Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-25-2010, 12:00 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-25-2010, 01:10 PM
Blackadder Blackadder is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 141
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

The fact that white Christians make up a plurality at Harvard hardly proves that the group isn't underrepresented. White Christians, after all, make up a supermajority in the population at large, and also (I suspect) of applicants to Harvard. As for whether Harvard discriminates against white Christians, well, the official policy of Harvard is to discriminate in favor of certain racial groups and against others (whether this discrimination carries over to religion I don't know).

I find Pat Buchanan to be repellant, but as a factual matter he's perfectly correct. Tim and others want to answer Pat Buchanan, they should do so not by denying the (obvious) facts that Harvard does discriminate, but by making the moral case that the discrimination is justified by the different historical circumstances of whites and blacks, or whatever.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-26-2010, 01:47 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadder View Post
The fact that white Christians make up a plurality at Harvard hardly proves that the group isn't underrepresented.
True. The bigger problem with the argument is that "white Christians" is not a meaningful group. Some subcategories may be over-represented (in fact, obviously are, legacies being the constant example) and others may not be. And I share Tim's reaction that by "white Christian" Ross isn't really talking about numerous people who, in fact, are technically white Christians, but don't share certain politics or cultural attributes. (Basically, lots of people, if asked whether they are white and whether they are Christian will say, sure, yes, but don't run around thinking of themselves as "white Christians." The latter just seems a little odd to me.)

Anyway, a fair response to this is that "minority" or even "black" or the more specific category "African American" obviously are in many senses not a meaningful group either, which is why I think it would be a good idea to move away from race and replace it with class for AA. However, admissions processes in the types of schools we are talking about do consider the whole package, at least in theory.

Also, as others have pointed out, it benefits you, at least somewhat, even as a white person, to come from an atypical background, including regions of the country and socio-economic backgrounds that are less usual in the application pool. (For the record, I believed as a high school student that I would be and ultimately was benefited by these, though no way to tell for sure what would have happened if things were otherwise.) Of course, these benefits, to the extent they exist at a particular college, are often offset by the lack of advantages in terms of understanding how the application process works, how to write the kind of essay and present yourself in the application in the way that is being looked for, quality of prior education, preparation for the SAT, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-26-2010, 02:12 PM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Also, as others have pointed out, it benefits you, at least somewhat, even as a white person, to come from an atypical background, including regions of the country and socio-economic backgrounds that are less usual in the application pool.
So are you saying that Ross Douthat is here factually wrong: "But cultural biases seem to be at work as well. Nieli highlights one of the study’s more remarkable findings: while most extracurricular activities increase your odds of admission to an elite school, holding a leadership role or winning awards in organizations like high school R.O.T.C., 4-H clubs and Future Farmers of America actually works against your chances. Consciously or unconsciously, the gatekeepers of elite education seem to incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or 'Red America.'" ? Or did you have something else in mind when you mentioned "atypical background, including regions of the country and socio-economic backgrounds that are less usual in the application pool"?

Also, the point of Douthat's column is that "white Christians" (I personally prefer "Real Americans", but that's just me) is a meaningful group and one important manifestation of their shared sense of identity is, according to Douthat, paranoia and hatred they have for liberal elite.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-26-2010, 02:22 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
..."white Christians" (I personally prefer "Real Americans", but that's just me)...
Wow! These days, you rarely get to see somebody's bigotry so plainly expressed.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-26-2010, 03:22 PM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Wow! These days, you rarely get to see somebody's bigotry so plainly expressed.
It's just a name of an ethnic group, or quasy-ethnic group, or a proto ethnic group that will probably never developed into a real ethnic group. Those who belong to the group should be able to call themselves whatever they want, so why not Real Americans?

But I can see how it can annoy you, for example Fidel Castro is irked that the USA appropriated the term "America" for itself.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-26-2010, 04:00 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
It's just a name of an ethnic group, or quasy-ethnic group, or a proto ethnic group that will probably never developed into a real ethnic group. Those who belong to the group should be able to call themselves whatever they want, so why not Real Americans?

But I can see how it can annoy you, for example Fidel Castro is irked that the USA appropriated the term "America" for itself.
Not even a nice try, Joe. It was a triumphalist exclusion of everybody except those in one relatively narrow class - by a member of that class (or, are you Canadian? then a wannabe member) - from full unqualified inclusion in what it means to be "American." Note how I avoided the word "supremecist" - I'm being more polite than you were.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 07-26-2010 at 04:35 PM.. Reason: heh - "more politer"!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-26-2010, 02:24 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
So are you saying that Ross Douthat is here factually wrong: "But cultural biases seem to be at work as well. Nieli highlights one of the study’s more remarkable findings: while most extracurricular activities increase your odds of admission to an elite school, holding a leadership role or winning awards in organizations like high school R.O.T.C., 4-H clubs and Future Farmers of America actually works against your chances. Consciously or unconsciously, the gatekeepers of elite education seem to incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or 'Red America.'" ? Or did you have something else in mind when you mentioned "atypical background, including regions of the country and socio-economic backgrounds that are less usual in the application pool"?
I think he's overgeneralizing or drawing the wrong conclusions. This relates in part to my comment about the frequent correlation between atypical background and not having certain advantages in presenting yourself or framing an application in a way that will appeal to an admissions committee, also.

Quote:
the point of Douthat's column is that "white Christians" (I personally prefer "Real Americans", but that's just me) is a meaningful group and one important manifestation of their shared sense of identity is, according to Douthat, paranoia and hatred they have for liberal elite.
That may be Ross' point, but it's false. Like Tim Fernholz (and Ross, for that matter), I'm white and a Christian, and don't see how I'm part of this "meaningful group." (Plus, white Christian and "Real American" obviously don't overlap entirely if we are going with the Palin-approved definition of Real American.)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-26-2010, 02:35 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

To follow up on this Here's a column that talks about it -- both the problem with associating the small negative corrolation with career-oriented activities as one based on "rural" cultural markers and the positive effect that comes from being from an atypical geographic background.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-27-2010, 10:52 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
Also, the point of Douthat's column is that "white Christians" (I personally prefer "Real Americans", but that's just me) is a meaningful group and one important manifestation of their shared sense of identity is, according to Douthat, paranoia and hatred they have for liberal elite.
..... ↑
..... ↑
..... ↑

..... Things
..... that
..... probably
..... aren't
..... related.

..... ↓
..... ↓
..... ↓

__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-25-2010, 02:06 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Tim's Misleading statistics

"White Christians make up a plurality at Elite Schools"

Yes, but... here are stats for Harvard undergrads:

1% American Indian/Alaskan Native
17% Asian/Pacific Islander
09% Black/Non-Hispanic
09% Hispanic
40% White/Non-Hispanic
10% Non-Resident Alien
14% Race/ethnicity unreported

Who the "unreported are" is anybodies guess - lets assume 10% out of 14% are white. Which means 50 percent white with a 25% Jewish, 25% Gentile split. So, IOW, White Christan's who make up 80 percent of the population are 25% of Harvard, and when you adjust for Wealthy Harvard Alumni - the number of middle-class and working class white Christians must be infinitesimal.

I just want the stats since Tim's statement is misleading. As for his arguement with Ross - I'm like Conn, I don't really care.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-25-2010, 02:40 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: Tim's Misleading statistics

Well done.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-25-2010, 06:51 PM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: Tim's Misleading statistics

Half of the white folks at Harvard are Jewish? Is this just something you pulled out of thin air?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-25-2010, 07:16 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Tim's Misleading statistics

Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
Half of the white folks at Harvard are Jewish? Is this just something you pulled out of thin air?
he pulled it out of something, i suspect, but i'm not sure that it was thin air.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-25-2010, 08:27 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Tim's Misleading statistics

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
he pulled it out of something, i suspect, but i'm not sure that it was thin air.
Don't really know what you mean, but here's my source.

Gotta better one? Please provide the stats, I'm all ears.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-25-2010, 08:50 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Tim's Misleading statistics

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
Don't really know what you mean, but here's my source.

Gotta better one? Please provide the stats, I'm all ears.
Thanks. I take back what I said...

(it was meant in jest anyway, btw)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-25-2010, 09:25 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Tim's Misleading statistics

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
Thanks. I take back what I said...

(it was meant in jest anyway, btw)
Hardy har har.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-25-2010, 02:23 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Since elite liberal arts colleges are, in effect, selecting the pool from which tomorrow's governing elites will be chosen -- cf. the old school tie and social network theory -- a good case can be made for affirmative action for all. That is, the student bodies of these elite institutions should represent a cross-section of the geographic and ethnic diversity of America. Unfortunately, that would entail a sharp reduction in the number of Ashkenazi- and Asian-Americans on campus at places like Harvard and Yale, though it would not deny admission to the very strongest applicants from either these two groups. And it should have no effect on their admission to elite technical schools like MIT and Cal Tech, which is where they really shine the brightest.

The idea that IQ trumps all and that a "meritocracy" is necessarily a "smartocracy" is, I think, a fallacy, at least in a multi-ethnic democracy such as ours. It is more important that our leadership class be drawn from and represent the full diversity of the people they govern, particularly if the strongest candidates from each of these demographics are admitted. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia recently pointed out why: otherwise our elites will be out of touch with the needs, aspirations, and realities of ordinary working- and middle-class Americans, which is certainly the case today. It helps explain why we have the pernicious trade and immigration policies we do.

Given that these elite colleges get lots of federal money, Congress probably has the power to legislate this change if they are not willing to do it on their own voluntarily. So let's hear it: Affirmative action for all!

Last edited by BornAgainDemocrat; 07-25-2010 at 02:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-25-2010, 02:25 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

The early part of this diavlog is a bit painful to get through. I think there are persuasive conservative arguments to make against the financial reform bill, but Conn doesn't seem to be articulating any of them particularly well. Not to mention, he spends the first 5 minutes interrupting Tim constantly, then actually stops to complain about Tim talking over him around 10 minutes in. Ugh.
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-26-2010, 08:27 AM
Alexandrite Alexandrite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 125
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
The early part of this diavlog is a bit painful to get through. I think there are persuasive conservative arguments to make against the financial reform bill, but Conn doesn't seem to be articulating any of them particularly well. Not to mention, he spends the first 5 minutes interrupting Tim constantly, then actually stops to complain about Tim talking over him around 10 minutes in. Ugh.
I completely disagree. The discussion here reminded me of something Megan said in a diavlog about 18 months to two years ago about the liberal two step on the stimulus. The whole "The stimulus is necessary to save the economy," "where's your evidence for that? Why aren't you acting in these ways then?" "Forget that, the stimulus is just awesome." "Well maybe it's not awesome, let's take the time to think this through and do it right." "We don't have time for that we need this to save the economy!" Repeat ad nauseum.

In fact it's such a common tactic amongst the liberals when they discuss something, whether it's Consumer Protection Reform, a particular nominee for an important position, or health care, that it makes me wonder if something:

1: Liberals are not confident in explaining their positions, but are still positive they are correct.

2: Liberals are stuck in specific epistemic loop and that causes them to not see faults, instead changing the subject to always appeal to something more positive.

3: Liberals are ignorant of their positions, but their positive the position is correct because of the personalities associated with the choices.

There's nothing unique about any of these, but I think i just notice it the most when liberal policy commentators are defending Democratic policies.

The whole thing is intellectual terrorism. They're too in love with personalities and themes and motives, and less involved with details and results, and those who try to challenge it are questioned why they don't support the same goals. Whether it's climate change, health reform, consumer protection, or the stimulus, it just keeps happening.

I think we should have a new rule. No one is allowed to comment or vote on a bill without reading it and is able to explain what's in it. How does this bill prevent congress from saving the richest and most powerful people in the world when they gamble with their money and lose? What rules are we putting in place such that Wall Street believes that there won't be a next time and that they better just start playing at a higher level if they don't want to lose it all?

Here's another question, Tim seems pretty confident that Consumer Protection Reform was a necessary component towards preventing the financial disasters.
Given that for much of the first 60 or 70+ years after the great depression the Economic Theory for explaining what had happened was flawed (it might still be), and as such policy recommendations based on that theory would also be wrong, AND given that the congress's commission for explaining the current recession has not given its report yet, how can you be so positive that the Financial Reform Bill will prevent the events that led to the collapse?

As in, what specific elements of the bill, and specifically how those will be interpreted and acted on, can you point to and say this would prevent or limited W, and we know for a fact W was a critical factor in the collapse.

Or is this just a case where Lawmaker, or think tank, or interest groups X are saying bill Y is the awesomesauce towards issue Z, and therefore it's his job to cheerlead for it?

Conn Carroll might be annoying. He might not be the brightest thinker, or the most articulate and persuasive speaker for the right, but at least he's not a cheerleader. I don't have a problem with him calling Tim on it, because it's better for everyone if Tim is forced to go back and examine why he's supporting this.

I'm OK with Tim saying, "Look, this has nothing to do with Financial Reform. This is about Power and directing and rediversifying it in ways we think are better for society as a whole. The whole 'this will save the economy' act is just to justify the transitory stage. We know no one really understands what happened, let alone how to transition to a system where it would be prevented! And we know the government can't stop or prevent these things from happening. All we can do is just convert the system into a new one so that it won't fall the exact same way next time and maybe won't hurt as much or at least won't happen for a decent period of time."

Because I'd believe that and I'd think it was honest. We could at least have a discussion on say, who should the competing power brokers be to maximize the stability of the system, or if it's better for it to have a few large institutions or lots of small institutions. It feels like Conn was trying to push Tim on this (even interrupting to immediately counter clearly false or dumb positions), but Tim just wanted to dance the whole time.

Last edited by Alexandrite; 07-26-2010 at 08:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-26-2010, 08:58 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandrite View Post
the liberal two step ... In fact it's such a common tactic amongst the liberals ... Liberals are not confident ... Liberals are stuck in specific epistemic loop ... Liberals are ignorant of their positions ...
Usually I think you write more thoughtful posts, so I'll give the following a shot.

If you just want to do a group hug with the wingnuts, so be it, but you're not going to get anyone who doesn't already share your bigotry to take you seriously, or for that matter, even bother reading whatever else it was you had to say, when you start off your screed as above.

Try to get it through your head that "liberals" do not all do or think anything, any more (and probably even less) than all conservatives or all libertarians do. Or, don't, and enjoy being thought of as another badhatIrenicus.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-25-2010, 03:41 PM
Blackadder Blackadder is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 141
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
Since elite liberal arts colleges are, in effect, selecting the pool from which tomorrow's governing elites will be chosen -- cf. the old school tie and social network theory -- a good case can be made for affirmative action for all.
The assumption here is that people end up in the governing elite because they went to Harvard rather than that they got into Harvard because they were talented as this talent is also why they end up in the governing elite. The evidence in support of this assumption is mixed at best (see here, for example).

It used to be the case that Jews were excluded from elite universities. So bright Jewish kids went to places like City College of New York instead, and low and behold City College started producing a disproportionate percentage of the governing elite.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-25-2010, 09:07 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadder View Post
The assumption here is that people end up in the governing elite because they went to Harvard rather than that they got into Harvard because they were talented as this talent is also why they end up in the governing elite.
Well, yes and no. Talent will out in business and science. There is no doubt about that, and I would expect to see very little change. However, I would not expect to see a Supreme Court without a single person of Protestant background on it. Nor would I expect to see a Paul Samuelson being accepted as the final word when it comes to assessing the likely impact of Nafta and Gatt on American wages and working conditions. It will be interesting to see how our current Supreme Court rules on the Arizona immigration law.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-25-2010, 09:53 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
Well, yes and no. Talent will out in business and science. There is no doubt about that, and I would expect to see very little change.
Maybe, but I think there would be alot more change then most people think. We pretend that chance is much less important then it is for much the same reasons the guy who doesn't mind driving after having a few scotches freaks out on a plane after mild turbulence, we need the illusion of control. We live our whole lives under Fallacy of the single cause while falling prey to the "law" of small numbers over and over again. At least this is always the feeling I get when I think how much data is needed to know, well, anything with any degree of confidence.

Don't get me wrong, if everything were shuffled up I'm fairly sure we wouldn't be getting to many 80 IQ Physicists, but talent only weights the dice a little. Doubly true for the majority of us that fall close to the mean (and so have less absolute differences in abilities). And of course it wouldn't be the same people at the top.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-25-2010, 07:43 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
Since elite liberal arts colleges are, in effect, selecting the pool from which tomorrow's governing elites will be chosen -- cf. the old school tie and social network theory -- a good case can be made for affirmative action for all. That is, the student bodies of these elite institutions should represent a cross-section of the geographic and ethnic diversity of America. Unfortunately, that would entail a sharp reduction in the number of Ashkenazi- and Asian-Americans on campus at places like Harvard and Yale, though it would not deny admission to the very strongest applicants from either these two groups. And it should have no effect on their admission to elite technical schools like MIT and Cal Tech, which is where they really shine the brightest.
There's another way to think about this. Why do we assume that governing elites should be chosen from Ivy League graduates? There's no rational explanation for this -- except the old school tie: elites giving preference to their friends. In a situation with hundreds of thousands of highly promising students clamouring for college admission, most end up at other schools. In particular, think about the big state-supported institutions. These universities have the resources to attract first-rate faculties and lots of federal research dollars. A talented, motivated student can get an education of the highest calibre there. I would not put up the average Ohio State graduate against the average Princeton graduate. But the best students at the big schools are certainly the peers of any Ivy League graduate, and there are many such students! Let's not be too obsessed about the highly-selective schools.

Last edited by Simon Willard; 07-25-2010 at 07:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-25-2010, 09:28 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
There's another way to think about this. Why do we assume that governing elites should be chosen from Ivy League graduates? There's no rational explanation for this -- except the old school tie: elites giving preference to their friends. In a situation with hundreds of thousands of highly promising students clamouring for college admission, most end up at other schools. In particular, think about the big state-supported institutions. These universities have the resources to attract first-rate faculties and lots of federal research dollars. A talented, motivated student can get an education of the highest calibre there. I would not put up the average Ohio State graduate against the average Princeton graduate. But the best students at the big schools are certainly the peers of any Ivy League graduate, and there are many such students! Let's not be too obsessed about the highly-selective schools.
When it comes to our elected officials -- Presidents, Governors, Senators, Mayors, and so on -- what you say is true. But then this is precisely because our political leaders are drawn from the nation as a whole, certainly in its geographical diversity. A big part of our problem is geographical: all those important, influential people in our culture growing up and living in just a few parts of the country.

But, of course, as Senator Webb pointed out, this is about more than geography. When it comes to choosing our national elites, ethnicity matters in a multi-ethnic society. Or, rather, it matters in a multi-ethnic middle-class democracy. It may not matter in a racially stratified, elite-class society, which is where we seem to be headed.

Last edited by BornAgainDemocrat; 07-27-2010 at 12:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-25-2010, 10:50 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post

The idea that IQ trumps all and that a "meritocracy" is necessarily a "smartocracy" is, I think, a fallacy, at least in a multi-ethnic democracy such as ours. It is more important that our leadership class be drawn from and represent the full diversity of the people they govern, particularly if the strongest candidates from each of these demographics are admitted. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia recently pointed out why: otherwise our elites will be out of touch with the needs, aspirations, and realities of ordinary working- and middle-class Americans, which is certainly the case today. It helps explain why we have the pernicious trade and immigration policies we do.
So you think that the smartest people from each demographic will be in touch with the needs aspirations and realities of ordinary working and middle class Americans. What in the world makes you think that?

And why does the lack of this 'in touchness' explain why we have the trade and immigration policies we have? You certainly attribute a lot to the people who attend Harvard. I may be naive, but this really gives me the creeps. And to think that the solution is for us to depend on the largess of a broader spectrum of geeks is really troubling.

BTW, did you know that people who come from families who make less than $65,000 annually get a scholarship at Harvard? At least that's what my friend the high school guidance counselor said. Talk about diversity!

Last edited by badhatharry; 07-25-2010 at 11:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-26-2010, 03:46 AM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
BTW, did you know that people who come from families who make less than $65,000 annually get a scholarship at Harvard?
Yes, I knew that. But I thought we were talking about who got in. and not only to Harvard but elite schools in general.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-26-2010, 11:31 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
So you think that the smartest people from each demographic will be in touch with the needs aspirations and realities of ordinary working and middle class Americans. What in the world makes you think that?
Good question. I'm not sure I know the answer right off the top of my head. I will have to get back to you on that. I know that is weak, but Michael Wood, the guy who coined the term "meritocracy" wrote a classic on the subject, The Rise of the Meritocracy, exploring its contradictions. Charles Murray also explores the problem in The Bell Curve. I need to refresh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
And why does the lack of this 'in touchness' explain why we have the trade and immigration policies we have?
I know the most about trade because I followed that debate (over Nafta and Gatt) very closely in the 1990's. The most influential voices were the elite trade economists Paul Samuelson, Paul Krugman, and Jagdish Bhagwati, all of whom advised the Clinton Administration in favor, arguing and punditing that these two agreements would not adversely affect American wages and working conditions. This was contrary to standard textbook theory -- factor-price equalization theory -- as they knew full well, Samuelson above all, and I don't think they would have advised the way they did if they had had a lot of friends and relatives in the American working-class. But they didn't so they didn't care -- or, rather, they cared about other things instead.

Clinton didn't know and trusted their advice. The rest is history.

Last edited by BornAgainDemocrat; 07-26-2010 at 11:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-25-2010, 03:44 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Painful to watch. And this is a topic I'm really interested in. Unfortunate.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-25-2010, 07:39 PM
chrisn chrisn is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 57
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

As to minority admissions:

The 'it's not race, it's class' argument goes a little ways, then peters out. It's still lefty, and implies that race and class analysis is the best analyisis to explain what's going on. This of course, requires ever more meddling and oversight, which lefties (especially white ones) love. This is arguable (see the recent McWhorter diavlog)

Politically, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice are just a few examples of people trending right. Plenty of old guys in barbershops bear this out. Go to some black churches: not necessarily 'liberal' in the traditional sense. They might support liberals now because of the full force of the laws against them for generations, but black identity is not necessarily the province of the current administration nor political ideology. Over time, that individualism will grow.

In the recent election, nearly all black folks and and a plurality of white folks in America voted for the half-black, half-white, pretty liberal, pretty inexperienced politician from Hawaii via Idnonesia via harvard via chicago. Like all elections, it was picking the lesser of two evils. Now the lefties have their moment in the sun with the same old tax and spend, social engineering, leveling the playing field programs.

Was the country ready? Maybe, maybe not. Should moral justice be pursued in the political realm? Maybe, maybe not, it certainly comes with dangers. Plenty of room for disagreement here, especially when it comes to policy.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-25-2010, 11:03 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Here's an analysis of what all those genius elites have wrought. Maybe the best thing to do would be to keep the smartest people out of the Ivy League.

Quote:
Over the past year, hundreds of authors have published books on the crisis. What becomes clear—often despite the authors’ own intentions—after reading ten of the most significant of these works is that the mainstream narrative is wrong. Over the two decades leading up to 2008, financial markets were anything but free. The nuts-and-bolts government infrastructure that free markets require to thrive—healthy fear of failure, respect for the rule of law, and fair rules for everyone—was crumbling. The crisis books make clear, too, that Washington’s extraordinary rescues of Wall Street have eroded much of what’s left of free-market infrastructure in finance. Worse, Congress’s efforts to reform the industry will do yet more damage. The next time the financial world implodes, it will hurt the economy even more severely.

Last edited by badhatharry; 07-25-2010 at 11:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-26-2010, 12:19 AM
cognitive madisonian cognitive madisonian is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 648
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Conn so thoroughly routes Tim Fernholz on the NBP story that it's a sad, sad, but compulsively watchable affair.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-26-2010, 12:19 AM
mercer mercer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 12
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Carroll says that taxes don't have to go up if spending would go back to the level of 2001. I agree if Medicare Part D is repealed and we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that how he and Heritage would balance the budget?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-26-2010, 01:35 AM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

By the way, did anyone else see the title of this diavlog and think "MILK WAS A BAD CHOICE".
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-26-2010, 09:21 AM
conncarroll conncarroll is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 105
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mercer View Post
Carroll says that taxes don't have to go up if spending would go back to the level of 2001. I agree if Medicare Part D is repealed and we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that how he and Heritage would balance the budget?
The Heritage Foundation was against Medicare Part D before it was a gleam in Karl Rove's eye. Tom DeLay was so upset at our research that he banned ALL Heritage products from his office during the Medicare Part D debate.
Just like Obamacare, we called for repeal of Medicare Part D on the same day it became law.

As far as defense spending, Heritage has long noted that even with Iraq and Afghanistan, defense spending as a percentage of GDP is well below post WWII averages. The same can NOT be said of spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

UPDATE: original version of post left out the "not"

Last edited by conncarroll; 07-26-2010 at 11:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-26-2010, 09:24 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by conncarroll View Post
As far as defense spending, Heritage has long noted that even with Iraq and Afghanistan, defense spending as a percentage of GDP is well below post WWII averages. The same can be said of spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
I don't understand the last sentence. Are you saying spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as a percentage of GDP are well below post WWII averages?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-26-2010, 11:13 AM
conncarroll conncarroll is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 105
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
I don't understand the last sentence. Are you saying spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as a percentage of GDP are well below post WWII averages?
Good catch bj. There should be a "not" in there. I'll fix it.

Last edited by conncarroll; 07-26-2010 at 12:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-26-2010, 01:28 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by conncarroll View Post
Good catch bj. There should be a "not" in there. I'll fix it.
Thanks. That probably should have occurred to me.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-26-2010, 11:36 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: It's Hot (Tim Fernholz & Conn Carroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
I don't understand the last sentence. Are you saying spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as a percentage of GDP are well below post WWII averages?
I'm pretty sure Conn meant 'can't be said'.

As George Will notes in his recent Cato speech, at the current rate of growth for the three main government entitlement programs:

"In 1916, in Woodrow Wilson's first term, the richest man in America, John D. Rockefeller, could have written a personal check and retired the national debt. Today, the richest man in America, Bill Gates, could write a personal check for all his worth and not pay two months interest on the national debt. By 2015, debt service will consume about one-quarter of individual income taxes. Ten years from now the three main entitlements - Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - plus interest will consume 93 percent of all federal revenues. Twenty years from now debt service will be the largest item in the federal budget.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.