PDA

View Full Version : Social Science in the City


Bloggingheads
03-28-2008, 02:04 PM

Joel_Cairo
03-28-2008, 02:27 PM
mmmm... love the simmering subterranean tension here... this looks like its gonna get good.

bkjazfan
03-28-2008, 02:51 PM
It was good. I gave it to Heather. Glenn came off as not as well prepared to have this discussion as Heather was. Just my take on it.

John

gwlaw99
03-28-2008, 03:41 PM
This was a very interesting discussion. It's a shame they were running out of time and ended up having to somewhat angrily talk over eachother.

graz
03-28-2008, 04:26 PM
This was a very interesting discussion. It's a shame they were running out of time and ended up having to somewhat angrily talk over eachother.

Yes indeed, too bad about the abrupt end.
At least we had a diavlog that skirted the speech issue... well not entirely. At the 33 minute mark Heather implicated Obama in the perpetuation of the fallacy that blacks and whites are convicted at different rates for the same crimes. She referenced a MLK day speech (which I did not hear) as well as the "Philadelphia" speech we have all come to know if not love. I wish Glen had been able to remark on the distinction that I think Obama was reflecting upon. Namely that the difference in the penalty rates for "crack" cocaine vs. powder have a result that is de-facto racially determinative.

AemJeff
03-28-2008, 04:31 PM
I've read some of Heather's opinion work in the past - she's rational and interesting, and if I don't necessarily share her point of view, I like her. This is the first time I've ever heard her speak, and I have to ask: has anybody ever seen Heather MacDonald and Peggy Noonan in the same room at the same time?

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 04:39 PM
Before anything else: excellent taste in shirts, Glenn.

To the rest:

It pains me read that others like the "tension" or the notion that a diavlog about social quandaries is something to be "won." We aren't going to get anywhere on any of these complex problems if that's how the audience reacts to experts discussing.

I thought the conversation started out good. The notion of incentivizing what some might call personal responsibilities, especially if it seems like it might work, is a fascinating topic. I thought it started to get bogged down when Heather's predisposition to weight "ought" in favor of "is" became her solitary theme. I'm not saying there's nothing to the notion of requiring people to pull their own weight, nor that there is nothing to the notion that a sense of entitlement can harm the very people a program seeks to help. But she started sounding more than a little unaware of the different dynamics of life in social strata below hers.

Later on, I thought Heather started sounding even less like someone with academic credibility, and more like a typical panelist on a TV yap show. Her frequent use of anecdotes -- "when I talked to this (pastor / cop / building superintendent / community group), (he / she / they) told me ... blah, blah, blah." Unimpressive and unconvincing, to put it politely. Ditto her incessant appeals on behalf of the "good people," "the hard-working people," "the people who don't want to live in fear." This is just playing on emotion, and isn't anything to do with an intelligent discussion. Ditto her comment from out of left field about Obama. My advice: save this kind of sloganeering and irrelevance for cable TV, where there might be someone who's dumb enough to be swayed by it.

Unfortunately, it appeared that Glenn has a bit of a history with Heather, and whether or not that's the case, I think he allowed her to push some buttons and consequently lost his cool. The second half of the diavlog devolved quickly, and I hold both responsible. I was uncomfortably reminded of Mickey's concern that BH.tv could become like Meet the Press.

I was wishing for a while that there had been a moderator, which seemed a little meta, given that Glenn and Heather, to the extent that they agreed on anything, agreed that it's not unreasonable to expect at least some proper behavior, even absent incentives or external restraints.

Glaurunge
03-28-2008, 05:11 PM
Wow. This discussion will probably go down in history, right next to the infamous Althouse/Franke-Ruta confrontation, as one of the most contentious diavlogs in Bloggingheads history.

But knowing a bit about Loury's personal history, I can understand his apparent distress at the way MacDonald contemptuously characterizes criminals and their families. And I agree. "Criminals" are not inherently evil or operating under some malevolent influence. I take it she's a conservative, which is not surprising. In my experience, they do have an affinity for moral reductionism in place of nuanced understanding.

The Underground Man
03-28-2008, 05:25 PM
Thank you, Glaurunge, for reminding everybody that in liberal la-la land it is "moral reductionism" to condemn criminals for their actions. Instead, we must coddle them, understand them, give them a hug, and golly, just hope they don't act that way again. Tell that to their victims.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 05:53 PM
T.U.M.:

Thank you for providing a perfect illustration of the kind of asinine oversimplification that Glaurange was pointing out in Heather, and that made Glenn so irritable.

It is beyond a caricature to say that "liberals" want to "coddle criminals." It is much more the case that those of us who wish to live in places other than gated communities would like to understand the forces at work that lead to criminal behavior, and would like to find out if there are more effective countermeasures than throwing everyone in jail. Even leaving aside our bleeding heart concern for the human factors involved, it seems prudent to ask questions like, "Why is the US leading the world in incarceration rates, and do we want to be?" and "Can we find more cost-effective solutions?" and "If we lock up someone for a minor drug offense, given the odds that he'll come out of prison far more anti-social than he went in, what changes in the law might make sense to consider?"

But no. Your kind just likes to toss around banalities. It's easier than thinking, isn't it?

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 05:57 PM
gee, i wonder if the fact that poor blacks generally don't give a shit and go around smoking weed and spending all their money on rims and having out of wedlock babies might have something to do with their lack of progress. it's really tough to figure out. yes, white people are racist and poor blacks are born into poverty but we don't see the same numbers when compared to other races. if you had to choose, would you rather send your child to a poor white school, poor indian school, poor asian school or a poor black school?
it's a CULTURE problem. if they'd listen to bill cosby, it'd start to get better. i went to majority poor black schools for over a decade as a kid. it's not like we don't know the deal. poor black people suck at parenting and everyone knows it and no one will tell them they suck.

bkjazfan
03-28-2008, 06:03 PM
Heather seemed to have Glenn "boxed in" with emphasizing that the inner city crime plagued residents are the ones who are especially "pushing the envelope" to rid the area of the criminal elements.

John

Glaurunge
03-28-2008, 06:05 PM
Thank you, Glaurunge, for reminding everybody that in liberal la-la land it is "moral reductionism" to condemn criminals for their actions. Instead, we must coddle them, understand them, give them a hug, and golly, just hope they don't act that way again. Tell that to their victims.

No, it's not moral reductionism to condemn criminals. Sending them to prison is, by definition, a form on condemnation and something I think almost all "liberals" agree is appropriate under the right circumstances. However, that's not what I said.

There is a big difference between "coddling" law breakers and resisting the seductive tendency to sort of dehumanize them as something inherently different from "we", the good guys. That's exactly what Macdonald attempted in discussing the incarcerated and their relationships with their families. It's incredibly insensitive and also probably wrong. If it's not wrong, she certainly didn't offer any evidence, as Loury clearly noted.

uncle ebeneezer
03-28-2008, 06:11 PM
Federov...:

no one will tell them they suck.

So the key to getting somebody to improve at something is tellng them they suck? Hmm, well in that case, for the sake of trying to get you to write better posts...

AemJeff
03-28-2008, 06:14 PM
In another thread I accused a user of using a racist analogy. I hope it was clear in that case that I wasn't saying that I believed that user was racist. In the case of this post I'm less sure that I'd separate myself from the implication.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 06:29 PM
poor black people suck at parenting ...

Your own don't seem to have done an especially bang-up job, either.

Eastwest
03-28-2008, 06:30 PM
Good "spirited" discussion. But both parties hurt the communication-to-audience quality by being so hair-trigger in repeatedly jumping on top of and preventing the consummation of the other's thought.

BTW, sure, a certain amount of "steam-rolling" in debate is justified where you're dealing with a time-monopolization problem, but that wasn't going on here.

"A" for the topics.
"A" for the quality of participants.
"A-minus" for preserving rationality even in the midst of the "heat."
"B-minus" for the "hair-triggering" of both participants.

Thanks to both and to BHTV.

EW

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 06:31 PM
i'm saying the exact same thing shelby steel is saying only in a much meaner way. we're not gonna get anywhere by not addressing the problem.

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 06:33 PM
why? because i'm honest and correct?
i guess they'd rather have raised a knee jerk liberal/internet troll.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 06:37 PM
why? because i'm honest and correct?
i guess they'd rather have raised a knee jerk liberal/internet troll.

I'll grant that you're honest about being a racist. Correct? Not so much.

Good of you to resort to name-calling, rather than trying to substantiate your case, though. Kind of illustrates the validity of your claims, albeit not in the manner in which you intended.

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 06:39 PM
i knew i could bait all you knee-jerk liberal nerds with that post. and it worked!
once again, no one addresses what i am saying, they just imply racism and then that's it. you know why you won't address the actual issue? because you're afraid of being called racist. thus goes the never ending cycle. if i were to say that poor, white, redneck parents suck what would you say? probably not much.
i've already had this discussion here and it got nowhere. does anyone who's criticizing actually KNOW any poor blacks? because i've known them my whole life and i'm not impressed. do we have these problems with black AFRICANS who come over here? no. poor asians? no. this is not some bug mystery. chris rock would probably laugh at you guys if he were here. he told us all about this issue 10 years ago in his routine but no one listened.

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 06:40 PM
excuse me, but it absolutely was you who started it by referring to my parents so nice try. anyone else?

Glaurunge
03-28-2008, 06:41 PM
gee, i wonder if the fact that poor blacks generally don't give a shit and go around smoking weed and spending all their money on rims and having out of wedlock babies might have something to do with their lack of progress. it's really tough to figure out. yes, white people are racist and poor blacks are born into poverty but we don't see the same numbers when compared to other races. if you had to choose, would you rather send your child to a poor white school, poor indian school, poor asian school or a poor black school?
it's a CULTURE problem. if they'd listen to bill cosby, it'd start to get better. i went to majority poor black schools for over a decade as a kid. it's not like we don't know the deal. poor black people suck at parenting and everyone knows it and no one will tell them they suck.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop from 1/27/08:

"normal people who don't read the news or who don't have access to a legitimate news source are usually really stupid and have no idea what they're talking about."

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 06:43 PM
any chance someone will address the actual issues i brought up rather than just calling me racist?
i guess maybe i should've said the poor black parents are doing a fantastic job and bill cosby doesn't exist.

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 06:45 PM
once again, some liberal nerd alluding to racism rather than addressing the issues i brought up. anyone else?

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 06:51 PM
interesting to say about my initial comment or is it just going to be knees jerking? Try to address WHAT I SAID instead of just calling me racist. If you think what i'm saying is racist, then why? or is it that it doesn't fit you world view?

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 06:54 PM
okay, then HOW am i not correct? reasons generally help

AemJeff
03-28-2008, 06:55 PM
Dude, making broad, insulting, specious claims about entire races is not refreshing honesty. If you can't see the problem with that post, then you need to recalibrate your sensibilities. It isn't just "liberals" who are going to be offended.

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 07:04 PM
i'm not looking for refreshing honesty. i'm just looking for honesty. and i'm talking about poor blacks not normal ones. so how would you characterize the poor black community? give it a try. are they doing well?

70% child-out-of-wedlock rates
48% black girls have an STD (double the next highest)
crime rates through the roof, etc.

their obviously disproportionately unhealthy. go back to my poor schools question in my initial post. answer that one....honestly. might it just be at least partially their fault? maybe? ya think?

i can't help it if facts are offensive

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 07:08 PM
if i'm so off base....THEN WTF IS BILL COSBY DOING??!!
am i imagining his existence? why did he WRITE A BOOK ABOUT THE EXACT ISSUE I'M GETTING AT?

AemJeff
03-28-2008, 07:13 PM
i can't help it if facts are offensive

It's your mode of expression that's offensive. Try correlating those statistics by economic status rather than by race and see what happens. That might suggest a causal relationship that actually might be the case.

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 07:23 PM
oh well, then yes, the mode was definitely meant to be insensitive because i'm sick of people being pc about it.

i'm sorry i can't bother with the rest because there's be no point. everyone knows exactly what i'm talking about and it's already all over the news and well established:
2nd paragraph:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/05/19/37rothstein.h23.html

all you have to do is search for "blacks perform worse than whites of same economic class"

look, everyone, this isn't a big frickin' mystery and i find it to be extremely discouraging then even other white people, posting on an anonymous message board of little significance become so cowardly and pc when it comes to race. it's not going to change much, but we're definitely not doing them any favors by ignoring it. shelby steele said the same thing on moyers. look it up, people, it's a good talk;)

StillmanThomas
03-28-2008, 07:26 PM
Wow! The comments are just as incendiary as the diavlog.

Generally, a fascinating debate. Quite heated at times, both combatants got a little testy and rude. But these are cutting edge issues. Just once, I'd like to hear Glenn Loury's view about blacks and imprisonment for an entire hour. Josh Cohen sort of got into this with him a few months ago, but I feel as though it is a vital issue for Professor Loury, one he's thought very deeply about, but he's never really gotten a chance to expound on it here. Hope some day we'll get to hear that.

I thought Loury was spot on in demanding that MacDonald avoid stereotyping. Her point that incarceration has helped make the black community safer is probably true, as far as it goes. Loury's point that the solution has hidden costs is exactly the same point that MacDonald make at the start of the diavlog about paying people for good parenting: the hidden costs are too dangerous to ignore.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 07:28 PM
... because i've known them my whole life and i'm not impressed.

Ah, yes. The patented McMegan strategy: "I knew these three guys once, so I now feel qualified to extrapolate to a population of millions."

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 07:31 PM
if i'm so off base....THEN WTF IS BILL COSBY DOING??!!
am i imagining his existence? why did he WRITE A BOOK ABOUT THE EXACT ISSUE I'M GETTING AT?

Typing in all caps certainly solidifies our perception of you.

Do you also think the way to win an oral debate is to start yelling?

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 07:56 PM
dude, you are seriously the worst debater. all you ever do when you disagree with me is try and throw distractions out there because you don't want to talk about the actual issue and you did this when we were discussing free will, also. do you have anything meaningful to say about the subject of racism, ect. or will we continue with cherry-picking? go through and actually read my posts. i've sited facts and anecdotes. say something of value rather than trying to save your bloggingheads reputation.

graz
03-28-2008, 08:02 PM
fed:

racism... is bad... nkay
what else need be said.

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 08:05 PM
voicing an opinion without backing it is boring.

graz
03-28-2008, 08:12 PM
voicing an opinion without backing it is boring.

Alright then. I would refer you back to Glenn Loury's comments in the diavlog which mix the seemingly contradictory points that responsibility must be embraced by failing communities, as well as applying a salve to the exposed wounds that aren't self healing. Your bravery, such as calling it like you see it, does not engage the questions hanging in the balance. Namely, after we get past agreement on the problem... what to do... what to do?

Bloggin' Noggin
03-28-2008, 08:18 PM
why? because i'm honest and correct?
i guess they'd rather have raised a knee jerk liberal/internet troll.

You mean if we have to have an internet troll of some political persuasion or other?
The reason no one really addresses what you say seriously (though their one-liners do make some serious points) is that you aren't acting like someone whom it's worthwhile to actually argue with. We have a number of intelligent and serious conservative commenters here who offer arguments and evidence and act like they care about discussion rather than just roiling the waters. People generally engage them respectfully, or at least seriously. Have a look at Thus Spoke Elvis's comments, for instance -- or go back and look at garbagecowboy's comments --especially on older diavlogs. That is, if you really want to see how to be taken seriously.

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 08:54 PM
first of all, thanks for being the only person to actually continue the conversation rather than nitpicking. also, that is a good question, probably the most important question regarding this issue.
i guess, however, we (as a society) don't yet agree on what the problem is, judging from the reactions on this forum.
my answer is that it's both racism and exceptionally bad behavior but the former has zero chance of changing if the latter doesn't improve first.
so that's why poor blacks need to get their kids to stop doing so exceptionally bad. cosby outlines this in his book. getting people to change, though, is damn near impossible.
so, essentially, i have no idea! and neither does anyone else, because getting people from ghettos to "shape up" is not going to happen. cultures usually need a few generations to work out the kinks.
sad reality: wait it out.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 09:04 PM
dude, you are seriously the worst debater. all you ever do when you disagree with me is try and throw distractions out there because you don't want to talk about the actual issue and you did this when we were discussing free will, also. do you have anything meaningful to say about the subject of racism, ect. or will we continue with cherry-picking? go through and actually read my posts. i've sited facts and anecdotes. say something of value rather than trying to save your bloggingheads reputation.

I see we have a new puppy in the Dogs of Waaaaaaah.

* (http://www.iamtrex.com/?p=523)

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 09:08 PM
that's too boring, i don't work like that. i only care about the points of discussion. i'm generally not rude to other posters unless they're rude first, as was the case there.

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 09:10 PM
ooh, one more good one and Bob might finally ask you out;)

graz
03-28-2008, 09:13 PM
first of all, thanks for being the only person to actually continue the conversation rather than nitpicking. also, that is a good question, probably the most important question regarding this issue.
i guess, however, we (as a society) don't yet agree on what the problem is, judging from the reactions on this forum.
my answer is that it's both racism and exceptionally bad behavior but the former has zero chance of changing if the latter doesn't improve first.
so that's why poor blacks need to get their kids to not stop doing so exceptionally bad. cosby outlines this in his book. getting people to change, though, is damn near impossible.
so, essentially, i have no idea! and neither does anyone else, because getting people from ghettos to "shape up" is not going to happen. cultures usually need a few generations to work out the kinks.
sad reality: wait it out.
Well in the space of two posts and some encouragement from Bloggin' we have bridged a gap. Maybe your resignation to fate is prescient, but I am willing to offer that Ideas on a forum are limited in their ability to effect change... but it is a start. Especially if it is a reflection of real action in the greater world at large. And while I imagine you would disagree, The result of Obama's candidacy and potential election may have real positive effect in our near future.

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 09:24 PM
no, i totally agree...at least that it has a good chance to (on Obama's candidacy.) it definitely won't hurt anything. i was a little more of a Clinton fan and so i was disappointed she didn't win and i mentioned this exact idea to a con i know and he immediately shot it down with "did rednecks start shaping up because Bush was elected?"
touche, i said, and then later remembered that blacks are much more likely to have a big reaction to Obama because they never catch breaks. he could be better on foreign relations, too. but who knows? countries usually just do what's best for them. anyway, good talk.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 10:28 PM
i'm generally not rude to other posters unless they're rude first, as was the case there.

Your initial post in this thread was rude to everybody at once. If you truly wanted to start some sort of discussion related to the diavlog, you picked the most offensive and moronic-sounding way possible to do it. This people in this forum will entertain discussion on almost anything, but there are some boundaries, and you tromped across one with with all the elegance of a pig farmer who refuses to take off his boots.

Being intentionally provocative can be a good thing. Ditto staking out an unpopular position on an issue. Ditto being vigorous in defense of your thesis. But it behooves you, in any community, to be aware of the different sensitivities associated with different topics, and the consequent amount of care you must take when raising specific topics for discussion.

To open a thread on an issue related to race, especially given current events, requires a special awareness of how others will read your words. You don't get to just spout racial stereotypes and then whine about everybody else being "too PC." You have no special privilege. The consensus of the group is not something you get to dismiss out of hand. The overwhelming majority of the participants in this forum find your derogatory statements offensive and your sweeping generalizations ignorant. When you start off in the manner that you did, you have no right to any respect, and certainly, no one is going to waste time debating you.

You don't like this attitude? Tough. Go find some other place to vent your spleen.

zookarama
03-28-2008, 10:29 PM
I concur with Bokonon's pointing out Glenn's inconsistency when he/she raises the issue of blowback. Anyone else struck by Glenn's new intrusive style? I remember when Joshua was scolded for not letting Glenn finish a sentence, and now I see Glenn trying to over power Heather by not letting her finish a thought. Very thought provoking session never the less. More Heather, please.

AemJeff
03-28-2008, 10:50 PM
I concur with Bokonon's pointing out Glenn's inconsistency when he/she raises the issue of blowback. Anyone else struck by Glenn's new intrusive style? I remember when Joshua was scolded for not letting Glenn finish a sentence, and now I see Glenn trying to over power Heather by not letting her finish a thought. Very thought provoking session never the less. More Heather, please.

It's funny how different people can see thing in diametrically opposed ways. It seemed to me that Heather wasn't giving Glenn any room to voice objections to her opinions. Rather than powering over her, I thought he was doing what he could to make this a dialog.

Simon Willard
03-28-2008, 10:55 PM
I was not put off by any heated-ness in this discussion. These topics require a lot of words, and the participants sensed they were running out of time faster than they were running out of things to say.

I'm sympathetic to Heather's positions, but I thought Heather hurt her case toward the end with excessive emoting about the good people, to the exclusion of the more nuanced points Glenn was trying to introduce.

Thus Spoke Elvis
03-28-2008, 11:19 PM
I've enjoyed reading a number of Heather's articles over the years, and the addition of a smart, conservative social scientist to bloggingheads is a welcome one. The diavlog with Glenn was intense but generally good, and constitutes an impressive debut for Heather.

That being said, I think Heather can do a few things to make her next appearance even better. The first is to be mindful not to dominate the discussion. People new to bloggingheads seem to either say too little or too much, and Heather clearly fell within the latter category. In her effort to fully explain the nuance of some of her positions, she made it difficult at times for Glenn to get a word in edgewise. The viewer could see the frustration building up within Glenn over the course of the diavlog, and I think it contributed to Glenn losing his temper late in the discussion.

Secondly, I think Heather (like most diavloggers) does best when she sticks to the facts and logicial argumentation rather than making emotional appeals based on personal anecdotes. I thought she clearly "won" the first half of the debate, when she cited various studies supporting her view and pinpointed some leaps in logic that were being made by Glenn. During the second half of the diavlog, it seemed that anecdotes about her personal interactions with police and others formed the primary basis for her arguments, and these seemed less persuasive.

Despite these criticisms, I think Heather did a great job, and I hope we hear more from her.

nojp
03-28-2008, 11:44 PM
Every inner city kid who goes into a life of crime knows that know body cares for them. They are thrown into a wolf pack as preteens and expected not to express criminality as adults. The very survival methods of the teenager becomes a liability as an adult. Heathers high tone not withstanding , by the time an individual comes to this awareness they have often done a couple bids uppy. They come out with know skills contacts friends resources of any kind.

How many middle class folks rise above there status in life. not many most people
stay right where they were raised. A teachers son becomes a teacher not an ambassador or a neuro surgeon. So don't expect anybody else to rise higher in the swamp then your own nose floats.

fedorovingtonboop
03-28-2008, 11:46 PM
please just ignore me the next time i post. i really can't believe you managed to draw me into another argument about nothing.

StillmanThomas
03-29-2008, 12:18 AM
You missed the point of my post. It wasn't Glenn who was inconsistent, it was Heather. At the end of the diavlog, Glenn was arguing that over-incarceration of black males has highly negative unforeseen consequences for the community. That's the same point that Heather made at the beginning of the talk, in reference to paying parents for good parenting behavior. Glenn agreed with her argument at the beginning. At the end Heather didn't care about negative consequences, arguing that the only important thing is that incarceration makes black communities safer.

bjkeefe
03-29-2008, 09:15 AM
please just ignore me the next time i post. i really can't believe you managed to draw me into another argument about nothing.

Sometimes I think that might be the best policy (cf (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2008_01_27_archive.html#3984599913399738086).).

On the other hand, sometimes I think it's best to shout down the hate speech like what you put forth in your original comment, each and every time. The forces of ignorance tend to grow in a vacuum.

Bloggin' Noggin
03-29-2008, 10:30 AM
that's too boring, i don't work like that. i only care about the points of discussion. i'm generally not rude to other posters unless they're rude first, as was the case there.

That claim doesn't match my experience of your posts, but please note I didn't say anything about rudeness. I said that you seemed only to want to stir things up -- i.e., to provoke a big brouhaha generating much heat and very little light-- i.e., a troll. (Interestingly, your own post seems to concede that you are a troll -- just not one of the knee-jerk liberal variety.)

uncle ebeneezer
03-29-2008, 01:59 PM
Man, I gotta say that Glenn has far more patience and ability to quickly cool off than I have. His wrap-up at the end was far kinder than I would have managed to be under the circumstances.

My biggest problem was Heather was that in addition to the "talking down" condescending tone that she takes (which is just something that really rubs me the wrong way), she doesn't seem to be too open to discussion about how to fix the prison problem. She believes that there are bad people and good people and her priority is always to put the good people first in terms of policy decision making. But as Glenn tried to point out this good/bad dichomtomy is overly simplistic for the complex nature of the real world. In an earlier diavlogue with John McWhorter he asked (to paraphrase) "What has a policy of 'be better' gotten for us?" Although nobody debates that commiting a crime is a moral decision, there are also countless factors that go into what causes that person to ultimately choose a life of crime, and it is worth considering and would seem like one of the most important considerations if we want to truly reduce crime rates in any meaningful ways. I wish they had gotten a little more in detail on his point that we (the US) are the only country in the world that seems to have a bloated prison population as a % of the popultaion. What are we doing wrong? Heather seems to prefer to defend "goodness" or virtue rather than consider the fact that maybe our penal approach is not the optimal one for reducing crime. Also, I'm somewhat sickened by her apparent inability to see the criminals, whether they are prostitutes, drug-dealers, gang bangers through a "human" perspective. Lumping criminals together mentally as "animals" seems to me to be one of the most obvious mistakes that we often make in the way we approach crime.

I hope they get to drug legalization and campus rape next time. But I also hope that Heather will at least bring the appearance of a mind more open to discussion rather than "holding her ground" and defending a pre-determined stance. The best diavlogs are the ones where both sides engage in discussion and you see a little give and take and consideration of what the other side is saying. Glenn has always been exemplary in this aspect. Heather, not so much. Hopefully better next time.

Jsqfunk
03-29-2008, 03:20 PM
wow, great discussion
let's see them go again

thanks

rcocean
03-29-2008, 03:59 PM
Sorry my man Glenn has a problem with women. With Josh and other male BHTV diavlog's he's laid back and passive. But with a woman its "crossfire" time.

The other disappointment is Glenn needs to be specific about the "prison problem". What precisely is meant? Is he upset that Black Rapists, Murderers, thieves, and robbers are being punished, or not ? Does he think they shouldn't be put in prison, or not? And if not, how should they be punished?

Vague babbling about the "stigma of race" and "its so complicated" and "we have prison problem" are worthless. Get specific! A couple of young inner-city AA's mug a little old lady - so what do we do with them Glenn? Tell us in the next Diavlog.

graz
03-29-2008, 04:37 PM
Sorry my man Glenn has a problem with women. With Josh and other male BHTV diavlog's he's laid back and passive. But with a woman its "crossfire" time.

The other disappointment is Glenn needs to be specific about the "prison problem". What precisely is meant? Is he upset that Black Rapists, Murderers, thieves, and robbers are being punished, or not ? Does he think they shouldn't be put in prison, or not? And if not, how should they be punished?

Vague babbling about the "stigma of race" and "its so complicated" and "we have prison problem" are worthless. Get specific! A couple of young inner-city AA's mug a little old lady - so what do we do with them Glenn? Tell us in the next Diavlog.

rcocean:

If you care to, Glenn has touched on the prison problem in prior diavlogs. He has also written on the subject.
I call foul on assuming that Glenn has a "problem with women" in general based on the heat generated by this particular debate.

fedorovingtonboop
03-29-2008, 04:53 PM
i think both of you are absolutely nuts. neither one of you actually addresses the actual ISSUES i mention and instead start these long, drawn out arguments that have nothing to do with my initial posts. then you just keep posting until i get tired and ultimately both of you just imply that i'm ignorant without ever actually addressing anything i've said directly. nice strategy!
i've been going to this site since it was just bob and mickey boring us to death every third day so neither of you own or moderate this site and sadly, stalking Bob doesn't count for much either. don't respond to any of my future posts because both of you are crazy. thank you....
seriously....both of you have really, really weird abstract arguing techniques.

bjkeefe
03-29-2008, 06:09 PM
i've been going to this site since it was just bob and mickey boring us to death every third day ...

Your excuse for being a racist is that you've been around for a while? Sounds stale.

... don't respond to any of my future posts ...

I can think of one way to be absolutely sure that this imperative will be obeyed. Let's see if you can.

brucds
03-29-2008, 06:18 PM
"poor black people suck at parenting and...no one will tell them they suck"

except legions of intellectuals, policy analysts, black ministers, Bill Cosby, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, etc. etc. I doubt if there's ever been a sub-group of people whose bad behaviors and inadequate outcomes have been subjected to more public scrutiny.

rcocean
03-29-2008, 06:33 PM
rcocean:

If you care to, Glenn has touched on the prison problem in prior diavlogs. He has also written on the subject.
I call foul on assuming that Glenn has a "problem with women" in general based on the heat generated by this particular debate.

Graz: The problem is that Glenn keeps "touching on" the subject and dancing around it. I hope he gets specific in his next Diavlog. And BHTV should pair him with either a liberal women or a conservative man to see which "Glenn" shows up - "Crossfire Glenn" or "Thoughtful Glenn".

fedorovingtonboop
03-29-2008, 06:47 PM
oh my god! oh my god....you just did it again. wow, you are amazing. HOW am i racist? it's the how that counts. you can't just say "you're racist." poor black people don't have chronic drug abuse and don't buy stupid rims for their car for no reason? they don't have exceptionally bad std and child-out-of-wedlock rates? they don't have ridiculous crime rates and underachieving students?
a normal person would address one or more of the above issues.

that was awesome.
you don't ever "lose" an argument because you don't actually engage it directly and then just never stop posting.
anyway, how can you watch nearly every video let alone post first on most of them? a lot of them have almost no "meat" at all - very boring.

bjkeefe
03-29-2008, 06:53 PM
a normal person would address one or more of the above issues.

I question your ability to discern one, and I'm certain I'd disagree with your criteria. You are, after all, a racist.

Anyuser
03-29-2008, 06:53 PM
The problem is that Glenn keeps "touching on" the subject and dancing around it.
See here: http://bostonreview.net/BR32.4/article_loury.php. Also, he's got a book coming out in September: http://www.amazon.com/Incarceration-American-Values-Glenn-Loury/dp/0262123118/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206831169&sr=1-10.

fedorovingtonboop
03-29-2008, 07:03 PM
that's actually an excellent point and i commend you actually presenting a substantive argument (a side issue you need not concern yourself with.)
anyway, that's a great point and i'd never thought of it in that way. poor blacks are definitely publicly scrutinized a lot. i guess what i was thinking while i was typing my rant was a semi-stolen idea from the fantastic writer/speaker Shelby Steele's appearance on Bill Moyers. he stated the "black people live in a bubble" and by this, he meant that whites tend to just avoid blacks rather than engage them for fear of being called racist, racism, etc. so i guess i was thinking more along the lines of on a personal level - actually pointing bad/questionable parenting techniques. for obvious reasons this doesn't happen: "Uh, do you think the bar is a good place to celebrate your daughter's b'day?" (a recent case i was faced with) - too awkward. also, telling people what to do usually makes them do the opposite, anyway.
so basically, you're right but i guess i was thinking it needs to be done in a meaner way publicly or simply personally, amongst blacks. sorta like puff daddy's absurd "Vote or Die" deal. it's over the top but maybe it would work if Jay Z said it.

fedorovingtonboop
03-29-2008, 07:19 PM
omg! again! that makes like 5 or 6 just for this discussion alone. you're unstoppable!

i think i'm gonna call you a ..... gardener. why? i don't know because i don't need "reasons" or "facts" i'm just gonna say it over and over. why are you so offended by the brutal truth? are you black? if so, i realize poor blacks have shitty environments but so do poor chinese, indians....everybody. i'm merely pointing out the elephant in the room in a not-so-nice way. big deal. pc sucks

if i'm a racist, then i guess there's not much room for improvement on the part of blacks, huh? nope! they're doin' fine.

if i'm a racist, then you're definitely a coward.
(now's the part where you do a one-liner like: "Promise?" with a random quote before it.)

hmpfh, some moderator.

Sgt Schultz
03-29-2008, 07:20 PM
"Who's your daddy?"

Da gubmin'. Never has been, never will be a good answer.
Not in the USA. Not anywhere. At any time. Ever.

Too many people who gather at this website are unable to acknowledge this.
You expect them to believe that soft science social-engineering grant money is nearly entirely fruitless & often counterproductive?
Why some of the finest people they know occupy large portions of their day spending exactly that sort of grant money!
And one day many who gather here hope to do the same.

Clearly increased funding is in order to study the growth of the baby-momma phenomenon.
Because they care.

fedorovingtonboop
03-29-2008, 07:26 PM
oh yeah! here that y'all? you got owned!
thanks, man. finally somebody helps me out

bjkeefe
03-29-2008, 07:49 PM
omg! ... pc sucks

Then get a Mac. But keep your racist bile to yourself.

bjkeefe
03-29-2008, 07:50 PM
oh yeah! here that y'all? you got owned!
thanks, man. finally somebody helps me out

Amazing the tiny things that will please matching minds.

bjkeefe
03-29-2008, 07:52 PM
i don't know because i don't need "reasons" or "facts" i'm just gonna say it over and over.

You said it. Most accurate thing I've ever heard from you. Progress?

fedorovingtonboop
03-29-2008, 08:01 PM
wow, you are absolutely stunningly pathetic. you even did, like, three one liners with a quote this time. but, i've learned two things about trolling (if you want to "win"):
-never "say" anything, so you can't possibly be proven wrong
-never give up, just keep posting until you're the last one left

ok, i've had enough. have fun stalking Bob.

bjkeefe
03-30-2008, 03:50 AM
... i've learned two things about trolling (if you want to "win"):
-never "say" anything, so you can't possibly be proven wrong
-never give up, just keep posting until you're the last one left

Given that your actions match your words, I credit you for sincerity.

ok, i've had enough.

Promises, promises.

Bob M
03-30-2008, 03:55 AM
The econometric evidence (see Steven Levitt and others) does suugest that incarceration has been effective at reducing crime. Whether incarcerating the number of people that we do in this country is worth the financial and social costs is another question. Furthermore, it is likely that the marginal crime reduction benefit of incarcerating some of the lower level drug offenders that we now have in custody is pretty small.

I find Loury's Boston Review essay on topic of incarceration in the United States to be exteremely compelling. Although Macdonald made some reasonable points, I agree with Loury that she set up an overly simplistic dichotomy between law abiding citizens who are the victims of crime and the bad criminals who victimize them. Macdonald did suggest that community probation might be an appropriate alternative to incarceration in some instances and did bring up the work of Mark Kleiman, whose proposed policy of "coerced abstinence" (see this article: http://www.spa.ucla.edu/faculty/kleiman/Coerced_Abstinence.pdf) suggests another alternative. I wish Loury had taken Macdonald up on this discussion. If Loury wants to reduce the level of incarceration, it is fair to ask him what he would do instead.

By the same token, while I probably agree with Macdonald that paying parents to attend a PTA meeting is not an ideal policy, I did not hear her offering many alternative solutions. I was also frustrated that she seemed to focus on what parents do or don't deserve rather than on what their kids deserve. While I know that there is no way to insure kids against having bad parents and that a bad parent can afflict a child of any income level, it would have been nice if Macdonald could have at least acknowledged the problem that Bloomberg is trying to address as Brink Lindsey so eloquently did here: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9740?in=01:04:15.

Perhaps in their next diavlog, Macdonald and Loury might address what they think the appropriate policies are for dealing with the problems of educational inequality and crime.

bjkeefe
03-30-2008, 05:16 AM
Bob:

By the same token, while I probably agree with Macdonald that paying parents to attend a PTA meeting is not an ideal policy, I did not hear her offering many alternative solutions.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for her to, even if she comes back. The Manhattan Institute is not known (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute) for favoring government programs to deal with social problems, especially those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. They favor "market-based" solutions, generally. How much you think this boils down to "fuck you, Jack, I got mine" depends on your political leanings, of course, but if you think about most of what Heather had to say, it was all slogans about people taking responsibility for themselves.

As I said elsewhere on this page, she has a tendency to emphasize "ought" over "is."

hans gruber
03-30-2008, 06:21 AM
"It's your mode of expression that's offensive. Try correlating those statistics by economic status rather than by race and see what happens. That might suggest a causal relationship that actually might be the case."

Do you really believe this? You would be indifferent between walking alone in a poor black community and a poor white community? Honest to God? Steve Sailer wrote about a conversation with a Russian he had about race and crime in America. I think it's instructive.

A Russian immigrant called me up once to ask why almost no other American journalist ever mentioned the racial patterns he had seen with his own eyes everyday since he'd come to America. When I explained that the average writer was just lying, he replied:

Vladimir (audibly relieved): "You mean, he's hypocrite?"

Me: "Yeah, exactly. It would hurt his career to write for the public what he thinks in his private life."

Vladimir: "Thank God!"

Me: "Huh?"

Vladimir: "Hypocrite I understand. I grow up in Soviet Union. Lying to save your job, that's life. No, I was very worried smart people in America weren't hypocrites. You know, this country is supposed to be land of free, home of brave. I was scared that smart Americans weren't hypocrites, but instead were hallucinating. I am very happy to hear they're just hypocrites. Hypocrisy much less scary than mass hallucination."

So, which are you, hypocrite or hallucinator?

hans gruber
03-30-2008, 06:52 AM
As I said elsewhere on this page, she has a tendency to emphasize "ought" over "is."

Yes she can! The audacity of hope, my friend!

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for her to, even if she comes back. The Manhattan Institute is not known for favoring government programs to deal with social problems, especially those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. They favor "market-based" solutions, generally. How much you think this boils down to "fuck you, Jack, I got mine" depends on your political leanings, of course, but if you think about most of what Heather had to say, it was all slogans about people taking responsibility for themselves.

I don't know why libs get so riled up about the conservative preoccupation with self responsibility. The ability of society to hold individuals "responsible" for their actions is rooted in the pragmatic need to discourage socially destructive behavior. It is not necessarily based on a conclusion people "freely choose" to be murderers or drug dealers. Richard Posner explained this best:

When we engage in deliberation, we are examining the pros and cons of alternative courses of action. When we complete our deliberation, either the pros or the cons will be weightier, and we go with the weightier side of the balance.

This is not to deny that people are morally and legally responsible for their deliberate actions. But I take the function of the concept of "responsibility" to be to add a thumb to the balance described in the previous paragraph. The question for the law is not whether a defendant's crime was the product of an exercise of free will, but whether attaching a penalty to the kind of conduct in which he engaged is likely to reduce the incidence of that conduct by making it more costly. If so, we say that his decision to engage in the conduct was culpable, was "his fault." We say he "could have chosen" not to engage in the conduct. But probably, if we knew everything about his psychology, we would realize that his choice was foreordained. What we mean when we say that he "had a choice" is that the penalty would have deterred most people from engaging in such behavior.

Self-responsibility is also socially useful in that it can free somebody to improve their lot in life, even though a lot of things outside their control actually influence their opportunities. A conservative sees the culture of victimhood as a handicap in that it causes a person to underestimate the measure of control they do have. The notion of perfect personal responsibility, while false, is preferrable to the notions of grievance and victimhood, though equally false in their extremes, because the material results of each false perspective are quite different (a person who thinks they have 90% control of their destiny, while probably overestimating the importance of their input, is bound to be happier and more successful than a person who thinks they have only 10% control, even if the pessimist is closer to the truth).

I will also take issue on your assumption of bad faith on the part of MacDonald.

bjkeefe
03-30-2008, 08:12 AM
Hans:

I agree that personal responsibility counts for a lot. At the same time, I think it's foolish to expect all people to be able to lift themselves up by their bootstraps with absolutely no help from others. I never forget the line from Arthur C. Clarke: One can measure the degree of advancement of a society by how well it takes care of its least fortunate. It seems to me that most people who most fervently advocate bootstrapping in contrast to social programs come from situations where they got a lot of advantages by accident of birth, and often, fail to recognize how much these helped.

Note: not all. Most. (Hoping to avoid testimonials from self-made individuals here. I'm talking populations.)

I think liberals are broadly spread across a spectrum whose extremes are total neglect and total nanny-statism. Generally, our ideal programs would give people a temporary respite and help in getting (back) on their feet. I'll be the first to admit many programs have not succeeded in this regard, but that's no argument against continuing to try.

Leaving aside the moral considerations, there are also a lot of pragmatic considerations. For example, even if one were a determined opponent of social programs on principle, it might make sense to relax that view if it could be shown that a program to help prisoners readjust to society cut down on recidivism. Ditto programs that help kids get more out of school and learn about other paths in life besides hanging out with gangs, programs that teach young mothers better pre- and neonatal care, etc. You don't have to think that it's morally right to view these programs as worthwhile; you can simply say they make society better for everybody and cut down on long-term costs.

I will also take issue on your assumption of bad faith on the part of MacDonald.

I'm don't see how I did. I was merely expressing my estimation of what she's all about, namely, a fairly rigid stance against government programs, and in favor of insisting that "those people" just get their acts together by themselves. It's not bad faith to say that she has a different view of how best to deal with problems.

hans gruber
03-30-2008, 09:36 AM
Brendan, good post. Conservatives and even many neo-libs like Kaus, with recent history in mind, are mindful of unintended consequences of well-intentioned social programs. It's one thing to be ineffective, quite another to actually make a problem worse, as this country's welfare policies did for far too long.

With respect to paying kids to learn and all that, I'd suspect that the children, never gaining appreciation for knowledge or its importance in their lives, would actually be hurt in the long term--that is, they'd be more likely to cease learning when the paycheck stopped. MacDonald also had a moral qualm with the proposal, as it paid children to do something they ought to recognize as intrinsically valuable.

I'm don't see how I did. I was merely expressing my estimation of what she's all about, namely, a fairly rigid stance against government programs, and in favor of insisting that "those people" just get their acts together by themselves. It's not bad faith to say that she has a different view of how best to deal with problems.

I was referring to this comment:

How much you think this boils down to "fuck you, Jack, I got mine" depends on your political leanings, of course, but if you think about most of what Heather had to say, it was all slogans about people taking responsibility for themselves.

Of course you didn't say you necessarily think that, but the accusation was thrown out there as a reasonable interpretation (depending on your political leanings). By saying her position can be boiled down to "fuck you, Jack, I got mine," you are accusing her of arguing in bad faith--that she's lying when she's positing that X policy is a bad policy because it hurts society or even those it is designed to help. In reality, MacDonald had solid reasoning and plenty of facts to back up her opinions. Unless given a reason to believe otherwise, we should take her as sincere in her arguments.

AemJeff
03-30-2008, 10:10 AM
You're quoting me, although the link between your post and mine is pretty indirect. I think you managed to bundle a number of assumption into your question, many of which I'd challenge.

I'm physically a big guy, As a general rule I don't get messed with particularly often. (I'm also a total wimp, but nobody on the street needs to have that particular datum.) Having said that, everybody eventually encounters situations in which they feel a need to look over their shoulder. There are fewer blighted, dominantly white area in my part of the country (Philadelphia) than there are black or Hispanic. I've walked through plenty of neighborhoods I probably shouldn't have. I can think of as many times that those walks seemed like mistakes in white neighborhoods as in black ones, usually coming in the form of vaguely threatening small groups engaging in aggressive banter, establishing dominance. I've never been robbed on the street. I did have a kid try to put a knife through my kidney, once - he was white. There's certainly some self-selection happening here - I'm more likely to walk through a neighborhood that's ethnically close to my own background; but that's not an absolute. Having a foot of red hair on my head is, no pun intended, a red flag for a certain kind of self-important working-class white kid. But all that said, your seeming implication that the danger involved in walking through poor white neighborhoods is mostly mythological seems overstated.

bjkeefe
03-30-2008, 11:05 AM
Hans:

With respect to paying kids to learn and all that, I'd suspect that the children, never gaining appreciation for knowledge or its importance in their lives, would actually be hurt in the long term--that is, they'd be more likely to cease learning when the paycheck stopped. MacDonald also had a moral qualm with the proposal, as it paid children to do something they ought to recognize as intrinsically valuable.

I have a lot of trouble with this idea, too. Interestingly enough, I first heard of this concept years ago, from my mostly middle-class friends with kids. They would make deals with their kids; e.g., "Get straight As this semester, and Daddy buys you a PlayStation." When I raised the old eyebrow, the answer I got back was what Glenn said: "Hey, whatever works."

I'm with you in worrying that kids so raised might not ever appreciate the goodness of learning, in and of itself.

On the other hand, if the option is a poor kid does better in school and gets some cash out of it, compared to no cash and worse performance, I guess I'd be willing at least to give it a shot. I mean, it's not like we're seeing such great results just by insisting that kids ought to do better and their parents ought to take more of an interest in their education. Maybe some or most would cease learning once the rewards stopped, but at least they'd have gotten a leg up and a better opportunity to realize education is good.

Of course you didn't say you necessarily think that, but the accusation was thrown out there as a reasonable interpretation (depending on your political leanings). By saying her position can be boiled down to "fuck you, Jack, I got mine," you are accusing her of arguing in bad faith--that she's lying when she's positing that X policy is a bad policy because it hurts society or even those it is designed to help. In reality, MacDonald had solid reasoning and plenty of facts to back up her opinions. Unless given a reason to believe otherwise, we should take her as sincere in her arguments.

Okay, I can see how you'd say that was me accusing her of arguing in bad faith.

The thing is, I don't think she's lying, so I don't think she's arguing in bad faith. I take her at face value in the sense that she believes in what she was arguing for and against. I do think she pretty much has the FYJ/IGM attitude, however. Maybe that's a bit much, because it sort of implies a conscious meanness, and I don't necessarily think she's that far gone. But, in between the diavlog and a couple of random articles (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mac_donald.htm) of hers that I looked at, I do think that her prescriptions basically equate to possessing that attitude -- she's against spending tax dollars on programs designed to help the less fortunate. She sounded like she's not even interested in test programs. She may have plenty of reasons to feel this way, she may be able to make a solid case, she may truly think the better way to solve the problems are by putting the market to work (e.g., school vouchers), but that doesn't change the essence of her position: she's being paid to represent people with money who would like not to share it, or at least, would like not to give it to the government to be spent in certain ways.

This is an oversimplification, to be sure. But I'm really only trying to dispute the notion that I am accusing her of acting in bad faith. I believe she believes what she's saying.

osmium
03-30-2008, 12:00 PM
i envy the life you've led in which you never once saw poor white trash. if only they wouldn't spend all their money on bud lite, satellite dishes, and cameros, blah blah blah, etc etc.

Bob M
03-30-2008, 12:17 PM
I am a liberal who believes in personal responsibility and acknowledges the conservative critique that liberals have been and often still are insufficiently attentive to unintended consequences and "government failure." Having said that, I am neither cynical enough about the potential effectiveness of collective action or optimistic enough about the magic of the free market to believe that the proper response to a serious social problem like urban inequality - particularly educational inequality which affects children - is to do nothing. That is why I respect a libertarian like Brink Lindsey who believes in the primacy of individual responsibility but acknowledges the unsettling notion that for some in our society "by the time they reach the age of being legally responsible for their actions the dye has already been cast about the scope of their life possibilities." So, Brendan, while I won't hold my breath waiting for Macdonald to offer an alternative solution, I do think she should be intellectually honest enough to say whether or not government should do something or nothing. If she thinks we should do something, tell us what it is (say school vouchers). If she thinks we should do nothing, tell us how she grapples with Lindsey's admission that it's pretty hard to invoke personal responsibility when it comes to children.

hans gruber
03-30-2008, 12:20 PM
"There are fewer blighted, dominantly white area in my part of the country (Philadelphia) than there are black or Hispanic."

You are confusing "blighted" with equal socio-economic status. I only asked: Are you really indifferent between walking through a poor black area and a poor white area? The obvious answer is you are not. You can stop the charade. Socio-economic status does not explain the racial gap in crime.

"But all that said, your seeming implication that the danger involved in walking through poor white neighborhoods is mostly mythological seems overstated."

Didn't say that. I said I don't believe you that you are indifferent between the two. Both are unsafe. Are the equally unsafe? That is the question. Are you really indifferent between the two possibilities?

AemJeff
03-30-2008, 12:26 PM
Both are unsafe. Are the equally unsafe?

I'm sorry Hans, but you're splitting hairs, in my opinion. They're both unsafe - the correlation of the ethnicity of a neighborhood to its "dangerousness" is overwhelmed by the correlation to socioeconomic status. Which is not to say there's no correlation to ethnicity.

hans gruber
03-30-2008, 12:28 PM
"Which is not to say there's no correlation to ethnicity."

Which is to say, your moral preening in response to the impolitic commenter upthread was just a wee bit disingenuous?

bjkeefe
03-30-2008, 12:31 PM
... your moral preening ...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Easy on the language.

;^)

AemJeff
03-30-2008, 12:38 PM
"Which is not to say there's no correlation to ethnicity."

Which is to say, your moral preening in response to the impolitic commenter upthread was just a wee bit disingenuous?

Moral preening? Please. Disingenuous? How, exactly? In my previous post my specific point was that socioeconomic status was a far greater determinant than ethnicity. Do you expect the parallel statistics (by ethnicity) to be identical? If they're not precisely the same it's OK to make broad claims about the determinative status of race? Do you imagine that ethnicity and socioeconomic status are the only variables that count here?

Don't argue nonsense.

hans gruber
03-30-2008, 12:42 PM
"she's being paid to represent people with money who would like not to share it, or at least, would like not to give it to the government to be spent in certain ways."

You have a long post and I'll try to respond later. But I just wanted to highlight this disagreement. Manhattan Institute says it was founded to promote economic choice and personal responsibility. Now maybe that's because they are greedy bastards who want to keep every dollar they have. Or maybe it's because they believe in these principles because they think they are necesary for a free and stable society to prosper. I don't think it's wise to impute them with imagined nefarious motives (e.g. greedy bastards), unless you know something I do not. Have a nice day.

hans gruber
03-30-2008, 12:43 PM
"In my previous post my specific point was that socioeconomic status was a far greater determinant than ethnicity."

I'm very interested in reading your evidence when I get back later today. Have a good day, Jeff.

AemJeff
03-30-2008, 12:54 PM
"In my previous post my specific point was that socioeconomic status was a far greater determinant than ethnicity."

I'm very interested in reading your evidence when I get back later today. Have a good day, Jeff.

Really? You're suggesting that there's any question that a middle class or upper class black neighborhood has a greater incidence of crime than a poor neighborhood of any ethnicity?

bjkeefe
03-30-2008, 02:02 PM
Hans:

But I just wanted to highlight this disagreement. Manhattan Institute says it was founded to promote economic choice and personal responsibility. Now maybe that's because they are greedy bastards who want to keep every dollar they have. Or maybe it's because they believe in these principles because they think they are necesary for a free and stable society to prosper. I don't think it's wise to impute them with imagined nefarious motives (e.g. greedy bastards), unless you know something I do not.

It's not so much a value judgment ("greedy," "nefarious") as it is just an observation of how the Manhattan Institute types tend to argue and advocate. From a long time of being aware of them as their people crop up in debates, interviews, and on op-ed pages, as well as a glance at their funding sources and board members, I'm sure that the MI is driven in part by people who just want to hold onto their money, and in part by people who truly believe society is better off in the long run if personal responsibility is emphasized in favor of government assistance, and in part by people who have both motivations.

uncle ebeneezer
03-30-2008, 05:35 PM
Nice. That actually made me laugh out loud. I don't care what Mickey thinks, you're alright by me.

Lets not even get into their role in America's meth problem. Must be something inherently present in white culture.

bjkeefe
03-30-2008, 06:43 PM
And what about NASCAR? The only lead-impregnated gasoline still being burned. Why do poor white people hate the environment?

And what's with this hockey thing? Do poor white people want our children to be exposed to role models who not only fight all the time, but who are also both toothless and Canadian?

brucds
03-30-2008, 08:42 PM
I have to say that Heather McDonald was as I'd always imagined her.

hans gruber
03-30-2008, 11:55 PM
"Really? You're suggesting that there's any question that a middle class or upper class black neighborhood has a greater incidence of crime than a poor neighborhood of any ethnicity?"

You seem like a really smart guy, which is why I'm having trouble believing you are sincere here. I never suggested this. I'm saying that the effect of socio-economics (even if substantial) does not explain the racial gap in crime (the murder rate among blacks is 7.5 times the rate of whites). The previous commenter who suggested culture is an explanation, while being quite abrasive, was positing a very reasonable (and not all that controversial) explanation of the empirical reality.

AemJeff
03-31-2008, 05:32 AM
It's impossible to disentangle the "cultural" issues from the economic ones in a given community, because the "culture" (subculture?) is tied organically to the economic issues binding that community. What I'm trying to say is that if you look at black communities that lack severe economic disadvantages, the destructive cultural issues are attenuated or absent.

The kind of broad claims made about race that triggered this thread are corrosive and only accurate if you squint and ignore all the cases where they're false. No serious person thinks that there aren't severe problems in poor communities in this country. Nobody with eyes won't see that different communities express their aberrations differently. Analyses that find race as the primarily responsible factor for problems in those communities are based, generally, on bad assumptions and, I think, an evident lack of goodwill. Strolling into a crowd and shouting epithets isn't the best way to get yourself listened to.

(That last is not aimed at HG.)

Thus Spoke Elvis
03-31-2008, 11:59 AM
i envy the life you've led in which you never once saw poor white trash. if only they wouldn't spend all their money on bud lite, satellite dishes, and cameros, blah blah blah, etc etc.

You had me until your ill-advised knock on Camaros.

uncle ebeneezer
03-31-2008, 12:28 PM
Without getting into statistical details, I would say that just looking at the ills of Native American communities, and (for lack of a better word) "white trash" communities, the higher percentage of problems (alcoholism, meth production, gang-banging) etc. in comaparison to the rest of the population would suggest that economic factors are the common thread that carries over ACROSS cultures. The fact that more black's commit felonies than white's doesn't change the fact that far more poor black's commit these crimes than middle/upper class black's. Does culture play a role in how a group of people react to poor economic situations? Sure. But looking at everything through the race lens often strikes me as an attempt to A.) justify racism and worse B.) explain away the effects of poverty. Either one seems to take our eye off the ball of poverty which seems to me to be something we can actually build policy to ameliorate. How we do that of course, is up for discussion.

Thus Spoke Elvis
03-31-2008, 01:21 PM
Does culture play a role in how a group of people react to poor economic situations? Sure. But looking at everything through the race lens often strikes me as an attempt to A.) justify racism and worse B.) explain away the effects of poverty. Either one seems to take our eye off the ball of poverty which seems to me to be something we can actually build policy to ameliorate. How we do that of course, is up for discussion.

It's hard to assess whether poverty is the cause of a corrosive culture or the result of it. It's probably both, but it seems clear that culture is a significant factor affecting the social mobility of blacks. From the data I've seen, it seems well-established that the upward moblility of poor blacks is notably worse than that of poor people from other ethnic groups, some of whom arguably face more significant obstables to success. For example, many Southeast Asian refugees who fled to the United States came here in far worse economic and social shape than poor blacks (language skills, education level, etc.), but as a group their offspring have done pretty well. In large part, I believe, this is because Southeast Asian culture gives high importance to education and family unity, while that can't be said for every other culture.

That said, I'm not sure how you go about "fixing" a culture through government action. It's easy to identify a problem, but identifying the solution is a bit trickier...

harkin
03-31-2008, 05:02 PM
Heather nails just about every point but she's talking to someone with no interest in listening. I like Glenn but he's clueless if he really thinks paying kids to go to school or for parents to make sure their kids are doing their homework is going to make them more self-reliant and help them become productive adults.

His red herrings of equating crack dealers to prostitutes or doing the legalization bait-and-switch to deflect the talk from dealers destroying neighborhoods is both non-productive and evasive. Heather never once says there is no racism so why even feel the need to waste time by going there?

Glenn's inability to 'take sides' against crack dealers says more about the cycle of drug use and violence in the black communities than anything Heather can contribute. It's like a slam-dunk into the wrong basket.

The $64,000 question: Will Glenn ever see anything that is the fault of the black community? A better date for his shirt would be the day when black high school graduation rates match the national average.........too bad that the philosophy he embraces ensures that it will not come about in our lifetimes.

bjkeefe
03-31-2008, 05:10 PM
harkin:

I like Glenn but he's clueless if he really thinks paying kids to go to school or for parents to make sure their kids are doing their homework is going to make them more self-reliant and help them become productive adults.

So you're suggesting that we not even try, because whatever it is we're doing now is working so well?

Thus Spoke Elvis
03-31-2008, 05:37 PM
harkin:



So you're suggesting that we not even try, because whatever it is we're doing now is working so well?

I'm sure Harkin can answer for himself, but sometimes doing nothing is better than a suggested "solution" to a problem. Both Heather and Glenn appear to recognize that some of the social welfare programs of the 1960s likely hurt poor blacks more than they helped them.

I'm not sure why paying poor kids to attend class (not get good grades, mind you, just attend) will work any better at improving education rates than, say, a free ride to a state university to any poor black kid who maintains a B average. But the latter has been tried, but doesn't appear to have been terribly successful.

Question: If a neighborhood is so bad that kids need to be paid to go to school, what are the kids going to buy with the money they "earn"?

bjkeefe
03-31-2008, 06:16 PM
Elvis:

... sometimes doing nothing is better than a suggested "solution" to a problem. Both Heather and Glenn appear to recognize that some of the social welfare programs of the 1960s likely hurt poor blacks more than they helped them.

I'll stipulate to the sometimes unhappy outcomes of earlier programs. But right now, the situation is a disaster. No one knows all the reasons nor does anyone have any immediate, workable solutions. But it seems to me that it's ridiculous to continue doing what we've been doing for the past couple of decades, and that we could stand, at minimum, some experiments at new approaches. I am not suggesting implementing the pay-to-study program nationwide to start. But why not try a few pilot programs? I hardly see how it could hurt.

Question: If a neighborhood is so bad that kids need to be paid to go to school, what are the kids going to buy with the money they "earn"?

A large part of me finds this almost too offensive to answer. The rest of me says, "Whatever they want." What, are you turning into some kind of nanny-stater all the sudden? Don't want to let people make their own choices?

Presumably, eight-year olds are not going to be handed stacks of benjamins. Whatever small amounts of money given to the kids will be spent on whatever kids always feel like buying -- music, clothes, jewelry, food, toys, books, and yes, probably some stuff you probably think they shouldn't be allowed to have. Also presumably, some of the money will be given to parents, and I imagine they might spend it on things like food, rent, utilities, health care, and yes, probably on some other things.

cousincozen
04-01-2008, 11:09 AM
Well, one tactic to use against the naysayers is to refer them to the documentation. It's readily findable. Keep in mind, though, that the whole point for white liberals (but I repeat myself) is to win "points" against other whites.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15735848/detail.html

"The judge said the majority of people who appear before him accused of crimes such as murder, rape and robbery are black and he wanted to do something about it, one on one."

BigM
04-01-2008, 10:54 PM
I disagree - her anecdotes here showed that she has done a lot of shoe leather research, talking to actual people coping with these issues in communities. As opposed to commenting on high from an academic throne.

bjkeefe
04-02-2008, 07:49 AM
BigM:

I agree that there is something to be said for getting perspectives from individuals. On the other hand, developing policy based on anecdotal evidence alone is foolish. Presumably, you would be less than thrilled to take a new medication solely on the strength of a few testimonials, and instead would favor one whose development drew upon more rigorous research methods.

I'd also note that Glenn is pretty far from the stereotype of the ivory tower academic. If you've listened to some of his previous diavlogs, this should be clear.

osmium
04-03-2008, 08:48 PM
i'd love a camero!