[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Are these minorities on crack? Why are they such 'loads'?

And maybe we should let people of Asian descent run the country.
They're better than us 'load crack-head' white guys because they earn
more money, yes?

Please give me some simple black-and-white answers.

"The median income for white households was $50,622 last year. It was
$30,939 for black households, $36,278 for Hispanic households and
$60,367 for Asian households."

"The gap in poverty rates has narrowed since 1980, but it remains
substantial. The poverty rate for white residents was 8.3 percent on
2005. It was 24.9 percent for black residents, 21.8 percent for
Hispanic residents and 11.1 percent for Asian residents."

"Home ownership creates wealth, which enables families to live in good
neighborhoods with good schools. It also helps families finance
college, which leads to better-paying jobs, perpetuating the cycle,
Freeman said."

"If your parents own their own home they can leave it to you when
they pass on or they can use the equity to help you with a down payment
on yours," Freeman said."

"Three-fourths of white households owned their homes in 2005, compared
with 46 percent of black households and 48 percent of Latino
households. Home ownership is near an all-time high in the United
States, but racial gaps have increased in the past 25 years."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15704759/

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Are these minorities on crack? Why are they such 'loads'?

And maybe we should let people of Asian descent run the country.
They're better than us 'load crack-head' white guys because they earn
more money, yes?

Please give me some simple black-and-white answers.

"The median income for white households was $50,622 last year. It was
$30,939 for black households, $36,278 for Hispanic households and
$60,367 for Asian households."

There are 2 factors that lead to higher household income.
1) Number or wage earners (2 income households)
Top quintile is made up of married couples with 2 incomes.

2) Education level of the wage earners.

The bottom quintile is predominantly single female parents
with little education.
Unfortunately more black and hispanic people choose
this lifestyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...of_hous ehold

So...the question was ...what are these people doing wrong?
Blacks and Hispanics.

1) They aren't completing their education.
Blacks dropout of HS at twice the rate of whites.
Hispanics at over 3 times.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html

2) They have kids outside of marriage.
http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/co...ults.jsp?i=722

Note how this factor is what puts Asians above whites in
spite of their minority status and puts blacks below
hispanics in spite of their significantly higher HS graduation
rates.

I think this clearly shows that economic success or lack thereof
is not due as much to race as it is to choice of lifestyle.

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" wrote in message
...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Are these minorities on crack? Why are they such 'loads'?

And maybe we should let people of Asian descent run the country.
They're better than us 'load crack-head' white guys because they earn
more money, yes?

Please give me some simple black-and-white answers.

"The median income for white households was $50,622 last year. It was
$30,939 for black households, $36,278 for Hispanic households and
$60,367 for Asian households."

There are 2 factors that lead to higher household income.
1) Number or wage earners (2 income households)
Top quintile is made up of married couples with 2 incomes.

2) Education level of the wage earners.

The bottom quintile is predominantly single female parents
with little education.
Unfortunately more black and hispanic people choose
this lifestyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...of_hous ehold

So...the question was ...what are these people doing wrong?
Blacks and Hispanics.

1) They aren't completing their education.
Blacks dropout of HS at twice the rate of whites.
Hispanics at over 3 times.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html

2) They have kids outside of marriage.
http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/co...ults.jsp?i=722

Note how this factor is what puts Asians above whites in
spite of their minority status and puts blacks below
hispanics in spite of their significantly higher HS graduation
rates.

I think this clearly shows that economic success or lack thereof
is not due as much to race as it is to choice of lifestyle.


All valid points, Scott, except that 'choice of lifestyle" is often not
choice, at least not in the sense that I think you mean it -- of untrammeled
free will. We as a society provide precious little help to those at the
bottom which might help them correct a mistake...like being able to earn a
living wage, have some form of child care while doing so, and an education
and transportation system that made it less daunting to get to work and to
the point of schooling. You can't set aside the fact that some of this is
cultural handdown...it can be broken, but it takes great effort and as a
society we stack the odds against it. I spend a few hours a week working in
a non-profit that provides basic spanish literacy, ESOL instruction right up
through GED and pre-college orientation courses. When the shool system
closes for the day, the parents can't come because they have to take care of
the kids. Most of them are mastering English so they can get jobs/better
jobs and help their kids in school and we in turn help them not only with
that, but also in raising their sights higher....to college. But they have
a tough battle, and we lose people...some just drop out, but for many it is
illness, or a partner losing a job, or a sick child who must stay at home.
That is tough for anybody, but when you are on the bottom you are only one
catastrophy away from ruin and despair.

[ScottW]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"ScottW" wrote in message
...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Are these minorities on crack? Why are they such 'loads'?

And maybe we should let people of Asian descent run the country.
They're better than us 'load crack-head' white guys because they earn
more money, yes?

Please give me some simple black-and-white answers.

"The median income for white households was $50,622 last year. It was
$30,939 for black households, $36,278 for Hispanic households and
$60,367 for Asian households."

There are 2 factors that lead to higher household income.
1) Number or wage earners (2 income households)
Top quintile is made up of married couples with 2 incomes.

2) Education level of the wage earners.

The bottom quintile is predominantly single female parents
with little education.
Unfortunately more black and hispanic people choose
this lifestyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...of_hous ehold

So...the question was ...what are these people doing wrong?
Blacks and Hispanics.

1) They aren't completing their education.
Blacks dropout of HS at twice the rate of whites.
Hispanics at over 3 times.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html

2) They have kids outside of marriage.
http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/co...ults.jsp?i=722

Note how this factor is what puts Asians above whites in
spite of their minority status and puts blacks below
hispanics in spite of their significantly higher HS graduation
rates.

I think this clearly shows that economic success or lack thereof
is not due as much to race as it is to choice of lifestyle.


All valid points, Scott, except that 'choice of lifestyle" is often not
choice, at least not in the sense that I think you mean it -- of untrammeled
free will. We as a society provide precious little help to those at the
bottom which might help them correct a mistake...like being able to earn a
living wage, have some form of child care while doing so, and an education and
transportation system that made it less daunting to get to work and to the
point of schooling. You can't set aside the fact that some of this is
cultural handdown...it can be broken, but it takes great effort and as a
society we stack the odds against it. I spend a few hours a week working in a
non-profit that provides basic spanish literacy, ESOL instruction right up
through GED and pre-college orientation courses. When the shool system closes
for the day, the parents can't come because they have to take care of the
kids. Most of them are mastering English so they can get jobs/better jobs and
help their kids in school and we in turn help them not only with that, but
also in raising their sights higher....to college. But they have a tough
battle, and we lose people...some just drop out, but for many it is illness,
or a partner losing a job, or a sick child who must stay at home. That is
tough for anybody, but when you are on the bottom you are only one catastrophy
away from ruin and despair.

Such a crock of unsubstantiated crap.

No one ever came to this country poorer than the Vietnamese immigrants.
Many came with little more than the shirt on their backs.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001756.html

And now they exceed the national average in income after
a single generation.
Opportunity is there and all it takes is the will to work for it.

The great welfare experiment showed you can destroy that will
and even the entire family system for generations.
Look what happened to
the black family after the government tried to help them.

http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=311

or read the works of K.Sue Jewell.
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/aut...ue_Jewell.aspx

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Hom...type=a uthors

http://tinyurl.com/y9757b

I can't believe you would continue to promote these already tried and failed
social nightmares. Every kid who grew up in an AFDC
assisted household probably will never know the damage your failed
social policies did to him, his father, and his chance at the the
American dream.

ScottW

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Are these minorities on crack? Why are they such 'loads'?

And maybe we should let people of Asian descent run the country.
They're better than us 'load crack-head' white guys because they earn
more money, yes?

Please give me some simple black-and-white answers.

"The median income for white households was $50,622 last year. It was
$30,939 for black households, $36,278 for Hispanic households and
$60,367 for Asian households."

No surprise.

Those incomes seem to me to be in relation to how hard those ethnic groups tend
to work.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Are these minorities on crack? Why are they such 'loads'?

And maybe we should let people of Asian descent run the country.
They're better than us 'load crack-head' white guys because they earn
more money, yes?

Please give me some simple black-and-white answers.

"The median income for white households was $50,622 last year. It was
$30,939 for black households, $36,278 for Hispanic households and
$60,367 for Asian households."

There are 2 factors that lead to higher household income.
1) Number or wage earners (2 income households)
Top quintile is made up of married couples with 2 incomes.

2) Education level of the wage earners.

The bottom quintile is predominantly single female parents
with little education.
Unfortunately more black and hispanic people choose
this lifestyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...es#Type_of_hou
sehold

So...the question was ...what are these people doing wrong?
Blacks and Hispanics.

1) They aren't completing their education.
Blacks dropout of HS at twice the rate of whites.
Hispanics at over 3 times.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html

2) They have kids outside of marriage.
http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/co...ults.jsp?i=722

Note how this factor is what puts Asians above whites in
spite of their minority status and puts blacks below
hispanics in spite of their significantly higher HS graduation
rates.

I think this clearly shows that economic success or lack thereof
is not due as much to race as it is to choice of lifestyle.

ScottW

You do understand that single parenthood isn't always a lifestyle
choice, right?

[George M. Middius]

Poopie the Simple-Minded Stereotype-Loving Donkey brayed:

Those incomes seem to me to be in relation to how hard those ethnic groups tend
to work.

What a ****.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com

Are these minorities on crack?

No doubt, some are. So are some white folks and some asians. But the
percentages vary. Also, the drugs of choice vary. But drug use is a symptom,
not a root cause.

Why are they such 'loads'?

Lack of productivity, due to educational and attitudinal issues.

It comes down to culture.

This is actually good news because it is possible to change cultures in a
few generations. It does not seem to be generally known, but the european
immigrants to the US had some issues of their own when they arrived. They
got themselves tuned into the new order in a few generations, and the rest
is ummm, history.

If it were biological, it could take thousands of years to fix.

And maybe we should let people of Asian descent run the
country. They're better than us 'load crack-head' white
guys because they earn more money, yes?

I toy around with the idea that the asians represent the next step of human
evolution. ;-)

To me the real question is why the asians made such slow progress up until
the beginning of the last century. My asian informants tell me that in
essence, the problem was cultural.

It's pretty well known among anthropologists and sociologists that the
hispanics will be acclimatized more rapidly. Good thing, because we've got
tons of them and will get more. Porous borders and biological growth will be
both major causes. But look at the hispanic families that came over 100
years ago or so. My personal poster boy for that is a guy named Padilla who
just retired as a senior president of Ford. I know some of his family, and
they're all pretty well skilled and motivated. In 100 years your typical
american will have a bit of a permanent sun tan, if you know what I mean.

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


You do understand that single parenthood isn't always a lifestyle
choice, right?

Sure...would you advocate a different set of benefits and support for

the widow vs a divorced or never married parent?

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


You do understand that single parenthood isn't always a lifestyle
choice, right?

Sure...would you advocate a different set of benefits and support for

the widow vs a divorced or never married parent?

ScottW

Nope; certainly not for divorced, as that's often not a choice either.

[Clyde Slick]

All valid points, Scott, except that 'choice of lifestyle" is often not
choice, at least not in the sense that I think you mean it -- of untrammeled
free will. We as a society provide precious little help to those at the
bottom which might help them correct a mistake...like being able to earn a
living wage, have some form of child care while doing so, and an education
and transportation system that made it less daunting to get to work and to
the point of schooling. You can't set aside the fact that some of this is
cultural handdown...it can be broken, but it takes great effort and as a
society we stack the odds against it. I spend a few hours a week working in
a non-profit that provides basic spanish literacy, ESOL instruction right up
through GED and pre-college orientation courses. When the shool system
closes for the day, the parents can't come because they have to take care of
the kids. Most of them are mastering English so they can get jobs/better
jobs and help their kids in school and we in turn help them not only with
that, but also in raising their sights higher....to college. But they have
a tough battle, and we lose people...some just drop out, but for many it is
illness, or a partner losing a job, or a sick child who must stay at home.
That is tough for anybody, but when you are on the bottom you are only one
catastrophy away from ruin and despair.

and that's all true, also.
but that is after 40 years of failed social programs.
and 40 more years of them won' change it, either.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

but that is after 40 years of failed social programs.
and 40 more years of them won' change it, either.

You're right -- let's deport the entire underclass to Bolivia.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


You do understand that single parenthood isn't always a lifestyle
choice, right?

Sure...would you advocate a different set of benefits and support for

the widow vs a divorced or never married parent?

ScottW

Nope; certainly not for divorced, as that's often not a choice either.

Lets amend divorce laws...the one who files automatically has all
financial responsibility for the kids. That will fix that.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


You do understand that single parenthood isn't always a lifestyle
choice, right?

Sure...would you advocate a different set of benefits and support for

the widow vs a divorced or never married parent?

ScottW

Nope; certainly not for divorced, as that's often not a choice either.

Lets amend divorce laws...the one who files automatically has all
financial responsibility for the kids. That will fix that.

Yeah. Who the **** would ever get married then?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

The great welfare experiment showed you can destroy that will
and even the entire family system for generations.
Look what happened to
the black family after the government tried to help them.

You fall into the conservative mistake of assuming that anybody who is
an advocate for acknowledging the differences between minorities and
white (or lighter-colored skin) is automatically advocating some kind
of welfare.

I do not think you can package a group of social programs and call it
good. I equally do not believe that you can ignore or not admit there
is a problem and call it good ("pull yourself up by your bootstraps" as
you appear to be advocating).

I can't believe you would continue to promote these already tried and failed
social nightmares. Every kid who grew up in an AFDC
assisted household probably will never know the damage your failed
social policies did to him, his father, and his chance at the the
American dream.

I would advocate classes on diversity at the middle school or high
school level. But I know that you would probably be dead-set against
that too, so let's not even start that argument.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


You do understand that single parenthood isn't always a lifestyle
choice, right?

Sure...would you advocate a different set of benefits and support for

the widow vs a divorced or never married parent?

ScottW

Nope; certainly not for divorced, as that's often not a choice either.

Lets amend divorce laws...the one who files automatically has all
financial responsibility for the kids. That will fix that.

Yeah. Who the **** would ever get married then?

Only the truly committed.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:

The great welfare experiment showed you can destroy that will
and even the entire family system for generations.
Look what happened to
the black family after the government tried to help them.

You fall into the conservative mistake of assuming that anybody who is
an advocate for acknowledging the differences between minorities and
white (or lighter-colored skin) is automatically advocating some kind
of welfare.

I do not think you can package a group of social programs and call it
good. I equally do not believe that you can ignore or not admit there
is a problem and call it good ("pull yourself up by your bootstraps" as
you appear to be advocating).

Our current 3 year welfare limit seems to be reasonable.


I can't believe you would continue to promote these already tried and failed
social nightmares. Every kid who grew up in an AFDC
assisted household probably will never know the damage your failed
social policies did to him, his father, and his chance at the the
American dream.

I would advocate classes on diversity at the middle school or high
school level. But I know that you would probably be dead-set against
that too, so let's not even start that argument.

Since the problem is in the home and family...I don't see what good diversity
education in the schools will do.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


You do understand that single parenthood isn't always a lifestyle
choice, right?

Sure...would you advocate a different set of benefits and support for

the widow vs a divorced or never married parent?

ScottW

Nope; certainly not for divorced, as that's often not a choice either.

Lets amend divorce laws...the one who files automatically has all
financial responsibility for the kids. That will fix that.

ScottW

I see. So a man beats his wife (or vice-versa) and the wife files for
divorce and she's 100% financially liable?

Perhaps you should think this through some more ;-)

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" wrote in message
...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:

The great welfare experiment showed you can destroy that will
and even the entire family system for generations.
Look what happened to
the black family after the government tried to help them.

You fall into the conservative mistake of assuming that anybody who is
an advocate for acknowledging the differences between minorities and
white (or lighter-colored skin) is automatically advocating some kind
of welfare.

I do not think you can package a group of social programs and call it
good. I equally do not believe that you can ignore or not admit there
is a problem and call it good ("pull yourself up by your bootstraps" as
you appear to be advocating).

Our current 3 year welfare limit seems to be reasonable.


I can't believe you would continue to promote these already tried and
failed
social nightmares. Every kid who grew up in an AFDC
assisted household probably will never know the damage your failed
social policies did to him, his father, and his chance at the the
American dream.

I would advocate classes on diversity at the middle school or high
school level. But I know that you would probably be dead-set against
that too, so let's not even start that argument.

Since the problem is in the home and family...I don't see what good
diversity
education in the schools will do.


He's talking about you!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Jenn wrote:
In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


You do understand that single parenthood isn't always a lifestyle
choice, right?

Sure...would you advocate a different set of benefits and support for

the widow vs a divorced or never married parent?

ScottW

Nope; certainly not for divorced, as that's often not a choice either.

Lets amend divorce laws...the one who files automatically has all
financial responsibility for the kids. That will fix that.

ScottW

I see. So a man beats his wife (or vice-versa) and the wife files for
divorce and she's 100% financially liable?

Perhaps you should think this through some more ;-)

In toopid's world, it's kind of like sharia marriage.

The husband, for example, could suddenly become an abusive alcoholic, a
child abuser, or (as in the case of Haggard) a drug-using, cheating
liar.

If Mrs. Haggard doesn't 'stand by her man' though, and she files for
divorce, those children are now all her responsibility.

This is another example of toopid's 'logic.' He's actually a religious
nut-job, or at least shows strong tendencies in that direction.

He can never credibly speak out against sharia again.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:

The great welfare experiment showed you can destroy that will
and even the entire family system for generations.
Look what happened to
the black family after the government tried to help them.

You fall into the conservative mistake of assuming that anybody who is
an advocate for acknowledging the differences between minorities and
white (or lighter-colored skin) is automatically advocating some kind
of welfare.

I do not think you can package a group of social programs and call it
good. I equally do not believe that you can ignore or not admit there
is a problem and call it good ("pull yourself up by your bootstraps" as
you appear to be advocating).

Our current 3 year welfare limit seems to be reasonable.


I can't believe you would continue to promote these already tried and
failed
social nightmares. Every kid who grew up in an AFDC
assisted household probably will never know the damage your failed
social policies did to him, his father, and his chance at the the
American dream.

I would advocate classes on diversity at the middle school or high
school level. But I know that you would probably be dead-set against
that too, so let's not even start that argument.

Since the problem is in the home and family...I don't see what good
diversity
education in the schools will do.


He's talking about you!

Indeed he is. It is very likely that toopid's children have the same
warped view of the world as he does.

In biblical terms, "The sins of the fathers shall rest upon the heads
of the sons...";-)

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


You do understand that single parenthood isn't always a lifestyle
choice, right?

Sure...would you advocate a different set of benefits and support for

the widow vs a divorced or never married parent?

ScottW

Nope; certainly not for divorced, as that's often not a choice either.

Lets amend divorce laws...the one who files automatically has all
financial responsibility for the kids. That will fix that.

ScottW

I see. So a man beats his wife (or vice-versa) and the wife files for
divorce and she's 100% financially liable?

He's gonna pay support from jail?

Do you require the perfect system or will one that fixes 95% of the
problem?

ScottW

[ScottW]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:

The great welfare experiment showed you can destroy that will
and even the entire family system for generations.
Look what happened to
the black family after the government tried to help them.

You fall into the conservative mistake of assuming that anybody who is
an advocate for acknowledging the differences between minorities and
white (or lighter-colored skin) is automatically advocating some kind
of welfare.

I do not think you can package a group of social programs and call it
good. I equally do not believe that you can ignore or not admit there
is a problem and call it good ("pull yourself up by your bootstraps" as
you appear to be advocating).

Our current 3 year welfare limit seems to be reasonable.


I can't believe you would continue to promote these already tried and
failed
social nightmares. Every kid who grew up in an AFDC
assisted household probably will never know the damage your failed
social policies did to him, his father, and his chance at the the
American dream.

I would advocate classes on diversity at the middle school or high
school level. But I know that you would probably be dead-set against
that too, so let's not even start that argument.

Since the problem is in the home and family...I don't see what good
diversity
education in the schools will do.


He's talking about you!

He should be talking about you...you need the help much more than I
do.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I see. So a man beats his wife (or vice-versa) and the wife files for
divorce and she's 100% financially liable?

He's gonna pay support from jail?

Do you require the perfect system or will one that fixes 95% of the
problem?

What is the problem, as you see it? And how does marital sharia fix 95%
of this problem?

LOL!

Moron.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

He should be talking about you...you need the help much more than I
do.

LMAO!

Another good one!

I never fully appreciated your sense of humor.

Moron.

[Harry Lavo]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jenn wrote:
snip

ScottW

You do understand that single parenthood isn't always a lifestyle
choice, right?

I have to think it usually is because you had very little of it
decades ago. Occasionally a husband died or vamoosed, but single women
did not birth babies and keep them. I mean statistically they didn't.
It was a big social shame if they did and consequently very few so
transgressed.

AFDC made it possible for the stupidest and laziest females in any
ethnic group to get out of their parents' house and be on their own by
simply spreading their legs, and many did. It particularly impacted
blacks, statistically, and the effect on black IQ in the post-LBJ era
has been measurably dysgenic. It also created a subculture of white
trailer trash, but they are not the large segment of he white
population statistically and they tend to be geographically and
socially more isolated.

What was genuinely intended as kindness has created a substantial and
intractable underclass of low-sociability, low IQ, high violence
individuals. They are either not employable, or are marginally
employable and have been displaced by illegal mestizos.

About the least brutal method I can figure to deal with the issue now,
aside from putting the kibosh on these programs, is to subsidize,
sterilize, and disenfranchise these people and give them some makework
to keep them occupied.


Well, that comes close. I've been waiting for one of you to suggest we line
'em up and shoot them......

[Harry Lavo]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:


I would advocate classes on diversity at the middle school or high
school level. But I know that you would probably be dead-set against
that too, so let's not even start that argument.

I'm all for classes on diversity......explaining why keeping diverse
peoples diverse by giving each its own place and limiting intermixing
strictly makes for peace, prosperity and safety for all. Otherwise we
will all be one tossed salad of mutts fighting among each other in a
race to the bottom while an overclass makes all the money and lives
like maharajahs. In fact that is very exactly what maharajahs were.


You may note that I inadvertently started this discussion but haven't
commented much.

There is a reason.

Every time I start to craft a reply to you or Scott, I want to throw up.

Naked racism is hard to digest.

[George M. Middius]

Harry Lavo said:

Every time I start to craft a reply to you or Scott, I want to throw up.
Naked racism is hard to digest.

Tomorrow is Bratwig's weekly appointment to have his knuckles bandaged.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Harry Lavo]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...


You may note that I inadvertently started this discussion but haven't
commented much.

There is a reason.

Every time I start to craft a reply to you or Scott, I want to throw up.

Naked racism is hard to digest.

It's funny, the last job I had where I was in a position to hire
people I hired five people. Two were black-and I mean BLACK, one was
from the Caribbean and was -literally- BLACK, the shade of the inside
of a rollfilm camera, the other half Nigerian and half American black
from Mississippi-and one Native Alaskan Indian female (who did not
advertise the fact but whom I knew from an associate to be a lesbian.)
You know, I hired them because they were intelligent, personable,
individuals with solid records and they all turned out to be above
average employees.

Try though I might, I am a lousy bigot, What do you suggest I do to
improve my dismal record of lack of racial loyalty?? I just keep hiring
good people no matter what. (I did, however, turn down dozens of garden
variety ghetto dwellers, as well as a bunch of solid white peckerwoods
who were probably of impeccable white pedigree but were not too
impressive interviewees.)

That suggests perhaps that you are a good judge of character one-on-one
perhaps, or that these folks mimiced or had whie middle-class manners and
moreys. But it doesn't excuse your stereotyping or lack of understanding
about how culture, the physical envirnoment, family history, the political
system, and lack of quality early education can conspire to perpetuate
problems. Society can intervene and help considerable. Instead attaching
stereotypes and moral deficiency to large segments of the population simply
helps justify inattention and neglect.. And when it is tied to race and
ethnicity, as it seems to be with you and Scott, its called "racism".

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
Clyde Slick said:

but that is after 40 years of failed social programs.
and 40 more years of them won' change it, either.

You're right -- let's deport the entire underclass to Bolivia.


"At least" they will be middle class there.

[Clyde Slick]

Bret Ludwig a scris:


Groups can change, and change for the better, but it is a painful
traumatic process. Ashkenazi Jews, one of the smartest groups of humans
in the world, weren't always so. They probably improved their average
IQ by thirty points in less than 500 years, and by methods that were
only vaguely scientific. Consequences: Tay-Sachs, high coronary and
other organ ddisease rates, odd genetic disorders like pemphigus
vulgaris, a high incidence of "mesuggener" outliers (most of the early
Communists, Al Goldstein, Lenny Bruce...and a number of neo-Nazis like
Dan Burros and Frank Collin-indeed, Hitler was likely 1/4 Jew
himself!), and a high incidence of physically very unattractive
individuals, among others.

Barbara Streisand used to have nice tits.

[ScottW]

Harry Lavo wrote:

Every time I start to craft a reply to you or Scott, I want to throw up.

Naked racism is hard to digest.

Typical response when your position can't be substantiated by facts.
Resort to slander. I'm used to it...in spite of the diversity of my
immediate family.
**** off, Harry...you're a foolish old man.


ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:

Every time I start to craft a reply to you or Scott, I want to throw up.

Naked racism is hard to digest.

Typical response when your position can't be substantiated by facts.
Resort to slander. I'm used to it...in spite of the diversity of my
immediate family.
**** off, Harry...you're a foolish old man.

If the shoe fits......

Read my reply to Bret. The fact that you have a black son-in-law, however
laudable, doesn't mean you can't be a racist.

My parents had a black son-in-law, and they could not bring themselves to
have the wedding in their city. They accepted him, but not without racial
stereotypes at work. My sister is a poor housekeeper -- but it was always
his fault the house was messy in my mothers eyes. When their son had
problems in high school....it was his fault, not my sister's (who later was
diagnosed with ADD despite her success in life). And on and on. No matter
that he was a college professor who went on to become Dean of the College.
That's stereotyping. That's racism.

When applied on a much broader scale...it is still racism.

And let me tell you about what it means to be poor and black and how social
factors influence life for the poor....

My brother-in-law was raised on the south side of Chicago...a notorious
black slum. He lived with a grandmother, mother, two sisters. An absentee
father, who visited with the kids ocassionally. His mother worked. All
three kids went to college...he went on to graduate studies. Ah, you
say...work ethic. My brother-in-laws opinion? Had his grandmother died
earlier, he likely would have ended up selling groceries in the 'hood, or
perhaps running with one of the local gangs. Why? Because with his mother
working and no grandmother to take care of the kids, their lives would have
fallen apart...no one at home after school, an exhausted mother trying to do
it all including supporting the family, cooking, cleaning, etc...and he and
the girls...especially him would have been expected to work to help out the
family. That slimmest of margins meant the difference between success and
failure for him...not my opinion...his. No such thing as free child care.
No such thing as after-school programs. If the mother stayed home to make
sure the kids were okay.....you'd call her a welfare queen.

Want another example? I was active in local/county politics in the '60's.
As a candidate, I was asked to come visit with five black mothers in one of
the the subsidized housing developments. They were desperate...crack
cocaine was starting to be sold in their and a neighboring building (first
time, remember this is the mid-sixties..it was just spreading out from NYC).
They knew who was doing it. They knew the effect it had on the kids and
other people who were starting to buy it. They wanted to stop it. They
called the police (that took courage). The police did nothing. They called
the Mayor's office (the Mayor's office told them that in this particular
suburban city, there *was* not a drug problem, and that was that. So they
turned to me, as I was what later would be called a "law and order"
Democrat.. Turned out the entire county had *one* undercover agent, and he
was so well known to the criminals they could spot him a mile away. So I
called District Attorney Morganthal in NYC, he dispatched two agents, and
they made the first cocaine bust in this particular city. Now viewed from
afar...how would you have characterized those "welfare mothers" living in
the projects? Welfare queens, interested only in having babies and
unconcerned about the environment their kids grew up in? And why do you
suppose neither the police nor the Mayor's office took them seriously?
Couldn't be because the were black, powerless "welfare queens", could it?
In an immaculately white, middle class county that didn't want to admit it
was beginning to have a drug problem? This is racism......yep, send them
to Bolivia and we'll not longer have a problem.

Guys, wake up. Yes you are right....there are some bad actors, lazy slobs,
criminally disposed peoples living in the slums and ghettos. And there are
many more decent people working hard and looking to get ahead and grateful
for whatever help they can get, and that society can provide.

As for your stereotyping of nationalities, think it through.

The irish and polish and other europeans assimilated pretty easily. They
looked like you and I. So by second generation, with good english and hard
work, they got ahead. They also did it at a time when college wasn't almost
mandatory to do so.

The asians (especially the Chinese and Japonese) come out of established
societies which have for a long time stressed education...so it is not too
surprising that they should come here and continue that tradition.

The blacks look different from you and I. They come from Africa at a time
when there was little education, and they came as slaves and were denied
education. So is it surprising that taking education seriously as the path
out of the ghetto comes a bit harder and is scarcer in the society young
blacks grow up in. And is it so hard for you to imagine what despair from a
young age can do to ones judgement....with the rest of society passing you
by in wealth, income, jobs and little background to make you appreciate the
role of education. Some do, and they often succeed at getting on in the
world, as did my brother-in-law. But many succumb to despair and crime and
the reasons are not often (or perhaps even usually) bad going-in character.
Social characteristics are fostered by social norms, not by genes.

The spanish speaking folk...Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans...speak spanish
but can learn english and are hard working. Their cultures vary...with the
Cubans prizing education the most, but the main thing that distinquishes
them are their warmth and family ties...these cultures are extremely social
and family-oriented. Young girls often get pregnant because having babies
is seen as a wonderful thing...often without much thought to the economics
involved. Usually, however, reality sets in and these girls often end up
getting an education later after the kids are raised a bit, because they
become responsible mothers and know they have to make a living. Moreover,
there are a large proportion of responsible fathers among this group...often
both parents work. In the case of the Mexican immigrants, it is often the
case of a father working in the US, in order to send money home so that the
family can have a decent life in Mexico. I know one case of a Columbian
woman who has worked 25 years in this country as a maid and housekeeper so
that her kids back in Columbia can get an education...and one by one they
are now joining her. So much for stereotypes.

Being bigoted is not irreversible. If you want to overcome it, it requires
you to forget stereotypes and make an attempt to truly understand people
and to realize that most people are more alike than different...more like
your family than you'd like to believe. Make an effort, please.

[ScottW]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:

Every time I start to craft a reply to you or Scott, I want to throw up.

Naked racism is hard to digest.

Typical response when your position can't be substantiated by facts.
Resort to slander. I'm used to it...in spite of the diversity of my
immediate family.
**** off, Harry...you're a foolish old man.

If the shoe fits......

Read my reply to Bret. The fact that you have a black son-in-law, however
laudable, doesn't mean you can't be a racist.

You don't know **** about my family and you're the last POS
I'd bother trying to educate.


My parents had a black son-in-law, and they could not bring themselves to have
the wedding in their city.

So you come from a racist background.
I see now...don't project your issues to me.

They accepted him, but not without racial stereotypes at work. My sister is
a poor housekeeper -- but it was always his fault the house was messy in my
mothers eyes. When their son had problems in high school....it was his fault,
not my sister's (who later was diagnosed with ADD despite her success in
life). And on and on. No matter that he was a college professor who went on
to become Dean of the College. That's stereotyping. That's racism.

When applied on a much broader scale...it is still racism.

It isn't racism to want to save people from your malicious benevolence.

The data is clear. Too much government assistance just traps
people in a cycle of dependance. It isn't my fault that you're to
weak minded to see the facts of the matter.

And let me tell you about what it means to be poor and black and how social
factors influence life for the poor....

My brother-in-law was raised on the south side of Chicago...a notorious black
slum. He lived with a grandmother, mother, two sisters. An absentee father,
who visited with the kids ocassionally.
His mother worked. All three kids went to college...he went on to graduate
studies. Ah, you say...work ethic. My brother-in-laws opinion? Had his
grandmother died earlier, he likely would have ended up selling groceries in
the 'hood, or perhaps running with one of the local gangs. Why? Because with
his mother working and no grandmother to take care of the kids, their lives
would have fallen apart...no one at home after school, an exhausted mother
trying to do it all including supporting the family, cooking, cleaning,
etc...and he and the girls...especially him would have been expected to work
to help out the family. That slimmest of margins meant the difference
between success and failure for him...not my opinion...his. No such thing as
free child care. No such thing as after-school programs. If the mother stayed
home to make sure the kids were okay.....you'd call her a welfare queen.

I'm happy it worked out for your brother-in-law.
But the data remains irrefutable.

http://www.city-journal.com/html/15_3_black_family.html
http://www.fumento.com/greatsociety.html
http://www.ifeminists.net/introducti...15roberts.html
http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp
http://www.american-partisan.com/col.../qtr2/0506.htm

How about this...Sharp reductions in child poverty due to
WELFARE REFORM.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1661.cfm


Want another example?

No...your silly little one of anecdotes are meaningless
when discussing what is best for society. The data is
voluminous showing that government welfare programs
contributed to the breakdown of the family which in turn
leads to poverty. There is even data now showing
that the failure of preceding generations of parents
has resulted in a decline of marriage worthy young
black men extending the problem to subsequent
generations.

Would you knowingly poison the lives of
millions for the betterment of very few?
Apparently you would.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


You do understand that single parenthood isn't always a lifestyle
choice, right?

Sure...would you advocate a different set of benefits and support
for

the widow vs a divorced or never married parent?

ScottW

Nope; certainly not for divorced, as that's often not a choice either.

Lets amend divorce laws...the one who files automatically has all
financial responsibility for the kids. That will fix that.

ScottW

I see. So a man beats his wife (or vice-versa) and the wife files for
divorce and she's 100% financially liable?

He's gonna pay support from jail?

Who says he's in jail?


Do you require the perfect system or will one that fixes 95% of the
problem?

Sites facts not in evidence.

[Harry Lavo]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

It's funny, the last job I had where I was in a position to hire
people I hired five people. Two were black-and I mean BLACK, one was
from the Caribbean and was -literally- BLACK, the shade of the inside
of a rollfilm camera, the other half Nigerian and half American black
from Mississippi-and one Native Alaskan Indian female (who did not
advertise the fact but whom I knew from an associate to be a lesbian.)
You know, I hired them because they were intelligent, personable,
individuals with solid records and they all turned out to be above
average employees.

Try though I might, I am a lousy bigot, What do you suggest I do to
improve my dismal record of lack of racial loyalty?? I just keep hiring
good people no matter what. (I did, however, turn down dozens of garden
variety ghetto dwellers, as well as a bunch of solid white peckerwoods
who were probably of impeccable white pedigree but were not too
impressive interviewees.)

That suggests perhaps that you are a good judge of character one-on-one
perhaps, or that these folks mimiced or had whie middle-class manners and
moreys. But it doesn't excuse your stereotyping or lack of understanding
about how culture, the physical envirnoment, family history, the
political
system, and lack of quality early education can conspire to perpetuate
problems. Society can intervene and help considerable. Instead
attaching
stereotypes and moral deficiency to large segments of the population
simply
helps justify inattention and neglect.. And when it is tied to race and
ethnicity, as it seems to be with you and Scott, its called "racism".

I agree that proper early education, environment, and the general
gestalt around an individual can make a substantial difference in the
life of that individual-to himself and the other people around him. But
if we refuse to see the forest because all the trees are individuals
and we repudiate forestism, we will wind up destroying the forest and
all the trees in it.

If a "racist' is a person that hates individuals of other races and
wishes ill on them soley because of their race, I am not a racist. I
want the best quality of life for Whites and also for Blacks, Asians
and partly or wholly indigenous American peoples. That means
acknowledging there are such things-that each Japanese is an
individual, but also a Japanese, and that Japanese share many
characteristics that separate Japanese somewhat from Chinese and much
more from Afircans and Europeans. And so it is with other groups.
Swedes differ from Finns-ask Linus Torvalds, a ethnic Swede from
Finland-but they are more similar than Swedes are to Albanians. Not
only in physical characteristics but in personality, in aptitudes. Now
if THAT is your definition of a racist, then yes-I am a racist.

One can recognize group differences and proclivities without being a racist,
so long as their social policy decisions are not based on the assumption
that all members of the group share that proclivity, or is based on the
assumption that that group is morally deficient and doesn't deserve help or
opportunity.


I submit most liberal whites, and ALMOST EVERY SINGLE Black and
Mexican is a racist by that definition too. Bizarrely, whites are the
least racially conscious groop there is, and more ironically it's
"conservative' whites that are the biggest race deniers.

The key word here is "conscious". Since whites have all the advantages,
unless thrust into a mixed environment (manual labor, some colleges, the
military, Americorp or the Peace Corps) most whites don't even have to thing
about racial issues, and may think in their naivete that the could not
possibly be racist. Then they can become politicians and promote extremely
damaging positions and policies (in racial terms) smug in their naivete.


I know because I was one. For a long time. But logic eventually broke
me.

I went hard, though.

If you can set aside your extreme prejudices for long enough to read a
book, I recommend two: "Race and Reason" by former Delta Airlines CEO
Carleton Putnam, and "Defensive Racism" by Edgar L. Steele. I don't ask
you agree with every single thing in both-I don't-or you indeed even
agree with anything in either. But you should be honest enough to be
willing to look at how the other half thinks.

I have been all my life....thanks for the references. But even though I
expose myself to how the other half thinks, so far I have not been persuaded
away from my core beliefs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com

Groups can change, and change for the better, but it is a
painful traumatic process. Ashkenazi Jews, one of the
smartest groups of humans in the world, weren't always
so. They probably improved their average IQ by thirty
points in less than 500 years, and by methods that were
only vaguely scientific. Consequences: Tay-Sachs, high
coronary and other organ ddisease rates, odd genetic
disorders like pemphigus vulgaris, a high incidence of
"mesuggener" outliers (most of the early Communists, Al
Goldstein, Lenny Bruce...and a number of neo-Nazis like
Dan Burros and Frank Collin-indeed, Hitler was likely 1/4
Jew himself!), and a high incidence of physically very
unattractive individuals, among others.

BTW, this appears to be a key paper that documents this theory:

http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Pub...jbiosocsci.pdf

"This paper elaborates the hypothesis that the unique demography and
sociology of
Ashkenazim in medieval Europe selected for intelligence. Ashkenazi literacy,
economic
specialization, and closure to inward gene flow led to a social environment
in which there
was high fitness payoff to intelligence, specifically verbal and
mathematical intelligence
but not spatial ability. As with any regime of strong directional selection
on a quantitative
trait, genetic variants that were otherwise fitness reducing rose in
frequency. In particular
we propose that the well-known clusters of Ashkenazi genetic diseases, the
sphingolipid
cluster and the DNA repair cluster in particular, increase intelligence in
heterozygotes.
Other Ashkenazi disorders are known to increase intelligence."

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
Do you require the perfect system or will one that fixes 95% of the
problem?

Sites facts not in evidence.

It was a question. You've watched a bit too much L&O.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Jenn wrote:

ScottW

I see. So a man beats his wife (or vice-versa) and the wife files for
divorce and she's 100% financially liable?

Perhaps you should think this through some more ;-)

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to give us the female perspective
(inasmuch as otherwise this is a sausage fest) on the following
scenario:

Girl gets PG in high school, marries guy. He smacks her around. Has
baby Smacks both around. Has another he smacks all three around, does a
little time, they divorce.

Girl (same girl) marries again, has baby, he smacks her (never the
kids) around, she has another baby, he smacks her around some more, she
gets house, boat, cars, airplane, he is broken.

Girl (yes, same girl, although "mangy old battleaxe" tends to be
approbation now on street) marries third guy, has another baby, he
smacks her (never kids!) a little, gets probation, she has another baby
-we are at six now!-smacks her once again, gets clock cleaned plus
Domestic Violence conviction, loses guns forever. He loses farm house
and acreage (in his family 100+ years) and a Kenworth tractor trailer.

Real life story: she was my rework operator when I was a final
checkout tech at a defense contractor, and a damn good one. Had a body
like Raquel Welch and a face like Mother Teresa. (She was about
thirty-five years younger.) But here's my question: How did she get
three guys in a row who beat her up like that? I mean what are the
odds? And is it right she should have got two houses and other assets
worth probably between a quarter and half a million dollars from being
a professional battered wife?

Of her four daughters, two have now embarked on Professional Battered
Wife careers as well.

Not a female perspective, but consider the flip side:

Man beats wife. Wife leaves. Man finds new wife and beats her. Wife
leaves...

I have an aunt who left her first husband because he was a drunk. She
remarried, to a drunk. I know another couple. The alcoholic husband
treats his wife like ****. She puts up with it. Why? This woman's
father was an abusive alcoholic. So she's being treated like her mother
was, which must be love. As an example:

"Most abusive parents have themselves been abused or neglected as
children. However, not all victims of abuse go on to assault children.
Parents with a history of abuse who do not abuse their children are
generally the ones who have developed supportive relations with
others."

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cniv...ntsnegl_e.html

This woman sounds somewhat like these people. Codependency, or whatever
the issue is, is repeating itself. As for her daughters, that sounds
like the biblical quote I mentioned here a couple of days ago about the
sins of the fathers resting on the heads of the sons, just like it is
for the wife of the abusive alcoholic.

We have internal tapes that can play over and over unless we learn
about them and break the cycle. Some people have introspection. Some
don't. Need proof that some people don't?

Arns and toopid.

I rest my case.

__________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

[Clyde Slick]

Bret Ludwig a scris:


When you had marriages arranged for every factor but physical
attractiveness, you had a lot of ugly people breeding like rats.

Please tell us why ugly people in arranged marriages **** like rabbits!
I can't wait.