Welcome to My World

Looks like both Cobb and Prince C. have problem with my case for being a republican (even though I mostly agree with Cobb’s take on the subject). Sometimes a girl just can’t win. ;-) Cobb at least makes a well-reasoned case for his argument. Prince C. says I lack common sense, but does not explain why, in his opinion, my position is nonsensical.

Here’s your chance, P. Help me see the light; minus the epithets, please.

Comments

[Cobb]

My only gripe with what I read quickly is that I interpreted that it was the statistical chance of you raising a knucklehead that kept you from raising a child at all. The association of that and black womanhood is something I don't buy. To me it sounds like the old culture wars of the 80s. Since my aunt raised my cousin, in Inglewood, all by herself and he went Ivy League, I have to testify that all single mothers aren't crippled by statistics. I presume the same would be the case for you.

I started to write about the debate on whether or not we should pay attention to racial statistics at all, or play the averages when it comes to guessing the sociological value of groups, and that left me with several paragraphs that just bogged down the whole thing. So I just said I was surprised that you mentioned statistics at all. But knowing you're not a sociologist, like the people I grew up with, I just decided not to go there.

I am not convinced that the attraction of mainstream republicans to blackfolks who talk about family values is altogether on the up and up. I would give a lot more benefit of the doubt if we didn't have loudmouth contrarians like Larry Elder and Amstrong Williams who often sound like they talk about blackfolks for fun and profit without much heart. So I test the waters of family values when talking about the prospect of black communities with some more hardball economic questions. The person I keep in mind is Jack Kemp, who made no such mistakes when he talked about empowering America and Enterprise Zones. That's where the 'culture of poverty' stuff comes from.

I don't question your choice at all, but I don't expect that we're going to agree on everything. It's a big tent.

[Phelps]

Point of order: Larry Elders is a libertarian, rather than Conservative Republican.

[baldilocks]

One of the things I hope that you may know about me, Cobb, it that I appreciate being told why a person disagrees with my position, as opposed to them simply saying, “hey J, you’re FOS,” and leave it that. If you didn’t get that from this post, consider it spelled out.

I, too, have seen fine young men come from single-mother origins. There are simply more that do not.

If an a-hole tells the truth, does that somehow turn it into not-the-truth? That the Larry Elder and Armstrong Williams types—I like Larry, don’t like Armstrong--espouse such arguments does not invalidate them. The two may have some hidden agendas. How does that invalidate their arguments (when they are presenting demonstrable facts and coming to plausible conclusions based on those facts)?

Phelps: Larry recently joined the Republican Party. He refers to himself as a “Republitarian.”

[prince C.]

Sorry if my epithets offend you. When faced with lies and distortions by the right I feel it's my duty to shout them down with the most offensive words possible in order to emphasize my contempt. It's not very couth but it will probably be the future of 21st century politics.

Here's the deal.

Blacks who espouse the conservative agenda are liars. They wrap their rhetoric in words such as 'personal responsibility' and the like when they mean nothing of the sort. It's plain racism but what makes it worse is that it comes from the mouths of Black folk.

Anyone who looks at the State of Black Folks with a critical eye can only say things are getting worse. I won't bother to site statistics, it only depresses me but few would disagree with my assesment. It was only after the conservative agenda was put into place that we started seeing the drop in the quality of life for Black folk.

The reason I use the word selfishness is because that's what Blacks who agree with that agenda espouse. Like the corporations who move thousands of jobs overseas and the call it efficiancy, Black conservatives want to pull money out of social services and call it progress. Both are looking at nothing but their own bottom line and could give a blank about the ramifications on peoples lives.

There is not a mountain of lazy Black people wanting to suck the tit of the government. There is a mountain of Black people trying their best to make their lives better. To think it's ok for corporations to recieve tax cuts but the working poor to have to face higher college, health and living cost without help is not only selfish but borders on the immoral. And that's where Black republicans stand, on the side of the killers. The killers of hope and advancement.

It is possible to help those that need it and help corporations to make money and create new jobs. We have seen it done in past administrations. But the republican party spreads the lie that helping a corporation get a profit helps the Black guy eventually. That is just not true.

I just finished posting about the Black Voices situation. If AOL was not run by a Black Man they would not be having that coversation. How do I know? Because MSN, Yahoo and others had no coversation for them. What you are seeing is what happens when Blacks reach out to help other Blacks. We all win. It's something conservative Blacks can learn from. Nothing is wrong with helping the Black folks struggling behind you. It's not very Republican nor Conservative but it is right. And nothing is wrong with that.

[Cobb]

Just because Vinnie Testeverde throws touchdowns doesn't mean I can't hate him. It doesn't mean I hate football our that I don't acknowledge the value of touchdowns. I just hate Vinnie.

I don't hate Baldilocks, I don't even believe I often disagree with Baldilocks. I just happen to be responding during my coffee break (twice, now with this comment). I just resent being beat down in the same paragraphs as Campbell.

[P6]

If an a-hole tells the truth, does that somehow turn it into not-the-truth? That the Larry Elder and Armstrong Williams types—I like Larry, don’t like Armstrong--espouse such arguments does not invalidate them. The two may have some hidden agendas. How does that invalidate their arguments (when they are presenting demonstrable facts and coming to plausible conclusions based on those facts)?

Show me one.

[Arnold]

prince C. - I know exactly what you mean, dude, and I feel your pain.

When faced with lies and distortions by the right I feel it's my duty to shout them down with the most offensive words possible in order to emphasize my contempt.

That's my personal debating style of choice, too... especially when I don't have any facts to back up my arguments.

I think the world would be a better place if we all adopted this style... like when we have presidential debates we can just see who shouts the loudest and make him president. That would rock!

Blacks who espouse the conservative agenda are liars.

Yeah, because not only is your opinion the absolute truth, but everyone in the world knows it's the truth so anyone who disagrees is a liar!

I won't bother to site statistics

That's good, because people who use statistics are pussies.

few would disagree with my assesment.

And the ones who do are LIARS!

There is not a mountain of lazy Black people wanting to suck the tit of the government.

You said tit! Hu-huh... huh-huh! How big are the government's tits? Did the government get a boob job? I can't wait for the next issue of Hustler... I hear the governments gonna be in it!

If AOL was not run by a Black Man they would not be having that coversation.

Now, that is just wrong. I mean, it's bad enough that all Black People have to live in ghettos or on reservations or something, but to force a Black Man to own an overpriced, second rate ISP is just beyond the pale.

Keep the faith, Brother!

[baldilocks]

Well, Prince C. You ignored my polite request; you called me names, you assumed things about me based on your own stereotypes, rather than known fact.

The only thing that I can say is...nice meeting you.

[baldilocks]

Oh and, by the way, thanks for the links and you're blogrolled. I always like to keep up with what those who adamantly oppose my position on things, even if they're a bit...strident. Ask P6.

BTW, P6, I have an example in mind, but today is a bad day. I haven't forgotten, however.

[prince C.]

Sorry if you feel offended by me calling you and the rest of the cheap labor conservative ilk liars. I don't veiw that as name calling. To me that is fact. I my views are based on what you have written about the Bush economic plan, which you have supported. I don't. I think it is destroying the Black community. As usual you can call a Democrat a fat ass (http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2003/08/why_i_am_a_repu_1.html) but to question the truthfulness of your ideas are beyond the pale. Typical.

And to Arnold: According to the latest poll of Black folks released TODAY 70 percent of those surveyed said joblessness had gotten worse, 67 percent said the quality of public education had taken a similar turn and 67 percent said the availability of quality health care has also worsened. Close behind, 61 percent said the availability of affordable housing had gotten worse, and 59 percent said there was an erosion of civil liberties.

These are the facts Black folks are dealing with. Obviously the Republican agenda is slapping them upside the head hard. A 30+ percent joblessness rate in the Black community is not something to laugh it, it something to be fixed. Now.

Hey, thanks for the conversation. Hope your friends don't have their tech jobs moved to India, their college tuition and property taxes raised or anything else this Administration has given us.

Peace and Goodnight.

[baldilocks]

Prince C.: I called *a particular democrat "Fat ass." I can't see how that somehow means that I called *all* of them such. This demonstrates our failure to communicate.

Who's *laughing* and who's *not* attempting to fix somethings? You're operating from those stereotypes again.

Oh, well. Peace and goodnight to you also.

[Arnold]

prince C.:

You're playing fast and loose with some numbers there. Example:

70 percent of those surveyed said joblessness had gotten worse

Does not translate into

A 30+ percent joblessness rate

The statistics that you cite are all percieved problems (i.e., "do you think joblessness has gotten worse" rather than "have you lost your job"). It looks like that poll was designed to measure attitudes, not actual employment figures.

I will not call you a liar though, because I assume you believe what you are saying, even though I believe it to be false. These are known as opinions.

Here's a definition you might find useful:

lie (n) 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true

Before you call someone a liar, you should (a) prove that what they are saying is false, and (b) prove that they know it is false

You haven't proven (a) much less (b), so yes, you are engaging in name-calling.

[Arnold]

Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers:

Dec 2003 unemployment
White=5.0% Black=10.3% ratio B/W = 2.06

Dec 2002 unemployment
White=4.9% Black=10.7% ratio B/W = 2.18

Dec 1999 unemployment
White=3.2% Black=7.2% ratio B/W = 2.25

So, while unemployment amoung blacks is still over twice that of whites, the ratio has actually dropped since GW took office.

[prince C.]

WTF? Take a look at this.
http://www.louisianaweekly.com/cgi-bin/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?20040105s

[prince C.]

No matter the real rate (and I am not conceding it's in the 30s) the situation is dire, especially for Black males. I contend the reasons have more to do with Conservative economic polies than some sudden defeciancy in Black folks to make their situation worse.

[Leo]

Well, at least he's just contending now as opposed to shouting LIAR, like he was up the screen a bit.

[Lester Spence]

Does the bureau report how many folks dropped out of the labor market?

Another thing to consider...both Clinton and Bush massaged the numbers in different ways. Now military members are counted in the employment figures whereas before they were not. A few other groups have been added as well I think.

So it seems to me that the unemployment figures for blacks are underestimated.

[Arnold]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics site, these were based on civilian jobs. I'm not sure about whether they count folks who dropped out of the job market.

I did, however, notice that there was about a 30% unemployment rate amoung black males age 16-19. That may be the figure used in the article that Prince C. cites, which would account for the discrepancy. The figures I used included male and female of the entire age range.

[Arnold]

Oops, my mistake. It was "both sexes age 16-19". Here's how those numbers look:

Dec 2002:
Black 30.3% White 12.5% ratio B/W 2.424

Dec 2003:
Black 27.3% White 14.8% ratio B/W 1.845

So, employment amoung blacks has improved over the last year, while employment amoung whites has gotten worse. Hmm. So much for the "racist Republican agenda."

Here's the table:
Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age

[Lester Spence]

Arnold it'd probably be better to track the rise and fall over time. Looking at the 16-19 group, African Americans were looking at a 37% unemployment rate just a couple of months ago. Compare the volatility of this group with their white peers. I'm not sure your conclusion holds.

[Arnold]

Lester: Good point. Admittedly, I wasn't doing a very sophisticated analysis.

A also noticed that I was inadvertantly comparing "seasonally adjusted" data to "not seasonally adjusted" data. The numbers would actually have looked better for blacks if I'd done it properly... I'll leave that as an exercise for the students. ;)

The 16-19 demographic is a strange choice for measuring the overall situation though (unless of course, you want to make it look as bad as possible). I was "unemployed" most of the time between 16 and 19 because I was in school.

The only conclusion I meant to draw from the data was that the Republican agenda was not racist. It is certainly not obvious from the data that things are getting worse for blacks relative to whites (as Prince C. asserts) although the volatility you pointed out merits further investigation.