So, the Tea Party did not topple Reid, it seems. (Was anyone really banking on Republican seizure of the Senate?)
Barney Frank in Massachusetts was actually forced to campaign, and his challenger (Bielat) captured a respectable 43% of the vote.
In polls leading to the election, incumbent Massachusetts Governor Patrick's lead was thin enough to fall into statistical margin of error; but in the event he was returned to office by a cushion well greater than nail-biting dimension.
By what margin did Californians just say no to legalized pot?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2010, 05:00:43 AM
In polls leading to the election, incumbent Massachusetts Governor Patrick's lead was thin enough to fall into statistical margin of error; but in the event he was returned to office by a cushion well greater than nail-biting dimension.
The headline in The Boston Globe reads: Patrick roars to a 2d term
QuoteA ballot question to repeal the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages passed by a narrow margin last night, but voters soundly rejected a more sweeping measure to slash the general sales tax rate by more than half.
With more than 90 percent of vote tallied, 52 percent of voters backed Question 1, the repeal of the alcohol sales tax, with 48 percent voting against, a margin of 67,000 votes, according to unofficial tallies. Its approval removed the 6.25 percent tax placed on liquor, beer, and wine last year, a surcharge that store owners said was causing them to lose customers to tax-free New Hampshire.
The result went against us in both cases. We fail to see the sales tax on beer as particularly onerous. And while personally I did not expect that the roll-back of the sales tax to 3% would succeed, casting the vote that way felt agreeably defiant.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2010, 05:11:03 AM
We fail to see the sales tax on beer as particularly onerous.
And here's a figure for you:Quote from: Peter SchwormExempting alcohol from the sales tax will cost the state about $110 million in revenue, finance officials have said.
Quote from: Dan BalzBy 5 a.m., Republican gains hit at least 60 seats. That wiped out all the gains that Democrats made in 2006 and 2008 and slid past the 54 seats the GOP achieved in its 1994 landslide. Republicans picked up at least three seats in Florida, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Quote from: Dan BalzIn Connecticut, Republican Linda McMahon, the former head of World Wrestling Entertainment, lost her Senate race against state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D), despite spending about $50 million of her own money.
Quote from: Debbie WilgoranAlaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski appears to be winning a write-in campaign to keep her seat, according to unofficial election returns posted Wednesday morning. If victorious, she would be the first U.S. senator elected by write-in vote in more than half a century.
Murkowski had been defeated in a contentious primary by a Tea Partier.
Hello, "Fair & Balanced"!Quote from: Dana MilbankThis cheerleading on the final day of the 2010 election cycle was to be expected. Murdoch and News Corp. took the unusual step of donating $1.25 million to the Republican Governors Association and another $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which led the effort to defeat Democrats. According to a report by the liberal watchdog Media Matters, no fewer than 30 Fox News personalities have endorsed, done fundraisers, or campaigned for Republican candidates or groups in more than 600 cases across 47 states.
(Surprised?)
Well, liberals already own Hollywood. Might as well throw a bone at the conservatives and give them a (fake) right-wing news outlet which is actually an arm for neo-con propaganda, you know, that right wing movement created by left-wing defectives (?!?) who's primary concern has been to rally American patriots behind global military ventures.
I can only hope that we get to see Glenn Beck in his Ché Guevara outfit!
If he had any inkling of an idea of the real motives of his superiors he wouldn't make such a good useful idiot.
A quite quiet, typical election day in Maryland. The Lifers here are really Lifers, apparently, no matter their stripe. You want a life long job in the government? Come to Maryland! Little Tel Aviv!
I fondled the testes of Maryland, who simply said, "I feel nothing."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2010, 05:00:43 AM
By what margin did Californians just say no to legalized pot?
Almost 8%. Bummer. I don't think they could have all been Humboldt growers protecting their crop prices.
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/ballot-measures/ (http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/ballot-measures/)
I like James Howard Kunstler's take on the election:
"I hope everybody enjoyed the election. Since it was devoid of useful ideas, we can surely look forward to a couple of years of mindless partisan scrimmaging. In the meantime, entropy will work its magic in our economy and our social relations. The net result, I'm guessing, will be even more political disaffection. I'm not confident that these clowns can hold the country together. I only hope that they don't serve it up on a platter to some political maniac. The period ahead will surely be chock full of thrills and laughs."
Boy that guy has it right, here is another quote:
QuoteIt's really too late for both parties. They're unreformable. They've squandered their legitimacy just as the US enters the fat heart of the long emergency. Neither of them have a plan, or even a single idea that isn't a dodge or a grift. ...
You guys don't understand. The only way to fix all our problems, is to reduce whites to a minority:
http://principles-of-progressive-politics.blogspot.com/2009/07/principle-of-progressive-politics-white.html
Its the progressive way. Once whites are out of the picture, people of color will be free to create political entities based on justice and fairness for all!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2010, 05:00:43 AM(Was anyone really banking on Republican seizure of the Senate?)
No.
I now eagerly await the meaningless investigations and the gridlock that will lead up to 2012.
[Not] even a single idea that isn't a dodge or a grift . . . expert analysis!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 07:33:36 AM
You guys don't understand. The only way to fix all our problems, is to reduce whites to a minority:
http://principles-of-progressive-politics.blogspot.com/2009/07/principle-of-progressive-politics-white.html
Its the progressive way. Once whites are out of the picture, people of color will be free to create political entities based on justice and fairness for all!
Definitely a noble aim.
It is curious that JdP feels that whites in society are uninterested in (or incapable of) political entities based on justice and fairness for all . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2010, 08:57:22 AM
It is curious that JdP feels that whites in society are uninterested in (or incapable of) political entities based on justice and fairness for all . . . .
Not as interesting as the fact Susan Sontag actually
died from cancer. Whitey got her in the end.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 09:14:09 AM
Not as interesting as the fact Susan Sontag actually died from cancer. Whitey got her in the end.
Well she was a bourgeoise pig.
Quote from: Washington Post headline todayRepublicans vow to block Obama agenda
There's a bulletin.
David Broder's analysis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110303626.html):Quote from: David BroderThe message to President Obama from Tuesday's election could not have been plainer: Don't abandon your goals. Change your way of operating.
Liberals have already abandoned Obama anyway. They are rallying behind Jon Steward now.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
David Broder's analysis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110303626.html):
Well at least the post has good formatting and a large, readable font. :)
:D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 09:32:10 AM
Liberals have already abandoned Obama anyway. They are rallying behind Jon Steward now.
That wafting flakiness is part of Obama's difficulties, of course.
Quote from: DavidW on November 03, 2010, 09:36:30 AM
Well at least the post has good formatting and a large, readable font. :)
:D
: )
All elections ever prove, generally, is the fickleness of the mass, and their overall shortsightedness and their overarching desire for immediate gratification, and seemingly no notion of the idea of unintended consequences, or even consequences.
I think that yesterday's elections showed that "the people" are very unhappy and frustrated with how poorly the country is being run by the President and Congress. The next two years should be quite interesting.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
David Broder's analysis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110303626.html):
Nice curtain line:Quote from: David BroderObama tried governing on the model preferred by congressional Democrats and the result was the loss of Democratic seats and his own reputation. Now he should try governing his own way. It cannot work worse, and it might yield much better results.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 07:33:36 AM
You guys don't understand. The only way to fix all our problems, is to reduce whites to a minority:
http://principles-of-progressive-politics.blogspot.com/2009/07/principle-of-progressive-politics-white.html
Its the progressive way. Once whites are out of the picture, people of color will be free to create political entities based on justice and fairness for all!
Proud to say that I'm doing my part! I am responsible, through marriage, and adoption (since our attempts at direct miscegenation were not successful), for three non-Caucasians becoming US Citizens!
Quote from: jowcol on November 03, 2010, 11:53:35 AM
Proud to say that I'm doing my part! I am responsible, through marriage, and adoption (since our attempts at direct miscegenation were not successful), for three non-Caucasians becoming US Citizens!
That's great jowcol, i'm sure the gods of multiculturalism are now smiling upon you!
What are they smoking in the Tea Party? I just read Matt Kibbe from FreedomWorks speak of "yesterday's Tea Party mandate."
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 12:03:22 PM
That's great jowcol, i'm sure the gods of multiculturalism are now smiling upon you!
Ahh, but I've probably polluted the rich cultural heritage that all white people are genetically born with...
(http://www.bmwgsa.me/images/redneck_toilet.jpg)
Tim Wise chimps out at the white right:
http://www.timwise.org/2010/11/an-open-letter-to-the-white-right-on-the-occasion-of-your-recent-successful-temper-tantrum/
QuoteFor all y'all rich folks, enjoy that champagne, or whatever fancy ass Scotch you drink.
And for y'all a bit lower on the economic scale, enjoy your Pabst Blue Ribbon, or whatever shitty ass beer you favor.
Whatever the case, and whatever your economic station, know this...
You need to drink up.
And quickly.
And heavily.
Because your time is limited.
Real damned limited.
So party while you can, but mind the increasingly loud clock ticking away in the corners of your consciousness.
The clock that reminds you how little time you and yours have left.
Not much more now.
Tick, tock.
Tick, tock.
Tick.
Tock.
I know, you think you've taken "your country back" with this election — and of course you have always thought it was yours for the taking, cuz that's what we white folks are bred to believe, that it's ours, and how dare anyone else say otherwise — but you are wrong.
You have won a small battle in a larger war the meaning of which you do not remotely understand.
'Cuz there is nothing even slightly original about you.
There have always been those who wanted to take the country back.
There were those who, in past years, wanted to take the country back to a time of enslavement and indentured servitude.
But they lost.
There were those who wanted to take us back to a time when children could be made to work in mines and factories, when workers had no legal rights to speak of, when the skies in every major city were heavy with industrial soot that would gather on sidewalks and windowsills like volcanic ash.
But they lost.
There were those who wanted to take us back to a time when women could not vote, or attend any but a few colleges, or get loans in their own names, or start their own businesses.
But they lost.
There were those who wanted to take us back to a time when blacks "had no rights that the white man was bound to respect," – this being the official opinion of the Supreme Court before those awful days of judicial activism, now decried by the likes of you – and when people of color could legally be kept from voting solely because of race, or holding certain jobs, or living in certain neighborhoods, or run out of other towns altogether when the sun would go down, or be strung up from trees.
But they lost.
And you will lose.
So make a note of it.
Tweet it to yourself.
Put it on your Facebook wall and leave it there so you'll remember that I told you so.
It is coming, and soon.
This isn't hubris. It isn't ideology. It is not wishful thinking.
It is math.
Not even advanced math. Just simple, basic, like 3rd grade math.
The kind of math that proves how your kind — mostly older white folks beholden to an absurd, inaccurate, nostalgic fantasy of what America used to be like — are dying.
You're like the bad guy in every horror movie ever made, who gets shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, and who will eventually pass — even if it takes four sequels to make it happen — but who in the meantime keeps coming back around, grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that you were finally dead this time.
Fair enough, and have at it. But remember how this movie ends.
Our ankles survive.
You do not.
Michael Meyers, Freddie Kreuger, Jason, and that asshole husband in that movie with Julia Roberts who tracks her down after she runs away and changes her identity–they are all done. Even that crazy fucker in Saw is about to be finished off for good. Granted, he's gonna be popping out in some 3-D shit to scare the kiddies, so he isn't going quietly. But he's going, as all bad guys eventually do.
And in the pantheon of American history, old white people have pretty much always been the bad guys, the keepers of the hegemonic and reactionary flame, the folks unwilling to share the category of American with others on equal terms.
Fine, keep it up. It doesn't matter.
Because you're on the endangered list.
And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.
In forty years or so, maybe fewer, there won't be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Opie-Taylor-Down-at-the-Fishing Hole cornpone bullshit that you hold so near and dear to your heart.
There won't be any more white folks around who think the 1950s were the good old days, because there won't be any more white folks around who actually remember them, and so therefore, we'll be able to teach about them accurately and honestly, without hurting your precious feelings, or those of the so-called "greatest generation" — a bunch whose white members were by and large a gaggle of miscreants who helped save the world from fascism only to return home and oppose the ending of it here, by doing nothing to lift a finger on behalf of the civil rights struggle.
So to hell with you and all who revere you.
By then, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.
Nothing, Senõr Tancredo.
Nothing, Senõra Angle, or Senõra Brewer, or Senõr Beck.
Loy tiene muy mal, hijo de Puta.
And by then you will have gone all in as a white nationalist movement — hell you've all but done that now — thus guaranteeing that the folks of color, and even a decent size minority of us white folks will be able to crush you, election after election, from the Presidency on down to the 8th grade student council.
Like I said, this shit is math, baby. And numbers don't lie.
Bottom line, this too shall pass.
So enjoy your tax cuts a while longer.
Go buy whatever you people buy when your taxes get cut: a new car or two, a bigger house, an island. Whatever.
Go back to trading your derivatives, engaging in rampant financial speculation that produces nothing of value, that turns the whole world into your personal casino. Whatever.
Play your hand, and for the love of God play it big. Real big. As in, shoot for the moon big. As in, try to privatize Social Security, and health care, and everything else. Whatever.
At least that way everyone will be able to see what you're really about.
We've been trying to tell them, but nothing beats seeing it with your own eyes, so "Go big or go home," Bubba.
"Git 'er Done."
"Cowboy up," or whatever other stupid-ass catch phrase strikes your fancy.
Just promise you'll do more than talk this time.
Please, or as one of your celluloid heroes might put it, "make my day."
Do whatever you gotta do, but remember that those who are the victims of your greed and indifference take the long view.
They know, but you do not, that justice is not for the sprinters, but rather for the long distance runners who will be hitting their second wind, right about the time that you collapse from exhaustion.
They are like the tortoise to your hare.
They are like the San Francisco Giants, to your New York Yankees: a bunch that loses year after year after year, until they finally win.
You have had this confidence before, remember?
You thought you had secured your position permanently after the overthrow of reconstruction in the wake of the civil war, after the elimination of the New Deal, after the Reagan revolution, after the Republican electoral victory of 1994. And yet, they who refuse to die are still here.
Because those who have lived on the margins, who have been abused, maligned, targeted by austerity measures and budget cuts, subjected to racism, classism, sexism, straight supremacy and every other form of oppression always know more about their abusers than the abusers know about their victims.
They have to study you, to pay careful attention, to adjust their body armor accordingly, and to memorize your sleep patterns.
You, on the other hand, need know nothing whatsoever about them. And this, will surely prove fatal to you in the end. For it means you will not know their resolve. Will not fear it, as you should.
It means you will take their greatest strength — perseverance — and make of it a weakness, called losing.
But what you forget, or more to the point never knew, is that those who lose know how to lose, which is to say they know how to lose with dignity.
And those who suffer know how to suffer, which is to say they know how to survive: a skill that is in short supply amid the likes of you.
You, who could not survive the thought of minimal health care reform, or financial regulation, or a marginal tax rate equal to that which you paid just 10 years earlier, perhaps are under the illusion that everyone is as weak as you, as soft as you, as akin to petulant children as you are, as unable to cope with the smallest setback, the slightest challenge to the way you think your country should look and feel, and operate.
But, surprise...they are not.
And they know how to regroup, and plot, and plan, and they are planning even now — we are — your destruction.
And I do not mean by that your physical destruction. We don't play those games. We're not into the whole "Second Amendment remedies, militia, armed resistance" bullshit that your side fetishizes, cuz, see, we don't have to be. We don't need guns.
We just have to be patient.
And wait for your hearts to stop beating.
And stop they will.
And for some of you, real damned soon, truth be told.
Do you hear it?
The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?
Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.
So know this.
If you thought this election was payback for 2008, remember...
Payback, thy name is...
Temporary.
Perhaps now, Karl, you may realize just what it is that the people of the tea-party are actually mad about, whether
they themselves know it or not.
Quote from: jowcol on November 03, 2010, 12:28:10 PM
Ahh, but I've probably polluted the rich cultural heritage that all white people are genetically born with...
Like Bobby sang at Big Pink, When there's too much of nothin', nobody should look . . . .
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 12:28:40 PM
Perhaps now, Karl, you may realize just what it is that the people of the tea-party are actually mad about it, whether they themselves know it or not.
I am pleased to report that, at a cursory glance through that rant, I did not understand the least bit.
Quote from: jowcol on November 03, 2010, 12:28:10 PM
Ahh, but I've probably polluted the rich cultural heritage that all white people are genetically born with...
(http://www.bmwgsa.me/images/redneck_toilet.jpg)
huh huh:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=6&cat=1
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html#footnote3
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2010, 12:32:14 PM
I am pleased to report that, at a cursory glance through that rant, I did not understand the least bit.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 12:48:22 PM
huh huh:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=6&cat=1
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html#footnote3
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....
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2010, 12:32:14 PM
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... :-\
8)
Quote from: jowcol on November 03, 2010, 01:17:59 PM
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).
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 03, 2010, 01:26:38 PM
I actually understood it quite well.
But not as well as you think, i'm sure.
Quote from: drogulus on November 03, 2010, 01:57:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 02:29:16 PM
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.
Quote from: jowcol on November 03, 2010, 01:17:59 PM
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? :-*
Quote from: jowcol on November 03, 2010, 01:17:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 03:11:28 PM
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.
Quote from: drogulus on November 03, 2010, 02:46:42 PM
Help us understand you by clearing this up.
He's a racist and just not very bright. What more do you need to understand?
Quote from: Daverz on November 03, 2010, 04:20:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 03:11:28 PM
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?
Quote from: drogulus on November 03, 2010, 02:46:42 PM
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.
Quote from: drogulus on November 03, 2010, 02:46:42 PM
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.
Quote from: drogulus on November 03, 2010, 02:46:42 PM
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.
Quote from: drogulus on November 03, 2010, 02:46:42 PM
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.
Quote from: drogulus on November 03, 2010, 02:46:42 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 08:55:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 08:55:19 PMI 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.
Quote from: Air on November 03, 2010, 11:12:38 PM
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.
Tight Illinois gubernatorial race likely to favor Democratic incumbent.AP calls race for Quinn; Brady to make statement (http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/article_c862efd2-e839-11df-90ff-001cc4c002e0.html)Quote from: Kurt EricksonBrady 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.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 05, 2010, 12:21:39 PM
Tight Illinois gubernatorial race likely to favor Democratic incumbent.
AP calls race for Quinn; Brady to make statement (http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/article_c862efd2-e839-11df-90ff-001cc4c002e0.html)
Brady already conceded. Thank the heavens.
Tight Illinois Minnesota gubernatorial race likely to favor Democratic incumbent.Recount poses big challenge for Emmer (http://www.twincities.com/ci_16528488?nclick_check=1)Quote from: Jason HoppinTo 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.
Quote from: Philoctetes on November 05, 2010, 12:24:01 PM
Brady already conceded. Thank the heavens.
Oh, that is well.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 05, 2010, 12:27:49 PM
Oh, that is well.
It's very well. Although, it's pretty scary that a guy like Brady almost got elected.
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.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 05, 2010, 12:32:38 PM
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.
I'm hoping Haley will make a run for president in 2012.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 05, 2010, 12:32:38 PM
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.
Well, I think the argument could be made that the Democrats had indeed a centrist mandate, and that the mistake (or series of mistakes) was the far edge of the Democratic party imagining that the mandate was theirs.
But that does not seriously quibble with your comment.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 05, 2010, 12:32:38 PMThat will set the Democrats up for a comeback in 2012.
Doubtful. One thing, and only one thing, will determine the 2012 election: The Economy. If it is still weak, the Republicans should be able to regain the White House unless someone like Palin is the candidate. If it is strong, Obama gets a second term, especially if the Republican candidate is someone like Palin. As the Clinton era saying goes, it's the economy stupid.
Quote from: Todd on November 05, 2010, 02:28:31 PM
Doubtful. One thing, and only one thing, will determine the 2012 election: The Economy. If it is still weak, the Republicans should be able to regain the White House unless someone like Palin is the candidate. If it is strong, Obama gets a second term, especially if the Republican candidate is someone like Palin. As the Clinton era saying goes, it's the economy stupid.
I think the economy has a chance of looking decent by then, and the Tea Party types may have made a ridiculous spectacle of themselves by that time. Now the Democrats can be the party of no, which seems to be an advantageous position at this juncture.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 05, 2010, 02:33:11 PMI think the economy has a chance of looking decent by then, and the Tea Party types may have made a ridiculous spectacle of themselves by that time. Now the Democrats can be the party of no, which seems to be an advantageous position at this juncture.
I don't think the Democrats can be the party of 'no' since they are not the opposition party; they still hold the White House and the Senate. What they need to do is offer legislation that they know the Republicans will block so they can then go to less observant voters and say "Hey, we tried, but the Republicans wouldn't budge." If the Republican leadership is smart, which most of it is, then the Tea Party will be thrown a few (minor) bones and some more substantive, reasonable legislation will be offered instead. The Tea Party is a fad that will fade as the economy gets stronger. Ardent supporters will deny this, of course, but they're wrong, and the Republicans elected this year will sway with the political winds if they know what's good for them.
Quote from: Todd on November 05, 2010, 02:39:44 PM
I don't think the Democrats can be the party of 'no' since they are not the opposition party; they still hold the White House and the Senate. What they need to do is offer legislation that they know the Republicans will block so they can then go to less observant voters and say "Hey, we tried, but the Republicans wouldn't budge." If the Republican leadership is smart, which most of it is, then the Tea Party will be thrown a few (minor) bones and some more substantive, reasonable legislation will be offered instead. The Tea Party is a fad that will fade as the economy gets stronger. Ardent supporters will deny this, of course, but they're wrong, and the Republicans elected this year will sway with the political winds if they know what's good for them.
I don't think that will work. The public distrusts the government too much for a party to loose points for blocking legislation. I think the Democrat's best chance is if the Republicans in the house pass some bills that turn out to be unpopular (like gutting social programs that people feel attached to, trying to repeal some parts of the Obamacare that the public, when the get wind of it, actually decide they like, or even more giveaways to she super-rich) so that Obama can play the hero with his veto-pen.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 05, 2010, 02:46:50 PMI think the Democrat's best chance is if the Republicans in the house pass some bills that turn out to be unpopular (like gutting social programs that people feel attached to, trying to repeal some parts of the Obamacare that the public, when the get wind of it, actually decide they like, or even more giveaways to she super-rich) so that Obama can play the hero with his veto-pen.
That's certainly one approach, but the problem is that much of the most partisan legislation will die in the Senate, as it always does, so Obama may not have to veto a whole lot, mitigating the hero element. There will be attempts to roll back Obamacare, to be sure, but it will be piecemeal and only affect a few areas. Core areas like Social Security, Medicare proper, and other sacred cows will not be touched. To counter some of these items, the Dems should offer something. In any event, I don't see a lot of major legislation being passed in the next two years, so it all ends up riding on the economy anyway.
Quote from: Todd on November 05, 2010, 02:53:04 PM
That's certainly one approach, but the problem is that much of the most partisan legislation will die in the Senate, as it always does, so Obama may not have to veto a whole lot, mitigating the hero element. There will be attempts to roll back Obamacare, to be sure, but it will be piecemeal and only affect a few areas. Core areas like Social Security, Medicare proper, and other sacred cows will not be touched. To counter some of these items, the Dems should offer something. In any event, I don't see a lot of major legislation being passed in the next two years, so it all ends up riding on the economy anyway.
Well, the Republican proposal now is to hack "entitlements" (which everyone hates until they realize that they are the ones who are entitled) so that the tax-break for the super-rich can be paid for. What fraction of the people who voted Republican actually benefit from that strategy? Not many, I would wager.
I would watch for Governor Moonbeam goes to Washington, hat in hand, for a federal bailout of CA in 2011 ...