So if Obama loses - its all because or racism....

[CaptainHaplo]

And for those wondering if this had any political bent to it....

The "researcher" - who is supposed to be an economics PH. D. candidate - took the time to write this non-economic "study" for what reason? Curiosity? Then submitting it for publishing?

It couldn't be due to him having worked at the Brookings Institute (described as left leaning by the LA Times) as a research assistant for the former head of the Office of Management and Budget and former director of the Congressional Budget Office (the ever quoted, "non partisan" one that has had to "correct" its cost figures for Obamacare how many times?) - Peter Orszag - an Obama appointee - now could it?

Oh - and as for the "methods" being very good - even the writer admits one of my points:
"Throughout this paper I refer to non-blacks, including Hispanics and Asians, rather imprecisely, as whites. *A footnote attached to the paper.

So yes - there can't be any political intent or skew - now can there? No way that Team Obama puts out the word they want a researcher - old friend Pete recommends his former research assistant back in the days of liberal think tanking - and ole Seth the researcher gets a call to produce this racism study. No matter that its outside his field. No matter that as a PH.D. candidate - he likely has a lot more things to be doing. That just couldn't happen. Not with squeaky clean, former "New Party" member - "I'm going to unify this nation and not play partisan politics" Barack! Say it ain't so!

Now - wait till the money aspect drops........ Cuz you know ole Seth the researcher didn't do this for free.....

[Sailor Steve]

That's the left shoe. And the right shoe? You wrote this because you're an unbaised observer of the system with no opinion either way? I see no purpose in this if it's not to play politics.

[Rockin Robbins]

I would argue that the states lost any real power when Woodrow Wilson, not understanding that the appointed Senators were appointed by the state legislatures as representatives of their state government decided to play the democracy card and go for popular election of senators.

Simply not understanding or not caring about their true function, Woodrow Wilson's initiative became a constitutional amendment that rendered state government impotent. Can you imagine the crippling burden of unfunded mandates if the states had any power within the federal legislature. Wouldn't have happened! But now, since the senators have no connection with their state governments at all, and in fact feel superior in every way, they have no hesitation to passing a requirement to that state without funding it, leaving that state to carry somebody else's burden.

We are not and should not be a democracy. A democracy is two cats and a mouse voting over what's for dinner. Democracy is the mob rule and murder of the French Revolution. That is why our founding fathers hated democracy. They wanted the best qualified people among the populace to be elected to govern for a definite length of time between new elections. The way the people would participate in government is to select those who operate that government.

So we want to paint the Oval Office. Now we need a national referendum at the cost of billions of dollars so everyone can vote on it? Don't make me laugh. Democracy is a cheap joke, not worthy of anything but contempt. What we have and need to fight to preserve is representative government with representatives subject to the people, enforced by the power of the vote. We are not, have never been and better not ever be a democracy. If we do become one our life expectancy is about ten years before tyranny.

So, since the institution of popular election of Senators totally removed any voice of the states in the legislature, how does anyone propose we can turn the clock back and give any power at all back to the states? I think the door opened, the cow left and we can close the door but the cow's gone.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That's the left shoe. And the right shoe? You wrote this because you're an unbaised observer of the system with no opinion either way? I see no purpose in this if it's not to play politics.

I don't believe I ever claimed I was "unbiased" or an observer of the system. I could never claim to be an uninterested or objective observer - because I participate in the system as a voter. The mere act of casting a vote negates any objectivity, for it requires a choice of one over another.

My political views are well historied here - I am not a fan of Obama or his extremely (for US politics) left wing policies and agenda. I prefer less government intervention and more personal responsibility. Call that what you will.

If I - or anyone else looks at government with a skeptical eye, that is a good thing. Given the history of this current administration and the constant attempts to demonize anyone who dares to differ with its policies or goals, such skepticism regarding a report on such a sensative and divisive issue as racism is hardly uncalled for.

So you look at the study, find its flawed on a number of levels - and the question becomes "Why is this even getting the front page attention it is?". Quoted by many left leaning pundits - one must wonder why now? The most apparent answer is the President crumbling poll numbers. Even so, that doesn't make the study itself political -unless you consider the flawed assumptions it makes. Why make such over-reaching generalizations when they are obviously problematic? Again, a very logical answer suddenly appears when the connection between the researcher and the administration appears.

To quote the "Professor" of C.S. Lewis - "Logic! I say, what do they teach in schools these days?"

If somehow following a logical, reasonable line of skepticism somehow makes me a "right shoe poltical hack" in your view, then ok. I can live with that.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I don't believe I ever claimed I was "unbiased" or an observer of the system...If somehow following a logical, reasonable line of skepticism somehow makes me a "right shoe poltical hack" in your view, then ok. I can live with that.

My main objection is that you, along with some others, seem ever to only take on one side of the spectrum. You may not think it's always the left's fault, but sometimes it seems that way.

Sometimes I'm afraid to even express an opinion on a subject, for fear that one side or the other will agree with me. It's not even the side, it's the individuals who blame everything on "them".

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And for those wondering if this had any political bent to it....

The "researcher" - who is supposed to be an economics PH. D. candidate - took the time to write this non-economic "study" for what reason? Curiosity? Then submitting it for publishing?

It couldn't be due to him having worked at the Brookings Institute (described as left leaning by the LA Times) as a research assistant for the former head of the Office of Management and Budget and former director of the Congressional Budget Office (the ever quoted, "non partisan" one that has had to "correct" its cost figures for Obamacare how many times?) - Peter Orszag - an Obama appointee - now could it?

Oh - and as for the "methods" being very good - even the writer admits one of my points:
"Throughout this paper I refer to non-blacks, including Hispanics and Asians, rather imprecisely, as whites. *A footnote attached to the paper.

So yes - there can't be any political intent or skew - now can there? No way that Team Obama puts out the word they want a researcher - old friend Pete recommends his former research assistant back in the days of liberal think tanking - and ole Seth the researcher gets a call to produce this racism study. No matter that its outside his field. No matter that as a PH.D. candidate - he likely has a lot more things to be doing. That just couldn't happen. Not with squeaky clean, former "New Party" member - "I'm going to unify this nation and not play partisan politics" Barack! Say it ain't so!

Now - wait till the money aspect drops........ Cuz you know ole Seth the researcher didn't do this for free.....

In short, that's not at all how these type of degree programs work. If you do not like the conclusions, then that is fine but it does not mean that there is a political slant. I would go as far to say that it is individuals such as yourself that put the political slant on things. Frankly, you are going through a lot of mental gymnastics in a number of posts here to do so.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I would go as far to say that it is individuals such as yourself that put the political slant on things. Frankly, you are going through a lot of mental gymnastics in a number of posts here to do so.

Forgive me Takeda, but that is a bit of a double standard - don't you think?

You stated that a conclusion drawn from an inferrence drawn from another inferrence is somehow laudable - when the results state that "whites" - aka non-blacks - are racist.

Yet when I show a clear, logical line from the researcher to the administration and a proposed purpose behind the results presented - I somehow am doing " a lot of mental gymnastics"?

Fact: Obama's poll numbers are continuing to decline.
Fact: Many Democratic pundits are openly critical of his campaign and his chances of winning.
Fact: "Research" claiming that a significant portion of "white" America is racist is released by a left leaning researcher with a connection to Team Obama.
Fact: Such "research" is then publicly held up by multiple left leaning media outlets.

Conclusion????

Draw your own - I did and stand by mine. At the least, my conclusion is supported by a lot more fact and a lot less "mental gymnastics" than the conclusions presented in the research paper by Seth Stevens-Davidowitz.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Forgive me Takeda, but that is a bit of a double standard - don't you think?

You stated that a conclusion drawn from an inferrence drawn from another inferrence is somehow laudable - when the results state that "whites" - aka non-blacks - are racist.

Yet when I show a clear, logical line from the researcher to the administration and a proposed purpose behind the results presented - I somehow am doing " a lot of mental gymnastics"?

Fact: Obama's poll numbers are continuing to decline.
Fact: Many Democratic pundits are openly critical of his campaign and his chances of winning.
Fact: "Research" claiming that a significant portion of "white" America is racist is released by a left leaning researcher with a connection to Team Obama.
Fact: Such "research" is then publicly held up by multiple left leaning media outlets.

Conclusion????

Draw your own - I did and stand by mine. At the least, my conclusion is supported by a lot more fact and a lot less "mental gymnastics" than the conclusions presented in the research paper by Seth Stevens-Davidowitz.

It is not a double standard. You response is a typical one that polemics hold toward academics. Your line is only clear because you wish it to be. This student posted findings that you do not like. You, therefore, take it upon yourself to credit or discredit the argument as you see fit. Academics take this a par for the course. It is, to be honest, a typical anti-intellectual response that has become a mainstay of right-wing politics over the past 20 years or so. I like you, and I think you are a good guy, so I will beg your pardon if I do not take it seriously.

You stated that a conclusion drawn from an inferrence drawn from another inferrence is somehow laudable - when the results state that "whites" - aka non-blacks - are racist.

Yet it doesn't state that at all
Is there anything Haplo can come up with on this that will stand at all?

Oh - and as for the "methods" being very good - even the writer admits one of my points:
"Throughout this paper I refer to non-blacks, including Hispanics and Asians, rather imprecisely, as whites. *A footnote attached to the paper.

Precisely define whites
More importantly define it in a way that excludes both hispanics and asians.
Even better, define it in a way that also excludes africans.

Why does the objectation over a problem of identification seemingly by pigmentation make an unsavoury implication about the people making the issue?
Perhaps the next study could add those sort of people to the ones which object to "inter-racial marriage" to give a better regional breakdown for comparing the figures.

Fact: "Research" claiming that a significant portion of "white" America is racist is released by a left leaning researcher with a connection to Team Obama.

Good point, it wouldn't take "research" or even much research. It is an undeniable fact that a significant proportion of people are racists

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is an undeniable fact that a significant proportion of people are racists

I know I am. That's why I fight so hard against it.

[Rockin Robbins]

I'm VERY racist. I completely believe that the human race is superior to any other on the planet.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

It is a double standard. You response is a typical one that academics hold toward polemics. Your line is only clear because you wish it to be. This student posted findings that you do like. You, therefore, take it upon yourself to credit or discredit the argument as you see fit. Regular folks take this a par for the course. It is, to be honest, a typical "intellectual, nuanced" response that has become a mainstay of left-wing politics over the past 20 years or so. I like you, and I think you are a good guy, so I will beg your pardon if I do not take it seriously. *Quote edited to prove a point*

Takeda - we could go back and forth on this all day playing the "well this side always sees the other side like X" game. It won't get us closer to agreement.

The thing is - I don't think its unreasonable to say that 3% of the population is racist enough to consider that as one reason not to vote for Obama. My issue is the basis for the claim is based of incomplete information and makes a number of generalizations that are totally unsupported by the data. To say that race could be a factor for 3-5% is fine - to say that it is THE factor IF Obama losses - by a 3-5% margin is totally off the wall, political and divisive. Given the link between the researcher and the established power on the left, is skepticism and critical thinking somehow uncalled for?

My point was the study appears - to the naked eye - highly political in its intent and usage. We can agree to disagree on it. I am fine with that. But its hardly consistent to call my point of view mental gymnastics when compared to this study.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Takeda - we could go back and forth on this all day playing the "well this side always sees the other side like X" game. It won't get us closer to agreement.

The thing is - I don't think its unreasonable to say that 3% of the population is racist enough to consider that as one reason not to vote for Obama. My issue is the basis for the claim is based of incomplete information and makes a number of generalizations that are totally unsupported by the data. To say that race could be a factor for 3-5% is fine - to say that it is THE factor IF Obama losses - by a 3-5% margin is totally off the wall, political and divisive. Given the link between the researcher and the established power on the left, is skepticism and critical thinking somehow uncalled for?

My point was the study appears - to the naked eye - highly political in its intent and usage. We can agree to disagree on it. I am fine with that. But its hardly consistent to call my point of view mental gymnastics when compared to this study.

Then the established power of the left (a Limbaugh-esqe term if I have ever heard one) had begun this work two years ago when he forumulated this thesis and began his program of original research. Much of what you posted demonstrates a lack of understanding about how these sort of papers are written, as well as the time frame for such an undertaking.

It, again, really comes down to the Right's hatred for academia and intellectuals. This is usually because they are telling them things that conflict with their world view. It is one of the few traits that they do not seem to share with the Left, as the Left does seem to be less dogmatic in their world views; ie willing to accept the concept that America is imperfect, racism is a problem and that our efforts do not always work out for the better.

[Rockin Robbins]

Looks to me like any possible objection to Obama is then crammed into that triangular mold called racism. Fine. Call me racist, now that the term has been rendered without meaning by redefinition.

You know, the argument goes:
Obama is black (not true at all. He is half white and shares none of the "black urban culture.")
Most whites are racist. (define everyone not black as white. Make an unsupportable assumption and grin heartily)
Therefore all opinion not endorsing Obama is racist. (Since both premises are faulty the conclusion is rotten to the core)

Racist people elected Obama. They are free to elect somebody else. So racism cancels out of the equation anyway. Or is racism a new phenomenon of the past four years? If the statement is true that Obama can't win because of racism, how did he get elected four years ago?

You know, dumping leaders after important victories is a fine, established tradition of Western constitutional governments. It was good for Winston Churchill, tossed in the garbage after the complete victory of WWII. If it's good for Churchill, why should we be surprised at the same thing for Obama and why would we be willing to repudiate such a hard-won victory? Are we not willing to act in our own best interest? Is our hatred of ourselves sufficient to destroy our ability to accomplish anything good? Or are we going to recognize the racism argument as the garbage that it is.

He was elected because he represented a nebulous and earnestly wanted hope. It was a shapeless, undefined, shadowy, colorless, hope but that was enough for us, racist or not, we voted for him. Now there are shapes and definitions and the hope was not revealed as accplishment. Disappointment is inevitable and he will have a very tough time obtaining votes for the very reason that Jimmy Carter did. But there was no race card to play for Jimmy Carter. There is no real race card to play now. If this is the best that Democrats have, the election is over.

Obama said it best himself right after his election. Paraphrasing here, he said that now the work begins to fix the problems the country has, foreclosures, bankruptcies, joblessness, etc. He said that if he didn't have these problems solved in four years he'd be a one-term president and he was fine with that. His solutions would work. He didn't say that his plans would be thwarted by racists. He had just been elected in total triumph over the concept that the United States is a racist country. The fact of his election discredited that notion once and for all. Regardless of anything he could ever achieve in office, that is the crowning glory, the most important possible accomplishment for the presidency and for the American people. The door is open to the presidency regardless of your race. That is astoundingly triumphant and important to our nation.

However, now the strategy seems to be, if we are going to lose the election anyway, why not lose one of the greatest achievements in American history as well. We can bring racism back! What a great plan. It won't work. You cannot win an American election by telling the American people they are trash, by telling them their accomplishment was not real.

Do we have racists? Yes. Are they marginalized, defeated in a completely humiliating way and in full retreat, no longer a guiding force in our society? Absolutely, and that is as it should be. Let's complete the victory and dispose of this foolish demagoguery. People, regardless of race, have the right to be wrong. People, regardless of race can be disagreed with for reasons unrelated to race, and that is what is happening now. The right to disagree is part of what equality means. Deal with it or surrender our greatest achievement of the century.

[0rpheus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ash-us-economy


Just to throw some... er... petrol on the fire!