TNC: "Public Enemies" mostly kicked ass. Who else here has seen it?
I am overdue to see "The Taking of Pelham 123." Any thoughts?
I mean, does Denzel bring the stuff, like he did in "American Gangster"?
Public Enemies did mostly kick ass. Good call. Pelham was just 'eh' for me. Wait for video.
Depp was amazing (as usual) in Public Enemies. He just seems to pick good roles. When is the last time you saw a Depp movie and thought, why the hell did he choose to do this movie?
@CK: Sorry for delayed response. As a kid growing in up the 80's, I have vivid memories of Johnny Depp on "21 Jumpstreet." He was cool, ok, etc. In 1995, Johnny Depp really caught my attention and made an impression on me in terms of acting and his artistry when I stumbled upon and rented his movie "Ed Wood" -- a classic that I can watch over and over. As great as Depp still is, "Ed Wood" remains my all time favorite Johnny Depp movie and performance. Go rent or buy it!
Yesterday Governor Paterson left me a message saying that he'd appointed Richard Ravitch as Lt. Governor. Usually, he never calls unless he wants something.
Has anyone been reading Rod Dreher's blog, lately? A couple of his posts have been particularly disturbing...mostly due to his endorsement of the prejudiced and bigoted statements of commentators:
I can't understand why he doesn't have a problem with rationalizing the fear of blacks (and to a lesser extent, latinos). He and many of his readers have reduced an entire people to "bad blacks" and "good blacks."
How is pointing out a double standard in the characterization of a crime as a hate crime "race-baiting"? It's a legitimate point. Another, related question, is what the point of "hate crime" legislation is anyway. If you smash me on the head with a baseball bat, I really don't care what epithet you called me while you were swinging the bat; I care that you just smashed my head in, which was an illegal act before there were any hate crime laws.
How is there a double standard? White people can be victims of hate crimes. His whole post amounts to one huge trick question.
An assailant's motive or intent has always been considered when determining individual charges. I'm no legal scholar, but isn't that why the person who hits you with a bat can be charged with attempted murder rather then simple assault?
The double standard is that authorities are often unwilling to charge blacks with hate crimes, even when, as apparently was the case in Ohio, the black assailants made anti-white statements during the attack.
I'm not a legal scholar either, but I'd venture that someone who smashes you on the head with a baseball bat ought to be charged with attempted murder if he doesn't kill you, regardless of what he was thinking at the time.
man, that seems like an urban myth (no pun intended). why would authorities, who have NO problem throwing the book at AAs, be reluctant to convict blacks of hate crimes? Is there any evidence of this being the case?
Forget about convicting blacks of hate crimes, the point is that they are unlikely to be charged with hate crimes in the first place. The post gives an example of that. Imagine the races of the victims and perpetrators were reversed: would the authorities still be unsure of whether it was a hate crime?
The last time i checked on this story, the authorities didn't even have anyone in custody. This supposed double standard seems purely hypothetical. Seriously, why do you assume that the authorities wouldn't prosecute. If the events happened as the man says they did, then a hate crime was committed.
Dave I am no legal scholar either, not even close, but if I am not mistaken, White people who committed violent crimes against Black people were very often not even charged in their localities or if brought to trial were very often not convicted,often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It can, of course be argued that in some cases the hate crime statutes contravene double jeopardy, and that they may have outlived their usefullness, but a not very deep dive into the comments section of any right wing or center right blog may argue otherwise, particularly if one assumes that some of these blockheads are part of local jury pools.
I have, I read his column regularly, even though I disagree with almost everything he writes it's usually worthwhile to see what conservatives are thinking.
The posts on the country club pool and the anti-white "hate crimes" are really emblematic of huge chasm between liberals and conservatives on race.
I really believe that conservatives fall into two camps:
The John Derbyshire mold that believes that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites (and Asians are smarter than whites) and also believes that black males are innately more criminal based on prison statistics.
The Rod Dreher Camp that believes black culture is sick and dysfunctional, but denies (at least publicly) a genetic basis.
This isn't going away, if anything it's getting reinforced.
If you think that's depressing, you see a similar dichotomy among the most prominent researchers in intelligence. On one end, you have folks such as James Flynn, who believe that the average IQ gap between whites and blacks is due to environment, and who blame black culture for this; on the other hand, you have folks such as Arthur Jensen, who believe that the gap is largely due to hereditary causes.
The problem is, if you believe that the gap is due to environment, and you discount culture, what are you left with? You can claim that poverty is the cause, but then you would be hard-pressed to explain why poor whites tend to score higher than affluent blacks on IQ tests and other standardized tests.
I don't know if you've read the series William Saletan did in 2007 in response to James Watson's infamous comments, but you might find it worthwhile. Stephen Metcalf also did a rebuttal to Saletan's series. I take Metcalf's side, but if you haven't read it, it was an interesting discussion. The Saletan series is here:
"So what exactly are you saying? You think that black culture is sick and dysfunctional?"
I thought what I wrote was pretty clear. I sketched out the two main views on the subject among experts. Given that I am not an expert on the subject, and I that I would get dinged for expressing tentative support for either view, I will remain agnostic on this and refrain from offering an opinion.
Yes, I read the series. William Saletan's conclusion, as I recall, after he engaged in a requisite bit of Maoist self-criticism, was that maybe we shouldn't keep track of this stuff by race. I would heartily agree with that conclusion, but there's a little problem: as long as the government keeps track of this stuff -- and presumes that unequal outcomes on standardized tests (e.g., firefighter tests) may be the result of bias -- it keeps the issue in the forefront. If we don't want to keep score by race, then we need the government to stop keeping score (and picking winners) by race as well. Let the chips fall where they may and we can all move on with our lives. As the African American economist Thomas Sowell wrote recently,
Only the underlying dogma that different outcomes for different groups are evidence of discrimination makes this an issue-- and a source of unending controversy and polarization.
[...]
Where in fact have blacks been most successful? Sports and entertainment come to mind immediately. These are areas where blacks have to meet the same standards as anybody else.
It seems as if you're operating under the assumption that i believe there to be an intelligence gap between blacks and whites.
And as far as Saleton goes, wasn't the whole controversy born out of his not checking the source of studies that he was citing? Weren't the studies commissioned by white supremacists?
Yeah, he used a lot of Pioneer fund stuff, and twisted some APA conclusions. Actually though, if you go into the Fray on that article there were some good discussions, and obviously, a lot of inflammatory ones.
"So what exactly are you saying? You think that black culture is sick and dysfunctional?"
What Dave is saying is that he thinks black people as a group are less intelligent than white people as a group. As he mentioned below, he's not going to voice an opinion about the cause of this lower intelligence (environment / culture vs. genetics). But based on his comments about intelligence as it relates to class (in an earlier thread), my guess is that he believes the lower intelligence of black people is hereditary.
Get comfortable leonardhatred, you will hear some version of this statement about "black people as a group always scoring lower on standardized tests than white people as a group" whenever the discussion ventures into the territory of minorities (black people) and merit, achievement, intelligence, academics, employment, or tests in general. Regardless of what you or anyone else says in reply or rebuttal, Dave will stick to his belief of the lower average intelligence of black people and he will continue to repeat this statement whenever he has the opportunity.
I was operating under the assumption that you were aware of the differences in average IQ between different groups. Those aren't a matter of belief, but are widely known and not in dispute by any experts in the field. Where there is dispute is on what the cause(s) of the gaps are, and whether and how they might be narrowed. As far as intelligence goes, it depends on how you define it. Some postulate that there are different kinds of intelligence, some of which aren't measured by IQ and standardized tests. That may be the case, but IQ scores have been shown to be predictive of academic performance as well as real world outcomes such as job performance.
Contra Socgrad, I don't bring up the difference in average performance on standardized tests at every opportunity; I bring it up when it's relevant, as it was in the Ricci case. The reason why it was relevant is that the concept of disparate impact ignores this gap on all other rigorous standardized tests (e.g., the SAT), and presumes that when groups score in similar ways on a firefighter exam, that must be due to bias. If we applied the same presumption of bias to every standardized test that produced similar results, we'd have to junk the SAT, MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, etc. Of course, we don't do that. So, to some extent, there is an element of class snobbery at work here, with educated elites assuming that there can't be any book learning (and, consequently, standardized testing of that book learning) necessary for a firefighter.
You've misquoted me Dave. I didn't say you bring up racial disparities in standardized tests at every opportunity, I specifically outlined all of the circumstances in which you bring this issue up and I said you would bring it up whenever you got the opportunity, namely, whenever the conversation touches on one of the above mentioned topics.
Also you're being disingenuous about your beliefs about the connection between standardized test results, such as IQ, and intelligence. From your previous (numerous) comments on the matter, it's clear that you think IQ and standardized tests are a reliable way to measure intelligence, competence, and ability. Therefore, the logical conclusion from your comments about the racial disparity in standardized tests results is that you believe that black people as a group are less intelligent than white people as a group. You really need to be upfront and honest about this. You've been beating around this particular bush for months now; dancing up to a declaration of the lower average intelligence of black people but then backing off whenever anyone comes right out and asks you if this is what you mean.
Man up Dave. If you think black people as a group are less intelligent than white people then come right out and say that. The pussyfooting around the subject that you've been doing for months now is weak.
At least I haven't claimed to be privy to your thoughts.
As for "pussyfooting" about intelligence, I'm not. I'm sticking to the facts. The facts on IQ score and standardized test score gaps are what they are. Since, as I noted above, some postulate the existence of multiple intelligences (e.g., emotional intelligence), some aspects of which are not measured by standardized tests, it wouldn't be accurate to equate IQ or other standardized test scores with "intelligence" in that sense. So I haven't done so. I also haven't done so because, colloquially, "intelligence" has connotations that go beyond aptitude on standardized tests.
There is also baggage associated with "intelligence" that isn't associated with, say, an IQ score or an SAT score. People (unfortunately, in my opinion) often invest too much in the concept of intelligence, and base broader, invidious distinctions on it (again, unfortunately, in my opinion). There are other important characteristics, such as diligence, integrity, etc. Being more intelligent, however one chooses to define it, doesn't make one a better person than someone less intelligent.
Hence, due to its broader connotations, people often get offended when invidious distinctions are made about the intelligence of groups. You know this, of course, which is why you are desperate for me to make such a statement, even though I don't agree with it, for the reasons I mentioned above. But you persist, because, apparently, you'd rather wallow in feigning offense than engaging with the point I made when I brought up the group differences on standardized tests in the first place: namely, that if the group differences on rigorous standardized tests such as the SAT are not presumed to be the result of bias, then it's illogical to presume that similar group differences on a job-related test are the result of bias. It is on this bit of illogic that the edifice of disparate impact rests.
I still don't understand what your point was in relation to the original discussion of Rod Dreher's rationalizing the fear of blacks. I commented on how depressing it is that people actually believe that black people were inferior in any way...then you presented your sketch of the two views, and seemed to endorse the findings.
How about Brian Kilmeade on Fox yesterday saying that Americans get diseases because we don't have pure genes & "we keep marrying other species and other ethnics."
Brian Kilmeade's not that bright, but Media Matters is a tendentious outfit. I'm sure you can find dipshits on other networks saying similarly stupid stuff, if you obsessively hunt for it.
I know that some of y'all feel as strongly about DADT as I do, so I thought I'd stop in with this:
Please, find out if your representatives have signed on to the bill that decorated Iraq War veteran Rep. Patrick Murphy has taken the lead on (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31808452) to have DADT repealed, and if not, make a call or drop a note.
DADT is un-American, and it damages national security, and it's something that we the people can take an active part in overturning. Obama has said he will sign a bill the minute it's on his desk -- let's see to it that it gets to his desk!
I blogged about the bill this morning, with links to the appropriate sources of information and a sample note/phone script, but am sufficiently new here that I don't know what the rules are about blog pimping. If it's ok, give a shout, and I'll link to it. If not, I understand!
Apparently, I'm also sufficiently new that I don't know how to embed links around these parts.... Sigh. I presume you all know how to cut-n-paste if you want to get to that link. I'll go figure out what I'm doing....
Because I wanted to see if I have it figured out how...
Please, find out if your representatives have signed on to the bill that decorated Iraq War veteran Rep. Patrick Murphy has taken the lead on to have DADT repealed, and if not, make a call or drop a note.
That links to the Rachel Maddow show interview, thank you! But if you want to find out about your own representative, you can go to GovTrack.us and look up HR 1283 -- though they haven't been loading this morning, so you may have to go to the Google cached version (which, thanks to my husband, I was able to embed a link for!)
Palin, who just quit her job citing a unmanageable barrage of false ethics complains, now accuses the President, one of his chief advisors and Rahm Emmanual of orchestrating the complaints.
Is it just me or has there been a massive increase in traffic recently? Even during election season it was rare to see 150+ comments on a thread. Now we just had one with almost 250 and another the McNair Thread approaching 150.
TNC is my new fave. I'm a Sullivan fan, but Andrew doesn't allow comments. Let me be clear, though. It's not the mere fact of comments that appeals to me, it's the over all quality and civility. You all are some pretty awesome people!
Thanks to both of you. I can't speak for the rest of the commenters here. However, in my experience, a person attracts the type of people that compliment them. In a sense if a person puts out bad juju they get bad juju back. If TNC has errected a community then it's because he brings parts of himself to the table that make other people sit up and say "hey I'd like to try that."
I think it's TNC that makes this blog. If we weren't here he would still have the best commentators around.
Community, please help me keep my head from exploding. AP released a story today about Pres. Obama's arrival in Ghana and this was in the lede: he was met by dignitaries and "an ETHNIC AFRICAN" (my caps) group that danced and BANGED (again my caps) drums for Obama's arrival." Um, they are in Africa, in Ghana, what exactly makes the group "ethnic African." I have been to many, many presidential arrival ceremonies and overseas events. Very often, a cultural group will perform for the president and his traveling party and the performance, of course reflects the culture of the country. If the group represents a specific "in county" cultural or ethnic minority that information is included in backgrounders distributed to reporters by us or our host country. If I am being oversensitive, please tell me, but the AP described the group as "ethnic African." i am not even going to get into "banged" v. "played" the drums.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
TNC: "Public Enemies" mostly kicked ass. Who else here has seen it?
I am overdue to see "The Taking of Pelham 123." Any thoughts?
I mean, does Denzel bring the stuff, like he did in "American Gangster"?
Public Enemies did mostly kick ass. Good call. Pelham was just 'eh' for me. Wait for video.
Depp was amazing (as usual) in Public Enemies. He just seems to pick good roles. When is the last time you saw a Depp movie and thought, why the hell did he choose to do this movie?
Pirates, part 2 and 3.
Touche! Totally forgot about those.
I know exactly why he chose to do those.
If someone offered you a crateload of money to hang around in the Caribbean for a couple of years and pretend to be a pirate, would you turn it down?
Apparently he's been offered TARP-style money to make the fourth one. Yarrrgh.
@CK: Sorry for delayed response. As a kid growing in up the 80's, I have vivid memories of Johnny Depp on "21 Jumpstreet." He was cool, ok, etc. In 1995, Johnny Depp really caught my attention and made an impression on me in terms of acting and his artistry when I stumbled upon and rented his movie "Ed Wood" -- a classic that I can watch over and over. As great as Depp still is, "Ed Wood" remains my all time favorite Johnny Depp movie and performance. Go rent or buy it!
Jim DeMint is a freaking moron--not that that's news.
And please, please, don't let Miami sign Allen Iverson.
Yesterday Governor Paterson left me a message saying that he'd appointed Richard Ravitch as Lt. Governor. Usually, he never calls unless he wants something.
Like help finding his keys?
Dave, my apologies, my comment about the blind man joke was meant for LCrawfty.
Has anyone been reading Rod Dreher's blog, lately? A couple of his posts have been particularly disturbing...mostly due to his endorsement of the prejudiced and bigoted statements of commentators:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/07/segregationist-suburban-swim-p.html
I can't understand why he doesn't have a problem with rationalizing the fear of blacks (and to a lesser extent, latinos). He and many of his readers have reduced an entire people to "bad blacks" and "good blacks."
He also resorts to race-baiting:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/07/ohio-anti-white-hate-crime.html
It amazes me the lengths people will go to to try to excuse inexcusable behavior.
It makes me wonder how he interacts with people of color.
He probably doesn't, except in very controlled circumstances.
It's all right as long as they're one of the 'good' ones.
How is pointing out a double standard in the characterization of a crime as a hate crime "race-baiting"? It's a legitimate point. Another, related question, is what the point of "hate crime" legislation is anyway. If you smash me on the head with a baseball bat, I really don't care what epithet you called me while you were swinging the bat; I care that you just smashed my head in, which was an illegal act before there were any hate crime laws.
How is there a double standard? White people can be victims of hate crimes. His whole post amounts to one huge trick question.
An assailant's motive or intent has always been considered when determining individual charges. I'm no legal scholar, but isn't that why the person who hits you with a bat can be charged with attempted murder rather then simple assault?
The double standard is that authorities are often unwilling to charge blacks with hate crimes, even when, as apparently was the case in Ohio, the black assailants made anti-white statements during the attack.
I'm not a legal scholar either, but I'd venture that someone who smashes you on the head with a baseball bat ought to be charged with attempted murder if he doesn't kill you, regardless of what he was thinking at the time.
man, that seems like an urban myth (no pun intended). why would authorities, who have NO problem throwing the book at AAs, be reluctant to convict blacks of hate crimes? Is there any evidence of this being the case?
Forget about convicting blacks of hate crimes, the point is that they are unlikely to be charged with hate crimes in the first place. The post gives an example of that. Imagine the races of the victims and perpetrators were reversed: would the authorities still be unsure of whether it was a hate crime?
The last time i checked on this story, the authorities didn't even have anyone in custody. This supposed double standard seems purely hypothetical. Seriously, why do you assume that the authorities wouldn't prosecute. If the events happened as the man says they did, then a hate crime was committed.
No fan of Gov. Paterson, but is that a "blind man" joke?
Dave I am no legal scholar either, not even close, but if I am not mistaken, White people who committed violent crimes against Black people were very often not even charged in their localities or if brought to trial were very often not convicted,often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It can, of course be argued that in some cases the hate crime statutes contravene double jeopardy, and that they may have outlived their usefullness, but a not very deep dive into the comments section of any right wing or center right blog may argue otherwise, particularly if one assumes that some of these blockheads are part of local jury pools.
I have, I read his column regularly, even though I disagree with almost everything he writes it's usually worthwhile to see what conservatives are thinking.
The posts on the country club pool and the anti-white "hate crimes" are really emblematic of huge chasm between liberals and conservatives on race.
I really believe that conservatives fall into two camps:
The John Derbyshire mold that believes that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites (and Asians are smarter than whites) and also believes that black males are innately more criminal based on prison statistics.
The Rod Dreher Camp that believes black culture is sick and dysfunctional, but denies (at least publicly) a genetic basis.
This isn't going away, if anything it's getting reinforced.
that is so depressing.
If you think that's depressing, you see a similar dichotomy among the most prominent researchers in intelligence. On one end, you have folks such as James Flynn, who believe that the average IQ gap between whites and blacks is due to environment, and who blame black culture for this; on the other hand, you have folks such as Arthur Jensen, who believe that the gap is largely due to hereditary causes.
The problem is, if you believe that the gap is due to environment, and you discount culture, what are you left with? You can claim that poverty is the cause, but then you would be hard-pressed to explain why poor whites tend to score higher than affluent blacks on IQ tests and other standardized tests.
So what exactly are you saying? You think that black culture is sick and dysfunctional?
Dave,
I don't know if you've read the series William Saletan did in 2007 in response to James Watson's infamous comments, but you might find it worthwhile. Stephen Metcalf also did a rebuttal to Saletan's series. I take Metcalf's side, but if you haven't read it, it was an interesting discussion. The Saletan series is here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/
and here's Metcalf's:
http://www.slate.com/id/2179073
"So what exactly are you saying? You think that black culture is sick and dysfunctional?"
I thought what I wrote was pretty clear. I sketched out the two main views on the subject among experts. Given that I am not an expert on the subject, and I that I would get dinged for expressing tentative support for either view, I will remain agnostic on this and refrain from offering an opinion.
Dan W.,
Yes, I read the series. William Saletan's conclusion, as I recall, after he engaged in a requisite bit of Maoist self-criticism, was that maybe we shouldn't keep track of this stuff by race. I would heartily agree with that conclusion, but there's a little problem: as long as the government keeps track of this stuff -- and presumes that unequal outcomes on standardized tests (e.g., firefighter tests) may be the result of bias -- it keeps the issue in the forefront. If we don't want to keep score by race, then we need the government to stop keeping score (and picking winners) by race as well. Let the chips fall where they may and we can all move on with our lives. As the African American economist Thomas Sowell wrote recently,
It seems as if you're operating under the assumption that i believe there to be an intelligence gap between blacks and whites.
And as far as Saleton goes, wasn't the whole controversy born out of his not checking the source of studies that he was citing? Weren't the studies commissioned by white supremacists?
Leonard,
Yeah, he used a lot of Pioneer fund stuff, and twisted some APA conclusions. Actually though, if you go into the Fray on that article there were some good discussions, and obviously, a lot of inflammatory ones.
@leonardhatred
"So what exactly are you saying? You think that black culture is sick and dysfunctional?"
What Dave is saying is that he thinks black people as a group are less intelligent than white people as a group. As he mentioned below, he's not going to voice an opinion about the cause of this lower intelligence (environment / culture vs. genetics). But based on his comments about intelligence as it relates to class (in an earlier thread), my guess is that he believes the lower intelligence of black people is hereditary.
Get comfortable leonardhatred, you will hear some version of this statement about "black people as a group always scoring lower on standardized tests than white people as a group" whenever the discussion ventures into the territory of minorities (black people) and merit, achievement, intelligence, academics, employment, or tests in general. Regardless of what you or anyone else says in reply or rebuttal, Dave will stick to his belief of the lower average intelligence of black people and he will continue to repeat this statement whenever he has the opportunity.
Leonardhatred,
I was operating under the assumption that you were aware of the differences in average IQ between different groups. Those aren't a matter of belief, but are widely known and not in dispute by any experts in the field. Where there is dispute is on what the cause(s) of the gaps are, and whether and how they might be narrowed. As far as intelligence goes, it depends on how you define it. Some postulate that there are different kinds of intelligence, some of which aren't measured by IQ and standardized tests. That may be the case, but IQ scores have been shown to be predictive of academic performance as well as real world outcomes such as job performance.
Contra Socgrad, I don't bring up the difference in average performance on standardized tests at every opportunity; I bring it up when it's relevant, as it was in the Ricci case. The reason why it was relevant is that the concept of disparate impact ignores this gap on all other rigorous standardized tests (e.g., the SAT), and presumes that when groups score in similar ways on a firefighter exam, that must be due to bias. If we applied the same presumption of bias to every standardized test that produced similar results, we'd have to junk the SAT, MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, etc. Of course, we don't do that. So, to some extent, there is an element of class snobbery at work here, with educated elites assuming that there can't be any book learning (and, consequently, standardized testing of that book learning) necessary for a firefighter.
You've misquoted me Dave. I didn't say you bring up racial disparities in standardized tests at every opportunity, I specifically outlined all of the circumstances in which you bring this issue up and I said you would bring it up whenever you got the opportunity, namely, whenever the conversation touches on one of the above mentioned topics.
Also you're being disingenuous about your beliefs about the connection between standardized test results, such as IQ, and intelligence. From your previous (numerous) comments on the matter, it's clear that you think IQ and standardized tests are a reliable way to measure intelligence, competence, and ability. Therefore, the logical conclusion from your comments about the racial disparity in standardized tests results is that you believe that black people as a group are less intelligent than white people as a group. You really need to be upfront and honest about this. You've been beating around this particular bush for months now; dancing up to a declaration of the lower average intelligence of black people but then backing off whenever anyone comes right out and asks you if this is what you mean.
Man up Dave. If you think black people as a group are less intelligent than white people then come right out and say that. The pussyfooting around the subject that you've been doing for months now is weak.
"You've misquoted me Dave."
At least I haven't claimed to be privy to your thoughts.
As for "pussyfooting" about intelligence, I'm not. I'm sticking to the facts. The facts on IQ score and standardized test score gaps are what they are. Since, as I noted above, some postulate the existence of multiple intelligences (e.g., emotional intelligence), some aspects of which are not measured by standardized tests, it wouldn't be accurate to equate IQ or other standardized test scores with "intelligence" in that sense. So I haven't done so. I also haven't done so because, colloquially, "intelligence" has connotations that go beyond aptitude on standardized tests.
There is also baggage associated with "intelligence" that isn't associated with, say, an IQ score or an SAT score. People (unfortunately, in my opinion) often invest too much in the concept of intelligence, and base broader, invidious distinctions on it (again, unfortunately, in my opinion). There are other important characteristics, such as diligence, integrity, etc. Being more intelligent, however one chooses to define it, doesn't make one a better person than someone less intelligent.
Hence, due to its broader connotations, people often get offended when invidious distinctions are made about the intelligence of groups. You know this, of course, which is why you are desperate for me to make such a statement, even though I don't agree with it, for the reasons I mentioned above. But you persist, because, apparently, you'd rather wallow in feigning offense than engaging with the point I made when I brought up the group differences on standardized tests in the first place: namely, that if the group differences on rigorous standardized tests such as the SAT are not presumed to be the result of bias, then it's illogical to presume that similar group differences on a job-related test are the result of bias. It is on this bit of illogic that the edifice of disparate impact rests.
I still don't understand what your point was in relation to the original discussion of Rod Dreher's rationalizing the fear of blacks. I commented on how depressing it is that people actually believe that black people were inferior in any way...then you presented your sketch of the two views, and seemed to endorse the findings.
How about Brian Kilmeade on Fox yesterday saying that Americans get diseases because we don't have pure genes & "we keep marrying other species and other ethnics."
It's probably a waste of time to point out when some fox news dipsh!t says something ignorant, but hey why not? http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907080028
Yeah, not to mention genetic diversity helps protect against disease, as opposed to inbreeding.
Brian Kilmeade's not that bright, but Media Matters is a tendentious outfit. I'm sure you can find dipshits on other networks saying similarly stupid stuff, if you obsessively hunt for it.
I know that some of y'all feel as strongly about DADT as I do, so I thought I'd stop in with this:
Please, find out if your representatives have signed on to the bill that decorated Iraq War veteran Rep. Patrick Murphy has taken the lead on (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31808452) to have DADT repealed, and if not, make a call or drop a note.
DADT is un-American, and it damages national security, and it's something that we the people can take an active part in overturning. Obama has said he will sign a bill the minute it's on his desk -- let's see to it that it gets to his desk!
I blogged about the bill this morning, with links to the appropriate sources of information and a sample note/phone script, but am sufficiently new here that I don't know what the rules are about blog pimping. If it's ok, give a shout, and I'll link to it. If not, I understand!
Apparently, I'm also sufficiently new that I don't know how to embed links around these parts.... Sigh. I presume you all know how to cut-n-paste if you want to get to that link. I'll go figure out what I'm doing....
Because I wanted to see if I have it figured out how...
How's that ellaesther?
That links to the Rachel Maddow show interview, thank you! But if you want to find out about your own representative, you can go to GovTrack.us and look up HR 1283 -- though they haven't been loading this morning, so you may have to go to the Google cached version (which, thanks to my husband, I was able to embed a link for!)
Hey, hold on, I just now figured out that you were quoting me!! That's kinda cool...! Thank you even more!
no problem. Just trying to figure out this HTML thing...
It's at Open Congress, too.
Palin, who just quit her job citing a unmanageable barrage of false ethics complains, now accuses the President, one of his chief advisors and Rahm Emmanual of orchestrating the complaints.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/07/09/a-final-palin-post/#more-14455
Is it just me or has there been a massive increase in traffic recently? Even during election season it was rare to see 150+ comments on a thread. Now we just had one with almost 250 and another the McNair Thread approaching 150.
yeah...it's pretty cool. TNC's got it goin on....
Of course, commenters like you make this blog even better. It's almost like you and TNC know what each other is thinking.
Are you guys buds?
I hope this lasts. It is a model of how this internet thing should work.
TNC is my new fave. I'm a Sullivan fan, but Andrew doesn't allow comments. Let me be clear, though. It's not the mere fact of comments that appeals to me, it's the over all quality and civility. You all are some pretty awesome people!
Thanks to both of you. I can't speak for the rest of the commenters here. However, in my experience, a person attracts the type of people that compliment them. In a sense if a person puts out bad juju they get bad juju back. If TNC has errected a community then it's because he brings parts of himself to the table that make other people sit up and say "hey I'd like to try that."
I think it's TNC that makes this blog. If we weren't here he would still have the best commentators around.
Community, please help me keep my head from exploding. AP released a story today about Pres. Obama's arrival in Ghana and this was in the lede: he was met by dignitaries and "an ETHNIC AFRICAN" (my caps) group that danced and BANGED (again my caps) drums for Obama's arrival." Um, they are in Africa, in Ghana, what exactly makes the group "ethnic African." I have been to many, many presidential arrival ceremonies and overseas events. Very often, a cultural group will perform for the president and his traveling party and the performance, of course reflects the culture of the country. If the group represents a specific "in county" cultural or ethnic minority that information is included in backgrounders distributed to reporters by us or our host country. If I am being oversensitive, please tell me, but the AP described the group as "ethnic African." i am not even going to get into "banged" v. "played" the drums.