The fact that you used the phrase
You far right apologists
negates any claim from you of “common knowledge”.
The fact that you used the phrase
You far right apologists
negates any claim from you of “common knowledge”.
tvorandftc, let me start out by saying that about 2 or 2.5 weeks ago I apparently did some major house cleaning with my email account associated with CD and it appears I accidentally unloaded some comments directed to me. I found out about it indirectly when I received a recent reply from another commentator. Sorry for the delay.
I’m not sure why you made the presumption that my comments on diversity applied any differently than statistical variability for anything else. I doubt anyone would look at all the professional baseball players in the country, all of whom will end their season with a batting average, (we’ll exclude pitchers) and expect that they all maintained that same batting average week after week throughout the full season with no variance. That’s beyond incredulous. It’s the total average that has meaning. Likewise for any mean average applied across the whole country, as with diversity.
Additionally, you presume that ‘merit’ itself implies equity and fairness, without biases. But that is conflating cause and effect. That white males are so predominate throughout the various hierarchies in US history has to do with advantages coming from wealth, associations and cultural biases that privilege white males and compromise those who aren’t. They get the education others don’t, including from prestigious schools with the influence that brings, the connections others don’t have, as well as the freedom from financial burdens. When those privileged types compete against non-privileged types all those advantages are factored into the ‘merit’ and you can guess the who gets chosen. I state that in a cut and dry way. But the realities exist across all domains in innumerable applications and degrees. Sticking to just women who represent half of virtually all groups in society, they receive only 79% of what men get for the same work. Voting came into existence in the US in 1791. Women couldn’t vote until 1920, and that’s only because the suffragettes fought like hell, as well as men who believed it was wrong to deny women the franchise. Most of the 227 years since 1791 women couldn’t vote. It won’t be until 2049, a full 258 years, until women reach the 50-50 mark. For other minorities, it’ll be much longer. Representation via diversity is everything. To live and breath is to know that. Even for white males.
Also your statement: “ The reason we didn’t have diversity in America historically was due to government mandates and laws (e.g. Jim Crow, segregation, not allowing women to vote, etc.).” But why did that happen? Those ‘government mandates and laws’ came about because of zero diversity in the governmental bodies that created them. As in zero women, zero African Americans, zero working people. But plenty of support for the investor class. Cause and Effect.
We live in a hierarchical and class oriented society. Every bit as much as the British Upstairs_Downstairs image of class. Our first and last line of defense is having representation. Not just elected officials, but real representation. For all elements of society. Diversity is our biggest protector. It’s the core foundation of democracy. We don’t have functioning democracy. That couldn’t be more obvious, even without the sociological and political science studies that demonstrate just that. Diversity is a necessity for all of the non-privileged in the US. The vast majority of white males in the US have far, far more in common with the rest of the non-privileged in the country than they ever do with the wealth decision makers. This leads to something so damn obvious yet is rarely mentioned. The greatest benefit for the vast majority of while males in the US would be to have ‘less’ white males in positions of power and decision making. I can’t imagine a more pronounced way, as a white male who spent a lifetime as a working stiff, to state the importance of diversity any better than that.
A couple of weeks ago or thereabouts, in a major clean up of the account I use for CD emails , I unknowingly lost some replies. By happenstance I just came to realize it. Excuse the long delay.
I read the Gilens and Page study on ‘Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interests Groups and Average Citizens’ and the countering Branham, Soroka and Wlezien paper 'When Do the Rich Win? These are on the Vox website:
along with their account on the topic.
The Vox story is a critique to the Gilens and Page study, discussing the three dissenting studies to Gilens and Page and links to some of the considerable number of articles that apparently acclaimed the study after its release. Naturally, most of the dissenting studies are behind paywalls, but they are discussed in the Vox article and the abstracts are available. Unlike the physical sciences which can present differing opinions on gathered data, these studies on the various segments of the public to policy interests and each other, can never address the how and why questions. There’s hints of speculation but that’s not much different from narrative writing. The best they can do is find correlations. The differences in the studies pertains to methodologies. That’s all they have. Repeating Einstein’s remark that compared to human interactions physics is easy. And it can be added, a lot less messy.
I have to say that in the latter part of their paper in which they give their conclusions, Gilens and Page state their strong belief in democracy with the comment: “All in all, we believe that the public is likely to be a more certain guardian of its own interests than any feasible alternative.” Not surprising considering what they stated leading up to that comment, a comment that was quite Jeffersonian.
But getting to the purpose of this reply which pertains to the exchange between JoanRobinson and yourself.
[JoanRobinson]: That is a systematic issue, not an issue of the individuals in government. Lots of studies showing a massive gap between what people want on policy and what the government does, and there is a strong correlation between what the rich want and policy, and a negative correlation between what the public wants and actual policy.
[Your reply]: How is this not an issue of the individuals in government…the individuals in Congress specifically. You are aware of the Gilens and Page study?
First, a systematic condition by its nature acts like a form of synergism, its effects are more than the collective elements that comprise it because it establishes new/changing rules that are used without official consent of any source.
Second, what JoanRobinson stated is absolutely borne out by polls and comparisons to government actions. We’re talking about the very wealthy, the very upper percentiles vs of the whole population as sampling data and not segments of the populations vs the very wealthy. There was no such analysis by the studies. JoanRobinson refers to what the population across the board wants vs what the government actually does. Big, big difference. That itself gets compared with what the very top percentiles want and what the government does. Those at the very top have such influence that when it pertains to their interests they ARE government policy. It is an a type of oligarchy, although no studies say that. It’s aided by the reality that the US in not a democracy, in neither words nor deeds, but in political science terms, a Polyarchy. That bit of happiness aside, I’m curious as to what part of the Gilens and Page study you apply to JoanRobinson’s comments?
Lame little puppy. There must be others as well who read your remarks and crack up so much they can’t keep from spilling coffee on their keyboard. You little stinker, you.
More like eyewitless, amirite?
Now remember little pooper… he sees you when your sleeping…he knows when you’re awake. He knows when you omit verbs in what passes for little pooper’s commentary. Sure does, pooper. Have you made any new friends lately, pooper? You do have friends, don’t you, little pooper? Maybe little pooper can ask Santa for some friends. Did you know that Santa believes in choice? Sure does, pooper.
Santa doesn’t believe in choice - that is why HE has a list and is checking it twice.
Santa and his wife are libertarian socialists who practice its principles in all aspects of life, including reproductive rights. They reject the fascist mantra of controlling others whether by government or cults. Naturally those fascists types would be thrilled if such dictates were applied to them. Isn’t that always the case.
The Claus’ believe that sexual assault is a criminal offense and not something that can be bargained away. You know, like what you did.
You appear to reject being labeled a far right apologist. Said you:
[The fact that you used the phrase…You far right apologists…negates any claim from you of “common knowledge”.]
You forget the first comment you made to the article. [“They sure did forget Bill Clinton’s rapes”]. And who are “they”? You don’t mention. You’re the one who gave a license to speculate by your omission. And was your reference to Bill Clinton about his position on abortion? No, it was not. It was about criminal sexual behavior that you brought up at the same time, interestingly enough, that coincided with the charges of criminal sexual behavior of Brett Kavanaugh. Brett Kavanaugh, you may recall, was also involved with the impeachment strategy against Bill Clinton for, you know, sexual behavior. ‘What goes around comes around’ must have been ringing in Kavanaugh’s beer loving brain. The Monica /Bill activity, which was the basis for the impeachment attempt by the party of family values, was consensual, if also adulterous. Of course, Brett Kavanaught would never be involved with adulterous behavior, only predatory sexual behavior. Something an actual investigation would validate, considering the litany of witnesses that were never interviewer.
Now would the GOP lie, connive and deceive to maintain, increase their voter base? Emphatically yes. They’ve been doing it for half a century. You can even say it’s, if you’ll excuse the expression, common knowledge. The GOP elite could give a crap about Roe v Wade but they need the support of their base, those voters who want Roe overturned, despite the GOP hierarchy’s contempt for the culture of that portion of their base. So if Kavanaugh is among the lizard society against Roe v Wade but also supports the far right agenda, all is fine with the GOP. As it is with that other bastion of sexual morality Donald (the grabber) Trump. That you initially used Bill Clinton and rape to counter the charges against sexual predator Brett Kavanaugh, without even mentioning a hint about abortion, is precisely why I call you a far right apologist. You were kind enough to reveal that yourself.
Consider all the effort you made. Imagine if no one paid any attention. You should show some appreciation to the commentators who called you a phony.
You sound like the same, dare I say, crazy homeless people I speak with that like to claim “license” to lie, cheat and steal because I have not declaratively stated every instance, circumstance and possibility that I would not like them to lie, cheat or steal from me.
Good luck with that.
Replies presented in the CD comment section are available in the site’s archives for anyone to see. That you can’t reference what is in black and white but instead manufacture gratuitous narratives about homeless people exposes what a shallow little coward you are. You like to troll but how dare anyone call you out for doing it. You tried to deflect the sexual assault charges against Brett Kavanaugh by ‘declaratively’ stating ‘Bill Clinton’s rapes’, until you realized that being against abortion and Roe v Wade was a better excuse. Yet you act incredulous that anyone could interpret that as being a far right apologist.
Like I said, it’s all there in black and white, including what other commentators say about your act.
Pick whatever color you want. Bill Clinton is a rapist.