Obama funding plan for health insurance losses is a bailout

Jun 20, 2014 16:53:18 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Well, I do disagree with it.  (So-called "soft variables"--cotton-candy-style criteria--are entirely unacceptable, in my view. I believe exclusively in the use of objective criteria as a basis for hirings, promotions, and college admissions--nothing subjective.)

I really do not believe it is "topia[n]" to suggest that a colorblind society is that for which we should strive.  As Chief Justice Roberts once wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."   

What you need to learn is that the tests are not "objective" because numerous factors affect the test scores. There have been numerous research studies that establish this as a fact.

I also support striving for a colorblind society and John Roberts is absolutely correct. When society stops discriminating on the basis of race then we've reached the milestone of a colorblind society but we can't ignore the fact that discrimination based upon race is extensive and measureable so we need to deal with it.

Think of it in this perspective. Since Affirmative Action was created it should never have created a case of discrimination agianst whites as the stated goal was to take steps to eliminate discrimination against certain groups (minorities and women). That was the stated purpose and never should it have resulted in discrimination against anyone. Preventing discrimination is not an act of discrimination and that was what Affirmative Action attempted to do based upon the Federal Guidelines. 

Admittedly not everyone limited their actions to those expressed in the AA Guidelines but those are "exceptions" to the rule and not the rule itself. So let's deal with the "exceptions" because we both agree there is a problem there but that is not grounds for condemning Affirmative Action when the guidelines are actually followed.

The average number of people that have benefited from directly from Affirmative Action has been about 125,000/yr as I recall where discrimination against them was overcome and they enjoyed a "one-time" benefit from AA that they immediately lost in the future. Just because a "black person" managed to get a job doesn't mean that they weren't discriminate against in advancement and compensation starting the day after getting the job and statistically we know they were. For every case of AA helping someone past prejudice and discrimination a 1000 cases of prejudice and discrimination will occur for that same person in their life. The prejudice and discrimination really is that bad in the United States but "conservatives" seem completely unaware of it.

Jun 21, 2014 23:02:30 GMT pjohns1873 said:

If a particular test is "culturally biased" (as is sometimes claimed), I would favor our revising that test--not merely eliminating all testing, or even diluting the impact of the test results by our using various subjective criteria as complementary "factors." 

Your assertion that an African-American--even if he or she has benefitted from affirmative-action policies initially--will inevitably face "1000 cases of prejudice and discrimination" (presumably, in matters of promotion) during his or her lifetime--must necessarily be predicated upon the assumption that America continues to be a very racist society.  Do you really believe that?   

How do they fix the tests? The problems with testing are numerous for example if a person believes there is negative stereotypes associated with the test (e.g. Blacks are less intelligent) they will score up to 20% less on the test when compared to tests where there are no perceived negative stereotypes. This could be on test where we'd think it was purely objective like a math test. Because of negative stereotyping women and minorities were shown to score significantly less if they believed there was any negative stereotyping based upon race or gender. How do we eliminate the perception of negative stereotypes for the person taking the test? Not an easy thing to accomplish and the APA has struggled with this one related to intelligence tests like IQ tests. So far the APA has not found any solution so can you?

Yes, African-Americans face racial discrimination on a daily basis. Ask someone like Trayvon Martin that was racially stereotyped as a "criminal in the neighborhood" by George Zimmerman because he was a black teenager that "always gets away with it" and Martin ended up dead because Zimmerman followed him that night based upon a racial stereotype. Statistically a black teenager can't even walk into a retail store without the store owner assuming they're there to shoplift. Blacks are arrested four times more often for drug offenses than whites even though whites use illegal drugs in the same percentages as blacks. Blacks are disproportionately laid-off when cuts occur than whites regardless of performance. Whites are 2.4 to 3.4 times more likely to be hired than a black person when all factors are the same except skin color.

The daily discrimination against blacks (and Hispanics and women to a lesser degree) is so well documented by clinical studies that it is beyond any dispute by anyone that is informed on the issue.  

Jun 24, 2014 20:37:12 GMT pjohns1873 said:

How might "racial stereotyping" account for the scores recorded on math tests? (In fact, why should it even be necessary to know the race of the person having taken the test?)

Although some subsequent developments suggest to me that George Zimmerman may, indeed, be a jerk, I believe he acted properly in the Trayvon Martin case. But I really do not wish to re-litigate that.

Is it possible that the layoffs you have mentioned are based upon seniority; and that white people, on average, have greater seniority than African-Americans do? (It can sometimes be very easy to confuse causation with mere correlation.)

Is it also possible that those higher percentages of blacks being arrested for drug crimes might be accounted for in this way:  Young black males, who were arrested for holding up a liquor store, may also have been charged with crack cocaine possession at the same time; whereas young whites (whether male or female), using powdered cocaine at a party, do not necessarily have any occasion to have been arrested? 

I suggest you read the APA study on how stereotypes affect performance on tests.

www.apa.org/research/action/stereotype.aspx

If you think Zimmerman's actions were "proper" then you've never been a member of a Neighborhood Watch because he violated the key elements of being a neighborhood watch member. Had Zimmerman followed the Neighborhood Watch guidelines then Trayvon Martin would be alive today.  

You're looking for an excuse as to why blacks suffer discrimination in employment while ignoring the statistical evidence.

You're looking for an excuse as to why blacks are disproprotionately arrested for drug use while ignoring the statistical evidence.

That is a problem for many conservatives and libertarians. They always look for excuses to explain away the studies that establish the extent of discrimination in America. They don't want to believe it's true even though study after study confirms it. The most common excuse is that "it was a liberal study" even though there is no evidence that those conducting the study were liberals, the study is peer reviewed and not contradicted by any other study. The fact is they simply choose not to believe the facts because it doesn't fit with their beliefs. That is sad because they're living in a Fantasyland as opposed to addressing the problems that actually exist.

Jun 27, 2014 0:07:29 GMT pjohns1873 said:

And again:  How might racial "stereotypes" affect test outcomes, if the race of each test-taker is unknown to those evaluating the tests (as should be the case)? 

Your breezily dismissing my suggestions as mere "excuses," without even attempting to counter them, really says a great deal about your (apparemtly) intractable position...

It isn't the test giver that's affected by the negative stereotype but the person taking the test that is affected by the negative stereotype. A person that is stereotyped as being of low intelligence is going to score lower on a test if they believe a test is measuring their intelligence. For example they would score lower on a math test if they believed the test was about math intelligence but when they were tricked into not believing the test was about their math intelligence they scored far higher. Sort of hard to explain but it's like slipping a math problem into a question about farming where the person can do the math but if it's presented as a math problem on a math test then person won't be able to figure out the answer because of stress associated with the fact that it's related to a "math intelligence" test.

I'm sure that you've known people, perhaps when you were in school, that used to "freeze-up" when it came to taking a test. They could know the subject inside and out but when it came to taking the test they would experience "brain-freeze" and would do poorly on the test. I believe that is what the APA is addressing when it comes to a person that lives under a negative stereotype. The negative stereotype causes "brain-freeze" when the person takes the test so they score far lower than they should have. 

In short negative stereotypes don't just result in other people believing and treating a person as inferior it also adversely affects the person that is the subject of the negative stereotype as well. This should not be surprising to anyone.

I don't "breezily" dismiss your statements as excuses but instead point to the fact that all of the studies have proven your beliefs to be wrong.

Every study done on economic discrimination in hiring, promotion, compensation, and retention has shown that minorities are subjected to discrimination because of negative stereotyping (prejudice). They aren't refused employment because they're less qualified, they're not denied promotion because they're less qualified, they're not denied equal compensation because they're less qualified, they're not discharged first because of lower job performance. All of this happens because of negative stereotypes.  

I could post dozens of studies but will simply present one by EPI Research on racial discrimination in employment because the facts are shocking. EPI Research is not a "liberal" organization and is, in fact, a German marketing research company so you can't "shoot the messenger" that was responsible for the study. Everything possible was done to ensure that there were no differences between the applicants except for the color of their skin in this study.

www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_09172003/

When it comes to discrimination by law enforcement related to the War on Drugs I'd ask you to read the following. Pay specific attention to the section titled "Part I: Race Defines the Problem" as it addresses the case of Seattle law enforcement. Studies in other locations like California reinforce the fact that racial discrimination exists extensively in the War on Drugs.

www.hrw.org/news/2009/06/19/race-drugs-and-law-enforcement-united-states

We should also note that because of the racial disparity related to the War on Drugs that often results in felony convictions it also results in greater disenfranchisement for voting. A felon has their right to vote revoked and millions of African-Americans have lost their right to vote at an early age because they were busted for drugs while millions of whites committing the identical crimes never lost their right to vote because law enforcement basically ignored them completely.

So no, I didn't "breezily" dismiss your beliefs as "excuses" but instead cited the fact that all of the studies I've read show them to be false beliefs.

Jun 28, 2014 19:23:09 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Whereas you rely upon "statistics," I rely upon individual cases (which you dismiss--whether breezily or otherwise--as mere "anecdotes").  Which is to say, if an individual case of racial discrimination exists, a lawsuit should be brought against the person doing the discriminating.  There are, after all, laws that prohibit exactly that sort of thing.  

Raw numbers, on the other hand--often ballyhooed as "statistics"--do not really tell me anything useful.

But I would certainly support, 100 percent, anyone who has genuinely been discriminated against on the basis of race or ethnicity.

As for your assertion that "negative stereotypes" may adversely affect the person taking the test in question (and not merely the person subsequently evaluating the results of that test), what can I say?  If someone is so utterly lacking in basic self-confidence as that, it is really very difficult for me to have much sympathy for him (or for her, as the case may be).   

Rarely can a lawsuit be brought in cases of discrimination because there has to be hard evidence of the discrimination. For example a person could be an outright racist and refuse the hire a black person but so long as they don't write down "not hired because the applicant is black" the person wouldn't have grounds for a lawsuit. The employer could even tell the applicant that they're not being hired because they're black but if there's no witness there still isn't grounds for a lawsuit. Cases of discrimination in employment are so hard to prove that fewer than 1/10,000 cases can even be filed and if it's just due to racial prejudice then the odds are probably less than one-in-a-million cases.

I can't teach you the validity of statistical analysis because that requires an extensive understanding of the math behind it. It is accepted universally by scholars and experts but if you choose to not accept statistical analysis then that merely reflects a lack of understanding and knowledge related to statistical analysis. Let's put it this way. Your automobile wouldn't run if it wasn't for the statistical probability of a certain number of hydro-carbon molecules chemically reacting with oxygen atoms during combustion or the statistical probably that in any cubic foot of air in Earth's lower atmosphere about 20% is oxygen atoms. Statistical probability effects virtually everything.    

Just because you don't understand human psychology doesn't imply that it isn't true. People can be dramatically affected by things like bullying, disparaging statements about them, and other negative interactions with other people. To blame the person subjected to these negative actions by others is like blaming the rape victim for being raped.

Jun 29, 2014 20:52:11 GMT pjohns1873 said:

No, it is really much more like one's expecting success, rather than meekly accepting excuses for failure.

As for the efficacy of statistics, I believe Mark Twain--who is one of my favorie wits--once noted that there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." (Yes, those words have alternately been attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, who came before him. It really does not matter. I rather like that quote, anyway.)

To assert that someone has suffered discrimination, absent any proof of the charge, is a bit like the proclivity of some radical feminists to assert that rape is almost impossible to prove in many cases, since there are seldom any witnesses to the act; therefore, it should be the responsibility of the defendant to prove his innocence. 

There is a fundamental problem that isn't being addressed. Roughly 20% (or more) of all full time jobs provide compensation below what it costs to survive. That number will not change regardless of some individuals possibly "moving up" economically because it merely means someone else has to "move down" to fill the open jobs.

Of course Mark Twain was a comedian and was facetious in his statement.

Statistical analysis is a critical science that affects much of what we do. It is used in manufacturing processess, chemistry, biology, engineering, marketing, and dozens of other fields of endeavor including the social sciences. To believe in statistical analysis for literally hundreds of different applications but then to deny it's validity related to social science has to be considered as an invalid argument. You can't honestly claim that statistical analysis works for everything except when you disagree with it's results.

Let's look at this from another perspective. I've read that individual insurance rates will be going up on Obamacare for next year and that that is based upon a statistical analysis. I believe the statistical analysis is correct and the rates will go up but if you don't believe in statistical analysis then you would be forced to disagree with the study.

As you know with both our criminal justice and civil justice system the person is always considered innocent until proven guilty and "heresay" is not admissible in a court of law and in many if not most"he said /she said" arguments in court they typically negate each other as a jury simply can't determine who's telling the truth or who's lying. Finally we also know "statistically" (acknowledging your disbelief in statistics) that a "black person" is less likely to be believed by a jury than a white person based upon a false racial stereotype that "blacks are more likely to be liars" than a white person so if a black person claims discrimination they are less likely to be believed than a white defendant.

It really takes hard evidence to prove discrimination and that is virtually non-existant since the passage of anti-discrimination laws. Even the blatant racist is not going to provide hard evidence that would result in them losing a discrimination lawsuit.

Jul 1, 2014 0:25:46 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I am rather reluctant to use the phrase, "Some of my best friends are black," as that sounds trite, and--worse--like the perfunctory (and insincere) defense of the typical bigot. But the fact is that my very best friend is African-American; and if I seriously believed that she was being treated unfairly--in either the workplace or anywhere else--I would be utterly livid about it! 

And I think you may be guilty of committing--well, not murder, rape, or armed robbery, but the next worst thing:  sociology. 

As for those in the 20 percent that earn less than a "living wage," it is my understanding that more Americans move from the bottom 20 percent to the top 20 percent than remain mired, indefinitely, in the bottom 20 percent.  And a whole lot more, still, move into one of the other three quintiles.  Those others who "fill the open jobs" attendant to that lowest-paying quintile are also subject to moving up the economic ladder eventually. 

I am not quite sure that I would characterize Mark Twain as a mere "comedian"--certainly, he bore no resemblence whatsoever to today's stand-up comics--but is probably better described as a cynic and a wit.  (Two of my favorite aphorisms from the man include one illustrating how we sometimes glean more from a bad experience than we really should--"The cat, having sat upon a hot stove lid, will not sit upon a hot stove lid again. But he won't sit upon a cold stove lid, either"; and how averages can often be misleading--"If a man stands with one foot in a bucket of boiling water, the other in a bucket of ice, statistically, he is comfortable.")     

Have you ever taken the time to try to honestly discuss racial discrimination with your African-American friend? It would certainly be anecdotal but perhaps she's experienced overt racism even though African-American women have fewer negative stereotypes than African-American men.

I'm not sure where your source is for the belief that more Americans in the bottom 20 percentile move up to the top 20 percentile comes from but I've never read that. What we tend to find is that each generation does seem to move up the economic ladder from where their parents were but that movement isn't very large. According to a 2012 Pew study:

www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/pursuing-the-american-dream

As I've posted before the average disposable income of the middle class is also declining overall and that problem is getting worse. The "precentiles" will change because the income changes but that doesn't reflect the fact that with less disposable income the people are worse off financially. What was once not considered poverty based upon percentiles is now turning into poverty because the people don't have enough disposable income. We're slowing turning into a nation where "middle income" is going to mean living in poverty because of the hugely disproportionate amount of income going to the very wealthy. As I've posted since 2009 the top 1% of income earners saw their incomes rise by over 35% as they received 95% of all increased income from GDP growth while the bottom 90% saw their real income decrease.

Our economic system is severely broken and no one is doing anything about it. That is the problem I point out as I seek solutions to it. We can't keep going the direction we're going because the United States is slowly turning into a nation where very few have far more wealth than they can ever even dream of spending while more and more Americans are slipping into poverty. Our economic policies of corporate capitalism and crony capitalism are a fundamental cause IMHO but it is also exacerbated by invidious economic discrimination against minorities and women that are more likely to be driven into poverty today.  

I would not disagree with Mark Twain being called a cynic and a wit but that was the standard comedic form of the 19th Century so basically all we're stating is that over a 100 plus year timespan comedy has changed.