The Tea Party is Not Racist

[Lurker]

http://www.capenet.org/benefits4.html



And those percentages are about the same as in public schools. So by your reasoning, private schools must be taking many students that would end up doing poor in public school. But do they do just as poorly in a private venue? From the same source,



In other words, private schools must be taking students that the public schools would fail to help, according to you due to their minority and socio-economic background, and turn them into successes instead.

My friend, I think I have had this conversation with you before. Private schools demographics are not the same as public school demographics. AS I have told you before which you have failed to absorb, the very fact that someone has to CHOOSE to go to a private school has certain implications. The first being that the person most probably cares about their eduction more than their peers. Either the student himself cares more or the parents and either way, the chance of success increases because of it. I don't know how many times I have to tell you this.

Thanks for the links, I'll address the rest later.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I'm also aware that 2 decades ago, Japanese in this country were already doing quite well economically and socially.

This has what to do with the fact that our government was practicing a form of anti-black institutional racism as far off as two decades after World War II?

Oh well, I tried folks. Here you see the product of a modern education … one that apparently encouraged KF to admire communists.

Are you kidding me? Are you really going to sit here and tell me that what the Japanese had to endure during WWII was worse than what blacks had to endure for hundreds of years in this country?

Are you kidding me?

Do you think many of the blacks living in the US in 1964 had or have endured what Japanese-Americans experienced during WW2 and the decades after? They had everything taken away from them (their homes, businesses, belonging, assets) and were literally put in concentration camps for 3 years. These camps consisted of poorly-constructed barracks surrounded by barbed wire, sentry posts and armed guards in the middle of nowhere. And this all happened without charges or a hearing.

These camps were no picnic. There were documented cases of guards shooting people who tried to walk outside the fences. They were overcrowded with families as large as a dozen living in two small, drafty rooms with a coal stove (winters were cold in many camps) and cots for beds. They were unsanitary (being constructed right next to open sewers). Toilets were unpartitioned with no privacy. The meals that were served were poor (a budget of 45 cents daily per capita), leading to considerable malnutrition. No effort was made to provide entertainment or education to the children. But somehow the internees made do with what they had.

And then, after the war ended, they were given little to no assistance when they were dumped back on the streets, where they now faced a populace that was absolutely furious at what the Japanese had done during WW2. That hatred was engendered not only by first hand experience but WW2 propaganda like this:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...1t:429,r:4,s:36&tx=61&ty=129&biw=1424&bih=861

Here are some images that reflect the post-war hatred:

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/matthigh/2073630895/

http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/BE071994.html

and those feelings were pretty widespread and intense. I know seniors who even now dislike Japanese because of their WW2 experiences.

Furthermore, even prior to WW2 there was considerable discrimination against the Japanese in America. Do you know that in 1913 several states passed laws preventing Japanese immigrants from owning land and even becoming citizens. There were laws preventing them from marrying outside their race and forcing them to attend segregated schools. A law passed in 1924 even put an end to Japanese immigration entirely.

Now contrast that with the situation of blacks in 1964, when about half had already joined the middle class, could own land, could vote, and were increasingly finding a place in America. Sure, the Civil Rights Act was needed … but the welfare laws were a HUGE mistake.

No one told you about the massive movement for reparations following World War II did they?

What "massive" reparations?

First, it is estimated that the Japanese-Americans who were tossed into those camps lost billions of dollars in assets. And when the war ended, if they didn't have $500 dollars (and many didn't), all they were given was $25 dollars and a train ticket home. Many had no home to go to anymore.

From 1948 to 1999 the US government gave literally billions of dollars to the victims of these internment camps. Clearly, the US government and society at large wasn't looking down on the Japanese nearly as much as they were the black population.

You are completely misrepresenting what actually happened.

Prior to 1988, the only "reparations" was the 1948 "American Japanese Claims Act". But by the time the act was passed, the IRS had destroyed most of the records of the detainees so they had no way to prove claims. As result, only $37 million dollars was approved and disbursed … that's less than $350 per internee.

In 1988 Congress passed legislation authorizing reparations and eventually gave about $1.6 billion to Japanese-Americans who had suffered internment, or their heirs, but that was long after the Japanese-American community has recovered economically and become the wealthiest group on America.

To suggest that $37 million dollars distributed amongst 110,000 internees is comparable to the TRILLIONS of dollars handed out to blacks in the late 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s is just plain silly.

Not to mention that the Japanese didn't have to suffer long following WWII. As your own link mentioned, Japanese-Americans rebounded quickly following WWII and the Civil Rights movement was just around the corner. Clearly the mindset for racial equality and social justice (GASP! COMMIES!) had already been planted, the Japanese never had to face anything like the Jim Crowe laws following WWII.

Again, I'll just point out the obvious.

In 20 years, the Japanese went from essentially having nothing in a country where large segments of the populace hated them intensely, to being one of the wealthiest groups and widely accepted by people of entirely different skin color. And they did it without government help but by focusing on hard work and education … not by whining that this or that injustice was racist.

Contrast that with the black community which in 1964, was relatively well off compared to 1945 Japanese Americans. Here we are 45 years later, having spent upwards of ten trillion dollars on social welfare programs of which most were aimed at blacks, and the black community is less well off now then in 1964. And the reason is obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense.

The black community didn't emphasize education (and in many ways stigmatized it), focused on the wrong types education (liberal ethnic studies and community organizing versus professions like doctor and sciences), made themselved dependent rather than independent (chose socialism over capitalism), destroyed the stigma of illegitimacy and the institution of marriage , and antagonized everyone with constant claims of racism … even when racism was clearly not a factor. The biggest mistake of all was latching onto the empty promises of white democrats leaders and a host of black shuckster "ministers".

You stay classy BAC

I'm just being honest to the black community. Whereas you are not.

The only reason anyone would write a virus for Mac is if you wanted to take down a gradeschool computer lab.

It must have really hurt to watch Apple become the largest technology company in the world.

 

[Arisia]

Any real proof that 'Republican controlled public schools' do any better than 'democrat controlled public schools' for similar size/resource/demographic districts?

 

[BeAChooser]

Private schools demographics are not the same as public school demographics.

I just supplied two sources that indicate you are wrong. Sure, there are upper scale private schools that draw from a different demographics than public schools, but I wasn't giving you examples of that. Catholic schools in general draw from the same pool as public schools. You can't have the same percentages of minorities and poor in private schools if they aren't drawing from much the same demographics, in general.

Here is another source disproving your assertion that socio-economic status is what determines student performance:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459396.html

Early test score studies were not carefully designed to yield precise estimates, but according to test score results from four recently conducted randomized experiments in New York City; Washington, D.C.; Dayton, Ohio; and Charlotte, North Carolina, African American students from low-income families who switch from a public to a private school do considerably better after two years than students who do not.

… snip …

Students from all racial and ethnic groups are more likely to go to college after attending a Catholic school, but the effects are the greatest for urban minorities. The probability of graduating from college rises from 11 to 27 percent if such a student attends a Catholic high school.

The University of Chicago study confirms results from two other analyses that show the positive effects of attendance at Catholic schools on high school completion and college enrollment for low-income and minority students. University of Wisconsin professor John Witte concludes that studies of private schools "indicate a substantial private school advantage in terms of completing high school and enrolling in college, both very important events in predicting future income and well-being. Moreover . . . the effects were most pronounced for students with achievement test scores in the bottom half of the distribution."

Just compare that to the typical large city public school system outcomes. Take Obama's home city, Chicago, as an example.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/feb/25/news/chi-dropout_25feb25

February 25, 2008

Nearly half of Chicago public school 9th graders who started high school in the last seven years have dropped out without earning a high school diploma, according to a study to be released Monday.

And what happens to them once they leave the public school system?

http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/news_citations/042106_chicagotribune.html

Of every 100 freshmen entering a Chicago public high school, only about six will earn a bachelor's degree by the time they're in their mid-20s, according to a first-of-its-kind study released Thursday by the Consortium on Chicago School Research.

That's a disgrace, when nationally the rate of public school students entering college after graduation is around 60-70%. But it's even more disgraceful, when you consider that the percent of students going to college after graduating from private schools is in the 90-95% range (http://privateschool.about.com/od/choosingaschool/qt/comparison.htm ).

You are wrong, Lurker. There is study after study showing that kids that were clearly on a failure track in the public schools were saved when they moved into the private track (or even the homeschooling track). Just like everything else (be it health care, government spending, taxes, the environment, immigration, upholding the laws, whatever), the democrats controlling the system now feel they don't have to listen to the facts, or what the people have decided works and want. They just go on blindly protecting their unions, salaries, benefits and power base. Besides, it's probably in their interest to keep the bulk of public students dumbed down so they'll vote democrat regardless of logic, facts, economics, self-interest or anything else. They'll end up just like you.

 

[BeAChooser]

Any real proof that 'Republican controlled public schools' do any better than 'democrat controlled public schools' for similar size/resource/demographic districts?

Well why don't you try to point out an example of a "republican controlled public school system"? Lurker tried (post #392), naming Texas, and I ended up showing (post #393) that the graduation rates in Texas are far better than in democrat controlled states, on average. And that's even with liberals still having considerable influence in Texas.

 

[Lurker]

BAc:

This snippet I find interesting. I will have to ponder this for a bit.

"Poorly educated parents who choose to teach their children at home produce better academic results for their children than public schools do. One study we reviewed found that students taught at home by mothers who never finished high school scored a full 55 percentage points higher than public school students from families with comparable education levels."

 

[Mumbles]

Are you kidding me? Are you really going to sit here and tell me that what the Japanese had to endure during WWII was worse than what blacks had to endure for hundreds of years in this country? Instead of responding to your next copy-paste quote that you picked up off the first google hit, I'm just going to respond to all of this nonsense at once.

I'm a bit reluctant to respond when threads hit the "How come blacks are still behind when Asians are doing so well?" level - the fact that racists treat people differently according to their perceived race is so obvious, that anyone who doesn't understand it is simply not worth talking to. But there's something missing here - namely, Japanese-Americans are, for the most part, recent immigrants, who come here with education, culture, and often wealth intact. The internment camps of the 1940s simply did not effect most families in any way. Black Americans, meanwhile, face routine discrimination in their home country even today - we know that they're strongly disfavored in loans and hiring, as examples - not to mention the centuries of open discrimination that you discussed.

And there are other issues with the supposed statistics - the out of wedlock birthrate among black Americans has been declining for roughly 40 years now (this is usually hidden by using the out of wedlock to *in wedlock* birth ratio). The violence rate has nosedived since Clinton took office.

 

[Lurker]

I just supplied two sources that indicate you are wrong. Sure, there are upper scale private schools that draw from a different demographics than public schools, but I wasn't giving you examples of that. Catholic schools in general draw from the same pool as public schools. You can't have the same percentages of minorities and poor in private schools if they aren't drawing from much the same demographics, in general.

*sigh*. Again, yuou have missed my point. Let us say you have two familes from a poor socio-economic background that live right next to each other. The default position for each family is public education. I mean, if you sit back and do nothing as a parent your child goes to public school, correct? Family A sits back and their child goes to public school Family B decides to send their child to a private school.

Now, of the two families, which is more likely to have an active parent that cares more about the child's education? I would posit that Family B wins that comparison from a stastical point of view. Knowing that Family B has more active parents, which of the two will probably check up on their child more often, helping with homework, making sure the kid attends classes, going to school, driving them to school, and meeting the teachers and so on? Again, logically it is Family B. Extrapolating this from two families to whole regions we would see that the level of invovlement from parents is going to be higher for those in private school.

THAT is my point. The chances of success is higher for the child attending private school EVEN BEFORE THE CHILD ATTENDS HIS/HER FIRST DAY OF CLASS.

 

[Lurker]

Well why don't you try to point out an example of a "republican controlled public school system"? Lurker tried (post #392), naming Texas, and I ended up showing (post #393) that the graduation rates in Texas are far better than in democrat controlled states, on average. And that's even with liberals still having considerable influence in Texas.

I pointed out Texas as a Republican controlled state, not necessarily one as a failed state. Anyway, look at the states again and you see a mix that belies Republican/Democrat correlation. When you saw that you resorted to city government for some odd reason.

I was not trying to show that "blue" states have better education than "red" states. I was trying to show you that there is no correlation, which I did.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Oh well, I tried folks. Here you see the product of a modern education … one that apparently encouraged KF to admire communists.

This is actually really amusing BAC. Every single time I’ve responded to you, you bring up the fact that I admire a handful of communists. Either you consider this a character flaw akin to extreme racism/sexism and are, by extension of that fact, attempting to poison the well each and every time I respond to you or you’re seriously bothered by this fact. Probably both. In any case though, I am endlessly amused by how much it bothers you.

Are you kidding me?

My, my, my the wall of text surely is your favorite way to discuss anything. Must really irk you that I never denied that the Japanese had it rough during and after WWII.

Now contrast that with the situation of blacks in 1964, when about half had already joined the middle class, could own land, could vote, and were increasingly finding a place in America. Sure, the Civil Rights Act was needed … but the welfare laws were a HUGE mistake.

I don't follow your "logic" here BAC. Blacks were apparently doing spectacularly well for themselves in the 1960's and yet, somehow, giving the poor (which apparently does not include “all” blacks by your own standards) money to help with basic necessities caused the black middle class to erode into poverty. How exactly?

I mean be real here Choosey old pal, if the welfare state is responsible for keeping people in poverty then why did poverty decrease most drastically during expansions of welfare? Prior to the New Deal roughly 56% of Americans were expected to have been in poverty. Granted, the United States righteous capitalist ideals kept it from keeping records of poverty because the government rightfully believed it should not assist those in poverty and they should be left into a world of soul-crushing poverty and starvation so that 56% number is somewhat flimsy.

What "massive" reparations?

First, it is estimated that the Japanese-Americans who were tossed into those camps lost billions of dollars in assets. And when the war ended, if they didn't have $500 dollars (and many didn't), all they were given was $25 dollars and a train ticket home. Many had no home to go to anymore. You are completely misrepresenting what actually happened.



To suggest that $37 million dollars distributed amongst 110,000 internees is comparable to the TRILLIONS of dollars handed out to blacks in the late 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s is just plain silly.

Well, for starters BAC you’ll notice that I said massive movement and not massive reparations. Second, you’ll also notice that I didn’t argue the economic impact of the reparations was enough to bring Japanese-Americans above the poverty-line but that the fact they received reparations at all was evidence that they weren’t receiving the same sort of discrimination facing blacks. Third, Muggles point caused me to think of something so I did a bit of research and, sure enough, immigration from Asia (especially Japan) increased after WWII. If he is correct, and I’d have to do more research to verify it, then that would completely blow your comparison out of the water.

By the way, you have a citation for the "TRILLIONS" that we've given blacks?

But in any case, the simple fact that they received any redress at all is pretty clear evidence that the population wasn't as against them and determined to make them fail as they were with blacks. As I said, Japanese-Americans didn't have forced segregation and Jim Crowe laws to deal with after WWII. You're attempting to compare hundreds of years of systematic discrimination and repression with a few decades that the Japanese had to endure. They were not forcibly taken from their lands, brought here, enslaved, and then dumped back into society where the government continued to legislate against them even decades after the Civil Rights movement ended.

Again, I'll just point out the obvious.

In 20 years, the Japanese went from essentially having nothing in a country where large segments of the populace hated them intensely, to being one of the wealthiest groups and widely accepted by people of entirely different skin color. And they did it without government help but by focusing on hard work and education … not by whining that this or that injustice was racist.

Contrast that with the black community which in 1964, was relatively well off compared to 1945 Japanese Americans. Here we are 45 years later, having spent upwards of ten trillion dollars on social welfare programs of which most were aimed at blacks, and the black community is less well off now then in 1964. And the reason is obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense.

"Common sense" meaning “whatever agrees with my ideology”. History seems to disagree with you in regards to welfare.

Before 1964, official statistics on poverty did not exist, and it was not the focus of government attention. However, mainstream scholars disagree little over the broad generalizations of decades prior. By one estimate, 56 percent of all American families lived in poverty in the year 1900. (1) The so-called "Roaring 20s" were a period of economic polarization, with less than 1 percent of the population earning a "rich" salary of $100,000 a year, about 15 percent earning a "middle class" income, and about half of all Americans struggling to make ends meet. (2) While investors and stock brokers were enjoying boom times on Wall Street, entire sectors of the economy were depressed: agriculture, coal, railroads, shipyards, textiles and shoes were all in decline. In fact, between 1923 and 1929, the lower 93 percent of the nonfarm population experienced a 4 percent decline in real disposable per capita income. (3) For farmers, it was even worse. During this era, "laissez-faire" philosophies dominated government policy, and welfare programs were virtually nonexistent.

The Great Depression brought much deeper poverty, of course, but almost all the damage was done on Hoover's watch. Under Hoover, the economy shrank an average of -8.4 percent a year; under Roosevelt, it grew an average of 6.4 percent a year until 1940, the year it finally returned to its 1929 level. During this recovery, Roosevelt launched the New Deal, essentially creating the modern American welfare state. Dozens of programs were instituted that redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor. Perhaps the greatest of these was Social Security, which Congress passed in 1935. Prior to Social Security, it was common to see old people starving in the streets after they retired. Social Security largely eliminated this shameful sight. Furthermore, the Social Security Act created Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the program popularly known today as "welfare."

The U.S. emerged from World War II with a supercharged economy. If ever the middle class experienced a Golden Age, this was it; prosperity had never been spread across so much of the population. The poverty rate for the 50s is estimated to have been about 20 percent, still high by today's standards, but a major improvement over the 1920s. Still, with a booming economy, it was easy to forget the bottom 20 percent. Michael Harrington had to write a bestseller entitled The Other America to remind the middle class that not all Americans were enjoying the good times. This book caught the attention of President Kennedy, who was already alarmed by the poverty he had witnessed firsthand on the campaign trail in West Virginia. Consequently, he instructed his Council of Economic Advisors to study the problem and recommend policies.

You can find that article here and it is fully sourced as well.

The black community didn't emphasize education (and in many ways stigmatized it), focused on the wrong types education (liberal ethnic studies and community organizing versus professions like doctor and sciences), made themselved dependent rather than independent (chose socialism over capitalism), destroyed the stigma of illegitimacy and the institution of marriage , and antagonized everyone with constant claims of racism … even when racism was clearly not a factor. The biggest mistake of all was latching onto the empty promises of white democrats leaders and a host of black shuckster "ministers".

Wow, just wow. After reading this I truly think that there isn’t a right-wing meme that you won’t believe.

I'm just being honest to the black community. Whereas you are not.

Right, whatever you say.

It must have really hurt to watch Apple become the largest technology company in the world.

No, not really. I’m not a Microsoft fanboy, I just really hate Apple’s business practices. Though, I’d be more impressed with Apple if this was due to more than an over-hyped cell phone that you have to jailbreak in order for it to act like a cell phone.

 

[Juniversal]

Yes. Falsely claiming your opponent holds a position so you can knock it down. Which is what you tried to do. Several times.

So you DO know what a strawman is but apparently you don't know how to properly identify one. Where exactly did I make a "false claim" about your position? I'm waiting.

LOL! Is that all you were doing? Just asking an innocent question to find out what I thought? Sorry, but you and I both know that's not all you were doing. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer would you? Perhaps you thought you could lead our audience into thinking I believe conservatives bare no blame for the current status of public education … by couching it in the form of a question? Well I object, your honor.

Umm yes I was. Seems you have a guilty conscience my friend.

If you are half as smart as you appear, you don't honestly think I think the past has no implications on the future, so why do you ask the question? My question to you is why have Japanese Americans been relatively successful post-WW2 compared to blacks? Do you think there was no discrimination against the Japanese after WW2? Do you think the Japanese came out of the internment camps loaded with money and land? Just curious?

I asked the question because you objected to me bringing up the past history to explain current day behavior or trends. And to answer your second question internment certainly didn't effect the entire Japansese population and the current population data likely doesn't make a distinction between those who are descended from individuals who suffered internment and those who've recently migrated to the U.S. in suceeding decades.

I'd argue that segregation and other forms of institutionalized discrimination had greater and more substational effects on the black community than internment on the Japanese community. Afterall the black population grew and expanded under the boot of slavery, black codes, Jim Crow, voter literacy test, intimidation (in the form of the KKK, lynchings, cross burnings, church bombings, ect.) and the like. Your comparson is very incongruous.

It works fine on my computer. Perhaps your computer or browser is broken. Don't tell me, you've got a PC? Try a Mac and Safari, instead. It's a wonderful experience.

Seems we sit on opposite ends of the spectrum on more than just political issues.

Obstinant, stubborn minds, perhaps. What? Have you no comment about the 45% of black children of parents who were middle class in 1968 who are now in the lowest fifth of earners? What happened to them for things to go so wrong at the same time that the nation was shoveling trillions of dollars into anti-poverty programs, many of which were aimed specifically at blacks? And despite decades of economic prosperity in this country overall … prosperity that created millions and millions and millions of new jobs? What went wrong?

Here, let me quote a little more from that link you say you can't access (it's from an essay titled "The Welfare State Versus Values and the Mind" by Andrew Bernstein):

I have no clue what happened. There's many factors beyond welfare that likely contributed. I'd agree that welfare hasn't been successful in eliminating poverty or greatly improving the lives of recipents but apparently the poverty rate has declinced over the past several decades.

And what do you think that was, Juniversal? Got a clue?

Social unrest? Changing social and political climate?

Question. Do you have statistics that show those aforementioned groups were accounted for in the welfare rolls?

And I'll remark again, you've never heard of NOW?

In 2007 NOW filed suit against the Bush administration seeking to abolish Fathers Day. In speaking on the lawsuit, Andrea Dworkin, one of NOW's longterm members stated "marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." On other occasions she stated marriage is "a legal license to rape" and that one "of the differences between marriage and prostitution is that in marriage you only have to make a deal with one man"? When she died NOW eulogized her, calling her "one of feminism's more rigourous minds and fiercest crusaders." Now there's a liberal pro-marriage institution if there ever one. (sarcasm)

Yes. NOW isn't the poster child for a pro-marriage organization. Now where's the Liberal assult on marriage you were talking about? A feminist organization with a leader that condemed marriage does NOT = a "Liberal assualt on marriage" as much as it = "NOW's assault on marriage".

Do they?

From 1996, http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html




From 1995, http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/welfare/testimony-0395.shtml :

Even your artical mentions that as a whole "The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year; 70 percent within two years and almost 90 percent within five years."

Again, racism isn't the black communities real problem. And just throwing more welfare money at it obviously isn't the solution.

Yes and I never claimed it was (in either case).

LOL! So you are claiming that the black community as a whole already believes what I quoted Bond saying … that he's merely a reflection of the black community? Well if that's the case, the black community is in a lot more trouble than even I feared.

Black community as a whole? No. A sizable portion of the black community? Very possible.

You mean John Lewis in the Congressional Black Caucus … the same John Lewis who was involved in the bogus claims of N-words and spitting when a few Black Caucus members and staff decided take a provoking walk through Tea Party members protesting the health care debate? The same John Lewis who was offered a check for $10K, payable to the United Negro College Fund, if he'd just take a lie detector test regarding his claims about the incident and pass it? The same John Lewis who refused to take the test and *win* that $10K for a worthy black cause? The same John Lewis who a few years ago compared republicans to Nazis and who said McCain and Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" during the Presidential campaign and then linked them with George Wallace? Really?

Yes that John Lewis.

And Julian Bond and John Lewis aren't … even though many of their statements are just as inflammatory?

Nope.

There you go with another strawman.

There you go not understanding what a strawman is.

What I say about democrats and blacks is absolutely true. I say them not to hurt either. But hopefully help some to see how they are being controlled and mislead by democrat and black leaders.

Aboslutely true and aboslutely oppinion are synonyms now?

Are you claiming that any fact I stated above is false? Because unless you are and can prove it, the only BS I see being spouted here was your suggestion that the only place I could have derived a concern about "social justice" is by listening to Glen Beck.

Are the arbitrary associations the author made between apparently communist individuals and the word social justice real? Not really. The best he could do to connect Mike Klonksy to communism is through his father. The author doesn't even claim Klonsky is a communist and only succeds at weakly connecting him to the "social justice" herring.

Also are those comparisons any more apt then making a connection between Obama and Hitler by saying "Hitler was also a great speaker" in response to someone stating that Obama is a great speaker? I think not. Are all those who campaign on "social justice" communist? Of course not.

I don't need to "demonize" anyone as communist. The folks I mentioned above ADMIT they were/are communists. Or are you suggesting that being communist, and associating with communists, is no big deal?

That really went right over you heard huh? Demonizing Liberals as communist is one thing. Acknowledging self identifying communist as communist is another.

Well pardon me, but the definition of the two is blurred. Marx himself said that socialism is merely a step on the way to communism. What's more worthy of is the refusal by people like you to acknowledge that Obama is one or the other, given the unparalleled number of associations he has with socialists and communists, and his rhetoric over the years which certainly matches one or the other ideology or a mix of them.

So your rationale is that someone that holds communist and socialist in high esteem can be described as either a socialist, a communist or both? I hope you'd agree that as a ruler someone can't rule as both a communist AND a socialist?

Fine. I guess I just got confused because in the sentence before you did that, you wrote "Regardless of which word he used, In the context he used it in, it's not "racist" by a long shot."

That sentence clearly was in reference to my earlier comparison of negro and the N word. While you managed to compare the N word to red neck.

Red neck has no racial connotations. As several of us have tried to point out to you, it has economic connotations. But Uncle Tom most definitely does have racial connotations. Blacks don't seem to call a white person an Uncle Tom. They reserve that for blacks. So it's clearly got something to do with race.

Red neck is definitely associated with whites and is percieved as characterizing poor "uncouth" whites. I don't know what world you live in. I have yet to see a black, Asian, Arab, or hispanic person described as a red neck.

 

[BeAChooser]

The internment camps of the 1940s simply did not effect most families in any way.

Black Americans, meanwhile, face routine discrimination in their home country even today

we know that they're strongly disfavored in loans and hiring, as examples - not to mention the centuries of open discrimination that you discussed.

As Larry Elder asks …

http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder/blacks-banks-and-institutional-racism.html

the out of wedlock birthrate among black Americans has been declining for roughly 40 years now

LOL! What that data shows is that in total, unmarried black women are having fewer out of wedlock kids than they were 40 years ago. But then so are caucasian women. That data is not saying that fewer of them are having children out of wedlock. On the contrary, that number has dramatically grown from what it was 40 years ago. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants were born to single mothers. In 2010, that number is now over 70 percent. And easy access to welfare and the destigmification of out of wedlock birth are the reason.

The violence rate has nosedived since Clinton took office.

But more important (and relevant to this discussion) …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Since 1964 (BAC - when the War On Poverty began), the U.S. crime rate has increased by as much as 350%

Wow, the WOP sure has been a success in preventing crime. Isn't that what liberals claim … that crime is the result of poverty?

As to why the crime rate started falling in the 1990s

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not

… snip …

Conclusions

Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: increased incarceration, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion. Other factors often cited as important factors driving the decline do not appear to have played an important role: the strong economy, changing demographics, innovative policing strategies, gun laws and increased use of capital punishment.

In other words, it had little if anything to do with WOP spending.

And apparently, the drop in crime hasn't been uniform between ethnicities …

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-04-02hm.html

blacks, 24 percent of New York City’s population, committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in the city last year

In fact,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/us/29homicide.html

The murder rate among black teenagers has climbed since 2000 even as murders by young whites have scarcely grown or declined in some places, according to a new report.

 

[BeAChooser]

Let us say you have two familes from a poor socio-economic background that live right next to each other. … snip ... Extrapolating this from two families to whole regions we would see that the level of invovlement from parents is going to be higher for those in private school.

So in other words, by hurting the socio-economic status of people, the War On Poverty has hurt education. I see.

And besides (keeping in mind that the following is from Time Magazine, a very left leaning media outlet) …

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670063,00.html

Oct. 10, 2007

… snip …

It's true that controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) eliminates most of the public-school/private-school differences in achievement-test scores in math, reading, science and history. But even after you control for SES, Catholic schools run by holy orders (not those overseen by the local bishop) turned out to perform better than other schools studied.

So why do Catholic schools do better?

Plus …

While controlling for SES eliminated most public school/private-school differences in achievement test scores, it did not eliminate differences in the most widely used test of developed abilities, the SAT. (As I explained more fully here, developed abilities are those nurtured through schoolwork, reading, engaging a piece of art, and any other activities that spark critical thinking. Developed abilities aren't inborn traits but honed competencies, more akin to athletic skill gained through practice rather than raw IQ. By contrast, achievement tests measure the amount of material students have committed to memory in any particular field.) Combined with high-school grades, SAT scores are the best predictor of how kids will do in their freshman year of college. And the data in the new study shows that private-school students outperform public-school students on the SAT.

Isn't that just because richer private-school kids can afford to be coached more before the SAT? No — remember that this study carefully controlled for socioeconomic status. Rather, it appears private schools do more to develop students' critical-thinking abilities — not just the rote memorization required to do well on achievement tests.

http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/forster200505120815.asp

May 12, 2005

… snip …

This week a new empirical study claiming to show that public schools do a better job than private schools has made a big media splash. But the study is deeply misleading.

… snip …

The main problem is that they use scores from isolated years. That is, they take a snapshot of student achievement rather than tracking achievement over time. While they do take snapshots from different years, they have no way to track students from one snapshot to the next, which is no better in practice than taking just one snapshot.

This is important because if you don’t track students over time, you can’t establish a causal connection between the type of school a student attends (public or private) and test scores. In other words, their data have nothing to say about the relative quality of public and private schools.

A much more likely explanation for the latest study’s results is that when students enter private schools, they tend to have test scores a little lower than other students of their race and socioeconomic status. That seems counterintuitive, because people are used to thinking of private-school students as privileged. And so they are — because of their race and socioeconomic status. But that’s precisely what this study controls for.

In fact, it makes perfect sense that within each racial and socioeconomic group it’s the low performers whose parents will be motivated to make the sacrifices necessary to put them in private schools. What counts is whether those students make better or worse gains over time after they enter private school — and that’s just what this study can’t tell us.

I could go on, but instead I’ll let the authors explain it for themselves. Buried in the back of the study, they write:

NAEP data [the test score set they use] do not allow for examinations of growth in achievement over time, nor do they include information about student movement between school sectors. Therefore, correlations between school sector and achievement are not demonstrably causal. In other words, one cannot conclude from this analysis that public schools are more effective at promoting student growth than private schools.

… snip …

As it happens, there’s a large body of very high-quality research that does allow us to evaluate the causal connection between school type and student achievement, and it overwhelmingly finds that private schools do better. The most convincing evidence comes from seven studies using “random assignment,” the same method used in medical trials. In all seven studies, students who won a random lottery to use a school voucher at a private school had significantly greater test-score gains than similar students who lost the lottery and stayed in public schools.

Differences in socio-economic status don't explain that, Lurker.

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5473-the-private-school-advantage

The Private School Advantage

… snip …

Despite these challenges, the teacher-pupil ratio and the close-knit climate of private schools make them an all-around better bet for kids. Public, or government, schools have been enjoying “bailout” status for decades, with worsening outcomes. It’s time for Americans to start voting with their feet.

 

[BeAChooser]

I pointed out Texas as a Republican controlled state, not necessarily one as a failed state.

When you asked "do we have the graduation rates for blacks in states like Texas versus a state like Minnesota?", what you clearly were trying to do is claim that the graduation rate for blacks in Texas isn't any higher than in blue states like Minnesota. And I proved you wrong.

 

[BeAChooser]

Every single time I’ve responded to you, you bring up the fact that I admire a handful of communists.

Well, it does sort of explain things where you are concerned.

My, my, my the wall of text surely is your favorite way to discuss anything. Must really irk you that I never denied that the Japanese had it rough during and after WWII.

Wall of text? LOL! It must really irk you to know that I disposed of your argument so easily … in less than 362 words.

I don't follow your "logic" here BAC.

Well I tried folks. But I guess logic wasn't one of the things they taught would be communist admirers.

if the welfare state is responsible for keeping people in poverty then why did poverty decrease most drastically during expansions of welfare?

This is false, KF. But then communist admirers never have had trouble spouting falsehoods, have they? Here are the facts, folks.

LBJ announced the WOP in 1964, when the number of people "in poverty" was officially about 35 million and the poverty rate was about 19%. It's true that the number in poverty fell to about 25 million and the poverty rate fell to about 12 percent by 1968. But it took years for WOP spending to really get underway (in fact spending on the program didn't really get going until the Nixon and Ford years). So what caused the poverty rate to drop to 16% in 1965, just one year after LBJ announced the effort?

Could it be that the poverty rate was already headed lower? Well that's exactly what was happening. Just 5 years before the WOP began, the number in poverty was 40 million and the rate was 22%. So in those 5 years, the number in poverty and the poverty rate was falling just as "drastically" as it did in the 5 years after WOP funding actually got underway. And there was no reason to believe it wouldn't have continued falling even if the WOP hadn't started. Is there?

Indeed, an argument can be made that the WOP actually slowed then stopped the fall in the poverty rate and number in poverty because within 4 years of announcing the effort the number in poverty and the poverty rate bottomed out. Yet the spending continued. Trillions and trillions of dollars. And what happened? No further decrease in poverty. Indeed, both the number in poverty and the poverty rate started going back up. By 1983, the number in poverty was back up to 35 million and the rate was back up to 15%. Where it basically stayed for the next 20 years, despite the government spending trillions and trillions of dollars more.

In 2004, the government was devoting nearly 15 percent of all spending to WOP-type programs. The percentage is even higher today. The poverty rate for blacks was nearly 25% in 2004 with the rate for hispanics not far behind that. Now you would think that after 45 years of removing racial barriers and spending an amount almost equal to the current national debt on eliminating poverty, that rate would be below 25%. But it isn't.

And lest you think I'm just making this up, here's a source:

http://www.friesian.com/stats.htm

The "capitalism alone" phase of poverty reduction can be seen operating from 1950 to 1966. In that period the poverty rate (column H) fell from 30% to 15%. Even poverty in the non-white population (column I) fell from almost 60% in 1960 to 40% by 1966. ... snip ... What attends the striking increase in anti-poverty activity is the actual slowing and halting of the fall in the poverty rate. The percentage of the population below the poverty line bottoms out in 1973 at 11.1% and then stagnates or increases from then on. By 1981, only the first year of the Reagan Presidency, the poverty rate is already back up to 14%, where it hadn't been since 1967. At the same time, the percentage of families on AFDC had skyrocketed, from the disturbing 2% of 1963 to what must be the even more disturbing, or shocking, 6.5% of 1980. Programs intended to reduce "dependency" had instead more than tripled it.

Here's the poverty rate data the above mentions (from the same link) where H is the total poverty rate and I is the rate for non-whites:
Year H (total, %)
1950 30.2
1951 28.0
1952 27.9
1953 26.2
1954 27.9
1955 24.5
1956 22.9
1957 22.8
1958 23.1
1959 22.4
1960 22.2
1961 21.9
1962 21.0
1963 19.5
1964 19.0
1965 17.3
1966 15.7
1967 14.2
1968 12.8
1969 12.1
1970 12.6
1971 12.5
1972 11.9
1973 11.1
1974 11.6
1975 12.3
1976 11.8
1977 11.6
1978 11.4
1979 11.6
1980 13.0
and
Year I (non-white, %)
1959 58.2
1960 56.4
1961 56.8
1962 56.1
1963 51.1
1964 49.8
1965 47.1
1966 40.8
1967 38.2
1968 32.8
1969 30.9
1970 31.6
1971 31.3
1972 32.4
1973 29.3
1974 30.5
1975 29.8
1976 29.5
1977 29.0
1978 29.4
1979 28.9
1980 29.9

Remember, the WOP was announced by LBJ in 1964. So any reduction in the poverty rate before that cannot be due to the WOP. And it's even questionable whether the reduction in the rate the first few years after that date can be ascribed to the WOP because it took years to ramp up and establish the programs that are part of the WOP.

Here's another source to support that assertion:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864

The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.

Go ahead, KF ... explain to folks what caused the poverty rate for non-whites to drop from 58% in 1959 to 50% in 1964 ... before the War on Poverty got started? Explain what caused the drop in the total poverty rate from 30% in 1950 to 19% in 1964? It certainly wasn't the War on Poverty, was it, because that hadn't even started yet. Can you offer any explanation for why the total poverty rate dropped almost 10% (from 27.9% to 19%) in the ten years prior to the start of the WOP (more than it did in the 10 years after the start of the WOP)?

Well, for starters BAC you’ll notice that I said massive movement and not massive reparations.

Oh, so you were just pointing out that people wanted reparations, not that they actually got them. I'm not sure what that proves, but very well.

Second, you’ll also notice that I didn’t argue the economic impact of the reparations was enough to bring Japanese-Americans above the poverty-line but that the fact they received reparations at all was evidence that they weren’t receiving the same sort of discrimination facing blacks.

You're mixing apple and orange timeframes. The issue is not how blacks were being treated immediately following WW2. The issue is whether blacks were treated any worse following 1964, than Japanese-Americans were treated following WW2. Because within 20 years of WW2, Japanese Americans had recovered financially. The question is why 20 years after civil rights legislation and the massive welfare programs that began in 1964, did blacks not recover financially? And to understand the answer, you need to look at the response of each community in both cases. As I pointed out, the Japanese after WW2 worked hard, emphasized education (and not the liberal kind), taught the next generation a good work ethic, chose not to make themselves dependent on the government, and didn't cry racism at every perceived affront. The black community (in general) did just the opposite, at the urging of democrat and black leaders. It doesn't take a genious to see the correlation here, KF.

immigration from Asia (especially Japan) increased after WWII.

Japanese immigration did not really resume until the "aliens ineligible for citizenship" rule was removed in 1952 (7 years after WW2 ended).

Here is a source that shows the Japanese population in the US:

http://www.kasei.ac.jp/library/kiyou/2003/7.ONOZAWA.pdf

In 1940, there were about 285,000 Japanese-Americans. In 1950 that number was still only 326,000. By 1960, the number of Japanese immmigrants had grown to 464,000, and it climbed to 591,000 by 1970. But do you think that it was wealthy Japanese who came over in the 50s and 60s? That is not what caused the economic status of Japanese Americans to change so dramatically.

Also, do you think that no blacks migrated to the US following 1964? Let's look at that. Quite the contrary, it was primarily the more well to do and well educated blacks who came to the US during that time. In fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigration_to_the_United_States ), "African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group, other than Asians. African immigrants to the U.S. are also more highly educated than any other native-born ethnic group including white Americans. Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is slightly less than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans." If anything, immigration should have helped the black community recover economically … but that doesn't seem to be the case.

By the way, you have a citation for the "TRILLIONS" that we've given blacks?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131174,00.html

CATO

September 01, 2004

... snip ...

One thing the pundits and presidential candidates aren't saying much about, however, is how much money has been spent fighting the "war on poverty"—$9 trillion and counting. Yes, $9 trillion.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16860

Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed

09/06/2006

... snip ...

The public expenditure on the variety of governmental schemes devised in the last forty years to eliminate poverty has been extraordinary. Since 1964 we have spent $8–10 trillion on antipoverty programs. In 1996, at the midpoint in the Clinton administration, the federal government expended $191 billion on poverty programs, fully 12.2 percent of the federal budget. President George W. Bush actually increased the effort. The 2006 budget, at the midpoint of Bush’s administration, calls for a massive increase in poverty programs, increasing the expenditure $368 billion to 14.6 percent of the federal budget. The Bush administration oversees a host of continuing poverty programs that includes Medicaid, food stamps, supplementary security income, temporary assistance to needy families, child day-care payments, child nutrition payments, foster care, adoption assistance, and health insurance for children. The conclusion is virtually inescapable: if the availability of nearly an unlimited amount of money and the determination of countless government bureaucracies were the necessary and sufficient conditions to eliminate poverty, then in 2004 we should not still have more than 12 percent of the U.S. population—nearly 37 million people—in poverty.

Now mind you, the whole WOP began as an effort to eliminate poverty in the black community. LBJ constantly talked of racial injustice. And the fact is that since 1964, the government has taken over $10 trillion dollars from the pockets of producers (mostly caucasians and asians) and transferred (after siphoning off a *small* fee to run the program) that to non-producers (of which many, indeed most, were black and hispanic).

You want to see this growth graphically? Here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...2010/b2427/b2427_chart2.ashx?w=500&h=459&as=1

In fact, more than $10 TRILLION has been spent since 1964:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...st-of-Means-Tested-Welfare-or-Aid-to-the-Poor

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare.

So even if only a third of welfare went to blacks (and they actually got a disproportionate share of welfare spending), there clearly have been TRILLIONS of dollars in aid to the black community over the last 45 years.

With essentially little progress in reducing poverty:

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/022C44298D6CDDA28C12A757B4A56F57.gif

Oh ... before you make a big deal of the tail end of that figure, you'd better ask yourself why it was dropping then and why it has since crept back up to about 34% despite even more trillions in spending.

In conclusion ... what a monumental and destructive waste by liberal thinkers …

And, unfortunately, there appears to be no end in sight to this utter stupidity:

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...010/sr0078/sr78_chart6.ashx?w=600&h=1052&as=1

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Again, I'll just point out the obvious.

In 20 years, the Japanese went from essentially having nothing in a country where large segments of the populace hated them intensely, to being one of the wealthiest groups and widely accepted by people of entirely different skin color. And they did it without government help but by focusing on hard work and education … not by whining that this or that injustice was racist.

Contrast that with the black community which in 1964, was relatively well off compared to 1945 Japanese Americans. Here we are 45 years later, having spent upwards of ten trillion dollars on social welfare programs of which most were aimed at blacks, and the black community is less well off now then in 1964. And the reason is obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense.

"Common sense" meaning “whatever agrees with my ideology”. History seems to disagree with you in regards to welfare.

What I said is worth noting again, in response to YOUR *ideology*.

You can find that article here

LOL! Steve Kangas. You sure you only admire communists?

Wow, just wow. After reading this I truly think that there isn’t a right-wing meme that you won’t believe.

Wow, just wow. After reading your last link I truly think that there isn't a left-wing meme that you won't believe.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Wall of text? LOL! It must really irk you to know that I disposed of your argument so easily … in less than 362 words.

You keep holding victory parties over my phantom arguments BAC.

Well I tried folks. But I guess logic wasn't one of the things they taught would be communist admirers.

Or conservatives, apparently.

This is false, KF. But then communist admirers never have had trouble spouting falsehoods, have they? Here are the facts, folks.

No it's just your inability to understand my argument, again. Funny thing about you BAC, you seem to like to invent arguments for your opponents. We could probably make a hell of a drinking game by starting an argument with you and then taking a drink every time you ignore your opponent's argument to debate with strawmen.

LBJ announced the WOP in 1964, when the number of people "in poverty" was officially about 35 million and the poverty rate was about 19%. It's true that the number in poverty fell to about 25 million and the poverty rate fell to about 12 percent by 1968. But it took years for WOP spending to really get underway (in fact spending on the program didn't really get going until the Nixon and Ford years). So what caused the poverty rate to drop to 16% in 1965, just one year after LBJ announced the effort?

Of course the War on Poverty wasn't the only time in which welfare existed in the US, now was it? Social Security was established during the 1930's and the initial act gave welfare money to the retired, the unemployed, established the AFDC and public health care services. Focusing on the WoP in hopes that I'll forget about these early programs is, really and truly, wasted effort on your part.

Could it be that the poverty rate was already headed lower? Well that's exactly what was happening. Just 5 years before the WOP began, the number in poverty was 40 million and the rate was 22%. So in those 5 years, the number in poverty and the poverty rate was falling just as "drastically" as it did in the 5 years after WOP funding actually got underway. And there was no reason to believe it wouldn't have continued falling even if the WOP hadn't started. Is there?

Obviously I didn't claim that welfare and only welfare lowers the poverty rate, so I'm going to call another strawman here. Yes, economic expansion can and does lower the poverty rate. But I argue that it isn't as efficient in a zero welfare society. As I evidence I cite the pre-New Deal US. Despite numerous economic expansions before the new deal the poverty rate was still enormous, many individuals didn't even make what would be considered a livable wage.

Indeed, an argument can be made that the WOP actually slowed then stopped the fall in the poverty rate and number in poverty because within 4 years of announcing the effort the number in poverty and the poverty rate bottomed out. Yet the spending continued. Trillions and trillions of dollars. And what happened? No further decrease in poverty.

What are you talking about? Even by your own numbers this is blatantly false. Following the passing of the EOA in 1964 the poverty rate in the country dropped by two percent and then another two percent after the passing of SSA of 1965. By 1966 the poverty rate was 15.7%, down from 19% in 1964. That's the largest drop in poverty at that point. The decline in poverty rate continued to drop at a quick pace until 1969 when the decline slowed and 1970 when the poverty rate increased. Never you mind the eleven month recession during that time.

It continued to decrease until the '73-75 recession. Then it decreased once more until 1979. You can argue that Johnson's increase of welfare was a null effect, and I'd love to see your numbers, but actually slowing the decrease of poverty is ridiculous. Your own numbers prove that wrong.

And even then, it's widely accepted by many historians and economists that the 1970-80's were not particularly kind to the ideals of the welfare state. Nixon initially attempted to reduce welfare benefits before he caved and we saw an expansion of welfare benefits. Though, nearly his entire presidency was spent in recession.

Perhaps the most damning evidence against your assertion is this graph. According to it, massive increases in poverty were seen follow the deep cuts that both Reagan and Clinton managed to secure. Despite Reagan presiding over quite the economic expansion, he also presided over a major increase in poverty.

Indeed, both the number in poverty and the poverty rate started going back up. By 1983, the number in poverty was back up to 35 million and the rate was back up to 15%. Where it basically stayed for the next 20 years, despite the government spending trillions and trillions of dollars more.

You're forgetting that the 80's saw drastic cuts in welfare. By your logic poverty should have decreased.

Oh, so you were just pointing out that people wanted reparations, not that they actually got them. I'm not sure what that proves, but very well.

Actually I pointed out both. There was a movement for redress and they received redress. You must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension.

You're mixing apple and orange timeframes. The issue is not how blacks were being treated immediately following WW2. The issue is whether blacks were treated any worse following 1964, than Japanese-Americans were treated following WW2. Because within 20 years of WW2, Japanese Americans had recovered financially. The question is why 20 years after civil rights legislation and the massive welfare programs that began in 1964, did blacks not recover financially?

The rate of poverty for blacks has been steadily decreasing. A large number are still impoverished but, as has been pointed out to you, it is difficult to claw your way out of poverty. And there is widespread evidence, again it has been pointed out, that many individuals are still acting against the interests of the black community. The Civil Rights movement was a major victory but the fight for equality is still far from over.

And to understand the answer, you need to look at the response of each community in both cases. As I pointed out, the Japanese after WW2 worked hard, emphasized education (and not the liberal kind), taught the next generation a good work ethic, chose not to make themselves dependent on the government, and didn't cry racism at every perceived affront.

You have a decidedly dim view of the black population, I see. No, no amount of welfare can substitute the will to get out of poverty. That doesn't mean zero welfare is the most efficient and best course of action, however.

The black community (in general) did just the opposite, at the urging of democrat and black leaders. It doesn't take a genious to see the correlation here, KF.

It does, apparently, take a genius to spell "genius". I'd be more inclined to accept your assertion if it didn't sound like stereotyping.

Japanese immigration did not really resume until the "aliens ineligible for citizenship" rule was removed in 1952 (7 years after WW2 ended).

Here is a source that shows the Japanese population in the US:

http://www.kasei.ac.jp/library/kiyou/2003/7.ONOZAWA.pdf



Also, do you think that no blacks migrated to the US following 1964? Let's look at that. Quite the contrary, it was primarily the more well to do and well educated blacks who came to the US during that time. In fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigration_to_the_United_States ), "African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group, other than Asians. African immigrants to the U.S. are also more highly educated than any other native-born ethnic group including white Americans. Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is slightly less than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans." If anything, immigration should have helped the black community recover economically … but that doesn't seem to be the case.

You have any evidence that immigration from economically well-off and well-educated individuals had no effect on the prosperity of either group?

Now mind you, the whole WOP began as an effort to eliminate poverty in the black community.

I'm starting to see how you come to these ridiculous conclusions of yours.

LBJ constantly talked of racial injustice. And the fact is that since 1964, the government has taken over $10 trillion dollars from the pockets of producers (mostly caucasians and asians) and transferred (after siphoning off a *small* fee to run the program) that to non-producers (of which many, indeed most, were black and hispanic).

You are aware that whites are the largest recipients of welfare, right?

Nonsense about welfare[/quote]

As I pointed out above, the majority of welfare money goes to whites. And here is another article from Kangas, since you love him so much, that outlines the even distribution of welfare amongst various income levels.

LOL! Steve Kangas. You sure you only admire communists?

Attacking the source instead of the content, typical ultra-conservative response.

Wow, just wow. After reading your last link I truly think that there isn't a left-wing meme that you won't believe.

"I know you are but what am I?" Third graders all over the world tremble at the razor-tip of your tongue.

 

[BeAChooser]

Where exactly did I make a "false claim" about your position? I'm waiting.

So the issue is public education vs. private education it seems. Not Liberal vs. Conservative. Or do actually believe liberals hate private schools? Are you implying private schools are somehow a conservative institution and public schools a liberal one? Do you believe conservatives bare no blame in the current status of public education?

And to answer your second question internment certainly didn't effect the entire Japansese population

True, only about half the Japanese-American population. But the rest suffered from economic impacts and discrimination as a result of a quasi-internment on the Hawaiian islands.

I'd argue that segregation and other forms of institutionalized discrimination had greater and more substational effects on the black community than internment on the Japanese community.

Post 1964? Because that's the only timeframe that matters to the comparison I'm making.

apparently the poverty rate has declinced over the past several decades.

No, it's been going back up, especially amongst blacks.

Now where's the Liberal assult on marriage you were talking about? A feminist organization with a leader that condemed marriage does NOT = a "Liberal assualt on marriage" as much as it = "NOW's assault on marriage".

Did you ever bother to read the portion of the Ann Coulter I linked?

Even your artical mentions that as a whole "The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year; 70 percent within two years and almost 90 percent within five years."

It also mentions that "the majority of the current caseload will eventually receive welfare for relatively long periods of time" and states in the sentence immediately following what you quoted that "But many return almost as quickly as they left -- about 45 percent return within a year and 70 percent return by the end of five years." This explains the portion I quoted earlier that "one-third of women who ever use welfare will spend longer than five years on the welfare rolls". And it explains this fact: "On average, about 70 percent of families receiving assistance at a given point in time have already received assistance for at least 24 months and 48 percent have received assistance for more than 60 months." Welfare is not quite as short term a thing as you wish to portray.

Yes that John Lewis.

LOL! So you think John Lewis is only a reflection of the black community and not trying to convince the black community of anything? Well then, since Lewis clearly lied, that must mean the black community believes lies. In which case, the black community is basing important decisions that will affect it's future on lies. Perhaps blacks need to reexamine the veracity of what they believe, rather than just accepting the regurgitated lies spouted by their ministers (and the democratic party).

Quote:
And Julian Bond and John Lewis aren't … even though many of their statements are just as inflammatory?

Nope.

Well what is it that makes Julian Boand and John Lewis different from Reverend Wright? That's still unclear.

Quote:
There you go with another strawman.

There you go not understanding what a strawman is.

Well then your *imagination* must truly flawed. Perhaps you shouldn't rely so much on it in reaching your conclusions?

The best he could do to connect Mike Klonksy to communism is through his father. The author doesn't even claim Klonsky is a communist and only succeds at weakly connecting him to the "social justice" herring.

You seem confused. Did you think I wasn't the author of what I posted about Mike Klonsky?

As for proof Mike Klonsky was a communist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Klonsky

He is known for his work with the Students for a Democratic Society, the New Communist Movement, and, later, the small schools movement. … snip … In the 1970s he became a leader of the New Communist Movement which broke away from the older Communist Party USA and its allegiance to the Soviet Union. He headed the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), in which role he was one of the U.S. political activists who visited the People's Republic of China.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2436

In the 1960s Michael Klonsky, while attending San Fernando Valley State College (now California State University, Northridge), joined the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). In 1968 he became SDS's national chairman. That same year, he helped spark the riots that erupted in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention. Klonsky was also a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

In 1968 Klonsky penned a document titled “Toward a Revolutionary Youth Movement,” wherein he quoted -- with admiration -- Chinese dictator Mao Zedong. This document called for the development of “an organized class-conscious youth movement” to engage in “revolutionary struggle” to “expose war, racism, the exploitation of labor, and the oppression of youth.”

… snip …

[Klonsky] founded the “October League,” a Maoist organization that later (in June 1977) changed its name to the “Communist Party (Marxist Leninist)” (CPML).

In his role as CPML chairman, Klonsky was highly admired by Mao Zedong. In 1977, a year after Mao's death, Klonsky became one of the first Americans ever to be invited by China's Communist government to visit that country. He met with Mao's successor, Chairman Hua Kuo-feng, and received what the Washington Post described as “the warmest reception ever given an American by the new Chinese leader.”

As proof he is strongly connected to the "social justice" meme, where in the world have you been? Klonsky's blog on the Obama website focused, as he put it, on "education policies and teaching for social justice." In 2007 he co-authored a book titled "Simple Justice: the challenge of small schools" which is part of the "Teaching For Social Justice Series." Here's how the abstract of that book starts:

http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPo...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED445877

Written by major players in the small schools movement, this collection of essays points to the ways that school restructuring strategies connect to the ongoing pursuit of social justice.

By the way, he's also a founding board member of MDS … the newly relaunched SDS of our times (http://movementforademocraticsociety.org/ ). MDS is an organization whose board is filled with self admitted hardcore socialists and communists. But you see no connection … right?

I don't know what world you live in. I have yet to see a black, Asian, Arab, or hispanic person described as a red neck.

http://www.tsowell.com/Rednecks.htm "Black Rednecks and White Liberals"

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594030863

The northern region itself used discrimination methods not just against black rednecks, but to white rednecks. He notes that racism in the north started when ghetto blacks moved up north, being that the whites and blacks both were uncomfortable with the redneck culture within their community.


… snip …

As Sowell wrote in the Wall Street Journal (April 26 2005):

"The redneck culture proved to be a major handicap for both whites and blacks who absorbed it. Today, the last remnants of that culture can still be found in the worst of the black ghettos, whether in the North or the South, for the ghettos of the North were settled by blacks from the South. The counterproductive and self-destructive culture of black rednecks in today's ghettos is regarded by many as the only `authentic' black culture -- and, for that reason, something not to be tampered with. Their talk, their attitudes, and their behavior are regarded as sacrosanct."

 

[Juniversal]

True, only about half the Japanese-American population. But the rest suffered from economic impacts and discrimination as a result of a quasi-internment on the Hawaiian islands.

Yes and prior to the civil rights act, essentially ALL black americans suffered "economic impacts and discrimination" as a result of past practices whether felt first hand or indirectly. But you seem to believe that somehow all this was remedied the moment the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964 and all the effects of centuries of disenfranchisment, racism and discrimination should be gone by now.

Post 1964? Because that's the only timeframe that matters to the comparison I'm making.

Yes. Post 1964 the effects were deeply ingrained into our society. Economic and social oppression has a nice way of concentrating poverty and segregation and time had a nice way of creating ghettos, only compounding the problem. In 1964 there was about 19 million blacks in this country, distributed mostly in crowded urban areas in the north.

You'd have to be extremely dense if you can't understand how the concentrated poverty that has plauged the black community provided an immense obstacle for black Americans as a whole. It's rediculous to compare the Japanese after internment and black Americans after the civil rights act and expect the same end to be met with each group in the same time frame.

No, it's been going back up, especially amongst blacks.

Poverty goes through undulations and dips with the introduction of reccesions and economic down turns. That's not unusual. Overall it's declined with the introduction of the War on Poverty.

Did you ever bother to read the portion of the Ann Coulter I linked?

Yes and I told you how I felt about it.

It also mentions that "the majority of the current caseload will eventually receive welfare for relatively long periods of time" and states in the sentence immediately following what you quoted that "But many return almost as quickly as they left -- about 45 percent return within a year and 70 percent return by the end of five years." This explains the portion I quoted earlier that "one-third of women who ever use welfare will spend longer than five years on the welfare rolls". And it explains this fact: "On average, about 70 percent of families receiving assistance at a given point in time have already received assistance for at least 24 months and 48 percent have received assistance for more than 60 months." Welfare is not quite as short term a thing as you wish to portray.

Got me there.

LOL! So you think John Lewis is only a reflection of the black community and not trying to convince the black community of anything? Well then, since Lewis clearly lied, that must mean the black community believes lies. In which case, the black community is basing important decisions that will affect it's future on lies. Perhaps blacks need to reexamine the veracity of what they believe, rather than just accepting the regurgitated lies spouted by their ministers (and the democratic party).

You have absolutely no proof that Lewis lied and your attempt to connect that supposed lie to what the "black community believes" so you can claim the "black community is basing it's future on lies" is laughable. And I still don't know where you get the idea that black folks learn everything from ministers or democratic party members. Do really think that we're that brainless?

Well what is it that makes Julian Boand and John Lewis different from Reverend Wright? That's still unclear.

Wrights rhetoric is extremely inflammatory and much less about justice and moreso about agressively distancing himself from the mainstream unlike Bond and Lewis who actually have the goal of *gasp* real social justice (omg communist!!).

You seem confused. Did you think I wasn't the author of what I posted about Mike Klonsky?

As for proof Mike Klonsky was a communist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Klonsky



http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2436



As proof he is strongly connected to the "social justice" meme, where in the world have you been? Klonsky's blog on the Obama website focused, as he put it, on "education policies and teaching for social justice." In 2007 he co-authored a book titled "Simple Justice: the challenge of small schools" which is part of the "Teaching For Social Justice Series." Here's how the abstract of that book starts:

http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPo...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED445877



By the way, he's also a founding board member of MDS … the newly relaunched SDS of our times (http://movementforademocraticsociety.org/ ). MDS is an organization whose board is filled with self admitted hardcore socialists and communists. But you see no connection … right?

So he WAS a communist. Your artical wasn't very concise with the evidence. I didn't explore beyond the artical. I expected more from you Chooser. But the fact he considers himself a communist does little to affirm your stance that "social justice is just a code word for communist". As I said earlier, naturally, not all who campaign on social justice are communist. Do you agree?

http://www.tsowell.com/Rednecks.htm "Black Rednecks and White Liberals"

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594030863

Sowell is clearly using the word redneck and applying it to blacks to describe behavior that's typically associated with poor whites. Regardless, the modern interpretation of the word is certainly that it's a deragatory term for "poor uncouth whites". Your resistance to excepting this obvious truth is futile.

 

[Lurker]

So in other words, by hurting the socio-economic status of people, the War On Poverty has hurt education. I see.

I don't even understand your nonsequitor here.

And besides (keeping in mind that the following is from Time Magazine, a very left leaning media outlet) …

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670063,00.html



So why do Catholic schools do better?[/quote]
Again, you cite something that in no way is controlling their sampling. Sorry, this fails.

Plus …
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/forster200505120815.asp

As it happens, there’s a large body of very high-quality research that does allow us to evaluate the causal connection between school type and student achievement, and it overwhelmingly finds that private schools do better. The most convincing evidence comes from seven studies using “random assignment,” the same method used in medical trials. In all seven studies, students who won a random lottery to use a school voucher at a private school had significantly greater test-score gains than similar students who lost the lottery and stayed in public schools.

Differences in socio-economic status don't explain that, Lurker.

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5473-the-private-school-advantage

OK, Random Assignment. FINALLY you are providing something that has actual merit. Let me take a look at it and get back to you on this one.

 

[Lurker]

When you asked "do we have the graduation rates for blacks in states like Texas versus a state like Minnesota?", what you clearly were trying to do is claim that the graduation rate for blacks in Texas isn't any higher than in blue states like Minnesota. And I proved you wrong.

If it makes you feel better, you go ahead and think that. Funny how in the very post you cite I went on to contradict my blue state example. Here let me show you:

I would think that we should see higher rates of high school graduation for blacks in states that have higher Republican control over local school boards and state politicians. So, do we have the graduation rates for blacks in states like Texas versus a state like Minnesota? I think that might demonstrate your point, BAC.

Oh, here we go. Here is some data:

Quote:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm

Lowest grad rate for African-Americans: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Georgia, and Tennessee.

Highest grad rate for African-American: West Virginia, Massachusetts, Arkansas, and New Jersey.

Hmm, I am not seeing any red state/blue state trend there. Kind of blows your theory out of the water, eh?

For some odd reason you think I was trying to compare Texas and Minnesota as if the Blue state MN was superior to the Red state TX. Odd how in the very post you cited I provided evidence showing that the blue state I used as an example of a blue state had one of the lowest grad rates for blacks. Don't you think it odd that I would make a post that allegedly blows away my premise?

Unless what you thought was my premise was in error. Again, I used TX and MN as examples of red/blue states. I had no idea what the black grad rate was and went to find out and added it to my original post.

My point was to show the lack of correlation between red/blue versus black grad rates, which I succeeded in doing. You would prefer to think I was comparing TX and MN which I was not. But if it makes you feel better, you totally demolished my point* dude!






*or at least what you imagined to be my point.