« I told you so | Main | Strange stuff about Palin's wardrobe bill »

October 23, 2008

Comments

So what is average IQ for working class whites?

My less charitable interpretation is working class whites want the benefit of government enforced racism. As long as there is racism, there are a group of people they can feel better than. Hell, many of the folks posting on this board, this is all they care about.

People are free to disagree but that's what I hear when I see people complaining about liberals living off in the suburbs in the paradise of rich homes and minority-free schools. I see a bunch of dudes feeling like the leftbehind. How dare they treat you like you are just a minority right? How dare they be indifferent to your white birthright? Isn't it the right of every white person to have society constructed in such a way that every white person attains their 'fair' position above the NAMs?

This is an old thing and not that resticted to America. David might know what I mean by 'petits blancs' and 'grands blancs'. This bargain has been part of America since before there was an America. In the beginning, poor whites and blacks in America lived in bondage and there was cooperation against the owners and then the owners saw a way to divide and conquer, a politics which has endured for hundreds of years.


"Why would anyone making $250,000 ever vote for Obama? The way the liberal would explain it is that the rich person is placing other issues above personal interest, and is thus making a smart decision. However, when the working class person places other issues above personal interest, such as abortion, traditional marriage, gun rights, and other cultural issues, the liberal says that the working class person is stupid for caring about anything besides the balance of payments between the government and himself. Thus, the same motivations which make the Democratic voter smart make the Republican voter stupid."

But the rich can AFFORD to put other issues over economic issues. The poor can't. Also, the issues that rich dems put above economics are important issues like racial and economic equality and world peace. The issues that working class whites put above their economic interest are cultural bigotry and religous fundamentalism.

Also, the rich are not really putting anything above their economic interests because it's in the interest of the rich to have a more equitable & thus stable society in which to do business. It's also been proven that even the rich live longer in more equitable society's.

This is why the most left leaning billionaires (oprah, bill gates) tend to be brilliant, and working class whites republicans and black republicans (of any class level) tend not to be too bright.

Dude, at least browse the blog for Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State -- it is not true that working class people vote Republican and rich vote Democrat.

Even in the super-red state of Mississippi, you only have about 35-40% of poors voting Republican.

He didn't say working class whites are stupid; he said the Republicans appeal to their hearts more than their heads. This is true. Republicans win those votes by talking a certain way about culture and god and patriotism, etc. In terms of actual policy, Republicans are good only for multimillionaires, and even that is questionable.

Immigration is actually a perfect example of this. Republicans talk to the base about immigration in a certain way and Democrats talk to theirs in a different way, but in practice, there is no policy difference between the two parties on that issue. Anti-immigrant voters are just being played for suckers.

Even on taxes, it's more about the heart than the head for white working class Republicans. Like Joe the Plumber, they think that one day they'll be making more than $250,000 and they don't want to pay more taxes. In reality, though, Democratic policies make it more likely that they'll ever even get to the $250k mark. (Income growth for all demographics but especially for the working class is MUCH better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.)

Remember how the Republicans even got the white working class in the first place. They were a traditional Democratic stronghold -- the base of the party, even, until they fled the party for the Republicans after LBJ signed the civil rights act and Nixon and Reagan played to their racial resentment.

It's a combination of racism, anti-intellectualism, and misguided patriotism that keeps the white working class voting for Republicans. There's certainly no pecuniary reason for it.

You still haven't admitted you were wrong about Democrats being the party of the rich. Republicans are.

"My less charitable interpretation is working class whites want the benefit of government enforced racism. As long as there is racism, there are a group of people they can feel better than. Hell, many of the folks posting on this board, this is all they care about."

Then why don't poor whites support more non-white immigration? All the more people to feel superior to.

Most poor whites want nothing to do with NAMs. And the latter sound pathetic when they call whites not wanting to associate with them a form of opression.

"Dude, at least browse the blog for Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State -- it is not true that working class people vote Republican and rich vote Democrat."

No, but many populous, wealthy suburbs outside the heartland like those around Chicago are LESS Republican than they used to be. Before Clinton, the GOP used to rack up huge margins in places like Bucks County around Philadelphia (Think of the Reagan and Nixon landslides).

Outside of the heartland, the upper middle class still votes GOP, but by smaller margins than they used to.

Part of the reason Republican margins have shrunk among the upper middle class is that Clinton was a highly competent centrist on economic policy wonk.

Indeed, aside from Clinton's tax hike in the early 90's, I don't think Clinton did anything with the economy Reagan himself would have disapproved of.

Clinton was pro free trade, he had moderate, Wall Street friendly Treasury secretaries like Rubin and Summers, and kept the budget balanced without spending too much.

Clinton was arguably center right on the economy. The upper middle class liked Clinton so much on economic policies that GOP advantages among the upper middle class were reduced in the Bush II years.

The major question Democrat partisans need to worry about is whether Obama will continue to hug the middle and thus continue to attract more of the white professional class, or if he will risk losing substantial support among wealthier subarbanites by moving the Democrats WAY to the left of where Clinton was on fiscal policy.

If he goes too far left, Obama could lose ALL of the gains Clinton has made among the white professional classes.

TUJ:

Based on his advisers etc., it seems like Obama will govern similarly to Clinton as far as the economy goes. Obviously in light of the circumstance, a few things will have to be looked at more closely, like Clinton's embrace of Greenspan.

Most poor whites want nothing to do with NAMs.

And neither do wealthy ones(and neither do asians or subcons, for that matter). After all, they moved out to their gated communities, nice expensive 'burbs and fancy parts of town with kids in NAM free private schools. Lucky them. It sucks to be a racist on a budget!

"Most poor whites want nothing to do with NAMs."

They're piddling their panties in paranoia that their daughters might develop cases of Jungle Fever.

BS from Vim – “My less charitable interpretation is working class whites want the benefit of government enforced racism. As long as there is racism, there are a group of people they can feel better than. Hell, many of the folks posting on this board, this is all they care about.”

Gee, Vim,

Why am I not surprised that you have it exactly backwards in your "less accurate" interpretation?

The reality it that working class whites want an end to government enforced racism – better known as Affirmative Action, which dramatically disadvantages them by tilting the playing field decidedly in the favor of NAM’s.

As long as there is such blatant ant-white racism, there are a group of people that they can clearly see are getting a better deal than they are – at their expense.

"They're piddling their panties in paranoia that their daughters might develop cases of Jungle Fever."

Or being raped, robbed, murdered, beaten or otherwise violated. Not to mention just trying to get an education. Hey, look at what is happening on LI! You live on LI, right Peter?

http://wcbstv.com/local/hempstead.high.school.2.845791.html


slwerner,
Apparently it is OK is you use your wealth to be a racist. Free markets and all that...

"Hey, look at what is happening on LI! You live on LI, right Peter?"

The troubles at Hempstead High involve fighting between black and Hispanic students at an overwhelmingly minority school. Whites students are not being victimized. What few whites attend the school are probably staying out of the fray.

"The troubles at Hempstead High involve fighting between black and Hispanic students at an overwhelmingly minority school. Whites students are not being victimized. What few whites attend the school are probably staying out of the fray."

Well, I guess everything is just OK then. You miss the point, again.

"This is why the most left leaning billionaires (oprah, bill gates) tend to be brilliant, and working class whites republicans and black republicans (of any class level) tend not to be too bright."

Holy cow, Oprah and Bill Gates in the same breath. You must be kidding. What has Oprah ever done that demonstrates intellectual brilliance?

Sometimes reading the opinions of others shows why it might be utterly worthless to try and save humanity. How can any rational person compare a television personality to the operator of the most successful software company of all time? Pure delusion.

slwerner:

"As long as there is such blatant ant-white racism, there are a group of people that they can clearly see are getting a better deal than they are – at their expense."

It's important to look at things analytically. AA is not a phenomena occuring in a vaccum now is it? It has a social and historical context which was inherited from the previous state of affairs. What was the purpose of AA? What was the original problem that it was meant to solve? Was there ever racism in America? (I want to know the answer to this question because if you are one of those loonies that won't even call slavery racism and apartheid then I don't really want to waste my time with you.) Is racism against blacks all gone now? The only way AA gets to be pure racism is if you are saying it's not counter balancing anything and that without AA, America is a completely egalitarian system. Is that what you are saying?

Also, how is it that these guys care so much about AA that benefits NAMs who are only 12% of the population but not about AA that benefits women who are 50% of the population? I typically see more scholarships and things that are women-only than minority only. It's in no way the principle of the thing that guides them.

Besides, AA is failing. Blacks are not doing very much better. So Blacks are still doing worse than whites, just less worse than before. So what are these poor whites complaining about? You tell me.

"Holy cow, Oprah and Bill Gates in the same breath. You must be kidding. What has Oprah ever done that demonstrates intellectual brilliance?"

Well she overcame extreme poverty, racism, sexism, weightism, illegitimacy, sexual abuse and teen pregnancy to become the richest & most philanthropic African American of all time, and the most influential woman on the planet, and she did it by totally dominating the most competetive and improvisational field there is for a quarter century. Yeah, I'd say Oprah's pretty brilliant. Fuzzy on the outside, for public consumption; deliberate skilled and sharp as a razor behind the scenes.

"...then I don't really want to waste my time with you.

A fine idea. Now get back to your studies and waste no more time!

Standardized testing is the big one. Without standardized testing a middle or working class white is up against upper-middle class and upper class citizens who can pad their college resume with insane extracurricular activities. Meanwhile the middle or working class student is too busy working a part time job during the school year and a full time job during the summer to join the debate team or help out with orphans in Somalia.

"So what are these poor whites complaining about? You tell me."

Think of what kind of neighborhood you live in, or want to live in and you tell us.

Sigma

good post, well argued

This is why the most left leaning billionaires (oprah, bill gates) tend to be brilliant[sic], and working class whites republicans and black republicans (of any class level) tend not to be too bright.

Posted by: Dan | October 23, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Oprah brilliant? As in "brilliant like Spike Lee"?

Were German Joes who installed Hitler stupid? I think so, just look at the consequences!

Will American Joes who install Palin be stupid? We will find out, but judging from what you see around you, it is reasonable to think the answer is yes.

Good post Half Sigma:
The left has declared war on the white man. And since the affluent white man can defend himself, it is the poor white men who suffers. In Germany, it is the poor white man's daughters who are called whores and being molested by the islamic guestworkers. It is his son who gets assaulted by young islamic mobs. Oh, and when talking about great women I prefer Angela Merkel over Oprah.

The alternative to facism, nazism and francoism wasn't democracy but communism. That's why the German burgoise supported the nationalsocialits: they were the only ones who could stop the communists and prevent a burgoise genocide like in 1917 Russia.

"Were German Joes who installed Hitler stupid? I think so, just look at the consequences!

Will American Joes who install Palin be stupid? We will find out, but judging from what you see around you, it is reasonable to think the answer is yes."

So maybe another Holocaust is in the offing when McCain is elected along with Grand Inquisitor/SS Kommandant Palin? You must be channeling Jewish Atheist. He lives in constant fear of well, everything. Let me know if you survive the coming persecutions and mob violence. Good luck!

"What was the original problem that it was meant to solve? Was there ever racism in America? (I want to know the answer to this question because if you are one of those loonies that won't even call slavery racism and apartheid then I don't really want to waste my time with you.) "

If by racism you mean people perferring their own race to others then it is not all gone and it never will be because it is part of human nature. Nor should we try to get rid of it.

The only kind of racism that you might be able to argue is immoral is that that is santioned by the government. And that kind of racism today favors blacks and Mexicans.

Writing this from Canada, I can only say that you have no idea how much it's worth to have a health care system that you can count on without worrying about how much it will cost, or whether you will be eligible for coverage. As long as I had a job, I never thought about this. But one day I lost my job and then spent 5 years self-employed. I had lots of things to worry about being self-employed (e.g., contracts, marketing, juggling different assignments), but health care was not one of them. Same story for all the other people I knew who were self-employed and trying to build up their businesses - and some of them had health care challenges that would have wiped them out financially if they hadn't been covered automatically. You have so many other bills to pay when you are trying to build up your business - you shouldn't have to worry about health care as well.

One other point: Businesses need to take the long view - the investment view. This ought to lead to fiscal conservatism. Tax cuts are great, as long as they are offset by expenditure reductions, and as long as the expenditure reductions don't lead to disinvestment (e.g., cutbacks in education and research). Here, McCain gets some credit for opposition to things like earmarks and ethanol subsidies. But it's hard to cut those back because of politics, and they cover only part of the problem. And it's impossible to cut back the really big expenditures that benefit older people (especially in must-win states like Florida).

Taking the longer view, the worst thing you can do fiscally is to cut taxes with borrowed money, which is what has been happening. Eventually, it all has to be paid back with interest. Nobody likes paying taxes, but it's pay now or pay more later.

Right now, both sides are dreaming when they talk about tax cuts. That will just did the hole deeper. The focus should be how to get a handle on the deficit and to stop piling up the debt.


There are a hell of a lot of conservative, working class whites that are smarter than most overeducated, liberal followers who vote against this country's interests.

"Oprah brilliant?"

It takes an incredibley agile mind to host a talk show as well as Oprah does. You try talking for an hour a day and making it so fresh, so interesting, so amusing, so spontanieous, that millions upon millions of people watch you day after day in the face of incredible competetion to the point where you have more money & influence than every other talk show host combined. Most of can't even keep a stranger at a party entertained for more than 2 minutes. Oprah's kept the whole world entertained for more than 2 decades. The woman is pure genius. Sometime I watch her show and think "look at her go!" She's SO brilliant! As Cambridge grad Thandie Newton said after watching Oprah perform, "she's acute, she's got a mind like a razor blade."

"There are a hell of a lot of conservative, working class whites that are smarter than most overeducated, liberal followers who vote against this country's interests."

What? It's republicans that vote against America's interests. The Bush admin was the worst thing that ever happened to America's interests, taking America from a highly respected superpower with a surplus, to a globally unpopular country in fincial chaos. The war in Iraq may have served Israel's interests, but it did not serve America's. Now it fairness some very smart republicans opposed it (pat buchanan) and a lot of pro-Israel liberals supported it (i.e. the new york times), but for the most part it was a republican war, initiated by the neocon intellectuals in the party.

Rich liberals believe that it IS in their own best interest to help society. The basic argument is that the marginal value of having more money when you're already rich is less than the value of having a non-messed-up society. John Kenneth Galbraith wrote about this in the '50s.

The only problem is that liberal programs actually tend to make things worse instead of better. D'oh! But that's what they're thinking (at least that's part of what they're thinking).

I agree with the basic premise (that a good society is better than having more money when you already have enough money), but I believe that right-wing policies are generally better than liberal ones. That's why I oppose importing the third world, even though I'm immune to competition from third-world immigrants and am much more likely to use their services than compete with them. So I guess I'm voting against my class interest too.

"But notice the typical liberal double standard at work again. Why do rich people vote Democratic when it's surely in their interests to vote Republican?"

It's called "status seeking." As in "I'm doing well enough that I can afford the luxury of supporting kook leftist politicians and/or kook leftist philanthropies." Or "I'm doing well enough that I can afford my naive fantasies about the reality of human nature."

Those of you defending Oprah, don't bother. These racists will never believe a black person is smart. Also, internet nerds undervalue people skills because they're better at math so it makes them feel better if they insist the only intelligence that counts is that which shows up on math tests.

There are a hell of a lot of conservative, working class whites that are smarter than most overeducated, liberal followers who vote against this country's interests.

-----------This sounds so much like gheto guys. White nigr-, any one?

It is hard to argue that the rich are really voting against their own interest. Making everything complicated in a legal sense creates wealth for attorneys. Giving money to college students and grants to universities, raises the income of college professors. Making dealing with the government complex and difficult creates jobs for consultant.

Also, making the public schools worse raises the value of their children's private school eduation. Filling up more neighborhoods with illegal immigratns and allowing the crime rate to rise increase the value of their own home in the gate or affluent neighborhood.


Everyone should be able to come up with example of where elite white progressives make proposals where they directly benefit but the middle class is harmed (think affirmative action, busing, crime as mental illness, open borders, lowering the standard of schools, restrict zoning, public transportation.

"Those of you defending Oprah, don't bother. These racists will never believe a black person is smart."

Yes, I agree, it's got to be racism!

Just like how the haters on this board can't acknowledge that those 2 musical genius Afrocentric brothers in Milli Vanilli were also extremely intelligent and talented.

It takes a super high IQ to be able to go onstage and lip sync to a pre-recorded background track! And then to face the media after you've just won a Grammy! Fuhgetaboutit!!!

If only people like P Diddy, Oprah, Milli Vanilli, Obama, and Vim were in charge, we wouldn't have to worry about subprime loans or global warming! Plus, the trains in NYC would run on time!


After watching an Oprah show about education, it became apparent that Opray does not understand the concept of mean, median, and average.

Also, on a show about the value of housework, it was obvious that Oprah has virtually no understanding of Economics.

Those of you defending Oprah, don't bother. These racists will never believe a black person is smart. Also, internet nerds undervalue people skills because they're better at math so it makes them feel better if they insist the only intelligence that counts is that which shows up on math tests.

Posted by: JewishAtheist | October 23, 2008 at 03:28 PM

Not so fast, Mr non sequitur (jewish atheist?). Posters never claimed that Oprah was not intelligent; their cavil is the argument that Oprah is in the same league as Gates. And Gates is no math nerd--he's a brilliant entrepreneur who helped redefine the world. Oprah is a parlous talk-show maven, and probably less intelligent than the execrable Curtis Sliwa.

"Well she overcame extreme poverty, racism, sexism, weightism, illegitimacy, sexual abuse and teen pregnancy to become the richest & most philanthropic African American of all time, and the most influential woman on the planet, and she did it by totally dominating the most competetive and improvisational field there is for a quarter century. Yeah, I'd say Oprah's pretty brilliant. Fuzzy on the outside, for public consumption; deliberate skilled and sharp as a razor behind the scenes."

Have you met Oprah? Have you ever worked in software and worked with high level engineers? Are you supporting the notion that Oprah and Gates are on the same intellectual field? The notion is preposterous and you know it.

As for your claim that television talkshows comprise the most competitive and improvisational field in the world, what may I ask is the second most competitive field? The third?

As for your claim that television talkshows comprise the most competitive and improvisational field in the world, what may I ask is the second most competitive field? The third?

Posted by: zylonet | October 23, 2008 at 04:00 PM

the most competitive field is Upper East Side pimp the first day of a United Nations conference


"Just like how the haters on this board can't acknowledge that those 2 musical genius Afrocentric brothers in Milli Vanilli were also extremely intelligent and talented."

Milli Vanilli didn't dominate a field as competetive and improvisation as TV talk shows for a quarter century. Milli Vanilli didn't make $385 million a year by talking for an hour a day, while dictating the best seller list and deciding who leads the world's sole superpower. It seems to me that if someone can overcome adversity of every kind to become the most successful woman in the history of the planet without being brilliant, then intelligence is not all that important. I don't believe that for a second.

Questions from Vim – “Was there ever racism in America? (I want to know the answer to this question because if you are one of those loonies that won't even call slavery racism and apartheid then I don't really want to waste my time with you.)”

Vim,

There definitely was, and still is, racism in America; and around the world. Slavery was definitely a very stark example, as was Apartheid. Still, your suggestion that the white working classes primary objective is simple racism was way off base – and I think you know it.

“Is racism against blacks all gone now?”

No, it isn’t. But racism against whites is emerging as a much bigger problem. White racism is largely cached and subtle; black racism is blatant and overt. There are isolated cases of white on black racial violence, but there are far more instances of the reverse going on today. And, while blacks may still experience discrimination in certain employment situations, whites are the ones who the government now encourages such discrimination against.

“The only way AA gets to be pure racism is if you are saying it's not counter balancing anything and that without AA, America is a completely egalitarian system. Is that what you are saying?”

AA IS pure racism because it sets out to advantage members of one race over another. If we went to extreme measures to remove “color” from hiring and promotion (like never letting decision makers see the candidates, and sanitizing “ebonics” from their written materials) whites would still fair better. They just tend to be (statistically) smarter, will have made better efforts towards their education, and are willing to work harder. I know you don’t like it, but that is the way it is.

The idea that we have an egalitarian system is absurd. Based on differing abilities, we will naturally have differing outcomes. Government should play no role in trying to “rig” the outcomes just because one group is consistently unable to compete. Should we have AA for football and basketball? The better goal would be to seek a meritocracy.

“It's important to look at things analytically. AA is not a phenomena occuring in a vaccum now is it? It has a social and historical context which was inherited from the previous state of affairs.”

If we were to be truly analytical about this, it is dead wrong for government to try to reverse historical injustices by penalizing innocent people. For instance, why should some poor white kid from a rural area who worked his ass off in school be denied a chance to go to a top school in order to give the spot to better-off black kid who pissed around during his school years and now needs a AA slot to get in? We could keep going on to the extremes of absurdity trying to get the sort of eye-for-an-eye social justice you seek. Far more white women are raped by black men than the reverse. Should we add up the difference and randomly “round up” that number of black women an subjugate them to being raped by white men so that we can have an “egalitarian” outcome between the races?

Take a look around you Vim. Black people are the most racially aware, racially motivated, racist and violently racist group in this country. The stat’s don’t lie. And, blacks are allowed to behave in overt and offensive racist manners – sometimes even encouraged to do so. What pastor gets to be the white Jeremiah Wright, and suffer so few repercussions for it?

Oprah runs a multibillion dollar business empire; she's not just a talk-show host. She also started as a news anchor on local t.v. I'm not saying she's identically intelligent to Bill Gates, and I'm definitely not vouching for her knowledge of macroeconomics or mathematical averages, but she's clearly pretty freaking smart.

Do you think it's just luck that she's so rich? That she's just the puppet of some brilliant Jewish/Asian/White guy behind the scenes?

As for rich people voting against their interests, it's not at all clear that they are. Sure, they're voting for higher taxes for themselves, but they're also voting for less war, a healthier workforce, wealthier consumers, etc., etc., etc.

"Not so fast, Mr non sequitur (jewish atheist?). Posters never claimed that Oprah was not intelligent; their cavil is the argument that Oprah is in the same league as Gates. And Gates is no math nerd--he's a brilliant entrepreneur who helped redefine the world. Oprah is a parlous talk-show maven, and probably less intelligent than the execrable Curtis Sliwa."

I'm not saying Oprah's as intelligent as Bill Gates, but Gates is a one in a million intellect. You don't have to be that smart to be extremely brilliant.

But I would argue that Oprah's done more to redefine the world than Gates has, despite far more humble origins. Oprah popularized the trashy talk show genre, turing it into a huge industry, and a Yale study found tabloid talk shows did more to make gays mainstream and socially acceptable than any other development of the 20th century.

Oprah through her book club, pioneered the use of electronic media to make literature accessible to the masses & did more to get the masses reading than anyone since the inventor of the printing press.

Oprah, through her focus on new age secular spirituality has been a major force in the decline of organized religion.

And if Obama gets elected, Oprah will be the one woman who single-handedly put a black man in the white house. Hillary was way ahead in the polls (even among black women) until Oprah jumped in trigering a massive sea change in the black vote and winning all white Iowa (the state that changed the trajectory of the race), and getting Obama over 1 million votes (according to two brilliant economists who calculated the effect of her endorsement).

Im astounded that Sigma called a working class anybody something other than "prole".

I suppose working class whites who vote Democrat are "proles", and WCW's who vote Republican are principled values voters.....


Ball-breaking being over, Sigma is pretty much right. Working class whites are being squeezed (as well as working class blacks) by more immigration more than anything else. The dollars per hour they could earn would be at least a buck or two higher if the nation looked like it did in 1992. In some instances (meat packing plants) whites and blacks were making 11 bucks an hour back when and now Mexicans do that for 7.50 an hour with utterly no benefits.

Now try and tell those people they are better off now.....I think not. These were black and white people, not just working class whites. The third world immigration probably hurts blacks the most........which is a shame, but much must apparently be sacraficed to fufill the vision of the anointed elites as we become the first "universal nation" or whateverthefuck they are calling it this week.

"Oprah popularized the trashy talk show genre, turing it into a huge industry..."

Truly, this was a great accomplishment! Hysterical.

"As for your claim that television talkshows comprise the most competitive and improvisational field in the world, what may I ask is the second most competitive field? The third?"

I don't know, but when Oprah demonstrated how much money and influence one could have just by hosting a talk show, everyone who was anyone rushed out to get a talk show, and the industry exploded with copycats. Even Bill Clinton was in talks to host a talk show after his presidency but the talks reportedly broke down when they refused to give him the $50 million a year he wanted (by contrast Oprah rakes in $385 million a year according to some reports).

Yet despite the enormous amount of competition, & despite her doing controversial things like campaigning for Obama and promoting secular spirituality, she has remained the #1 highest rated talk show for a quarter century (though her ratings were sometimes challenged by verbally skilled Ashkanazi Jews like Jerry Springer & Judge Judy).

miles,
Blacks are in the process of being thrown under the bus by liberals in this nation. And only liberals would think that lower pay and no employee benefits is some kind of progress. I have yet to hear any liberals raise a stink about what happens in the meat packing industry regarding labor, animal cruelty or the environmental impacts. You would think they would go nuts over this because it is Big Bunsiness that is doing this too and as we all know, Big Business is run by racist Republicans. But whining about global warming is easier and you won't get your hands dirty. And never mind that having a KKK member in the Senate is OK as long as he is a Democrat, but that is another story.

Linda, it was Phil Donahue (Oprah's mentor) who redefined the talk-show format, but the geniuses in this format remain Johnny Carson and Dick Cavett (in US).

Oprah's influence as book club pimp has been disgusting, unless you like crap such as Maya Angelou and Dr Phil.

Oprah is a porker loudmouth, and not particularly creative. Her job is easy: entertaining fat, stupid white women.

"But I would argue that Oprah's done more to redefine the world than Gates has, despite far more humble origins."

Your statement is a painfully hilarious joke. There is no comparison between television talkshows and software. Microsoft made efficiency-enhancing software available to the masses. By your comment, you quite simply do not understand the value creation driven by Mirosoft. Oprah is probably a fine woman, but I doubt that she is intellectually brilliant.

The original post listed her as brilliant alongside Gate. In such context, one may reasonably infer the author is refering to intellectual brilliance. I find no such evidence. Perhaps a more apt description would be that Oprah is a brilliant television personality.

"Truly, this was a great accomplishment! Hysterical."

According to Yale sociologist Joshua Gamson, who wrote the book "FREAKS TALK BACK", it was. The tabloid talk show genre, which was pioneered by Donahue, but popularized and revolutionized by Oprah, provided two decades of much needed high impact media visibility for gays, and did more to make them mainstream than any other devlopment of the 20th century.

Now when immitators like Jerry Springer & Jenny Jones gave the genre a bad name, Oprah brilliantly reinvented herself by starting a book club and doing shows about helping others, but never underestimate the counter-culteral media revolution she unleashed when she first hit the scene.

This woman single-handedly invented confession culture by being the first person on TV to talk openly about her personal dysfunctions and cry along with her guests. From the start, she was original and brilliant. The Oprahfication of the culture even spread to Europe, where even the Queen of England was criticised for not showing enough public emotion in the wake of Princess Di's death. Oprah single handedly transformed the world.

One of your better posts...

Interesting point, and point taken. The problem is that many working class whites *actually give* the economic reason as the reason for voting republican. They are struggling financially, and they say that they want their taxes lowered, so they can have more $$ in pocket--thus their reason for voting republican.

Admittedly this is anecdotal evidence. I'd really like to see more reliable evidence on this question.

However, the main premise of this story (that working class whites vote republican for reasons OTHER than $$) is as of yet unsubstantiated.

To those jokers who wish to incessantly defend the "genius" of Oprah:

I suggest you read "Fooled By Randomness" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb for some insight into this phenomena. No one here denies people such as Oprah, Gates, Buffet, etc. have talent or lack above average IQ. But that only gets you so far. If talent, high IQ, and hard work is all it takes in this world, well, where's your yacht? You have to concede the role of "randomness", or "sheer luck". If I remember correctly, Taleb discusses this in significant detail, especially in relation to the "rear view window"/"Monday morning quarterbacking" effect, and especially the "survivorship bias". One of his analogies is to have an auditorium full of 500 "coin flippers", and anyone who flips "heads" gets to stay in the room. After 10 flips, we're left with 5 people. Taleb says that the simpletons among us will say: "Wow, these 5 people are excellent coin flippers! How do they do this? They must be extremely talented!" Whereas Taleb would say, you're completely missing the role of survivorship bias, and simple random luck.

I wonder if Oprah, Gates, and Buffet have any contingency plans for a "Black Swan event" such as social unrest occuring on Election Day? Do you think their supposed high IQ brains have considered such a thing?

"Linda, it was Phil Donahue (Oprah's mentor) who redefined the talk-show format, but the geniuses in this format remain Johnny Carson and Dick Cavett (in US)."

Phil Donahue created the format, but Oprah popularized and revolutionized it. She redefined what it is to be a host by crying along side her guests, sharing intimate secrets and creating a brand new form of media communication. Such original behavior (when done with such stratospheric success) is a sign of brilliant intellect.

"Oprah's influence as book club pimp has been disgusting, unless you like crap such as Maya Angelou and Dr Phil."

Or unless you count Faulkner, Tolstoy, Cormac McCarthy, or Toni Morrison. Oprah was so moved by the book Beloved then she adapted it into a movie; keep in mind that this a book so abstract, complex & metaphorical, that universities only allow graduate students to read it.

"Oprah is a porker loudmouth, and not particularly creative. Her job is easy: entertaining fat, stupid white women."

If it's so easy, why have dozens and dozens of talk shows been cancelled and virtually no one been able to beat Oprah in the ratings in a quarter century. Easy jobs don't pay $385 a year. She's obviously capable of doing someting very rare, otherwise the free market would not reward her so exceptionally. You conservatives should understand that.

Linda boasts - "Oprah single handedly transformed the world."

Frankly, Linda,

As far as "pop culture" goes, I and those I associate with have been far more influenced by Seinfeld. I don't watch Oprah, and I don't know that I know anyone who does.

She certainly has a large audience - good for her. She's found her niche and is doing quite well. And, further, I wish her well. But..."transformed the world"? I don't think so. Transformed the day-time television watching world? Perhaps.

Be it the the world, or some subset of it, her success is just one more example of why we no longer need the racist abomination of Affirmative Action. Talented people, regardless of race/ethnicity can and do rise to the top of their professions, with no help from the government.

"You have to concede the role of "randomness", or 'sheer luck'."

Yes but you have to know what to do with luck. People get lucky everyday but fail to identify it or skillfully exploit it. Oprah may have been lucky when she landed a gig hosting some cheesy local morning talk show that was dead last in the ratings, but to transform that gig into being the richest African American of all time and the most influential woman on the face of the planet with the power to dictate the NY Times best-seller list, revolutionize the culture, and be able to single handedly swing presidential elections, is evidence of genius.

"If it's so easy, why have dozens and dozens of talk shows been cancelled and virtually no one been able to beat Oprah in the ratings in a quarter century."

Because Oprah was lucky enough to come along at exactly the time the nation was ready for a black, female Phil Donahue clone. Then, once she attained stardom because of that, stardom is generally self-perpetuating. This is an example of marketing economies of scale on the personal level.

The issue is not that she's not of above average intelligence or untalented, but rather that she's neither a genius nor especially uniquely talented.

Liberal policies, which include heavy zoning regulations which prevent construction of new housing or significantly increase the costs of housing construction. It's not aabout cities versus rural areas


Zoning regulations are a matter too complex to become an important electoral issue. The average elector doesn´t care about it, although I agree that those regulations raise price of housing.

A good question: the housing bubble is a phenomenon of at most 10 years ago. Did the home regulations increase so much in so little time to create the bubble?

Rent controls make housing more expense, but New York in the 70´s had more rent controls than now and housing was far cheaper there.

"Because Oprah was lucky enough to come along at exactly the time the nation was ready for a black, female Phil Donahue clone. Then, once she attained stardom because of that, stardom is generally self-perpetuating. This is an example of marketing economies of scale on the personal level."

Well at the time no one believed a black woman had a snow ball's chance in hell of even surviving against Donahue (beating him was out of the question)and friends urged her to stay in the largely black city of Baltimore where she was a ratings hit. Some station managers even told her syndicator that they could get a better rating with a potato than by putting a black woman on TV.

I think you underestimate just how powerful an impression she made when she first hit the scene. She took a local Chicago talk show that was dead last in the ratings and being crushed by Donahue, and starting beating Donahue almost instantly. She was so successful so quickly, it was stunning even to her. The second she walked out of the studio she had strangers running to get her autograph, and the critics went wild.


TV columnist Howard Rosenberg said, "She's a roundhouse, a full course meal, big, brassy, loud, aggressive, hyper, laughable, lovable, soulful, tender, low-down, earthy and hungry. And she may know the way to Phil Donahue's jugular."

Newsday's Les Payne observed, "Oprah Winfrey is sharper than Donahue, wittier, more genuine, and far better attuned to her audience, if not the world."

Martha Bayles of The Wall Street Journal wrote, "It's a relief to see a gab-monger with a fond but realistic assessment of her own cultural and religious roots."

I think it takes a lot more than just being a black woman in the right place at the right time to get reactions like that. And if that's all she were, she would have been history when the next novel concept emerged. Americans have very short attention spans. They're always looking for the next big star. Virtually no other star in the history of show business has been so dominant for so long, especially in such a fragmented media age. It requires an ability to constantly adapt and reinvent yourself which is indeed evidence of genius.

In addition, unlike most popular entertainers, she had the brains to immediately take ownership of her show, her studio, and her production company, negotiating the best deal in television history, allowing her to become the richest African American of all time.

There are some reasons for prole whites voting republican:

1- anti-immigration

2- social identification: appeal to religion, anti-porn, pro-guns.

American politics is weird. They have a party that defends, at the same time, big social spending and balanced budgets and another that says little government and deficits. As you know, everywhere in the world, the right-winged party is that defends budget balancing, social cuts, usually following IMF regulations.

I don't know if Oprah's brilliant per se. She certainly is bright, and an exceptional businesswoman; high charisma, empathy, and other people skills. Really, being smart doesn't count for much. If I could trade my skills for Oprah's, I would in a minute.

"Oprah may have been lucky when she landed a gig hosting some cheesy local morning talk show that was dead last in the ratings......is evidence of genius."

Again, this is the "rear view window" bias in action. Often times, when celebrities, sports stars, Nobel prize winning scientists, etc. win a significant award, or have a net worth in the billions, we have a bias when we look back at this person's prior work.

For example, Philip Seymour Hoffman won the Oscar for Capote in 2006. After he won the award, it's common for most of us to now reappraise his prior work - "Wow, Hoffman was excellent in Boogie Nights (1997)"; "I loved him in Joey Breaker (1993)!"; "PSH was brilliant in Leap of Faith! (1992)". Nothing's changed with his prior acting work, just that now he's won an award and is recognized by the media as "talented". Thus, his prior work is "reevaluated", and therefore considered equally "genius" as his role in Capote.

I'm sure if we were able to take a time machine back 25 years ago, and you were able to view Oprah on TV back then, without knowing what you know about her in 2008, you wouldn't think anything special or promising about her.

But if you looked at a videotape from 1982 at this very moment, knowing what you do about her, you'd probably say, "I can see why she's worth billions - she's SO talented even in 1982!"

"This woman single-handedly invented confession culture by being the first person on TV to talk openly about her personal dysfunctions and cry along with her guests. From the start, she was original and brilliant."

Linda, Oprah is without question a tremendous television presence. However, you are going out of your way give us examples of why we should dislike her. Promoting a "confession culture" is nothing to be proud of and is highly exploitive. Suffering in silence, appears to me, to be part and parcel of wealthy societies. Of course, I could be wrong.

Liberals continue to work against the natural desire of working class whites to find a school in an affordable neighborhood without too many minorities. Whenever rich liberals find such a school, this is deemed a problem that needs to be fixed. Yet the same rich liberals would never send their own children to such a school.


That is an individual problem that can never be solved collectively. I want my child in a very good school, but the easiest way to do this is to get them in a school that weeds out the less able.

But these excluded kids have to stay in some school. So, we should create a place to concentrate the "unteachables", completely misbehaved and uninterested kids at school in other place.

This problem will only be solved when we stop with the dogma of "no kid outside school". Johnny is a student that doesn´t want to learn and only irritates teachers, causing externalities to his colleagues. But he has the right to be educated, even though he does not have any interest of exercising this right.

If we could create any selection criteria, we would put Johnny outside the system.

The dillemma of education is a choice between:

a-Many kids finish high school semi-illiterate.

b-Many kids drop out at 3rd grade.

Saying Oprah is brilliant because of her success as a talk show host is like saying Jay-Z is Goldman Sachs material because of his success as a rapper. She just started a show that women of very average intelligence relate too. That doesn't take a brilliant intellect at all. And after the big plagiarism incident nobody takes her book of the month club or whatever very seriously. Remember, Jay-Z(Shawn Carter) has his own business and makes hundreds of millions but very clearly has an IQ below 100. He is just a media personality, just like Oprah. Blacks have always excelled at that. Being a media personality has nothing to do with intellect, absolutely nothiing.

Oprah may not have an exceptionally high IQ (I'd put her at... 130ish? 135?) But she is off-the-charts in other skills. It's a shame that you guys can't see that.

If the world was just ready for a black woman talk show host, the world would have picked a skinny gorgeous one, not an unattractive (at the time) overweight one. The woman is a "genius" in terms of people skills, etc. We nerds with high IQs and lesser people skills like to think IQ is all that matters, but people like Oprah are proof to the contrary.

For another example of someone with a merely above average IQ and exceptional other talents, see Ronald Reagan. Obama is the rare person in politics with exceptional IQ AND exceptional other gifts. (See also Clinton, Bill.)

Why would you put Oprah's IQ at 130ish. What are you basing that on? What about Chris Rock? He has excelled at comedy drawing large audiences for some time now. He is incredibly charismatic. But what does that have to do with IQ? He doesn't strike be as being intelligent at all. There are tons and tons of black media personalities, they dominate this field. If intelligence is what lead to that that would be a statistical anomaly because of an average IQ one standard deviation below the mean.

Bruno Brazil

"Liberals continue to work against the natural desire of working class whites to find a school in an affordable neighborhood without too many minorities."

I think the hard working, chaste-living working class white that only wants to send his kids to decent school is just so much nonsense. If they really lived like that, they would all be in those fancy middle class neighbourhoods where the 'liberals' live.

If working class whites really cared that much about school, they wouldn't be plumbers and dock workers for that long. The point is they are usually not all that bright or curious about the world around them which is why Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber and George Bush are emblematic of their type.

Hm. While it's not a crazy argument that working-class whites might actually be served in some way by social conservatism (Christian values helping keep the kids away from drugs for example), I'd still like to see Sigma respond to the data in 'red state, blue state, rich state, poor state' that in every state, and to varying degrees, richer people are more likely to vote Republican.

You there, Sigma?

"The idea that we have an egalitarian system is absurd. Based on differing abilities, we will naturally have differing outcomes."

One could consider this to be the real issue to be dealt with. Is equality of opportunity more important than equality of results? While the former is achievable, only true equality can exist when the results are the same, and sadly, equalizing the results is nearly impossible. While America is an equal nation on paper, in practice, it will never ever be truly equal nation, and this is true of every nation on earth regardless of its race, ethnicity, or political and economic system.

Of course, my sentiments can lead to the question at centre, what do we do with a pool of non-whites who will never be truly equal to their white counterparts?

"I have yet to hear any liberals raise a stink about what happens in the meat packing industry regarding labor, animal cruelty or the environmental impacts"

Aren't most vegans and vegetarians liberals or left-leaning in general?

"If working class whites really cared that much about school, they wouldn't be plumbers and dock workers for that long. The point is they are usually not all that bright or curious about the world around them which is why Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber and George Bush are emblematic of their type."

Joe the Plumber was actually a clever businessman who was quite sensibly worried about Obama cutting into his take.

Even if they're not that bright or curious, they still want to send their kids to schools where they won't be beat up or shot at. I mean, there's nothing wrong with being mediocre; most people are, by definition. As a liberal, you should be concerned with the welfare of the 20th-50th percentiles, not just the 0th-20th. ;)

Blacks are often charasmatic and confident and this leads people to overestimate their IQs. Oprah is probably smart but not off the charts.

http://vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq_conundrum.htm

"Still, the low African IQ of 70 remains hard for many to accept. One reason for the disbelief: Africans—and African Americans—display high levels of social competence. They are outgoing, talkative, sociable, warm, and friendly. Psychometrically speaking, they score high on the Extraversion personality dimension. They are also much less anxious, shy, and fearful than Whites—they are low in the Neuroticism dimension. This combination of high Extraversion and low Neuroticism results in a socially dominant personality profile.

It is this "winning personality" among Blacks, I believe, that makes it hard for so many to accept the validity of their failing tests of abstract reasoning ability.

A typical academic story comes from professors who, on first exposure to African students, express their delight in the high levels of classroom performance. The students are described as engaged, offering lively opinions, and giving a clear impression of brightness. Only when the students took objectively measured essay or multiple-choice examinations did it become painfully obvious to even the most well-wishing faculty members that their grasp of abstract material failed to live up to their classroom rhetoric. "

Here's my estimates for the IQ's of some these successful folks (these are just guesses but I'm a pretty good judge).

Bill Gates 170

Oprah 148

Barack Obama 140

Bill Clinton 140

Colin Powell 118

Condi Rice 115

Sarah Palin 110

"Safe," of course, is a politically correct euphemism for a school that doesn't have a lot of low-IQ minorities. School desegration, which was championed by liberals, and has now become so sacrosanct that one can't even question it (it's hard to believe that 60 years ago, the majority of white people thought that school segregation was a good idea), has done more harm to working class whites than any other liberal policy. Rich liberals send their kids to private school. People who aren't quite rich, but have above average incomes, are able to move to neighborhoods with "better schools" (a euphemism again).

For my individual interest, as a white, my kids would get to a better school.

But having black schools would mean that some schools would concentrate all the problems.

Segregation does not solve bad education, only transfers it to other place, hopefully out of my sight. I could only wonder the competitive dispute that would exist to be away from the schools that are "problem concentrators".

"Blacks are often charasmatic and confident and this leads people to overestimate their IQs."

They're also black, which leads people to underestimate their IQ's. Also Oprah dumbs herself down on purpose (so viewers will identify with her) so impressions from watching her show will tend to be underestimates.

"Psychometrically speaking, they score high on the Extraversion personality dimension."

Oprah's not an extravert, she just plays one on TV. She recently shocked her audience by explaining that she's really not a people person and would much rather read a book than hang out with others. She's been that way since early childhood.

"What about Chris Rock? He has excelled at comedy drawing large audiences for some time now. He is incredibly charismatic. But what does that have to do with IQ? He doesn't strike be as being intelligent at all. There are tons and tons of black media personalities, they dominate this field. If intelligence is what lead to that that would be a statistical anomaly because of an average IQ one standard deviation below the mean."

Chris Rock is probably 130. And blacks don't dominate the field of improvisational entertainers. Oprah's virtually the only back to achieve outstanding success in the talk show industry. The field of talk show hosts and comics is generally dominated by Ashkanazi Jews. There might be a few more blacks than expected in these fields because traditionally, entertainment was an area where minorities (black or Jewish) could be judged on their merrits and creativity so it's an area where the smartest blacks and Jews will be drawn. And while blacks may have other traits that allow them to compete with higher IQ Jews, that doesn't mean high IQ is not also a major competetive advantage in entertainment among those blacks lucky enough to have one.

"She certainly is bright, and an exceptional businesswoman; high charisma, empathy, and other people skills."

Studies of the gifted show that high IQ people tend to be exceptional in other areas too, empathy being one of them.

"I'm sure if we were able to take a time machine back 25 years ago, and you were able to view Oprah on TV back then, without knowing what you know about her in 2008, you wouldn't think anything special or promising about her."

Well obviously people 25 years ago thought there was something special about her because that was around the time her star was born.

My thanks to JewishAthiest for his insight that I didn't say working class whites "stupid". I conclude I must have made a good arguement if it needed rebuttal, on home page no less.

With regards to taxation, I never hear tax cut advocates talk about the payroll tax, which is only paid on the first $100,000. If you are in the above $250,000 bracket you are paying no payroll tax on that $150,000. If you are quite a bit richer much of your taxable income is capital gains which is %15. I paraphrase Warren Buffet in his Charlie Rose interview that the woman that empties the trash in his office pays a higher tax rate as an overall percentage than he does.

On voting with your hearts. I think that saying it's imperitive to save the spotted owl at all costs but kill the unborn babies is a hard case to make. A pro-life supporter has every right to feel this way. Equally when at the last debate McCain sarcastically made the quotation mark gesture and "said they always say the life of the mother" I can just as easily retort "they always talk about partial-birth abortion". The right to have an abortion is law. I respect that law but think that any doctor that provides a late term abortion without serious extenuating circumstances, no questions asked, should be shot. I think guns are cool and that gun laws have largely failed in there intent to reduce crime. I've got no problems with religion or religious people. Changing government policy so that my kids have to pray in school or be taught mythology (creationism) as a science is another matter. Education in this country is bad enough.

I hate the fact that people bat around the word liberal as a perjorative. Remember the words "all men are created equal" were the most liberal words written in the 17th century.

Fantastic post and one of the best I've read on the subject, mainly for the simple reason that you are willing to talk frankly about race while right liberals won't.

I notice a tendency among blacks to believe that whites are obsessed with them (okay, not a novel observation, but is suffocatingly peevish around election time). I think this is due to a lack of intellectual curiosity and being politically trained to be acquiesced to. Do they even know what a "values voter" means in modern political parlance?
I notice the same tendency of the liberals who love them, as evidenced by this thread, but for different reasons. Equality has the highest value for liberals and around which, they believe, society should be oriented. Many liberals believe everyone else shares this obsession as well, so therefore toleration for inequality is evidence of evil or ill will. Inequality is the unintended and mildly tolerated result of society being oriented around the Conservative's highest priority: not equality, but the Family.

Beginning with the early 70's, when the tax burden started shifting to families with children, abortion was legalized, and followed by asundry welfare schemes, America's top priority shifted from the Family to Equality. Over thirty years later, we are reaping this huge drop in investment in the middle-class.

"And after the big plagiarism incident nobody takes her book of the month club or whatever very seriously."

On the contary. She was wildly praised by the New York Times and the Washington Post for how she handled that scandal because instead of just sweeping it under the rug, she brilliantly tricked the author and his publisher Nan Talese into coming on live unedited TV, confronted them face to face & then proceeded to spank the living daylights out of both of them for an hour straight for not living up to her standards of tuth & betraying her, her staff and her audience.

It was the most riveting event in TV history. So skillfully was she able to rip these literary heavy-weights to shreds, that as the NY Times said "by the end of the hour she was surrounded by carnage, but didn't have a hair out of place." She proved herself to be a woman of towering intellect and integrity (they tend to go together).

And her recent book pick "A New Earth" which argues that God is just a feeling, the unity of all living things, outraged religous people but sold a record 6 million copies.

"I think the hard working, chaste-living working class white that only wants to send his kids to decent school is just so much nonsense. If they really lived like that, they would all be in those fancy middle class neighbourhoods where the 'liberals' live."

Everyone has been knocked down a peg. The habits of yesterday's working-class hero are perfectly acceptable of today's middle-class. An elderly friend of mine who is working-class once said to me, "Mother never left the house without her gloves and would never have dreamed of wearing pants." Another elderly working-class friend keeps her yard more immaculate and beautiful than most upper-class people of middle age; her granddaughters are in their early twenties and smoke.

This kind of video just makes my heart ache: London 1904. I just love the little girl with the blousy white dress with tights and hat:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Rare-Film-Shows-Hidden-London-Life-In-1904-After-Historian-Discovers-Footage-In-Australia-Archive/Article/200810415126902?f=rss

"her success is just one more example of why we no longer need the racist abomination of Affirmative Action."

I've always viewed Affirmative Action as the carrot for inducing black children into doing well in school and avoid criminal activity and teenage pregnancy by giving a reward of a good respectable white collar job.

"better-off black kid who pissed around during his school years and now needs a AA slot to get in"

Wouldn't pissing around one's school years imply low grades, few extra-curricular activities, and possibly low SAT scores that AA couldn't even propel into an admissions ticket for a top school?

"(meat packing plants)"

Meat packing plants are an interesting example. Since the vast majority of Americans eat meat and poultry, the effect of cheap labour can be felt by those of all classes. Do lower labour costs in these facilities lead to lower prices for consumers, and are the lower prices a good trade off for taxes that are spent on illegal immigrants. Of course, thanks to refrigeration, there's nothing preventing such work from technically being done in Mexico or Canada...

Interestingly, one could ask if the low inflation of the 1990s and 2000s fueled by wage suppression by importation of foreign workers and not by the magic of monetary policy?

SFG:

"As a liberal, you should be concerned with the welfare of the 20th-50th percentiles, not just the 0th-20th."

I am concerned but I am not a romantic. (There is certainly no reason for me to get romantic about the simple, white know-nothing who through common sense, plain disposition and inherent good cheer outperforms the so-called experts in the game of life -- a white noble savage if you will.) At no point have I ever said I didn't believe blacks or hispanics had the IQ that it is claimed that they have or something close to it. I have expressed skepticism that the cause is genetic but I have not said that the simple fact of the measurement was in dispute, nor have I disputed what that indicates for their life outcomes.

In a way, it's irrelavant. I think it's my job to help with such problems and to be helped as we all eventually need a helping hand from others which is a pretty mainstream White/European idea, which I inherited from my Judeo-Christian precursors. Racists/Race-realists are very non-white in their thinking, a point they don't seem to get. Nonwhite culture is usually more limited and focused on your family and your immediate surroundings. They don't expect to change the world. I am, of course, in the middle being of both frames of mind, sometimes simultaneously.

*Vemont is a rural state that's also very liberal and thus has very high housing costs compared to Red states. *

Now, are Vermont real estate's costs high due to strict zoning or due to demand by rich people for property in the state?

"doens't benefit from cheap immigrant labor"

I'm a prole, and we employed some cheap immigrants to do the sidewalk in front of our house. My girlfriend's prole diner had immigrant cooks. McDonalds and Wendys and other fast food chains in some areas are staffed with immigrants...

"Finally, working class families want to be able to send their children to a "safe" school."

Maybe this is my NYC-centricness affecting my viewpoint, but most of the working class white people live in areas with few blacks. My non-date girlfriend lives in Levittown, the quintessential prole area, and one can count the black residents with one hand. If anything, even if there were no black people, elite whites would never send their children to school with prole whites.

Values voters are not stupid, they're suicidal. While they expend all their political capital trying to save a few lives of individuals who are statistically more likely to grow up criminals or leaches on society, their political enemies are systematically destroying their living environments.

I know because I grew up evangelical Christian. Their insane obsession with "morality" hurts no one but themselves. Do you really think gays, who i personally tend to like, have an objective, material, class interest in same-sex marriage? Not quite. It's a momentary, subjective, fuzzy feeling. There are people who "gain" from gay marriage, we call them feminists, but that's for another post.

The evangelical, married, childbearing middleclass is what will make our country continue to look roughly as it does today. Their demise will collapse the middleclass and the US end up look somewhat cross-between Brazil and Mexico.

The only possible salvation for the middleclass is to go the class warfare route, a class war that is painful, vicious and brutal. And that class warfare's target must be the underclass. But the evangelical's devotion to their self-destructive universalist morality prevents them from doing this, and that will spell their demise.

Is this "Linda" person for real, or is it simply another "Libertarian Girl"?

The incessant fawning over Oprah is becoming extremely annoying, bordering on the levels of worship we're witnessing towards a certain "messianic" presidential candidate.

Do you beat yourself into an orgiastic frenzy over Oprah, similar to what the Shiites do on the Ashura holiday? Do you have a shrine to Oprah in your home that you pray to 5 times a day? Do you have her biography in front of you while you type a response to everyone who questions your ecstatic beliefs in her?

How did I ever get drawn into this? I need to go back to my low IQ prole pursuits like viewing porn.

Can someone who believes in "the Secret" be smart?

This is why whites vote Republican:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/10/23/high.school.hiv.ap/index.html

"NORMANDY, Missouri (AP) -- Students at a suburban St. Louis high school headed to the gymnasium for HIV testing this week after an infected person told health officials as many as 50 teenagers might have been exposed to the virus that causes AIDS."

check out the demographics and test scores of the school:

http://www.schooldigger.com/go/MO/schools/2265001248/school.aspx?Entity=41&Grade=11

African American: 99 %
Proficient or Better: 8.5 %

Can you imagine being the one white Asian student in that school. LOL

Vim,

Please tell me that you're 6:56 comment was being sarcastic and I missed it. Otherwise, I'm rather offended. I expect people around here on both the right and left (though mainly the right) to make offensive generalizations, but I generally expect better from you.

trumwill:

I was actually not intending to make a generalization. I was critiquing a myth of white middle-class moral purity. My case is overstated for rhetoric effect. I am more enamoured with irony (British) than sarcasm(American). My comment reflects that. I won't delve any further lest I ruin the joke.

"Can someone who believes in "the Secret" be smart?"

No.

"Can someone who believes in 'the Secret' be smart?"

You bet they can. The Secret is all about the power of positive thinking which has been confirmed by hard science. Oprah lives by the world view that what you focus on expands and that you become what you believe. Oprah never believed it when people told her she couldn't be a success on TV because she was an overweight black woman, and she never believed that Obama could not be president because he's black, thus she encouraged him to run.

When Obama was way behind Hillary in the polls (even among blacks)Oprah went to South Carolina to give African Americans a much needed wake up call by giving the following speech:

"There are those who say Barack Obama isn't ready yet, that he should wait his turn. Think about where you be in your own life, if you listened when da people told you to WAIT! I know I wouldn't be where I am if I waited on all da people who told me it couldn't be...Martin Luther King dreamed the dream, but we don't have to dream anymore South Carolina. WE GET TO VOTE THAT DREAM INTO REALITY!"

Chris Mathews observed that it was sweet stuff, because here you have the most successful African American of all time, saying she wouldn't be where she is if she listened to the doubters.

Newsweek's Howard Fineman felt is was virtually the best political speech he ever seen and that Oprah totally upstaged Obama.

Eugene Robins observed "that woman is amazing. If she tells me she's going to Mars, I'm buying a ticket."

Almost immediately blacks started moving from Hillary to Obama in one of the biggest political sea changes in American history. One black woman who attended the Oprah rally told reporters "I was 100% hardcore for Hillary. I was a Hillary girl!"

"Not anymore?" asked the reporter.

"Not anymore," she replied.


"If working class whites really cared that much about school, they wouldn't be plumbers and dock workers for that long."

Plumbers and dockworkers actually make pretty good money. Do some research before you comment, you spend enough time on the internet. Otherwise you sound like you don't know what you are talking about(and I'm sure you don't).

Eugene Robins observed "that woman is amazing. If she tells me she's going to Mars, I'm buying a ticket."

Almost immediately blacks started moving from Hillary to Obama in one of the biggest political sea changes in American history. One black woman who attended the Oprah rally told reporters "I was 100% hardcore for Hillary. I was a Hillary girl!"

"Not anymore?" asked the reporter.

"Not anymore," she replied.

Doesn't make blacks look too bright now does it? Oh Lawdy, Oprah said we goin' to Mars and Obama gonna be President!
Swayed by a talkshow host. Now that is exactly the kind of critical thinking the US needs! But seriously Linda, your posts have me cracking up. I can't figure out if they are serious or if they are brilliant parody. Either way, thanks, you've given me a good laugh. Now it's early, I've got to catch The View!

"Doesn't make blacks look too bright now does it? Oh Lawdy, Oprah said we goin' to Mars and Obama gonna be President!"

In this particular case they were very bright, because when the most successful African American of all time throws her support behind Obama, it's a once in a century opportunity to make history, and achieve racial equality at the highest levels of power, not to mention get a president who actually cares about the poor, and get a brilliant educated civic minded male role model for millions of fatherless young black males who currently worship athletes and rap stars.

But if winning the black vote wasn't impressive enough, Oprah even skipped over to lilly white Iowa to campaign for Obama, telling the audience "ALO IOWA! I believe he da one y'all!" As a result Obama achieved a huge victory in his very first contest, even beating Hillary among white women.

Keep in mind that all through the summer of 2007, Hillary was considered the inevitable candidate. She gave almost perfect answers in debates, and the consensus was that Obama just wan't ready.

And then Oprah jumped in and said "not so fast America! It ain't over until the fat lady sings, and I'm singing for Obama!" She single handedly changed the trajectory of the race.

"But seriously Linda, your posts have me cracking up. I can't figure out if they are serious or if they are brilliant parody."

I'm dead serious.

The comments to this entry are closed.