Political Roundtable Part X

[AFM]

LOL at Trump's wife being an illegal immigrant...you can't make this stuff up:

Watch on YouTube

What's that joke about her sleeping with Donald?

Something about immigrants doing jobs Americans won't. I dunno.

[AFM]

Trump is done unless Assange has emails of Hillary with kiddie porn in them.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-05/trump-cratering-latest-polls

[nate33]

guess what? -- there are no such things as "races." Read that again: human "races" are mythical entities. They don't exist at all. Not in any way.

I don't think it's taboo to discuss the subject of "race" -- I think it's a good idea. It might lead to a discussion of "racism," which is where the term "race" was born.

The curve of heights refers to a quality requiring no explanation and from which no one is sitting and waiting to draw a conclusion that proves their confected theory of whatever kind. I will point out as well that the average height of a French male has risen quite a lot in the last 60 years. Why? Because kids started getting more milk starting as European economies flourished again after WWII and as data showed the growth benefits. No one would have concluded from the earlier bell shaped curve that French people were "genetically" "short" nor from the later one that they were "genetically" "tall." No one, that is, except someone with an Aryan racist bell to ring.

You are spouting gibberish. Just because nutrition can effect height doesn't mean height is determined solely by nutrition. Do you believe that a random sampling of Norwegian infants, alongside a random sampling of Chinese infants, fed the exact same diet for 20 years, will grow to the same average height?

Anything yields a bell shaped curve, hence taking an IQ test yields one as well. But no scientific source I'm aware of still considers an IQ test to be a measure of intelligence. In fact, there is no single entity called "intelligence" -- or at least none we can define.

Who said we can define intelligence or that intelligence was IQ? All I've said (or implied) is that IQ correlates very strongly with test scores. It also correlates very strongly with academic achievement, and ultimately income. Do you disagree?

Intelligence is an undefinable and unmeasurable quality, so it's not really meaningful to discuss it in this context.

[nate33]

Trump is done unless Assange has emails of Hillary with kiddie porn in them.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-05/trump-cratering-latest-polls

This is such an unpredictable election.

There are a certainly plenty voters who are shamed into not admitting they like Trump but will probably still vote for Trump on election day. This phenomenon absolutely exists. The polls significantly underrepresented the strength of Trump's support throughout the primary. They underrepresented the strength of the Brexit vote. The underrepresented the strength of the pro-Trump challenger to the anti-Trump incumbent in Kansas. We have a media bubble where every media outlet is on one side of the aisle and are downright hostile against Trump, making it harder to get a true gauge of public opinion. Trump's crowds are still huge. Trump was still able to raise a ton of money exclusively through small donations.

But at the same time, those polls are pretty overwhelmingly against Trump at the moment. If Trump was only down 3 or 4, I still be betting on a Trump win. But with Trump down 8-10, I'm not so sure.

I look forward to the primary contest between Paul Ryan and Paul Nehlen as a bellwether. Paul should win big, but if Nehlen manages to win it, I'll be 100% certain of a Trump victory in the general election.

[AFM]

Trump is done unless Assange has emails of Hillary with kiddie porn in them.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-05/trump-cratering-latest-polls

This is such an unpredictable election.

There are a certainly plenty voters who are shamed into not admitting they like Trump but will probably still vote for Trump on election day. This phenomenon absolutely exists. The polls significantly underrepresented the strength of Trump's support throughout the primary. They underrepresented the strength of the Brexit vote. The underrepresented the strength of the pro-Trump challenger to the anti-Trump incumbent in Kansas. We have a media bubble where every media outlet is on one side of the aisle and are downright hostile against Trump, making it harder to get a true gauge of public opinion. Trump's crowds are still huge. Trump was still able to raise a ton of money exclusively through small donations.

But at the same time, those polls are pretty overwhelmingly against Trump at the moment. If Trump was only down 3 or 4, I still be betting on a Trump win. But with Trump down 8-10, I'm not so sure.

I look forward to the primary contest between Paul Ryan and Paul Nehlen as a bellwether. Paul should win big, but if Nehlen manages to win it, I'll be 100% certain of a Trump victory in the general election.

Yes, most of the media is against Trump (it's no conspiracy), but were they "making it hard to gauge public opinion" when they had him leading Hillary two weeks ago? He F'd up big with the Khan remarks.

[AFM]

I'm predicting PIF wakes up in a pool of his own vomit (regurgitated latkes and gefilte fish) with an empty Jack Daniels bottle overturned next to him. "I respected Nate so much...*barf*...until the big brain theory" *vomits again*

[Ruzious]

They laughed at Dr. Frankenstein too. The fools.

Dr. Moreau was at one time considered a quack.

Actually half quack and half baaa.

[Severn Hoos]

So I guess I'll wade in with my biennial post on race. I'll preface it by saying that I won't be quoting anyone, linking anything, or attempting to use "science" to justify any of my statements. I'm simply observing the human condition and commenting thereon.

First, there are some obvious and superficial differences that get used to define "race" for some. Skin tone, hair type & color, facial features, etc. are all characteristics that cause our appearance to be different, and they do tend to run in (extended) families. As such, it would be foolish to pretend they don't exist because they do. What is more important is to recognize that they do not - or at least should not - define who we are.

The problem with using the superficial characteristics, along with the "bloodlines" that they tend to coalesce along, is that you can't help but make assumptions about people you do not know and have never met, based solely on those external characteristics. We tend to recoil at the negative associations, which I won't even dignify by repeating here, though I'm sure you can fill in your own. But we also tend to celebrate the positive associations. Be careful about trying to have it both ways.

I find it far more helpful to think in terms of "culture" rather than "race". While it is true that the two concepts can have a lot of overlap (more on that in a minute), we much be careful to remember that "correlation does not prove causation" - or, put anther way, just because the previous _______ people you have interacted with have acted a certain way, it does not mean that the next ______ person you meet will act the same way.

The whimsical term I use for this is the "City Slickers Theorem" For those not old enough to remember the movie, there were two characters, a Father & Son, who had joined the cattle ride. And the son had the line "Yes! We're black AND we're dentists. Let's not make an issue out of it." And while they were fictional characters, it showed a simple truth. Your culture is what you observe, internalize, and ultimately honor.

In this fictional account, the son presumably internalized the culture his Dad had instilled, and followed him into Dentistry (is that a word?). But this happens all the time in real life. Children follow what they observe from parents or from other figures they look up to, whether the modeling is in a good direction or not.

There's a reason why the majority of white, US-born NBA players (look - no citation at all, going purely from observation) are sons of coaches. In the households where they grew up, the culture was basketball. It paid Dad's salary, took most of their time, and was the primary focus. After all, if Dad's team started losing, it would mean no job and/or another move. Should we be surprised that those kids are more likely to end up with a life devoted to basketball, and ultimately make a career out of playing and coaching basketball, than their counterparts in the wider "white" culture?

This is what I refer to as micro-culture. It's the culture that a person's immediate family has adopted - priorities, tastes, values, etc. It's why you can have the fictional dentists in City Slickers with their own micro-culture inside the wider "black culture", even if it goes against the grain of that wider culture.

In the end, we tend to produce what the culture honors. I know the next few sentences will sound like gross stereotyping, but please stick with me. Over the past century or so, we have seen Jewish families producing a disproportionate number of doctors and other professionals relative to the general population. Likewise, African Americans and sports or entertainment. Asian families produced higher achieving students, with emphasis in the scientific and technical fields. And yes, WASPs produce a disproportionate number of investment bankers and attorneys.

Does that sound racist? Does it sound prejudicial? It's certainly not intended to be. What it is saying is that those cultures have determined what they honor, and the kids have picked it up, sometimes explicitly but often implicitly. And those kids have tended to go into the fields that were honored in their respective cultures.

The good news in all of this is that the micro-culture can in fact go against the grain. If a couple that has been exposed to some harmful influences in their own culture decides that they want to start a new culture with their children, they can do that. It won't be easy, but by honoring things like education, advancement, honesty, respect, and hard work, they can see their children rise above any circumstance.

Look at Richard Sherman. He grew up in Watts and Compton and his Dad drove a trash truck. He certainly could have been sucked into some of the despair of his surroundings. But his parents made school a priority. And Richard became kind of a geek, interested in computers, had a 4.2 GPA, and went to Stanford where he completed a degree. His parents fostered a micro-culture that emphasized education and football (in that order) and now he is well situated, not only for his playing career, but for life.

I'll get a little political for a moment and say that this is one reason why I do not support programs like Affirmative Action. It's not because "my people" are left out or being the victims of "reverse discrimination." It's because we are making decisions on the external characteristics rather than the things that really matter. To use another fictional character, why should Carlton Banks get preference in the college application process over a coal miner's kid from Appalachia or the son of someone who left behind a professional career in another country to start a new life in America by working two minimum wage jobs? (And yes, I am painting the picture of someone who followed the legal process in coming here.)

I'd be more open to Affirmative Action-type programs being economically based rather than race-based, though any system that can be created will invite people to beat the system. But at least that would target the need rather than the external characteristics. And it would have the added advantage of making the statement that decisions should always be color-blind. It's tough to defeat the mindset that race-based decisions are bad by demanding more race-based decisions.

All of the above might sound racist, and it wouldn't surprise me if some reading it here (should they make it this far) would come to that conclusion. If so, all I can say is that it saddens me that such things should be controversial, and would be an indication of diminishing hope that we can ever get past this hurdle.

I am hopeful, however, that the next generation is indeed becoming more color-blind in all of their thinking. And while it may sound paradoxical, my opinion is that the less we make it an issue, the better it will be come. You know the line that comes right after the one said by the son in City Slickers, that I quoted above? The Dad says to him: "Eh, they're not making an issue of it. You're making an issue of it."

The best answer to a racist is to ignore him. Spotlighting it on Facebook pages, passing more legislation, all of it just serves to entrench people more and more. Refusing to focus on the externals and instead looking to character and (micro-)culture rather than race will be what brings us together.

[keynote]

Another right-wing blog made the same "sloppy" mistake.

Read on Twitter

It could be a fake. All the photos on Gateway Pundit's page has a little "GP" logo in the corner.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

... or maybe the GP is cropped out of the screen cap.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/live-stream-video-trump-fills-maine-theater-town-hall-event/

At the bottom of the post, it says: "This post was updated"; the picture is no longer there. Meanwhile, a few people in the comment section are calling Hoft out about using the Cavs victory parade photo -- only to have others shout them down by pointing them to the validity of *updated* photos.

I guess that suffices as a retraction for this level of journalist.

[AFM]

Thats the worst website I've ever seen.

[AFM]

Let's lighten the mood around these parts. All this talk of race is making me sweat!

OK, I'll go first.

Who would you rather sleep with, Ernie Grunfeld or Donald Trump? Please give reasons.

I choose ErnG as his moustache would tickle the nape of my neck as he gently planted kisses down to my collarbone

[I_Like_Dirt]

Just because nutrition can effect height doesn't mean height is determined solely by nutrition. Do you believe that a random sampling of Norwegian infants, alongside a random sampling of Chinese infants, fed the exact same diet for 20 years, will grow to the same average height?

Those borders are pretty arbitrary overall, honestly. Judging with your eyes rather than your brain is usually a bit of a dangerous game. As for height, the Dutch used to be one of the shortest peoples in all of Europe and suddenly over the past few decades have grown to be the tallest country in the world. Honestly, even for Asia, the average height in Japan isn't really so far off the average height in Canada or the US at this point. Within China, the average height in northern regions where dairy was historically more a component of diet is significantly taller than southern regions, and Chinese as a whole have grown, and continue to grow taller, rather substantially at this point, as their country grows wealthier and their diets change - where they stop, nobody really knows at this point. Interestingly enough, both Canada and the US have been getting shorter over the past little while.

So yeah, diet isn't the only thing that affects height, but trying to figure the other factors out besides diet/wealth is basically impossible because nobody really knows until we can start better controlling for those things in larger populations, which will happen a bit as other countries start developing. Trying to decipher what genetics mean for height is imperfect at best given my aforementioned example of the Dutch.

Honestly, race gets used because people see with their eyes, and people tend to let sight override their other senses and their brains quite often. Skin color is completely meaningless as a trait in terms of abilities. Other factors might be more meaningful, and a few of them probably are, but damned if anybody knows what they are (myself included), and the fact that skin color gets lumped in so quickly to the discussion tends to cloud everything we try - even if it isn't lumped into the discussion, it distorts results because people are treated differently because of their skin color and, on average, have different upbringings and social experiences because of their skin color. If we could get to a place where those weren't automatic factors, then we'd be in a better position to try and assess things better, but it clearly isn't going to happen based on what a large portion of the population everywhere believes, because they believe what they see, and they see what they want to see.

[keynote]

A fascinating (if a bit florid) profile on Mohammed al-Masri, the son of an al-Qaeda chemist who's bounced between al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/wp/2016/08/05/2016/08/05/bombmaker/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_bombmaker%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[popper]

So I guess I'll wade in with my biennial post on race. I'll preface it by saying that I won't be quoting anyone, linking anything, or attempting to use "science" to justify any of my statements. I'm simply observing the human condition and commenting thereon.

First, there are some obvious and superficial differences that get used to define "race" for some. Skin tone, hair type & color, facial features, etc. are all characteristics that cause our appearance to be different, and they do tend to run in (extended) families. As such, it would be foolish to pretend they don't exist because they do. What is more important is to recognize that they do not - or at least should not - define who we are.

The problem with using the superficial characteristics, along with the "bloodlines" that they tend to coalesce along, is that you can't help but make assumptions about people you do not know and have never met, based solely on those external characteristics. We tend to recoil at the negative associations, which I won't even dignify by repeating here, though I'm sure you can fill in your own. But we also tend to celebrate the positive associations. Be careful about trying to have it both ways.

I find it far more helpful to think in terms of "culture" rather than "race". While it is true that the two concepts can have a lot of overlap (more on that in a minute), we much be careful to remember that "correlation does not prove causation" - or, put anther way, just because the previous _______ people you have interacted with have acted a certain way, it does not mean that the next ______ person you meet will act the same way.

The whimsical term I use for this is the "City Slickers Theorem" For those not old enough to remember the movie, there were two characters, a Father & Son, who had joined the cattle ride. And the son had the line "Yes! We're black AND we're dentists. Let's not make an issue out of it." And while they were fictional characters, it showed a simple truth. Your culture is what you observe, internalize, and ultimately honor.

In this fictional account, the son presumably internalized the culture his Dad had instilled, and followed him into Dentistry (is that a word?). But this happens all the time in real life. Children follow what they observe from parents or from other figures they look up to, whether the modeling is in a good direction or not.

There's a reason why the majority of white, US-born NBA players (look - no citation at all, going purely from observation) are sons of coaches. In the households where they grew up, the culture was basketball. It paid Dad's salary, took most of their time, and was the primary focus. After all, if Dad's team started losing, it would mean no job and/or another move. Should we be surprised that those kids are more likely to end up with a life devoted to basketball, and ultimately make a career out of playing and coaching basketball, than their counterparts in the wider "white" culture?

This is what I refer to as micro-culture. It's the culture that a person's immediate family has adopted - priorities, tastes, values, etc. It's why you can have the fictional dentists in City Slickers with their own micro-culture inside the wider "black culture", even if it goes against the grain of that wider culture.

In the end, we tend to produce what the culture honors. I know the next few sentences will sound like gross stereotyping, but please stick with me. Over the past century or so, we have seen Jewish families producing a disproportionate number of doctors and other professionals relative to the general population. Likewise, African Americans and sports or entertainment. Asian families produced higher achieving students, with emphasis in the scientific and technical fields. And yes, WASPs produce a disproportionate number of investment bankers and attorneys.

Does that sound racist? Does it sound prejudicial? It's certainly not intended to be. What it is saying is that those cultures have determined what they honor, and the kids have picked it up, sometimes explicitly but often implicitly. And those kids have tended to go into the fields that were honored in their respective cultures.

The good news in all of this is that the micro-culture can in fact go against the grain. If a couple that has been exposed to some harmful influences in their own culture decides that they want to start a new culture with their children, they can do that. It won't be easy, but by honoring things like education, advancement, honesty, respect, and hard work, they can see their children rise above any circumstance.

Look at Richard Sherman. He grew up in Watts and Compton and his Dad drove a trash truck. He certainly could have been sucked into some of the despair of his surroundings. But his parents made school a priority. And Richard became kind of a geek, interested in computers, had a 4.2 GPA, and went to Stanford where he completed a degree. His parents fostered a micro-culture that emphasized education and football (in that order) and now he is well situated, not only for his playing career, but for life.

I'll get a little political for a moment and say that this is one reason why I do not support programs like Affirmative Action. It's not because "my people" are left out or being the victims of "reverse discrimination." It's because we are making decisions on the external characteristics rather than the things that really matter. To use another fictional character, why should Carlton Banks get preference in the college application process over a coal miner's kid from Appalachia or the son of someone who left behind a professional career in another country to start a new life in America by working two minimum wage jobs? (And yes, I am painting the picture of someone who followed the legal process in coming here.)

I'd be more open to Affirmative Action-type programs being economically based rather than race-based, though any system that can be created will invite people to beat the system. But at least that would target the need rather than the external characteristics. And it would have the added advantage of making the statement that decisions should always be color-blind. It's tough to defeat the mindset that race-based decisions are bad by demanding more race-based decisions.

All of the above might sound racist, and it wouldn't surprise me if some reading it here (should they make it this far) would come to that conclusion. If so, all I can say is that it saddens me that such things should be controversial, and would be an indication of diminishing hope that we can ever get past this hurdle.

I am hopeful, however, that the next generation is indeed becoming more color-blind in all of their thinking. And while it may sound paradoxical, my opinion is that the less we make it an issue, the better it will be come. You know the line that comes right after the one said by the son in City Slickers, that I quoted above? The Dad says to him: "Eh, they're not making an issue of it. You're making an issue of it."

The best answer to a racist is to ignore him. Spotlighting it on Facebook pages, passing more legislation, all of it just serves to entrench people more and more. Refusing to focus on the externals and instead looking to character and (micro-)culture rather than race will be what brings us together.

Nice post Severn Hoos. The current trend seems to be running opposite of what you (and I, and those that plus +1'nd your post) think best. Unfortunately there is a great deal of money to be made by dividing people based on race and other arbitrary differentiation's. Many voters either profit from identity politics or are unable for whatever reason to see it for what it truly is (a con job).

[DCZards]

I look forward to the primary contest between Paul Ryan and Paul Nehlen as a bellwether. Paul should win big, but if Nehlen manages to win it, I'll be 100% certain of a Trump victory in the general election.

Not sure how a Republican primary in single state can predict anything about a nationwide general election between a Democrat and Republican.

A lot of Repubs have deluded themselves into believing that, because Trump did so well in the Republican primaries, he can win the Presidency. They apparently forgot that Dems and Independents get to vote in the general election--and not just Repubs.

Unless some scandal comes up that brings Hillary down, Trump is about to get his arse handed to him in November. And a lot of down ticket Repubs are scared sh**less that they are going to go down with him.

[dckingsfan]

Just so I'm being clear: I don't think IQ tests measure anything at all. Hence I wasn't bragging, I was ridiculing the guy's statements.

Note: proof that I am right would be Hands' IQ !!

Well, actually IQ tests to measure something - just not necessarily intelligence. They measure motivation to do well on the test. And that can be as important as "native intelligence". So, it might be a pretty good psychological test in the end.

Whatever IQ measures, it correlates better with success at life (in modern society) than any other single, measurable quality.

I have never said that intelligence or IQ isn't a good predictor of success. My argument is that intelligence and IQ won't be related to brain size in the end. And there is a lot to be said for Severn Hoos' diatribe on the family unit (community and schools) and how their leanings influence their family members.

[bsilver]

Mayor of Fairfax, VA arrested for selling meth to an undercover officer...in exchange for an orgy.

First he lost his day job. Then cancer, and now this. As he told the Post last December, "this has been a terrible year for me".

[DCZards]

Hoos, you nail it when you say that culture—or micro-culture—is often a far bigger factor than race and/or socio-economic background when it comes to where a person ends up in life. It can be a bigger factor than their “intelligence” or "IQ score," imo.

As a graduate of a historically black university, I have many, many friends who come from low- to middle-income working class backgrounds (a few even grew up in the NYC projects) who have gone on to become accomplished professionals in law, medicine, journalism, the arts, etc. They were able to see and get beyond those things in their background (or culture) that could have held them back…like it did some of our friends and peers. Many of us were also the first in our families to graduate from a four-year college.

Typically, this "overcoming" has happened with the firm guidance of a parent or parents…or grandparents (which was the case for me), who made sure we were raised in the right "culture," and with certain redeemable values.

On another topic you raised, I kind of agree with you regarding using a needs-based, rather than race-based, formula for affirmative action. It’s an opinion I’ve seen expressed by lawmakers.

However, some will argue that it’s often a person’s race that they’re being judged (often unfairly) by and not their socio-economic background. Yes, a Carlton Banks may be stereotyped and prejudged simply because of his skin color.

There are plenty of examples where the resume from “Kevin” gets the job interview while the resume from “Kwame” gets passed over, even though they have the exact same credentials…and may, in fact, even be the same person.

If there is a silver-lining, I believe that, thanks in large part to integration, especially on college campuses, and the country’s ever increasing diversity, each successive generation is indeed becoming more color-blind in their thinking. I think you see that reflected in the election of Barack Obama as president.

[dckingsfan]

Hey Zard's your take on this:
http://tinyurl.com/jb5lz54

Good, bad or indifferent?

...

[AFM]

Okay, this is funny

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/04/petition-created-rename-uss-harvey-milk-uss-harambe/

An online petition has been created on the official White House petitions page, demanding that the United States Naval Ship Harvey Milk be renamed the “USS Harambe.”
Harambe the gorilla was an unarmed, peaceful being who was unjustly murdered by fascist zookeepers, determined to ensure that primates are not given their fundamental, constitutional rights. He was accused of attacking a child, when all video footage confirms that Harambe (pbuh) was in fact trying to bring the child into his warm, protecting embrace. We should all be so lucky to feel the presence of this gentle giant — now watching over us from above.

The author of the petition sets out a list of comprehensive and persuasive arguments for the proposal. “While there is no doubt that Harvey Milk died in the service of his country, his contribution to American history pales in comparison to the Silverback magnificence that was Harambe. Harambe who gave his life in a volley of friendly fire.”