Ezra, commenting on my post from the other day about Bush's strange logic on the shorter lifespan of African-Americans, clarifies something nicely:
Having spent four years doing nothing to make their lot better, he suddenly revealed a full knowledge of black inequality. Which means he has spent four years being aware that African-Americans die before their time and, with the entire power of the American government arrayed before him, consciously chose to do nothing about it. And he has decided, finally, to publicly acknowledge it not in order to rectify the injustice, but to push an unrelated policy that'll help -- guess who? -- rich white folks.
That's exactly right. Put more crudely, Bush made a tactical error in acknowledging the fact that African-Americans live shorter lives, because it's not hard to figure out why they live shorter lives. They're more likely to be uninsured, they're less likely to receive preventative care, they're disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS, they're disproportionately poor. Bush tends not to talk about this stuff (even though he talks about how his tax cuts benefit African-American small businesses), but with his statement about the shorter longevity of African-Americans, he's tacitly acknowledging that he knows it.
Now, we all know that he knows why African-Americans tend to live shorter lives, and we know he's not supposed to talk about it. But by acknowledging he stuff that we know he knows but doesn't talk about, a whole series of questions are raised. Why, if he knows about all of this injustice, hasn't he done anything about it? Isn't he supposed to be a compassionate conservative? Isn't ignoring this injustice not just negligent but downright immoral? Doesn't using this injustice for political gain descend to the level of the truly despicable?
Which is all to say, it's hard to buy the conventional line on Bush -- 'he's not the brightest star in the universe, but, golly, he's a good guy' -- if we know that he has known the plight of 12-13% of US citizens and has been ignoring it. Rather trying to fix an inherent inequality in American society, he's exploiting it.
I mention this because this is something you should remember next time you see Bush on TV, and he's saying something really stupid, and you're inclined to feel sorry for him because he's such a bumbling idiot. Save your pity for someone who's worthy of it.
Moral blah. Culture of blah blah. Freedom is blah blah blah.
-- Michael
As much as you may enjoy calling Bush an idiot, it is silly. It merely exposes your ignorance. Bush is extremely intelligent.
As far as his statement about Blacks being shortchanged by the SS program, it was intended to get them to pay attention - he needs their support to make the changes he wants.
Your statements about the reasons for the differences in longevity ignore much. Some things are too politically incorrect to be discussed in public by elected officials. The differences in blacks & whites, for one.
In reality there are many very obvious differences in blacks and whites; longeviety is just one of dozens. Whites not only live longer than blacks (on average) but Jews and Asians live longer than blacks or whites.
Not only that, but Asians do better on math and physics, where differences in analytical ability stand out. They don't do so good on the basketball court.
You see a lot of blacks playing wheel of fortune, but you don't see many on Jeopardy.
Even though Asians are a minority in America, you don't hear them crying about affirmative action to give them a boost. Why? Because they are already DOMINANT in most colleges.
Yes, blacks get AIDS/hepatitis/STD's much more than whites or Asians, and yes, they shoot each other much more than any other group, and yes black girls give birth to illegitmate kids at much higher rates than any other group, but it's all the fault someone else, right?
Truth is truth.
Don't call the truth a lie just because it goes against things you were taught. Do you see any Asians in the 100 meter Olympics finals?
Do you see many blacks getting a Nobel prize in physics or mathematics? Has it ever happened?
Truth is independent of how uncomfortable it makes people.
Posted by: Buckshot | January 28, 2005 at 06:37 PM
dear buckshot,
truth, as you say, is truth. and the truth is that you are a racist.
if i were inclined to argue with you, i would say that you don't back up any of your claims with facts.
and the anecdotal/circumstantial "evidence" that you provide doesn't prove anything; it merely reinforces a preconception that you seem to have.
and given that i cited a bunch of facts, and provided you with the links to read about them, i can't say that i'm really inclined to have a discussion with you until you choose to address them. i assume you won't, since your view of the politics of races seems to be based on who's on which TV show. a good measure, that.
Posted by: here's what's left | January 28, 2005 at 06:46 PM
buckshot, are you arguing that the shorter lifespan of blacks is inherently biological or a result of their actions? because you argue for both sides. to prove that its biological, you'd have to look at the life expectancy for blacks as opposed to whites while holding behavioral variables constant. do you have some information about that?
men live a shorter life than women. maybe its due to something about their bodies. maybe its due to the fact that they take more physical risks. either way, would you prefer that we not bother trying to help men live longer? how about if we just focus on white men, maybe that would be ok with you.
Posted by: heather | January 28, 2005 at 08:03 PM
Men live shorter lives because of the gap in the amount spent on mens and women's healthcare and other forms of discrimination against men. The gap between men and women is about the same as between black and white in the US.
FINDINGS: A review of the life span gender gap in 1994 reveals considerable variation by country: Israel: 3.8 years Sweden: 5.3 years United States: 6.6 years Hungary: 9.3 years Russian Federation: 15.4 years. These six-fold variations argue against biological explanations for the disparity in life expectancy for men and women.
Posted by: DavidByron | January 28, 2005 at 09:09 PM
Michael,
Let me address your facts as you request of me.
1) "They're (blacks) more likely to be uninsured".
1) Yes, this is true.
2) "they're less likely to receive preventative care,"
2) Yes, this is true.
3) "they're disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS",
3) Yes, this is true.
4) "they're disproportionately poor".
4) Yes, this is true.
Michael, all of those four statements are well established facts. I didn't bother to respond because, well, it's sort of like agreeing with you that the sky is blue.
5) "Bush tends not...he's tacitly acknowledging that he knows it."
5) Yes, of course Bush knows that blacks have shorter life spans that whites or asians or jews or probably Hispanics. It's no secret.
Now Michael, you really go down the wrong path with this...."Now, we all know that he knows why African-Americans tend to live shorter lives..."
We all know? Do we? Who is "all??" Do you mean everyone? Most people? When you use an "absolute", your sentence generally becomes false. I can assure you there are millions of Americans who HAVE NO IDEA whether blacks live longer or shorter lives on the average.
Then you refer to "this injustice", (speaking of the shorter life span for blacks.)....
Michael, There are many reasons blacks live shorter average lifespans than most other racial groups in America....
1) They have AIDS at a much higher rate.
2) They have other STD's at a much higher rate.
3) They have diabetes at a higher rate.
4) They have heart disease at a higher rate.
5) They die of gunshot wounds at a MUCH higher rate.
6) There very well may be genetic reasons. I'll leave that for you to research.
7) They smoke and get lung cancer at a higher rate.
Now, HWL, you ask of Bush, "Why hasn't he done anything about it?"
What do you propose he do about it? Tell us.
You ask..."Isn't he supposed to be a compassionate conservative?" Answer: I don't know.
You ask "Isn't ignoring this injustice not just negligent but downright immoral?"
How is he ignoring it? Isn't the very fact that he's NOT IGNORING IT, the very reason that you are discussing it? And is it an injustice? Or is it just reality?
You ask "Doesn't using this injustice for political gain descend to the level of the truly despicable?"
Answer: You are naive as hell, young man.
Now, here is THE REAL MOTHER OF ALL IRONIC STATEMENTS.....""Which is all to say... Rather trying to fix an inherent inequality in American society, he's exploiting it....."
An INHERENT INEQUALITY!!! Those are your words there, Michael. An INHERENT INEQUALITY. The difference in life spans is (according to you) INHERENT.
Yes, I agree. But you called me a racist. So join the club.
Heather,
I am not arguing anything. I am merely stating what the entire educated world knows. Blacks have shorter average lifespans than just about any other group, except possibly Indians.
Is it inherent? Well, as you say, to answer this question one would need some good data. It doesn't help when you have all the factors mentioned above, (the gang violence, AIDS, higher smoking & drug use, etc)
I will let you research it and if you find something interesting let me know - I'll read it.
David,
On the differences between women and men's life spans, I suspect it is also a combination of factors. Partly just biological, and partly because of other factors.
When discussing longevity, it is easy to really get skewed data by just a slight variation in one factor, say infant mortality.
If you look at people who are already 65, you will get a real eye opener on longevity. There are a lot of pitfalls when looking at statistics.
Does anyone read Marilyn vos Savont, the genius gal who writes a column in Parade Magazine?
Posted by: Buckshot | January 29, 2005 at 12:56 AM
The reason for the discrepancy in lifespan between blacks, native Americans, and the rest of us is pathetically obvious.
Native Americans had their homeland stolen and now live like refugees. Their culture is disintegrating and they live in ghettos. Once they are assimilated, thier life span improves. Luckily, after intermarrying once or twice, they blend into the melting pot quite nicely.
Blacks in the US are not so fortunate. They were not only stolen from their homelands entirely, they also endured two centuries of slavery. Even today they are widely discriminated against precisely because they are so easily identified by their color and hair.
These two groups demonstrate the power of prejudice and money. Is it any coincidence that the lifespan of these groups is sub-standard? I think not.
It is interesting that BuckNaked seems to think that both the oppression these groups suffered throughout their history and the hand up offered in terms of affirmative action had only deleterious effect on the fortunes of these souls. I suppose that cause and effect are disembodied concepts to this person. He also seems to feel that there is no collective responsibility to redress the wounds, in fact seems to think that doing so amounts to coddling to the point of inculcating a dependency. In that respect one can only ponder what constitutes moral behavior to such a person. Is there anything that he believes will restore balance besides corporate welfare?
As for his claims that he is not racist, well the fact that he makes such blatantly offensive remarks apparently to bait others into calling him racist leads me to question as to what point there is in debating him at all. If he is not racist he will not do such things because he will understand that offending others on the basis of their genetic heritage is the very definition of racism, regardless of how one tries to paper over the ugliness with 'facts'.
Posted by: Cheryl | January 29, 2005 at 01:37 AM
1) They have AIDS at a much higher rate.
2) They have other STD's at a much higher rate.
3) They have diabetes at a higher rate.
4) They have heart disease at a higher rate.
5) They die of gunshot wounds at a MUCH higher rate.
6) There very well may be genetic reasons. I'll leave that for you to research.
7) They smoke and get lung cancer at a higher rate.
Now, HWL, you ask of Bush, "Why hasn't he done anything about it?"
What do you propose he do about it? Tell us.
You can't think of one thing that could be done? Come on. Not one single thing? Come on. Surely you can at least think of a way to lower the risks for certain diseases? No? How about increased access to healthcare. How about aggressive health education starting in early childhood. Those don't work? Well then how about pressuring the powers that be to use the resources at their disposal (like money and experts) to figure it out. Of course, this is why Michael wrote the post in the first place.
You know another group that tends to die from gunshot wounds? Older white men who commit suicide. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, that demographic is at the highest risk for suicide. But I guess that's just "truth" and "reality," so let's just let the old guys off themselves, right? It's their fault.
There are those of us who would like to reach out to people who are more likely to die and find ways to keep them alive. And then there are those who prefer to dole out blame but never propose solutions. Oh, but they can pride themselves on telling the "truth." Well congratulations to you, big guy. You're a real hero. Now come up with an idea that might actually make things better.
Posted by: heather | January 29, 2005 at 02:37 AM
Heather,
I'm sure you are a nice person, and you would like to contribute to a making the world a better place to live in. That's honorable, so far as what Heather can do to make things better.
When Heather's "solution" becomes RAISE TAXES (on those who pay taxes) , CREATE NEW PROGRAMS, THROW MORE MONEY AT EVERY NEW IDEA, ETC....
Then you really aren't doing anything constructive, (unless driving up the deficit and increasing taxes is constructive). And if that's the case, hey, why go with half-assed solutions? Why not just give every black person a paid-in-full Blue Cross/Blue Shield policy? Why stop there? Why not just give them $3000 per month spending money, so they can purchase whatever cholesterol/AIDS/anti-biotics cocktail that would extend their life? Why not buy every black person in America a gym membership at Gold's gym? Hell, build a fully stocked Gold's Gym in every inner city? On every block?
And your generosity may as well extend to entertainment, if you feel that will help blacks to live longer. Perhaps an entertainment center and a basketball court for every black household? And a pool for every neighborhood in case they prefer swimming laps?
Full facial treatments and pedicares? Hey, you can volunteer your services!
You ask "You can't think of one thing that could be done? Come on. Not one single thing? Come on."
Heather, you're asking me to think of a way to lower the risk of certain diseases for blacks? Huh? You mean like not shooting each other? Like not exposing yourself to AIDS? Like not eating a high carb diet and weighing 300 pounds? Like not shooting up with dirty needles? Like brushing my their teeth?
Heather, you want me to think of a way to improve health care for blacks? You want me to do something YOU AREN'T DOING. Why don't you give all your money to the cause? Then tell me what I should do. (after you give your own money)
Heather, you ask...
"How about aggressive health education starting in early childhood. Those don't work? Well then how about pressuring the powers that be to use the resources at their disposal (like money and experts) to figure it out. Of course, this is why Michael wrote the post in the first place."
Hey, isn't that what "no child left behind" is about? Didn't Bush just double education spending to $80 billion per year????? And I might remind you, education was originally to be decided/funded at the state level. (to prevent the inevitable attempts at federal meddling/brainwashing)
How much can you educate people not to expose themselves to AIDS? To eat right? To not shoot each other and do drugs? You tell me. I already know your answer, Heather - spend more money on every program, increase taxes, and then spend yet more money, etc etc. Isn't that what you folks are complaining about? Big deficits? And you want to increase spending and taxes? Increasing taxes will drag the economy down and create even bigger defecits, not to mention cutting the heart out of FICA contributions, as jobs stagnate.
Heather, you say "You know another group that tends to die from gunshot wounds? Older white men who commit suicide. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, that demographic is at the highest risk for suicide."
The interesting thing about statistics is that it's so easy to draw the wrong conclusion. I checked it out. Yes, among white men OVER 85, whites kill themselves more than blacks, (who tend to die of other things at about age 65)
You overlooked the obvious on that one.
Heather, you say..."There are those of us who would like to reach out to people who are more likely to die and find ways to keep them alive."
What that means is you would like OTHER PEOPLE to pay more taxes to create new programs to do the same things we're already doing. You, (Heather) don't have any intention of doing ANYTHING yourself. (except talk)
You reinforce the typical liberal reaction to every perceived injustice - lash out in anger at anyone who tells you things you don't like to hear - demand someone ELSE spend money fixing things - somehow - you don't know how - just do it. And raise taxes on the RICH BASTARDS some more - cuz Heather, well Heather actually gets all her taxes back each year, so she really doesn't pay any. Right?
Now Heather, if you want to DO something about the "problem", you need to get up from your keyboard, and go out into the world and DO SOMETHING, rather than talk about how other people should do something.
Maybe you can go educate some of those blacks who are standing down on the corner smoking and dealing. Tell em' to stop.
Posted by: Buckshot | January 29, 2005 at 12:02 PM
buckshot,
your style of argument is tiresome, and your rhetoric intellectually dishonest. of course, you know that by talking about "an inherent inequality in American society" i was speaking of the fact that african-americans have don't have access to health care and tend to be poorer. but you had your own agenda, and your were gonna make sure that you could fit whatever i said into it.
as heather has pointed out, the reason this post is here in the first place was to criticize bush for not having done anything to help the lot of african-americans in this country. then you ask a ridiculous question, "What do you propose he do about it?" as if you don't have any idea. of course, you know that many on the left want increased access to affordable health care for all americans, and we want to make sure that the social safety net is in place for those who have been less fortunate, and we want to make sure that african-americans actually get to vote, something that the republican party appears to be against.
if you had taken a moment to think about it, you would have realized that this whole flap about bush and african-american longevity is a matter of priorities. to many of us on the left, it's more a priority to increase african-american longevity through better social justice and access to healthcare. we take this seriously, because we consider a basic equality an essential part of american society. to the president, the priority appears to be privatizing social security.
so, if you have an argument to make, make it. don't string together a series of unrelated anecdotes. i don't care who's on jeopardy and who's on wheel of fortune. you claim to be interested in logic. let's hear an argument from you. a real argument. along the lines of, "your statement is wrong because X, Y, Z. here is some evidence for that."
so far, you've not shown that you're capable of such sophisticated thought.
and you're still, as far as i can tell, a racist.
Posted by: here's what's left | January 29, 2005 at 01:11 PM
Michael,
We're both racists, according to my dictionary, as we are both acknowledging differences in the races.
I will answer your questions and address your points as clearly as I am able.
You say (my) "rhetoric (is) intellectually dishonest."
Everything I have said on your blog is the truth as far as I know it. Here are just a few truths I have acknowledged....
1) blacks do not live as long as whites (on average)
2) blacks have many diseases at higher rates than whites
3) blacks score lower on IQ tests than whites
4) you don't see asians or whites in the Olympic 100 meter finals
5) blacks are disproportionately represented on NBA and NFL teams, while disproportionately under-represented as Nobel Laureates in math & physics.
6) Black die of gunshot wounds at a much higher rate than whites.
7) Most of the shooters are also blacks.
Those are all true statements, Michael. You made some of the same points. They were true when you said em, they were just as true when I said em.
What bothers you is your perceived sense of being somehow "better" than me. So when you say these things, it's okay, because you say them with sufficient compassion and scorn for the white people who you blame.
Me, I just state em' as facts. Facts are facts.
Okay, Michael, when you say "an inherent inequality in American society" I guess you mean something else. Inherent means inherited. Look it up.
Michael, you point out "the reason this post is here in the first place was to criticize bush for not having done anything to help the lot of african-americans in this country."
Michael, he has increased drastically every social program in existence. He simply cannot change the genetic structure of the black race. Nor can GWB "educate" blacks so they live longer.
You suggest "many on the lef want increased access to affordable health care for all americans,"
Okay, Michael. America already has the best health care in the world. Even if you spent $1,000,000 on every single black man in America, they still would not live as long as white men. It isn't withing the power of GWB (or any other mortal being) to change that. Nor can it be changed that the 100 meter sprint is going to be dominated by men of West African ancestry. Don't like it? I don't know what to tell you, Michael.
There are many inequalities in the world. Not all of them can be changed. All men are not created physically equal.
As far as your "social safety net is in place for those who have been less fortunate"
Michael, we have the fattest poor people on the planet. The poor in America have one big danger, and it isn't malnutrition. It's obesity related illness, such as heart disease and diabetes. Don't like it?
This quote ... "and we want to make sure that african-americans actually get to vote," is really silly. If you're referring to the blacks that got so confused in Florida that thousands of them screwed up the ballot, well, maybe they need simpler ballots. Your claim that blacks are kept from voting is silly.
You say you have "a priority to increase african-american longevity through better social justice and access to healthcare."
That's great, Michael. If you can stop young black men from killing other blacks, that would make a tremendous difference. If you can stop blacks from being promiscuous and using dirty needles, you might help some more. If you can get them better access to health care, you might help them more yet.
At some point, even if you did all those things, you will find that black men don't live as long as white men, on average.
Michael, I'm not "stringing together a bunch of anecdotes". I don't use anecdotes as evidence. Perhaps you should look up the word.
For you to call me a racist is just normal lefty behavior. Next, you'll call me a bigot, a homophobe, and un-compassionate.
Fine. None of those are logical arguments. Those are merely frustrated name calling from someone who cannot discern between a logical argument and an emotional outburst.
Posted by: Buckshot | January 29, 2005 at 03:24 PM
the funny thing about all these posts is you all go away from Bush's point, Blacks get SCREWED by social security. I could really care less why the life expectancy for certain groups is what it is, that has nothing to do with the debate regarding SS. The fact that certain groups get screwed by SS is the ISSUE.
The simplistic proposal of VOLUNTARY, THAT MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE IT, personal SS accounts means the individual OWNS the account. With OWNERSHIP comes inheritance, meaning no matter what age someone dies that someone passes down their accumulated wealth.
Again, for all you naysayers, you have the CHOICE to stay in the SS as it is today. Don't push your beliefs on others and not allow people the CHOICE to have personal accounts. If you don't like personal accounts stay put in the current SS. Those that wish to own their SS should have that CHOICE.
So the issue of why life expectancy is what it is really has nothing to do with this debate.
Posted by: drm | January 31, 2005 at 12:14 AM
dearest buckshot,
thank you for the sweet love letter you wrote me, complete with an unflattering caricature of a "liberal." what a doll you are! are you trying to ask me out?
you certainly presume to know a lot about me. have we met or do you have psychic powers? I don't think we've met and your powers must be failing you because your bold, and may I say, bitchy, assertions about me and my lifestyle are fabulously off base. I especially liked the part where you sneered at me because you think i don't pay taxes. It would have been better if you were right because then you would have succeeded at mocking someone for being poor. My my my. I'm positively bewitched by your charm.
Not that it's any of your business, but I DO give of my money and my time, though my efforts have focused on the elderly and not on black men per se. (i can't do everything.) And as a student, i am applying for a fellowship to learn to do research and make policy decisions regarding early childhood development and education. And what do you do? other than argue with two kids who run a liberal blog, i mean.
the point though is not what you or I do, because even if I give everything I have, its not enough, is it? big changes require big, coordinated efforts. yes, that requires money but it also requires smart people with good ideas. and no, i don't know exactly who those people are, but in the future one of them will be me and none of them, my darling, will be you. Just make sure to watch my confirmation hearing after President Obama appoints me HHS secretary, would you.
anyway.
because of what i study, i myself am interested in early intervention programs. i think they have promise. i'll have to get back to you with details, because, mr. buckshot, my enchanting prince, it's going to take some time and some effort. I do hope you'll wait for me.
or do you think kids are screwed too, just because they're black? they're not going to win any nobel prizes, so just let 'em rot?
your stuff about facials and pedicures is fantastically stupid. don't make my side absurd and then argue with it. that's intellectually lazy.
also, I said "OLDER" white men and indicated with my use of the words "if I'm not mistaken" that I hadn't looked up the exact numbers. sheesh. and the POINT was to find out whether you think ALL groups at a higher risk for death should be ignored or just the darker-skinned ones.
and you never answered my question. can you come up with one idea to make this world better? since you pee your pants at the idea of federal spending, come up with something that isn't so expensive. anything?
at the foundation of this disagreement is the fact that we have fundamentally different ideas about how the pieces of a society work and change and all that... and we'll talk past each other till the freakin cows come home. there's probably no point and if you weren't so personally unpleasant, i don't think i'd even bother.
just make sure to pay your taxes so us liberals can set up health clubs in the ghettos.
Posted by: heather | January 31, 2005 at 12:50 AM
Heather,
Thank you for your response.
What an absolute SHOCK to find out that you are a student!!!!! An idealistic young lady, who really wants to change the world for the better, and who (of course) wants to do it WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
How UNUSUAL for a young idealistic student to feel that way.
Your "point" about older white males committing suicide at a high(er) rate was priceless. When I researched it, I found it was true. The reason is.... are you ready?.... they live long enough to get old. Meanwhile, black men die off in their 50's and 60/s, so there aren't many of them left to commit suicide.
This reminds me of the study that found kids with bigge feet did better on algebra tests. Yes, they do. And like the previous example, there is a damn good reason. (They are older)
Back to class, Healther. Study hard on those ideas of how you will donate all of your money when you start earning some.
Posted by: buckshot | January 31, 2005 at 02:18 PM
I'm not sure what you are getting at Buckshot (I doubt you are either so that was NOT a request for an explanation) but the suicide figures are worse for whites across the board in the US I would guess. Heather did talk about the rate not the total number of suicides of course (sure - I'll wait here while you check on that......). There are afterall 3-4 times as many whites as blacks in the country. Duh. I guess when you were working down the coalmine or shifting bales of hay there wasn't much time for elementary statistics?
The reason is.... are you ready?.... they live long enough to get old.
Compare percentages dumbass.
Posted by: DavidByron | January 31, 2005 at 05:56 PM
Here you go
The graph is hard to see for the pre-14 age group but clearly for any other age group white men are worse than black men and white women are worse than black women.
Of course any kind of man is worse than any kind of woman.... and although it doesn't show so here I believe that blacks are worse than hispanics or asians.
Google is your friend Buckshot.
Posted by: DavidByron | January 31, 2005 at 06:04 PM
David,
Wow. For you to think I could confuse rate with total number is wild.
Tell me what rate of increase our deficit would be if you had your way and paid every $20K worker in America another $80K (a figure you pulled out of your ear).
I'd like to know your rate of increase there, pal.
Posted by: buckshot | January 31, 2005 at 07:47 PM
Wild.
Look Buckshot, the mistake was a hilarious screw-up. It was hilarious because you're such a pompous ass and you dug yourself in there so far trying to tear into Heather. You laid it on with a trowel. Wild. A really first class cock-up. Very funny.
The second mistake was just pathetic. Instead of coming clean you pretend it never happened. Shame you can't edit out old posts isn't it? Shame on you. You can throw it out there, but you can't take it.
Go on then. Dig yourself deeper. Explain yourself.
Your "point" about older white males committing suicide at a high(er) rate was priceless. When I researched it, I found it was true. The reason is.... are you ready?.... they live long enough to get old. Meanwhile, black men die off in their 50's and 60/s, so there aren't many of them left to commit suicide.
Posted by: DavidByron | January 31, 2005 at 08:19 PM
I just love this guy.
Buckshot, I suspect that everyone on this blog is just dying to learn your pedigree.
Posted by: Cheryl | January 31, 2005 at 09:39 PM
Your "point" about older white males committing suicide at a high(er) rate was priceless. When I researched it, I found it was true. The reason is.... are you ready?.... they live long enough to get old. Meanwhile, black men die off in their 50's and 60/s, so there aren't many of them left to commit suicide.
dude, how did you not confuse rate with the raw number? i don't think there's any other way of interpreting that sentence. i'm going to join David in asking for you to explain yourself. if we misinterpreted you, tell us what you meant. and maybe be clear next time.
of course, the reason Heather mentioned that stat in the first place wasn't to get in an argument about suicide rates. she chose an offhand example as a way of asking how it is one comes to a decision about whether or not a certain group's health should be given attention. put pointendly, she wanted to know if your opposition to using money to better the health of black people is solely a race-based opinion.
personally i would be in favor of using public money to keep old white men from committing suicide. are you? the possible answers are:
a.) no because I don't think that public money should be used to help anyone
b.) yes because white people are more worth helping than black people
c.) yes and we should also help people who have other physical and mental health problems, including minorities.
tell us. give us a straight answer.
of course, the other thing that the suicide stat does is illustrate that just because you cite a stat about a population, doesn't mean they're causally linked. being white doesn't make commit suicide when you're old, and surely even you wouldn't argue that it does. being black, similarly, doesn't cause you to live a shorter life than whites. to continue the analogy, the genetics of being black don't make you get AIDS, don't make you do drugs, don't make you do a variety of things.
as i'm really tired of saying, you never make an argument. you never provide any evidence for a causal link between two things. let's take an example:
He simply cannot change the genetic structure of the black race. Nor can GWB "educate" blacks so they live longer.
Tell me about the genetic structure of the "black race." What scientific data do you have? Do you have any evidence that clearly shows that the "black race" can't be educated? That somehow provides a causal link between their genetic structure and their longevity? What is the "black race" anyway?
At some point, even if you did all those things, you will find that black men don't live as long as white men, on average.
really? how do you know? have you tried?
what you're doing is not, as i said, making an argument. ya know what, i don't think you will make an argument, so i'll make the structure for you. you just fill in the variables.
Buckshot's argument: "Based on scientific evidence A, B, and C, race X is more likely to have shorter lifespans. Therefore, based on logical criterion Y, race X shouldn't be given any help with health care."
and a point of terminology. you told me that i should look up the word anecdote. in fact, the phrase that i used was "anecdotal/circumstantial evidence." merriam webster defines "anecdotal" as
2. based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers, i.e. anecdotal evidence
i would tell you to look it up, but i did it for you. i expect you to apologize and admit that you were wrong.
and of course the reason i used the word "anecdotal evidence" in the first place is because that's exactly what you're using. "You see a lot of blacks playing wheel of fortune, but you don't see many on Jeopardy."
Posted by: here's what's left | February 01, 2005 at 12:55 AM
Michael,
Fair enough.
Here's what Heather said....
..................
"You know another group that tends to die from gunshot wounds? Older white men who commit suicide. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, that demographic is at the highest risk for suicide. But I guess that's just "truth" and "reality," so let's just let the old guys off themselves, right? It's their fault."
...........................
When I looked up a few stats on suicide rates, I saw several examples that said this...."Among the highest rates (when categorized by gender and race) are suicide deaths for white men over 85, who had a rate of 59/100,000"
Now, granted, I did not copy and paste that on your fine blog at the time, but that was what I had in mind when I said to Heather (rather flippantly, as it was off topic anyway) that most black men had already died by that advanced age. (85) I sort of had in mind that most black men who had made it to 85 were either in an alzheimer ward, or were so darn happy to have beat the odds that suicide was the last thing on their mind.
On the other hand, there are many white men who make it well past 85, (as a percentage of the total, I mean). I can see why they might commit suicide at a higher RATE than black men, because you are comparing two very different groups.
One group (the black survivors) are quite unusual, just by the very fact that they are still alive. The other group (the white men) are just old white men, in a world full of old white men.
Anyway, I didn't blather on about all of that at the time, because frankly, it was off topic. Had I known you fellas would make a capital case out of it, I would have pounded out a few thousand words on the topic.
And if you want, we can hash it out for a couple of weeks until we all tire of it.
Anyway, Michael, I assure you I have no dementia concerning RATES and RAW NUMBERS. I have studied statistics both in college courses, and I enjoy the suject to this day. A great book on the topic is Marilyn vos Savant's "The Power of Logical Thinking" She's a genius.
She discusses in detail some of the common misconceptions and the ways politicians twist statistics for public consumption.
I also consult often the Logical Fallacies, many of which are violated daily on this and most other blogs.
Now I will work my way through your post and answer your exact questions with concise answers. (try it sometime)
.............
"of course, the reason Heather mentioned that stat in the first place wasn't to get in an argument about suicide rates. she chose an offhand example as a way of asking how it is one comes to a decision about whether or not a certain group's health should be given attention. put pointendly, she wanted to know if your opposition to using money to better the health of black people is solely a race-based opinion."
She did not suggest using money to "better the health of black people" That's your quote. She asked "You can't think of one thing that could be done? Come on. Not one single thing? Come on. Surely you can at least think of a way to lower the risks for certain diseases? No? How about increased access to healthcare. How about aggressive health education starting in early childhood. Those don't work? Well then how about pressuring the powers that be to use the resources at their disposal (like money and experts) to figure it out. Of course, this is why Michael wrote the post in the first place."
.............
Michael, I answered Heather as clearly as I could. She asked quite a few questions there, and I gave my honest opinion. I'd like to point out while I'm at it, I'm the only one on this blog who makes an honest attempt to answer a direct question. Sometimes I get overwhelmed by the sheer number of questions, so have a bit of understanding. It isn't like any of you are making any effort to answer any of MY questions.
(of course I know by now not to expect too much)
One of her questions was whether I thought longevity of blacks was for biological reasons. I do believe there is a genetic (racial) factor in longevity. Asians live longer than whites, who live longer than Blacks. And I listed several behavioral reasons that make the differences even greater.
Here is your next question...
"personally i would be in favor of using public money to keep old white men from committing suicide. are you? the possible answers are:
a.) no because I don't think that public money should be used to help anyone
b.) yes because white people are more worth helping than black people
c.) yes and we should also help people who have other physical and mental health problems, including minorities."
...........
Thanks for limiting my choices to three. I don't accept your limitations. First, your statement that you wish to "use public money" to prevent old white men from committing suicide is just about meaningless. I don't really have any idea what that means. I'm sure there are suicide prevention programs at work in every state right now, and if you wish to SPECIFICALLY target old white males, well, you probably will be called a racist motherfucker a few times. But hey, go for it.
You ask me ...."tell us. give us a straight answer."
To what? Your meaningless statement about some vague intention of "helping" old white men? What the hell are you saying? Your "plan" is as vague as Bush's privatization plan.
Your next paragraph...."of course, the other thing that the suicide stat does is illustrate that just because you cite a stat about a population, doesn't mean they're causally linked. being white doesn't make commit suicide when you're old, and surely even you wouldn't argue that it does. being black, similarly, doesn't cause you to live a shorter life than whites. to continue the analogy, the genetics of being black don't make you get AIDS, don't make you do drugs, don't make you do a variety of things."....
contains several different statements, unrelated to each other. Some are true, some are false, some are just meaningless.
Your next sentence"as i'm really tired of saying, you never make an argument. you never provide any evidence for a causal link between two things."
Never say never, Michael.
"Tell me about the genetic structure of the "black race." What scientific data do you have? Do you have any evidence that clearly shows that the "black race" can't be educated? That somehow provides a causal link between their genetic structure and their longevity? What is the "black race" anyway?
At some point, even if you did all those things, you will find that black men don't live as long as white men, on average.
really? how do you know? have you tried?
what you're doing is not, as i said, making an argument. ya know what, i don't think you will make an argument, so i'll make the structure for you. you just fill in the variables.
Buckshot's argument: "Based on scientific evidence A, B, and C, race X is more likely to have shorter lifespans. Therefore, based on logical criterion Y, race X shouldn't be given any help with health care."
and a point of terminology. you told me that i should look up the word anecdote. in fact, the phrase that i used was "anecdotal/circumstantial evidence." merriam webster defines "anecdotal" as
2. based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers, i.e. anecdotal evidence
i would tell you to look it up, but i did it for you. i expect you to apologize and admit that you were wrong.
and of course the reason i used the word "anecdotal evidence" in the first place is because that's exactly what you're using. "You see a lot of blacks playing wheel of fortune, but you don't see many on Jeopardy."
Whew. I lost track of how many quesitons you asked me. Mostly your last several paragraphs became a diatribe.
Michael, I would not mind answering any specific question, but when they come twenty or thirty at a shot, it becomes a chore. Not to mention you are really just venting, your brain is slammed shut and you are beyond the point of wanting to hear an answer.
It always amazes me that people can pretend there are no real differences between the races. I guess that comes from K12 education and being told a million times that everyone is equal.
Guess what? That, and much else you were told, was untrue.
Now when are you going to answer MY QUESTIONS?
Unlike you, I only ask one or two at a time, and they are ignored.
Posted by: Buckshot | February 01, 2005 at 01:50 AM
Michael,
From now on, I will only accept two questions at a time. You folks don't have much self control, and once you get on a rampage, you can easily ask 10, 20, or 30 questions in one post.
You really aren't looking for answers to that many questions. You use questions as statements.
I find this a very unsatisfactory form of dialogue. So in the future, I will participate only in two way conversations.
If you are unable or unwilling to answer a couple of simple questions, you can just say so, and I won't waste our time.
I have a couple of questions for you, and a couple for David. Let me know if either of you are interested in adult two-way dialogue.
Posted by: bucshot | February 01, 2005 at 01:58 AM
buckshot,
you told me to look up the word "anecdote." instead, i looked up the word i used. i was using it correctly, and provided you with the definition. i am waiting for your apology. no rant there, just a refutation of a mistake you made.
to be precise, i didn't ask 20 or 30 questions. i asked 7, which were really all versions of the same question:
you provide a small amount of anecdotal evidence to support a claim that you are hinting at. do you have a body of scientific evidence to support your suppositions about black genetics?
the follow-up to that is: if not, what is the basis for your belief about black genetics?
I guess that comes from K12 education and being told a million times that everyone is equal.
Guess what? That, and much else you were told, was untrue.
and you still have not provided a single shred of real evidence for that claim.
i don't know if it can be more straightforward than that. please, let's be adults here. be intellectually honest. if you have an argument, make it. otherwise, i'd politely ask you to go away.
Posted by: here's what's left | February 01, 2005 at 02:24 AM
from now on, i will accept only two unsubstantiated assumptions, and two internal inconsistencies per comment.
buckshot doesn't have very much self-control, and once he starts making assumptions about my age, employment, collegiate status, etc. it becomes hard to have a civilized dialogue.
i find this a very unsatisfactory form of dialogue, because many of our friends on the right don't seem to be interested in observing their own rules.
Posted by: here's what's left | February 01, 2005 at 02:41 AM
Dear Buckshot,
I am wondering about this statement. You picked a curious way of phrasing it, "pretend there are no real differences". As far as I know, no one on this blog has stated that there are no real differences between the races.
It seems to me however that you are pretending that all differences between the races are genetically based. I guess that is what is pushing our buttons, because that attitude relies on an assumption about the state of genetic science that cannot be true.
If you studied statistics, perhaps you also studied nonlinear iterative equations, otherwise known as 'chaos' theory. Did you realize that a computer can draw a fern or a tree, very realistic in appearance, from a short and simple one-line mathematical equation? In fact, entire landscapes have been drawn from very simple equations, as have sea shells and other living things.
Genetics is also a form of nonlinear iterative equation. The DNA contains the coefficients of the equation and the cell is the computer that the equation iterates on. Every time the cell divides, the equation has iterated.
The interesting thing about nonlinear iterative equations is their sensitivity to initial conditions. One slight variation in the coefficients can produce radically different outcomes. This makes the equations highly useful to produce varied behaviors, but unfortunately it also makes it somewhat challenging to identify one single trait that is uniquely identified with one single coefficient, or in this case, gene. In fact, tweaking some genes may produce no observable differences at all, while tweaking others may produce lethal mutations. An additional confusing factor is that sometimes it is not the gene but the computer it iterates on that produces a mutation. Prenatal drug abuse by the mother disrupts the growth of a fetus by interfering with the process of mitosis. There is just no way to tell for sure, and this is perhaps one of the most daunting reasons why it is so difficult to link a trait to a gene.
So, Buckshot, the problem with asserting genetic determinism in so many varied traits of black or asian people is that the state of science today does not support sweeping generalizations about any of these things. I know of plenty of reasons why certain traits might be expressed in one group and not another, and few of them have anything to do with genetics. On the genetic front there is more overlap than difference between races, and any scientist will quickly point this fact out to you. Just one example you mentioned is the preponderance of blacks in sports and the preponderance of asians in the sciences. Although this may be true, and although it may be related to genetics in some way, it is not relevant to the discussion of right wing distortions in the media or to the misappropriation of the suffering of one disadvantaged group for the benefit of another group that has all the advantages already.
On the left, the implicit assumption is that environmental factors are just as important as genetic ones. One other assumption is that, regardless of any one group's preferences, diversity is strength. It protects the human race from attack by ensuring that there is enough variety and at least some will survive a catastrophe. For that reason we should all be actively supporting each other, not letting each other expire in a game of social darwinism.
It is a moral thing, Buckshot. On the left, the moral thing is clearly to share. Maybe you currently see that as foolish and I am sure you have very good reasons for feeling that way but there are others who think otherwise. One cannot justify unbridled competition to the point of utter selfishness. There is plenty to go around, and one of the things we collectively decided to do for poor people long ago was to at least make sure that they would be taken care of if they were not capable of taking care of themselves.
Maybe you think there is something wrong with that. Claiming that sharing will lead to economic collapse is one thing but proving it is quite another. So far, history is not on your side. In fact just the opposite could be said - that history has shown us that, at least here in the United States, when we care for everyone well, we all collectively do better.
If you want to disagree with that, fine, but please leave out the genetics. No one here is interested in eugenics. We do not think there is a human in existence who has the level of understanding required to improve the race through breeding. Injecting human preferences into genetic selection has only produced some very pretty yet genetically inferior pets with bad tempers and hip problems. Let's not start doing the same thing to the human race please.
Posted by: Cheryl | February 01, 2005 at 03:05 AM