Paul Ryan's White Hood

[Green Arrow]

via Politico (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/paul-ryan-not-a-racist-104833.html):


What notorious racist said the following? "Fewer young black and Latino men participate in the labor force compared to young white men. And all of this translates into higher unemployment rates and poverty rates as adults."

"In troubled neighborhoods all across this country--many of them heavily African American--too few of our citizens have role models to guide them."

"We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households.... We know the statistics--that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of school and twenty times more likely to end up in prison."

"We know young black men are twice as likely as young white men to be 'disconnected'--not in school, not working."

As you might guess, Paul Ryan said none of these things. Barack Obama did--in heartfelt speeches at a Chicago church in 2008, at Morehouse College in 2013 and at the White House a few weeks ago.

In his instantly notorious interview with radio talk show host Bill Bennett, Ryan discussed fatherlessness and the importance of role models to passing along an example of hard work. "We have got this tailspin of culture in our inner cities, in particular," he said, "of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work."

For this offense, Ryan was awarded an honorary white hood by the liberal commentariat. But the broad sentiments are indistinguishable from those of Obama in the statements quoted above--all emphasizing a breakdown of work and the consequences of fatherlessness and social isolation--except Obama's comments were more explicitly racial.

When Barack Obama says such things, which are undeniably correct, he is a brave truth-teller; when Paul Ryan says them, he is making an odious play for racist votes.

I am far from a Paul Ryan fan, but the point this article makes is stunningly on target.

[Ravi]

Interesting that Politico left out Ryan's shout out to Charles Murray.

[Green Arrow]

Interesting that Politico left out Ryan's shout out to Charles Murray.

They didn't leave it out. Why comment in the thread if you're not going to read the article linked in the OP?

[Ravi]

They didn't leave it out. Why comment in the thread if you're not going to read the article linked in the OP?

I did read it. I even did a search for Charles Murray in case I missed it. They didn't mention him.

[Green Arrow]

I did read it. I even did a search for Charles Murray in case I missed it. They didn't mention him.

Try again:


More evidence of Ryan's alleged racist dog whistle was his mention of Charles Murray. Murray's book, The Bell Curve, will forever be controversial for its treatment of race and IQ, but Murray's latest work, Coming Apart, is about the social and economic struggles of the white working class. Notably, Ryan mentioned in the same breath as Murray the Harvard social scientist Robert Putnam, whose recent work has also focused on class divisions and social isolation.

These are the scholarly name-checks of someone who is thinking about the unraveling of civil society, not how to cozy up to old fans of George Wallace.

Seventeenth paragraph. Counting each quote paragraph.

[Ravi]

My bad, I didn't see that there was a page 2.

[Green Arrow]

I didn't either. I read it all off my Politico app, so there's only one page.

[hanger4]

The Murry Bell Curve racism meme has already been beat to death. Here last week and when ever the left need a wipping boy.

[Paperback Writer]

Why does it matter if he referenced Charles Murray? Curious.

[Green Arrow]

Why does it matter if he referenced Charles Murray? Curious.

Not certain, but Murray was mentioned.

[Paperback Writer]

I 'spose I was asking Ravi why she cares if he cited Murray.

[Cigar]

How Paul Ryan Vote says more than what he says

[Green Arrow]

How Paul Ryan Vote says more than what he says

What votes are you referring to?

[Mister D]

Interesting that Politico left out Ryan's shout out to Charles Murray.

You don't know anything about Charles Murray, dear.

[Green Arrow]

You don't know anything about Charles Murray, dear.

I'll admit, neither do I. Who is he? I'd rather hear it from you than Ravi.

[Mister D]

I 'spose I was asking @Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698) why she cares if he cited Murray.

Because Ravi heard he was a mean, nasty racist poopy pants.

[Mister D]

I'll admit, neither do I. Who is he? I'd rather hear it from you than Ravi.

Co-author of the Bell Curve and a libertarian, actually. You might like his work.

[Green Arrow]

Co-author of the Bell Curve and a libertarian, actually. You might like his work.

I'll add him to my list and grab him from the library next time I make a run.

[Cigar]

What votes are you referring to?

I suppose you want Mr Ryan's entire Public Voting Record as a distraction :laugh:

I say ... pick the ones he Vote NO .... like all of them?


Cons, neo and otherwise GOP
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BenneC/2014/BenneC20140320_low.jpg

http://media.cagle.com/139/2014/03/19/145976_600.jpg

http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2014/03/19/13/07/v2Vbv.St.81.jpg

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/HandsP/2014/HandsP20140320_low.jpg

http://media.cagle.com/89/2014/03/19/145974_600.jpg


Neocons
http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20140320&Category=BLOG24&ArtNo=140319019&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Mike-Thompson-Who-s-up-war-Crimea-.jpg

[Captain Obvious]

Demonization is commonplace, both the left and right use it excessively.

It's important for the individual to filter out the nonsense and make their own observations, not to let anyone cloud their judgment. Sadly, this rarely happens.

For the record I like Ryan's economic philosophies for the most part although he strikes me as someone who is inexperienced, pie-in-the-sky and a bit phoney. His economic discussions during the debates were laughable but I think with the right guidance (with someone more experienced, Romney could have played that role to a degree) he could do well. Not on his own though, he's not strong in that sense.

[Chris]

My bad, I didn't see that there was a page 2.



According to you, in another thread, you now need to apologize for being wrong, lol.


But like the others I'm more interested in why you're even concerned about Murray. Do you think he's a racist?

[Paperback Writer]

I'll add him to my list and grab him from the library next time I make a run.

He's considered a racist because he speaks to the economics and intellectual ramifications of the US ghetto system. His books were interesting to say the least. They showcased all races and made the argument that if your are less intelligent your chances of being anything other than poor are slim. When poor people are compacted together they breed, obviously, and the intelligence "gene" is stifled by the proximity of others who are less intelligent.

If he were racist he would have said "all blacks", but instead spoke of those who are upwardly mobile will find other upwardly mobile blacks and breed, thus producing smart children like themselves.

His arguments were more class based, IMO.

[Mister D]

He's considered a racist because he speaks to the economics and intellectual ramifications of the US ghetto system. His books were interesting to say the least. They showcased all races and made the argument that if your are less intelligent your chances of being anything other than poor are slim. When poor people are compacted together they breed, obviously, and the intelligence "gene" is stifled by the proximity of others who are less intelligent.

If he were racist he would have said "all blacks", but instead spoke of those who are upwardly mobile will find other upwardly mobile blacks and breed, thus producing smart children like themselves.

His arguments were more class based, IMO.

He does emphasize class over race.

[Chris]

Charles Murray on allegations of racism (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/03/charles-murray-on-allegations-of-racism/)


Since the flap about Paul Ryan’s remarks last week, elements of the blogosphere, and now Paul Krugman in The New York Times, have stated that I tried to prove the genetic inferiority of blacks in The Bell Curve.

The position that Richard Herrnstein and I took about the role of race, IQ and genes in The Bell Curve is contained in a single paragraph in an 800-page book. It is found on page 311, and consists in its entirety of the following text:



If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not justify an estimate.



That’s it. The four pages following that quote argue that the hysteria about race and genes is misplaced. I think our concluding paragraph (page 315) is important enough to repeat here:



In sum: If tomorrow you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the cognitive differences between races were 100 percent genetic in origin, nothing of any significance should change. The knowledge would give you no reason to treat individuals differently than if ethnic differences were 100 percent environmental. By the same token, knowing that the differences are 100 percent environmental in origin would not suggest a single program or policy that is not already being tried. It would justify no optimism about the time it will take to narrow the existing gaps. It would not even justify confidence that genetically based differences will not be upon us within a few generations. The impulse to think that environmental sources of differences are less threatening than genetic ones is natural but illusory.



Our sin was to openly discuss the issue, not to advocate a position. But for the last 40 years, that’s been sin enough.

I’ll be happy to respond at more length to allegations of racism made by anyone who can buttress them with a direct quote from anything I’ve written. I’ll leave you with this thought: in all the critiques of The Bell Curve in particular and my work more generally, no one ever accompanies their charges with direct quotes of what I’ve actually said. There’s a reason for that.

[Ravi]

Why does it matter if he referenced Charles Murray? Curious.
The implication being that he believes Murray's theory that black people are inferior.

[Ravi]

According to you, in another thread, you now need to apologize for being wrong, lol.


But like the others I'm more interested in why you're even concerned about Murray. Do you think he's a racist?

I admitted to GA that I was wrong. You need to go admit to Nic that you were both wrong and acting in bad faith.

[Chris]

The implication being that he believes Murray's theory that black people are inferior.

See post #24. That is your theory, not Murray's theory.

[Mister D]

The implication being that he believes Murray's theory that black people are inferior.

Murray doesn't have such a theory. if he does please cite it. His words. Thanks.

Seriously, you're like a parrot who has been kept in a room with liberal bloggers for 6 months.

[Chris]

I admitted to GA that I was wrong. You need to go admit to Nic that you were both wrong and acting in bad faith.

I admitted I was wrong. You said that required apology--so apologize or be a hypocrite.

Being wrong is not acting in bad faith. Or are you saying you were?


You're also demonstrably wrong about Murray, so apologize for that too.

[Captain Obvious]

Better than Anthony Wiener's purple hood.

[Paperback Writer]

The implication being that he believes Murray's theory that black people are inferior.

Murray didn't say that black people are inferior. He said that poor people are inferior. In his research/book he states that middle class black people are/will marry other smart black people and produce smart, black children. He calls it something like the genetics of poverty.

[midcan5]

Charles Murray is a social scientist who finds what he is looking for, that he fudges a bit between genetic and environmental is meaningless as his work soothes the souls of the many racists in America. One doesn't really need proof to have an opinion last I checked. And anyone who has studied so called social science work knows next week another off the wall theory will present itself and it too will comfort the believers. As for Ryan he is a heartless, soulless hypocrite who has suckled at the teat of government since youth and has done nothing but work in government. If the government is not the solution how is it these well entitled people, many of whom consider themselves freedom loving libertarians, live in it and benefit from it? When Ryan accomplishes something positive let us know. Oh and please stop acting like this choir code constitutes thought, anyone who really thinks 'inner city' is not code, is not a dog whistle phrase, is a fool, a hypocrite, or so blind a partisan reality is missing from their mind. If it were not, Ryan would not have had to apologize recently, he simply gave words to his unconscious thoughts, words he regrets now because he exists in another broader realm of reality, the political. Ryan is one dumb shit though, his remarks about the poor kid who wanted lunch in a bag and Ryan's use of that story represents just another example of the puddle depth of his person. Weak and useless government moocher, full of sound but lacking substance.

[Chris]

Charles Murray is a social scientist who finds what he is looking for, that he fudges a bit between genetic and environmental is meaningless as his work soothes the souls of the many racists in America. One doesn't really need proof to have an opinion last I checked. And anyone who has studied so called social science work knows next week another off the wall theory will present itself and it too will comfort the believers. As for Ryan he is a heartless, soulless hypocrite who has suckled at the teat of government since youth and has done nothing but work in government. If the government is not the solution how is it these well entitled people, many of whom consider themselves freedom loving libertarians, live in it and benefit from it? When Ryan accomplishes something positive let us know. Oh and please stop acting like this choir code constitutes thought, anyone who really thinks 'inner city' is not code, is not a dog whistle phrase, is a fool, a hypocrite, or so blind a partisan reality is missing from their mind. If it were not, Ryan would not have had to apologize recently, he simply gave words to his unconscious thoughts, words he regrets now because he exists in another broader realm of reality, the political. Ryan is one dumb shit though, his remarks about the poor kid who wanted lunch in a bag and Ryan's use of that story represents just another example of the puddle depth of his person. Weak and useless government moocher, full of sound but lacking substance.


Another one who sees what he wants to see in Murray's work. Again, go to post #24 to see what Murray himself says.

[nathanbforrest45]

Why does it matter if he referenced Charles Murray? Curious.
The mere mention of anything that may be taken as racist by those who find racism in phrases such as "black sheep" is enough to set the race baiters teeth on edge.

[nathanbforrest45]

The implication being that he believes Murray's theory that black people are inferior.


Except that he doesn't. Read the posting directly above yours.

[Mister D]

Charles Murray is a social scientist who finds what he is looking for, that he fudges a bit between genetic and environmental is meaningless as his work soothes the souls of the many racists in America. One doesn't really need proof to have an opinion last I checked. And anyone who has studied so called social science work knows next week another off the wall theory will present itself and it too will comfort the believers. As for Ryan he is a heartless, soulless hypocrite who has suckled at the teat of government since youth and has done nothing but work in government. If the government is not the solution how is it these well entitled people, many of whom consider themselves freedom loving libertarians, live in it and benefit from it? When Ryan accomplishes something positive let us know. Oh and please stop acting like this choir code constitutes thought, anyone who really thinks 'inner city' is not code, is not a dog whistle phrase, is a fool, a hypocrite, or so blind a partisan reality is missing from their mind. If it were not, Ryan would not have had to apologize recently, he simply gave words to his unconscious thoughts, words he regrets now because he exists in another broader realm of reality, the political. Ryan is one dumb shit though, his remarks about the poor kid who wanted lunch in a bag and Ryan's use of that story represents just another example of the puddle depth of his person. Weak and useless government moocher, full of sound but lacking substance.

One does need a reasonable basis for an opinion, however, if one doesn't wish to be dismissed as an uninformed clown. That has already happened to you, midcan, so don't bother.

[nathanbforrest45]

I will say this about Midcan. He doesn't say much but when he does he doesn't say much.

[Paperback Writer]

Personally, I don't believe that one race or another is "more intelligent" than the next, but I do see where there could be trends according to economics which is what he said in his book "IQ and Global Inequality". My comment was more on the fact that people have chosen not to read his books, I highly doubt either Ravi or Midcan has, and choose to comment based on the commentary and critique of others.

I look at everything I read or watch as being full of shit and then allow myself to be pleasantly surprised or confirmed. Murray, to me, makes good point on economics and IQ (IQ tests being those that measure how you apply knowledge) based on proximity and the subsequent numbers of children being born, but not when he generalises.

My pointedness with some is the double standard applied. When "Idiocracy" did the same it was heralded as "smart" because they showed it with stupid white people who watch Fox News. Same principles apply--especially when Murray says that white people are getting dumber because only poor white people have a swath of children, only when he says it he's suddenly a racist. A racist with degrees from Harvard and MIT, mind you.

My criticism is more valid than the rest having read the book, and having some idea of genetics in that two smart people can have an "off" child, and conversely two "dumb" people can have a smart child. Genetics has trends but individuals will always find a way, Nature will always find a way to create something superior.

[Mister D]

Also, let's note the usual progressive tap dance. "OK...well...I may not be able to prove he's a racist but racists sometiems cite his work and that's good enough."

Scumbags.

[Chris]

I will say this about Midcan. He doesn't say much but when he does he doesn't say much.



http://i.snag.gy/m7swp.jpg

[Mister D]

Personally, I don't believe that one race or another is "more intelligent" than the next, but I do see where there could be trends according to economics which is what he said in his book "IQ and Global Inequality". My comment was more on the fact that people have chosen not to read his books, I highly doubt either Ravi or Midcan has, and choose to comment based on the commentary and critique of others.

I look at everything I read or watch as being full of shit and then allow myself to be pleasantly surprised or confirmed. Murray, to me, makes good point on economics and IQ (IQ tests being those that measure how you apply knowledge) based on proximity and the subsequent numbers of children being born, but not when he generalises.

My pointedness with some is the double standard applied. When "Idiocracy" did the same it was heralded as "smart" because they showed it with stupid white people who watch Fox News. Same principles apply--especially when Murray says that white people are getting dumber because only poor white people have a swath of children, only when he says it he's suddenly a racist. A racist with degrees from Harvard and MIT, mind you.

My criticism is more valid than the rest having read the book, and having some idea of genetics in that two smart people can have an "off" child, and conversely two "dumb" people can have a smart child. Genetics has trends but individuals will always find a way, Nature will always find a way to create something superior.

I think that was the Irish psychologist Richard Lynn.

[Paperback Writer]

I think that was the Irish psychologist Richard Lynn.

Was it? I thought Murray contributed to it. I had a several of these to read for a project I was working.

[Mister D]

Was it? I thought Murray contributed to it. I had a several of these to read for a project I was working.

Lynn is cited in the Bell Curve so they do build on each others ideas. Not sure if Murray was involved or not. I have a copy at home somewhere.

[Peter1469]

One does need a reasonable basis for an opinion, however, if one doesn't wish to be dismissed as an uninformed clown. That has already happened to you, midcan, so don't bother.

I am amazed that people read his posts anymore.