obstacles in their paths.

    Of course, white people fail all the time, too: there are plenty of persons of dearth of color who are poor, who can’t keep a job, who don’t even try, yet whose ancestors were not brought here in slave ships, nor subject to Jim Crow. If those people can fail, on their own, without an ethnic history of racism to overcome, is it not at least possible that some persons of color could fail to be economically and professionally successful because of their individual failures, rather than the oh-so-horribly-racist society?

  79. Wagonwheel says:
    February 15, 2012 at 12:45

    “Apparently the fact that we are born on the surface of the same planet makes you indebted to him from the time leave you mother’s womb. But he’s not an absolutist … no, not at all. It’s just that by being alive you owe him, no ifs, ands, or buts.”

    Typical nonsense here, based on a warped view of what it takes to work out an effectively functioning entity, …”

    That rather depends on what functions you reckon the entity ought to effect, doesn’t it.

    Your arguments have almost always been based on a profoundly obvious circularity; one which you attempt to plaster over by directing accusations of “hard heartedness” or “a lack of compassion”, at anyone remarking on, or asking you to justify your “premisses-same-as-conclusions” arguments.

    You were for example given an opportunity to exhibit your flexibility and your liberality both, by exploring options to the fetishization and absolutization of a Federally run social security program which denies the “insured” any control over “his account” and allows no membership options. Yet you have placed this fascist construct above the altar of worship in your holy of hive-life holies and scream “blasphemy” when anyone seeks to moot alternatives.

    Seems pretty much the description of an absolutist mindset to me. You would agree that you are s social security absolutist wouldn’t you?

  80. Hey, DNW, our Editor characterized himself, correctly I might add, as “hard-hearted”, so please don’t put that on me.

    And no, I would not agree that I am a “social security absolutist”. On CSPT, I often offered my suggestions on improving SS and making it more viable, such as: increasing the cut-off for the tax, currently around $120K; means testing the beneficiaries; and raising by another year the age of eligibility.

    I do not favor giving the “insured” any control over “his account”, nor allowing “membership options”, since both defeat the purpose of SS to begin with: provide a basic safety net for those in their twilight years.

    Without SS in it’s current form, how many neglected older folks would we have living in squalor or on the streets. FDR understood this vulnerability and did something to lessen it, something which has now lasted how long: over 70 years, through Republican and Democratic regimes, through wars and recessions, through thick and thin, and we still have SS! Good thing!!!

    President Bush spent almost a year in 2005 trying to insert a privatization option into SS. You can see how far he got with that. SS is as American as apple pie!

  81. Wagonwheel says:
    February 16, 2012 at 07:47

    Hey, DNW, our Editor characterized himself, correctly I might add, as “hard-hearted”, so please don’t put that on me.

    And no, I would not agree that I am a “social security absolutist”. On CSPT, I often offered my suggestions on improving SS and making it more viable, such as: increasing the cut-off for the tax, currently around $120K; means testing the beneficiaries; and raising by another year the age of eligibility.

    I do not favor giving the “insured” any control over “his account”, nor allowing “membership options”, since both defeat the purpose of SS to begin with: provide a basic safety net for those in their twilight years.

    Without SS in it’s current form, how many neglected older folks would we have living in squalor or on the streets. FDR understood this vulnerability and did something to lessen it, something which has now lasted how long: over 70 years, through Republican and Democratic regimes, through wars and recessions, through thick and thin, and we still have SS! Good thing!!!

    President Bush spent almost a year in 2005 trying to insert a privatization option into SS. You can see how far he got with that. SS is as American as apple pie!”

    So, you argue that you are not a social security program absolutist on the grounds that you are in fact willing to modify the program; if only in ways which make it even more demanding, the exaction more rigorous, and the discrimination against well-to-do-payees more onerous.

    But insofar as allowing potential beneficiaries some portion of managerial control if they wish, over what was originally sold to the American public an insurance program with accounts that they were entitled to, well then, absolutely not.

    Not to mention that no one is even owed under any enforceable claim of law any part of what they have “contributed” to “their account” should the law be simply changed to exclude them. Just as you wish to do, in part by means testing those whom you judge as not to need, and therefore to not be entitled to, the money they paid in to “their accounts”.

    Which nicely demonstrates why a contract or an agreement made with someone like you is not worth the paper it’s written on. Any such social or cooperative agreement is a farce: the promise undertaken by the naive to subject himself to a set of rules on the spurious pretext that all parties will continue to honor them.

    Of course so-called “social insurance” is, as you imply, not about the freedom to chose, or to individually manage, or to even be entitled to, anyway: no matter what lies were originally told in the past, and continue to be told at present [despite the occasional NYT acknowledgement of the farcical nature of the "account" charade] by the program’s proponents.

    It is in fact just a Prussian inspired theory of how one manages the aging social elements which make up and belong to the national organism. SS is indeed an evocative symbol for the premise.

    And you and me boyo? We’re not any part of the same “nation”.

Comments are closed.