US Election Returns 2010

[Gurn Blanston]

I am pleased to report that, at a cursory glance through that rant, I did not understand the least bit.

I actually understood it quite well. Wonder if Opie did. Since it does seem to repudiate his stated opinions...

[drogulus]

As someone who gets paid to analyze stuff like this for a living (particularly the health data)  , I'm curious about the point intended here.

Compare the demographics for Alaska, Delaware, and Louisiana , and you will find that the demographic (or "racial" if you prefer ) profiles for the states with the 5th, 6th, and 7th highest rates of violent crimes are quite different.    Tennessee, God love it, has 10% more of a White Population than the national average, and is number 2 on the list.   Is this proof that whites are more prone to violence?   

(FWIW-- I find this rather interesting as I've just been analyzing HRSA and Census data for the Tennessee and SW VA area for a government agency, particularly in terms of uninsured populations, and those living under the poverty level, as well as by different demographic factors.   )

Of course, if one was doing a REAL analysis, one would need to limit the number of variables or do some correlation of other likely contributing variables.   For example, it strikes me that not to include income and education into the picture is would be not be a competent approach.  It would not surprise me if either extreme of population density is also a factor (rural or urban).


Also, I probably should apologize for contributing in the previous post to the "redneck" stereotype.  I'm from the south, and have had experiences that both confirm and deny the existing of the stereotype.   I've know some very cultured, literate people, and others that make you wonder if we are all in the same Phylum.  The notion of preserving "white" as opposed to "classical" culture strikes me as throwing away the gift and keeping the paper it was wrapped in.   


YMMV....

    No, you're being too scientific. Real knowledge, the kind a genius has, arrives with no means of getting it, like a big fat gift from Whiteness Control. If we would all just agree to be white we could all be geniuses instead of scientists (who, in case you haven't noticed, are often the wrong sort of people).

[Josquin des Prez]

I actually understood it quite well.

But not as well as you think, i'm sure.

[Josquin des Prez]

    No, you're being too scientific. Real knowledge, the kind a genius has, arrives with no means of getting it, like a big fat gift from Whiteness Control. If we would all just agree to be white we could all be geniuses instead of scientists (who, in case you haven't noticed, are often the wrong sort of people).

Now this is just plain dishonest. Obviously, what i said about art does not apply to statistics. As for scientists, its hard to be sympathetic considering most of them sold out to special interests a long time ago.

[drogulus]

Now this is just plain dishonest. Obviously, what i said about art does not apply to statistics.

     Are you making a statistical point? I'm not arguing against that, I'm mocking your idea of what the statistics mean, why a dearth of white people would be bad for the people who are here. Besides, there's no wall separating a bad idea of genius in art from bad ideas of what human beings are. If you think certain people are inherently inferior you're likely to adopt an otherwise inexplicable view of art that reinforces it like, for example, connecting racial characteristics to artistic worth.

     You have racially determined ideas about art and (guess what?) racially determined ideas about culture and intrinsic human worth. Don't you? Are people of other races entitled to the same presumption of humanity and worth or not? Help us understand you by clearing this up.

[Josquin des Prez]

Of course, if one was doing a REAL analysis, one would need to limit the number of variables or do some correlation of other likely contributing variables.   For example, it strikes me that not to include income and education into the picture is would be not be a competent approach.  It would not surprise me if either extreme of population density is also a factor (rural or urban).

Which would actually be interesting. For instance, from what i understand Vermont and West Virginia are the most rural states, but while high on the states with the least amount of crime they are still below other states. And if we are to correlate crime with poverty, does it mean that rural states have less poverty then urban one? Where does that leave the redneck stereotype then? 

The notion of preserving "white" as opposed to "classical" culture strikes me as throwing away the gift and keeping the paper it was wrapped in.   

Its more then that of course. Whites are worth preserving for merely being a unique expression of humanity, and considering we are but 7% of the world's population (and narrowing), i don't see why concern for our own health-care is such an ominous idea. If we then consider that classical (western) culture is synonymous with white Europeans in the first place, then the problem aggravates even further.

[drogulus]

     

If we then consider that classical (western) culture is synonymous with white Europeans in the first place, then the problem aggravates even further.

      Why would you think such a thing? I see no evidence that any culture is tied to a race. Have you ever heard of adoption? The way people actually live is a vast experiment that shows how minimally useful the idea of race is (except to the extent that people are highly inclined to have racial theories). Why would you be concerned about the influence of nonwhites unless you had an understanding that cultures are not tied to race? Tying race to culture takes a contingent fact of history (where cultures arise) and attributes that to the specific genetic heritage of the inhabitants. This is Lamarkian. Cultures borrow from each other all the time. The race tie-in is gratuitous, it doesn't add anything to what we know about how people adopt the cultural influences that they are raised with by parents, peers and society generally.

[Daverz]

Help us understand you by clearing this up.

He's a racist and just not very bright.  What more do you need to understand?

[jowcol]

He's a racist and just not very bright.  What more do you need to understand?

Although I may question the logical consistency of some of his posts, I don't think its appropriate for an ad hominem attack.  (Unless one wants to be racist about racists...)   Although in some areas I don't see the logic, JDP has  made some insightful comments in other areas, and there are posts of his I've valued and benefitted from.   We all have our internal logical short-circuits that don't hold up to scrutiny.   So I typically hold my nose when the thread runs in some areas about innate qualities of genders or "races"

I love the passion JDP has shown for Jazz, and if he really feels that the culture that brought us jazz has made a contribution, I'd like to think there is hope.

[jowcol]

Which would actually be interesting. For instance, from what i understand Vermont and West Virginia are the most rural states, but while high on the states with the least amount of crime they are still below other states. And if we are to correlate crime with poverty, does it mean that rural states have less poverty then urban one? Where does that leave the redneck stereotype then? 

Its more then that of course. Whites are worth preserving for merely being a unique expression of humanity, and considering we are but 7% of the world's population (and narrowing), i don't see why concern for our own health-care is such an ominous idea. If we then consider that classical (western) culture is synonymous with white Europeans in the first place, then the problem aggravates even further.

I'm relieve to know that the paths art and science haven't crossed paths in Western Culture.  Imagine how destructive it would have been if a Da Vinci had dabbled in science.

If we want to move the discussion from USA Today Factoids to real analysis, we would need to realize this is a multi-variate problem, and look at some sort of Bayesian or Multi-variate analysis.  First, for geospatial reasoning, states aren't that reliable-- some states have some dense urban populations and also vast rural stretches.   So, if half the population is packed in one area, do we call the state urban or rural?  ANswer, we don't-- typically analysis goes down to the zip code or census tract level.  We need a multivariate, not binary model.  (Averarage income, average education, pop density, and yes, we can add demographics- or "racial" for those that still need to think in those terms.)  To avoid comparing apples and oranges, you need to find comparable populations that differ by only one factor.  (find the same education and income and population density), and then compare how the "races" differ.  The fact is, although typically these studies tend to show that education and income are the two biggest drivers, there still may be some small variance attributable to "race".  But even then, is it nature or nuture?  How much of it is cause by chromosomes, and how much by the cultural context? 


In terms of considering the classical heritage the same as white, I'm guessing that if you live in an urban or suburban setting, you must not be seeing the kinds of students that are occupying proportionately larger roles in student orchestras.   Musicians with backgrounds from the Pacific Rim or the subcontinent are occupying a larger and larger share.  (I don't think this is genetics, but a reflect of how different cultures value education and the arts.)  Look at the classical album covers now as opposed to 50 years ago-- it's not only the European descendants that are keeping the legacy alive.

WOuld a true "materialist" be more interested  in the propagation of ideas, or genes?  I would say the latter.  How can a true individual, who dares to rise beyond what his/her culture has offered, pin their self-worth on genetics?   To associate one's "spirit" with the genetic circumstances of ones birth strikes me as the ultimate in materialist, non-individualisting thinking.  I've heard you show disrespect for materialism in the past-- but it does come in many forms...

I'm far more worried about the proliferation of stupidity in the world, (and the lack of respect for art), than I am about people who's skin doesn't burn or freckle as easily as mine.  I don't care if some needs to sit down to pee.  That doesn't mean I need to love everyone either-- but, if Art (with the capital 'A'), is as important to you as I think it is, why subordinate it to what appears to me to be superficial traits?

[Josquin des Prez]

I'm mocking your idea of what the statistics mean

Why not simply argue against it? For the record, the reason i posted those statistics was to refute the idea whites (rural whites in particular) are just as bad as other ethnic groups. Statistics say, no they aren't.

why a dearth of white people would be bad for the people who are here.

Its not the dearth of white people we are discussing here, since whites represent the majority in all the states.

Besides, there's no wall separating a bad idea of genius in art

An idea which has been entertained by some of the finest minds in Western history for almost two thousand years, until very recently, when scientific rationalism replaced all other forms of thinking (and lo, the development of genius has suddenly reached a standstill). But then, that's typical of the "winter" stage of any civilization.

If you think certain people are inherently inferior you're likely to adopt an otherwise inexplicable view of art that reinforces it like, for example, connecting racial characteristics to artistic worth.

Inferior is a relative term here. I think Africans have a greater sense of musical rhythm then Europeans, not as a cultural endowment, but as a racial endowment. If you look at Jazz, there's very, very few whites who swing the same way black artists can. So artistic worth is in a way connected to racial characteristics, but only in the quality of its expression. Genius is an inherently human quality which spans across all races. In Europe, we can see this distinction in expression among the various sub-racial types. So for instance, composers with a certain level of Alpinization will tend towards a particular form of expression which is inherently structural. They tend to have a deeper relationship towards music which cuts straight into the notes. For this reason i believe Alpines have always been the driving force behind the more technical aspects of European music. Composers with an high alpine component include Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Dvorak, Grieg, Faure, Janacek, Debussy, Enescu, Reger, Bartok and even Kapustin, just to include an exotic example from a far away country. Some of the Renaissance masters of the Flanders also possessed heavy Alpine traits. It is safe to say that counterpoint is an Alpine form of expression and that is why it flourished in those areas with the greatest concentrations of Alpine strains (central Europe and general surroundings, from France to Northern Italy). Then we have the more exotic Dinaric race, which has a natural tendency towards extreme virtuosity. Composers with a great Dinaric component include Gesualdo, Monteverdi, Haydn, Mozart, Weber, Paganini, Chopin, Berlioz, Liszt, Bruckner, and Verdi (and to a lesser extend, Wagner). Dinarics don't seem to have the same level of profound musical genius possessed by Alpines and Nordics, so the "purest" the Dinaric strain is, the highest the level of virtuosity but the lowest the level of creativity. Paganini and Liszt are the archtypical Dinaric composers, but their genius runs the lowest. This seeming lack of musical creativity owns probably more to the fact Dinarcis are too scattered as a people and they were never able to find a voice of their own. Dinarics have a strong affinity for harmony and melody as a racial endowment. Finally, we have the Nordic peoples, which do not posses a similar affinity for music on a structural level but seem to have a great creative talent nonetheless, the expression of which tends to move towards the fantastic. Wagner is the quintessential Nordic composer (with an interesting tinge of Dinaricism), followed by Tchaikovsky and Sibelius plus all the other mixed composers, from Bach to Mozart to Schubert to Chopin to Brahms and so forth. Of course, the picture gets even more complicated once you begin to refine European musicians to more precise racial sub-types. For instance, Alpines tend to gain a particularly fiery, impulsive quality in their more "robust" variants (Vivaldi, Scarlatti, a lot of rock and metal groups), and adopt a more introspective quality in their eastern counterparts (Shostakovitch). Alpine-Dinarics tend to form a schizophrenic combination where neither racial trait seems able to dominate over the other (Handel). Nordics tend to create a similar conflict when mixed with Alpines (Schubert, Brahms) but not so when mixed with Dinarics (Mozart, Chopin). I mean, i could go on and on and barely scratch the surface here.

You have racially determined ideas about art and (guess what?) racially determined ideas about culture and intrinsic human worth. Don't you? Are people of other races entitled to the same presumption of humanity and worth or not? Help us understand you by clearing this up.

All races are capable of genius. All that differs is the quality of its expression. My argument for the preservation for the European genotype is one based not on its inherent superiority but its uniqueness. If Europeans were to disappear there would be nobody left to keep the memory of our achievements alive, because there would be nobody left with the right type of psychological affinity for our cultural heritage. The fact that other genotypes are fully capable of creating unique cultural entities of their own which may be equally valuable is entirely besides the point. The fact that the way multiculturalism operates does not discriminate between culturally active ethnic groups and derelict ones (who are brought here just to be exploited i might add), it just doesn't seem to bode all that well for the survival of any form of advanced civilization. I personally harbor no particular hatred for the Hispanic people (heck, my sister married into one. I've had plenty of direct contact with Hispanic people and have traveled to Mexico on many occasions), but at the rate in which they are spreading and the level in which they are not integrating, it is likely that the United States might resemble a coast to coast version of east LA in an hypothetical scenario in which Hispanics become the overwhelming majority. Somehow, i don't think this was supposed to be our destiny, do you? We were going to conquer the stars and now we are a dying nation, culturally bankrupt and quite not as advanced as we'd like to think, since many other countries outrank us in many different ways.

[Air]

Two things:

1) California is good at screwing itself over, isn't it?
2) Why can't the nation ever make up its mind?

Anyhow, it's over, and I'm preparing myself for 2 years of monotonous deadlock.

[jowcol]

Why not simply argue against it? For the record, the reason i posted those statistics was to refute the idea whites (rural whites in particular) are just as bad as other ethnic groups. Statistics say, no they aren't.

Umm, I saw two different sets of measures being compared with no discipline.  Statistics in the USA Today sense maybe, but in terms of the scientific method-- no.  I'm not saying that there still may be some variance after you factor out other considerations (income, pop density, education), but the there isn't really enough analysis there to warrant the conclusion.

I think Africans have a greater sense of musical rhythm then Europeans, not as a cultural endowment, but as a racial endowment. If you look at Jazz, there's very, very few whites who swing the same way black artists can. So artistic worth is in a way connected to racial characteristics, but only in the quality of its expression.

Okay, sue me.  I can't help but giggle at the concept of "racial endowment"-- but my mind is in the gutter.

There seems to postulate you have adopted as a provable thereom, minus the proof.  You say it is racial (genetic) and not from culture.  This is the nature vs nuture debate. logical outgrowth of this is that , if I take a European person of ancestry, but hide him in Ghana and do not expose him to western music, he will instinctively write in the Sonata form, right?  Likewise, if I take someone from Asia at birth, and give them a full western musical education, they will instinctively write in pentatonic  or whole tone.

It seems far more likely much of music appreciation and composition is a learned activity, as opposed to one that someone is born with. Although, the truth is likely one where a variety of factors with different weights are involved-- this is way, in  a culture, some people still have tin ears, no matter how excellent their exposure to music or "racial" pedigree may be.   We can idealize the "classical age of geniuses" all we like, but much of the classical music was for a limited, elite audience, and did not represent the larger proportion of the population (and it's gene pool)  I would argue that racial profiling for music sensibility, if it has any value, would be better being applied to popular music, as you would have valid, statistical sample.

[jowcol]

Two things:

1) California is good at screwing itself over, isn't it?
2) Why can't the nation ever make up its mind?

Anyhow, it's over, and I'm preparing myself for 2 years of monotonous deadlock.

Back on topic--

My answer to number 2 is that we have illogical expectations.  We want more for less.  Sacred cows like entitlements and defense can't be cut, we want to cut taxes, and quail at the thought of running up the deficit.  People want cuts, but in the other person's slice of pie.   

The political parties know they need to lie in order to "move the product", and also are constrained in how they address problems by making sure they can remain electable and not anger the special interests that are bankrolling their campaigns.

Unfortunately, the American people are getting what they ask for.


Ben Franklin said something along the lines of Democracy being two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch.

[karlhenning]

Tight Illinois gubernatorial race likely to favor Democratic incumbent.

AP calls race for Quinn; Brady to make statement

Brady spokeswoman Patty Schuh told The Pantagraph on Thursday evening that despite AP's conclusion, the Bloomington state senator would press ahead with gathering information about absentee and provisional ballots that still haven't been counted.

But Schuh acknowledged the campaign did not have a specific scenario that would produce a victory.

[Philoctetes]

Tight Illinois gubernatorial race likely to favor Democratic incumbent.

AP calls race for Quinn; Brady to make statement

Brady already conceded. Thank the heavens.

[karlhenning]

Tight Illinois Minnesota gubernatorial race likely to favor Democratic incumbent.

Recount poses big challenge for Emmer

To the naked eye, Mark Dayton leads Tom Emmer by the smallest of margins in the Minnesota governor's race.

But under the microscope of a recount, say Republicans and Democrats who've slogged through many of them, Emmer, the Republican candidate, is a long shot who needs something supremely unusual to happen in order to overtake the Democrat, Dayton.

[karlhenning]

Brady already conceded. Thank the heavens.

Oh, that is well.

[Philoctetes]

Oh, that is well.

It's very well. Although, it's pretty scary that a guy like Brady almost got elected.

[Scarpia]

Well, this will be interesting.  The US Government has enough inertia that even the most enthusiastic Tea Partiers won't be able to accomplish much in the next two years.  They will probably make the same mistake the Democrats made, thinking that their gains constitute a mandate, rather than a rebuke of the other side.  That will set the Democrats up for a comeback in 2012.