Chiefs fans

[Sope Creek]

in my suburb we're going through an awful rash of car break ins. literally every single night you can hear car alarms go off. i promise you anyone black driving through my neighborhood at night has a 50/50 chance of getting pulled over. as i told marv i think that's where racism rests. far more in policing than in the judicial system where you see disparate impact

I don't have a view into that part of the system . . . my experience has been solely on the civil side.

Either way - direct or disparate impact - the system is screwing over Blacks more than it's screwing over whites. I think that's what critics have been referring to when they talk about "institutional racism" or "systemic racism".

 

[Marvin the Martian]

i think profiling, while ostensibly effective, is indeed racist. but marv we're blending two very distinct things in court policies and the judicial system and policing. i think the latter has far more instances of direct racism whereas the former is more disparate impact

I think it is less likely in courts. But I'll give a case, in Talking to Strangers, Gladwell discusses how bad humans are at detecting lying. A study was done where people were filmed in a situation the interviewer knew if the person was lying or not (it involved them having access to the answers to a fake game show and everything was recorded). So when the person was asked "did you have the answers", the interviewers knew who was telling the truth and who was lying.

So they created a video of these and showed it to people who then had to judge if that person was lying. The assumption some people make, judges, and police being two groups with this assumption, is that they can spot liars better than the average American. In fact, judges put a great deal of stock into seeing the person and looking into their eyes. Well, it turns out they didn't judge liars any better than ordinary folk. For that matter, CIA counter-intelligence specialists were only slightly better than Joe off the street.

My point is that we all have opinions on what truth and lying look like, What a likely repeat offender looks like versus someone who has learned their lesson. What a guilty person looks like versus an innocent person. Is there no chance that when a judge makes that determination that race plays a role? In Gladwell's interview with judges, they suggest they use their intuition on whether the defendant is lying or not.

I don't have experience with the court system. If Gladwell is wrong and judges aren't looking defendants in the eye to see if they are honest (or guilty), then there probably isn't a problem. But if the judge is doing that, it also might be the public defender is doing that in deciding the best deal the client can get. If they are, the Black defendants may not be getting the same deals.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't have a view into that part of the system . . . my experience has been solely on the civil side.

Either way - direct or disparate impact - the system is screwing over Blacks more than it's screwing over whites. I think that's what critics have been referring to when they talk about "institutional racism" or "systemic racism".

i edited this to say i don't agree with you soap. that's not systemic racism. the disparate impact isn't because of race but because of economics. it impacts poor whites in the same fashion

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Either way - direct or disparate impact - the system is screwing over Blacks more than it's screwing over whites. I think that's what critics have been referring to when they talk about "institutional racism" or "systemic racism".

BINGO. I could have saved a lot of time if I had found a way to say that 8 pages ago. Though I sort of did when I said that I didn't think everyone booing was racist, they just prioritized football more than racial unity.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think it is less likely in courts. But I'll give a case, in Talking to Strangers, Gladwell discusses how bad humans are at detecting lying. A study was done where people were filmed in a situation the interviewer knew if the person was lying or not (it involved them having access to the answers to a fake game show and everything was recorded). So when the person was asked "did you have the answers", the interviewers knew who was telling the truth and who was lying.

So they created a video of these and showed it to people who then had to judge if that person was lying. The assumption some people make, judges, and police being two groups with this assumption, is that they can spot liars better than the average American. In fact, judges put a great deal of stock into seeing the person and looking into their eyes. Well, it turns out they didn't judge liars any better than ordinary folk. For that matter, CIA counter-intelligence specialists were only slightly better than Joe off the street.

My point is that we all have opinions on what truth and lying look like, What a likely repeat offender looks like versus someone who has learned their lesson. What a guilty person looks like versus an innocent person. Is there no chance that when a judge makes that determination that race plays a role? In Gladwell's interview with judges, they suggest they use their intuition on whether the defendant is lying or not.

I don't have experience with the court system. If Gladwell is wrong and judges aren't looking defendants in the eye to see if they are honest (or guilty), then there probably isn't a problem. But if the judge is doing that, it also might be the public defender is doing that in deciding the best deal the client can get. If they are, the Black defendants may not be getting the same deals.

marv i have no clue where these people practiced but it's not anything like i've ever seen. pleas are handed out fifty in an hour and the judge takes them and signs them without even looking up. sir you understand you are waiving your right to a trial and feel you've been fairly represented. alright i'll accept this next. like an assembly line. race is not involved. then a trial again you have a jury. sentencing - pre-sentencing is its own big deal. again, and not to belabor the point, in the adjudication of the accused i have never seen an act of racism nor have i ever heard complaints of it in the courthouse, and that includes from the many, many black lawyers

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

BINGO. I could have saved a lot of time if I had found a way to say that 8 pages ago. Though I sort of did when I said that I didn't think everyone booing was racist, they just prioritized football more than racial unity.

That last sentence is highly disingenuous- but I’m not accusing you of malevolence. Rather, even if the KC fans weren’t booing the Texans and were in fact booing the “moment”, it doesn’t mean they don’t prioritize racial unity. That’s loaded.

The messages flashing on the screen, messages showing BLM and BLM messaging, has become associated with the bad actors in that movement and it’s entirely possibly that messaging was being booed. Just like religion doesn’t have a monopoly on morality, BLM does not have a monopoly on civil rights or social justice.

 

[mcmurtry66]

BINGO. I could have saved a lot of time if I had found a way to say that 8 pages ago. Though I sort of did when I said that I didn't think everyone booing was racist, they just prioritized football more than racial unity.

but marv again i don't agree with that. i don't know that systemic racism and disparate impact are the same things. if they're then there is no distinction between racism and classism. and i don't believe that. because the same way that blacks are impacted so too are poor whites by the polices i described above

 

[Sope Creek]

i don't know that i agree with you. i don't know that i believe that a policy that is neutral on its face is racism, systemic or otherwise. at no point is race factored into the election to adopt the policy or practice.

So the fact that the policy has an adverse effect of one class of people in comparison to another class doesn't weigh in favor of considering it discriminatory?

BTW, in an employment context a business would have a defense by showing that the business practice or policy was a business necessity . . . for example, the NBA showing that height is a business necessity in response to a claim by a 5'4" dribbling wizard . . . .

 

[mcmurtry66]

So the fact that the policy has an adverse effect of one class of people in comparison to another class doesn't weigh in favor of considering it discriminatory?

BTW, in an employment context a business would have a defense by showing that the business practice or policy was a business necessity . . . for example, the NBA showing that height is a business necessity in response to a claim by a 5'4" dribbling wizard . . . .

i edited my response above sope to say that i disagree with you and that it's not systemic racism because the policy is neutral and would have and does have the same disparate impact on poor whites. economics is the salient point, not race. i do not believe that because something has a disparate impact on blacks it necessarily equates to racism

 

[Sope Creek]

marv i have no clue where these people practiced but it's not anything like i've ever seen. pleas are handed out fifty in an hour and the judge takes them and signs them without even looking up. sir you understand you are waiving your right to a trial and feel you've been fairly represented. alright i'll accept this next. like an assembly line. race is not involved. then a trial again you have a jury. sentencing - pre-sentencing is its own big deal. again, and not to belabor the point, in the adjudication of the accused i have never seen an act of racism nor have i ever heard complaints of it in the courthouse, and that includes from the many, many black lawyers

That nobody complains is evidence that something to complain about hasn't occurred? I think that's a non sequitur, mac.

Otherwise . . . I hear ya. An awful lot of the law process is an assembly line because there are too few resources to give each case individualized therapy-level attention. That's the case in collections cases too . . .

. . . but that doesn't mean that no discrimination has occurred or that the system is fair. It just means that the system has been broken down into an assembly-line process . . . for better or worse.

 

[mcmurtry66]

That nobody complains is evidence that something to complain about hasn't occurred? I think that's a non sequitur, mac.

Otherwise . . . I hear ya. An awful lot of the law process is an assembly line because there are too few resources to give each case individualized therapy-level attention. That's the case in collections cases too . . .

. . . but that doesn't mean that no discrimination has occurred or that the system is fair. It just means that the system has been broken down into an assembly-line process . . . for better or worse.

agreed. but if it reached anywhere near systemic the outcry would be loud and clear. and it's not. and for sure on collections. one of my best friends runs a bulk collection docket. miserable. a massive assembly line of defaults

 

[Sope Creek]

i edited my response above sope to say that i disagree with you and that it's not systemic racism because the policy is neutral and would have and does have the same disparate impact on poor whites. economics is the salient point, not race. i do not believe that because something has a disparate impact on blacks it necessarily equates to racism

That "facially neutral" stuff is why the disparate impact definition of discrimination was included in the law. From Wikipedia:

"Therefore, the disparate impact theory under Title VII prohibits employers "from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect.""

BTW, I don't know what law would apply to impose the disparate impact rules on judicial proceedings. My experience is in employment, lending and hospitality contexts . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

agreed. but if it reached anywhere near systemic the outcry would be loud and clear. and it's not. and for sure on collections. one of my best friends runs a bulk collection docket. miserable. a massive assembly line of defaults

Are you saying that the outcry isn't loud? Isn't clear?

What?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Are you saying that the outcry isn't loud? Isn't clear?

What?

i'm saying that there isn't a chance in hell that both lawyers and clients wouldn't complain. if there were acts of racism that were anything other than that the circumstances i described it would be very well known. clients today have access to everything. they log onto the courts system and read dispositions. they talk to each other. they know exactly what the plea deal will be for any offense and exactly what the final disposition will be along with fines sis/ses probation etc. what's more there's zero respect in law thanks to advertising. lawyers representing criminals/accidentvictims etc are treated like dog shit. if that lawyer thought he was getting a raw deal based on race he'd let every judge there is no including the bar and the paper

 

[Sope Creek]

i edited this to say i don't agree with you soap. that's not systemic racism. the disparate impact isn't because of race but because of economics. it impacts poor whites in the same fashion

I hear ya on this one . . . but the reason that there's an adverse impact on Blacks is because the animus type of racism inherent in slavery and Jim Crow has left Blacks with less wealth, less education and less income. The fact that there is an adverse impact on poor whites doesn't change that historical context for Black people.

Perhaps the issue is one of economics . . . but until we clear up the effects of past racial animus impacting the application of policies today (good luck with that) this disparate impact will continue to muddy the issue . . . maybe the best way to deal with it is to get rid of the whole adverse effect of economics . . . FREE LAWYERS FOR EVERYONE, FULL PRIVATE FEE RATES PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS!!!

 

[mcmurtry66]

That "facially neutral" stuff is why the disparate impact definition of discrimination was included in the law. From Wikipedia:

"Therefore, the disparate impact theory under Title VII prohibits employers "from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect.""

BTW, I don't know what law would apply to impose the disparate impact rules on judicial proceedings. My experience is in employment, lending and hospitality contexts . . . .

right but those are express statutes. i'm talking in general. and as you say i have no clue how it would apply to judicial proceedings. too many factors involved

 

[Sope Creek]

i'm saying that there isn't a chance in hell that both lawyers and clients wouldn't complain. if there were acts of racism that were anything other than that the circumstances i described it would be very well known. clients today have access to everything. they log onto the courts system and read dispositions. they talk to each other. they know exactly what the plea deal will be for any offense and exactly what the final disposition will be along with fines sis/ses probation etc. what's more there's zero respect in law thanks to advertising. lawyers representing criminals/accidentvictims etc are treated like dog shit. if that lawyer thought he was getting a raw deal based on race he'd let every judge there is no including the bar and the paper

Hmmmmm . . . I was trying - unsuccessfully apparently - to point to the hue and cry about systemic racism within law enforcement . . . you know, the basis on which the protest movement this summer has been legitimized.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I hear ya on this one . . . but the reason that there's an adverse impact on Blacks is because the animus type of racism inherent in slavery and Jim Crow has left Blacks with less wealth, less education and less income. The fact that there is an adverse impact on poor whites doesn't change that historical context for Black people.

Perhaps the issue is one of economics . . . but until we clear up the effects of past racial animus impacting the application of policies today (good luck with that) this disparate impact will continue to muddy the issue . . . maybe the best way to deal with it is to get rid of the whole adverse effect of economics . . . FREE LAWYERS FOR EVERYONE, FULL PRIVATE FEE RATES PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS!!!

LOL!!! as to the content of your post i agree

 

[Sope Creek]

right but those are express statutes. i'm talking in general. and as you say i have no clue how it would apply to judicial proceedings. too many factors involved

Gotcha. Yep, those are express statutes . . . I'd have to dig into stuff I'm hoping to put behind me someday soon to get up to speed on how all this might apply in a law enforcement/judicial context.

My head hurts. I'm going to take a nap.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I hear ya on this one . . . but the reason that there's an adverse impact on Blacks is because the animus type of racism inherent in slavery and Jim Crow has left Blacks with less wealth, less education and less income. The fact that there is an adverse impact on poor whites doesn't change that historical context for Black people.

Perhaps the issue is one of economics . . . but until we clear up the effects of past racial animus impacting the application of policies today (good luck with that) this disparate impact will continue to muddy the issue . . . maybe the best way to deal with it is to get rid of the whole adverse effect of economics . . . FREE LAWYERS FOR EVERYONE, FULL PRIVATE FEE RATES PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS!!!

i think you're spot on. fix the economic hole and lots of things will fall into place in my opinion.

 

[Sope Creek]

i think you're spot on. fix the economic hole and lots of things will fall into place in my opinion.

I hear that . . . but how do we go about "fixing the economic hole"? As Jesus said, there will be poor people always . . . and I'm gonna guess that they all can't be white any more than they can all be Black.

BTW, what concession would have to be given in exchange for a political solution for "fixing the economic hole"? Politically, some would want to do away with discrimination claims altogether as a concession in response to something like reparations . . . I don't think there's a prayer in heaven or hell either one that racial - or any other type of - discrimination would abate . . . .

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

i think you're spot on. fix the economic hole and lots of things will fall into place in my opinion.

I disagree. Throwing money at the economic gap doesn't address the underlying issue. It may partially stem from historical mistreatment, but the lack of action and accountability within communities is not going to change without cultural and behavioral changes.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I disagree. Throwing money at the economic gap doesn't address the underlying issue. It may partially stem from historical mistreatment, but the lack of action and accountability within communities is not going to change without cultural and behavioral changes.

i didn't mean to apply wire transfers to people's bank accounts. i meant investing in communities. some of these communities are so forgotten, so blighted, that the people born there really have no chance. and yes cultural change is part of it - we'd need better stewards and better community leaders imo

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I believe I said that both supported a law that was bigoted for their own reasons. In Reagan's case, the southern strategy. In Biden's case, I have no idea why - maybe he was working on his own southern strategy. Both were willing to court the votes of racists by ignoring others. So both were willing to use bigotry to advance themselves even IF neither was bigoted. Based on the 1986 law alone. So I will amend my remarks to "Reagan and Biden placed the support of white racists over the concerns of Blacks in supporting the 1986 law".

Now, Reagan calling Africans "monkeys" who are still uncomfortable wearing shoes?

Many black legislators supported that law too. It wasn't considered bigoted or racist by many. It was considered to be a good common sense law.

The southern strategy is 90% myth. It's not about supporting racist laws and policies at all and Republicans solidified their support in the south more by appealing to conservative Christian values such as pro-life and supporting traditional marriage. You may not like those positions, but they're not racist.

 

[Sope Creek]

I disagree. Throwing money at the economic gap doesn't address the underlying issue. It may partially stem from historical mistreatment, but the lack of action and accountability within communities is not going to change without cultural and behavioral changes.

What? Please explain your comments . . . .

 

[jsig]

Did the Chiefs win?

 

[Sope Creek]

Did the Chiefs win?

There's a football board for that information . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

Many black legislators supported that law too. It wasn't considered bigoted or racist by many. It was considered to be a good common sense law.

The southern strategy is 90% myth. It's not about supporting racist laws and policies at all and Republicans solidified their support in the south more by appealing to conservative Christian values such as pro-life and supporting traditional marriage. You may not like those positions, but they're not racist.

Talk about myths . . . how much time do you spend in the south?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

marv i have no clue where these people practiced but it's not anything like i've ever seen. pleas are handed out fifty in an hour and the judge takes them and signs them without even looking up. sir you understand you are waiving your right to a trial and feel you've been fairly represented. alright i'll accept this next. like an assembly line. race is not involved. then a trial again you have a jury. sentencing - pre-sentencing is its own big deal. again, and not to belabor the point, in the adjudication of the accused i have never seen an act of racism nor have i ever heard complaints of it in the courthouse, and that includes from the many, many black lawyers

So the judge does not meet the defendant in the hearing to determine if and how much bail will be?

 

[mcmurtry66]

So the judge does not meet the defendant in the hearing to determine if and how much bail will be?

it's been a long time so i'm rusty marv but there are variables. bond is usually set based on the schedule and the offense. charged with x bond is x. if you're poor you sit in jail and that's it until the confined docket is heard. if you have money you call a lawyer and the lawyer goes up to court and informally gets in front of a judge in chambers or has to go through a formal hearing to get a bond reduction or like a 10 percent bond. but no it's usually just the lawyer and the judge

 

[UncleMark]

The southern strategy is 90% myth. It's not about supporting racist laws and policies at all and Republicans solidified their support in the south more by appealing to conservative Christian values such as pro-life and supporting traditional marriage. You may not like those positions, but they're not racist.

You're way off on the timeline. Nixon was the one who promoted the "Southern Strategy", long before Roe and long before "traditional marriage" was a thing. It was all about race and "law and order".

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Many black legislators supported that law too. It wasn't considered bigoted or racist by many. It was considered to be a good common sense law.

The southern strategy is 90% myth. It's not about supporting racist laws and policies at all and Republicans solidified their support in the south more by appealing to conservative Christian values such as pro-life and supporting traditional marriage. You may not like those positions, but they're not racist.

Here is what Atwater said in an interview, am I misreading it? I have replaced the you know what word with just an N. He suggests that it might be because it hurts Blacks more, but he does say it is coded and you can get away with more. Would not Atwater have known about this code?

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N, n, n". By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and allAtwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N, n, n". By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N, n". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner.
things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N, n". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

What? Please explain your comments . . . .

There is a cultural issue, namely the abandonment of the family and disregard for education, that needs to be addressed and continues to be ignored at the expense of shallow emotional appeals.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You're way off on the timeline. Nixon was the one who promoted the "Southern Strategy", long before Roe and long before "traditional marriage" was a thing. It was all about race and "law and order".

Yes during the 68 election when southern Democrat George Wallace won the deep south states while running third party (he tried to win the Democratic nomination in '76 too). In '72 Nixon won every state except two, IIRC. Apparently the strategy worked like a charm to win the northern states too. Besides, we were talking about Reagan, the first Republican I ever voted for at any level of government.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Here is what Atwater said in an interview, am I misreading it? I have replaced the you know what word with just an N. He suggests that it might be because it hurts Blacks more, but he does say it is coded and you can get away with more. Would not Atwater have known about this code?

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N, n, n". By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and allAtwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N, n, n". By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N, n". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner.
things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N, n". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner.

We're talking about Reagan and Atwater went on to say:

But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I'll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There is a cultural issue, namely the abandonment of the family and disregard for education, that needs to be addressed and continues to be ignored at the expense of shallow emotional appeals.

We need things addressed. But there is a chicken-egg debate. Poverty seems to lower IQ.

Poverty is a stress creator. Daily stress can cause the prefrontal cortex to activate less. The prefrontal cortex controls planning. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...physiology of acute,when the going gets tough.

Evolutionarily it makes sense. If you were trying to survive a nearby pride of lions you do not need analytical thinking. You need decisive response.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

We need things addressed. But there is a chicken-egg debate. Poverty seems to lower IQ.

View embedded media

Poverty is a stress creator. Daily stress can cause the prefrontal cortex to activate less. The prefrontal cortex controls planning. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4774859/#:~:text=the prefrontal cortex can shut,inducing mental paralysis and panic.&text=further the physiology of acute,when the going gets tough.

Evolutionarily it makes sense. If you were trying to survive a nearby pride of lions you do not need analytical thinking. You need decisive response.

Sheesh, think how much smarter I'd be if I wasn't raised poor!

I'm think of several good retorts from you Dems for that comment . . .

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

We need things addressed. But there is a chicken-egg debate. Poverty seems to lower IQ.

View embedded media

Poverty is a stress creator. Daily stress can cause the prefrontal cortex to activate less. The prefrontal cortex controls planning. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4774859/#:~:text=the prefrontal cortex can shut,inducing mental paralysis and panic.&text=further the physiology of acute,when the going gets tough.

Evolutionarily it makes sense. If you were trying to survive a nearby pride of lions you do not need analytical thinking. You need decisive response.

That's just an excuse for the behavior. Don Lemon had it right in 2013.

"Black people," Lemon said, "if you really want to fix the problem, here's just five things that you should think about doing."

The No. 1 item on that list -- "and probably the most important," he said -- had to do with out-of-wedlock births.

"Just because you can have a baby, it doesn't mean you should," Lemon said. "Especially without planning for one or getting married first. More than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock. That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison and the cycle continues."

CNN's Don Lemon says more than 72 percent of African-American births are out of wedlock

In the middle of a national conversation about race following the George Zimmerman acquittal, CNN anchor Don Lemon gave

www.politifact.com

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We're talking about Reagan and Atwater went on to say:

But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I'll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.

When did Atwater say that? He issued the quote I listed when he was expecting anonymity. I am not sure why he would lie then.

There is one group of Whites Republicans win more than Democrats:

Not bloody likely. In 2005, the political scientists Nicholas Valentino and David Sears demonstrated that a Southern man holding conservative positions on issues other than race is no more likely than a conservative Northerner to vote for a Democrat. But when the relevant identifier is anti-black answers to survey questions—like whether one agrees “If blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites”—white Southerners were twice as likely than white Northerners to refuse to vote Democratic. https://www.thenation.com/article/a...rs-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Sheesh, think how much smarter I'd be if I wasn't raised poor!

I'm think of several good retorts from you Dems for that comment . . .

I would have an excuse if it worked that way. The intelligence comes back after poverty ends. I am naturally stupid.

But it does explain why the military gives people a good escape. One does not get rich, but they do gain more stability than your average very poor person. That helps alleviate the stress of poverty.