…you just might be racist.
My response:
Not saying main driver of administration policies is socialism, race baiting and class warfare, but those are elements, Attorney General.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) July 14, 2014
[Update Tuesday morning]
The nation’s chief law-enforcement officer is trying to spark racial hatred:
For most, this is a joke. The meme that the bipartisan notion of “taking the country back” is somehow racist was long ago debunked. As the brief history lesson above demonstrates, however, no one is listening to this nonsense beyond the cult of true believers. Those for who racism is a religion – ubiquitous and unfalsifiable – nod in agreement at Holder’s self-aggrandizement. All others roll their eyes.
It is natural and right to be incensed over the attorney general’s statement here, but a 30,000 foot view suggests there is even more reason to take heart in his remarks. Only those liberals [sic] Democrats the party desperately needs to turn out in the fall are inspired by this rhetoric; that desperate need is met with increasingly desperate tactics. A glance at the polls suggests it will not be successful.
Let’s hope.
[Update a few minutes later]
The real problem isn’t racial animus, but Eric Holder’s animus toward his critics.
[Bumped]
If you think Obamacare was a porkulus bill strung together by crony capitalists and corrupt politicians, you just might be a racist.
Charges of racism over political disagreement are the last refuge of scoundrels.
Because racism is never a source of political disagreement? Are you acquainted with American history?
Unless it’s THE source, all it does is create further racial division, and make it appear (as always) that the administration thinks that no one could have good-faith reasons for opposing the president’s policies.
But being a leftist demagogue, surely I don’t have to explain this to you?
The world is disintegrating before our eyes. We’ve had the worst foreign policy since Jimmy Carter, and all the left can come up with is racism? Scoundrels indeed.
“Because racism is never a source of political disagreement? Are you acquainted with American history?”
What counts is how many.
Holder was very cagey and said “some”. Many will gloss over that and conclude there’s still raging rampant rqacism in the nation…which is EXACTLY what holder and Obama want.
All nations, tribes, groups have racists. There will never be 0% racists in the population.
What counts is if it’s noise level or deeply systemic in our institutiions.
It’s the latter.
Systemic, institutionalized racism in this country is a solved problem and has been for years.
Systemic, institutionalized racism in this country is a solved problem and has been for years.
Actually, it’s not. We have an Attorney General who thinks his job is to look out for “his” people.
Well ok it WAS a solved problem until the racial arsonists revived it.
oops I mean it’s the former.
Systemic, institutionalized racism in this country is a solved problem and has been for years.
Then why do resumes with black sounding names get fewer job interviews than identical resumes with white sounding names? Why are blacks arrested more often and given harsher sentences for the same behaviors? Systemic racism is not hard to find.
You’re right, it is institutionalized. Look at how democrats have told blacks that they can’t make it on their own, that they need the enlightened condescension of the government to provide food, clothing and shelter for them. Look at how they get rid of charter schools in Washington DC and NYC so that poor minorities don’t get a fighting chance to escape poverty.
Those evil republicans, telling black people that they’re smart enough and have the entrepreneurial skills to be successful.
Systemic racism is not hard to find.
No, it’s easy to find. It comes right from the top of the Justice Department, with cheerleaders like you.
“Then why do resumes with black sounding names get fewer job interviews than identical resumes with white sounding names? Why are blacks arrested more often and given harsher sentences for the same behaviors? Systemic racism is not hard to find”
Why do you state unsubstantiated hearsay? This comes from you – a guy who just spouts off any old thing regarding asylum laws that pops into his head.
You tried this demagogery before and those statements were roundly crushed.
For instance, prove the resume number statement. Tell us all who collected the numbers and how, and what those numbers are. Describe to us the actual thoughts in the minds of the people the moment they made the interview decisions. Tell us where this happened, how many interviews were done and what the fractions were. Show us that this happened in every major city of the US at all times.
Until you do, this is just more of the twaddle you are spoon fed by your masters or make up.
Individual racism can always be found if you look hard enough. Same with noise level racism.
Systemic racism was hard to find….until Obama and Holder came along. Before 2008 you had the racial arsonists like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who could never get traction on systemic racism because it doesn’t exist. Once Obama ran for President, stoking up racial guilt became a prime objective in order to win votes.
Then why do resumes with black sounding names get fewer job interviews than identical resumes with white sounding names
What is a black sounding name? Who stereotypes people by the sound of their name?
Oh and while you are finding those “studies” for us that prove that black people get fewer interviews because of (you racist) black “sounding” names, be sure to give us a pointer to those applications so that we can see for ourselves that they were identical.
You see, given that you have a repeatedly proven penchant for saying things that have zero basis in fact (e.g US asylum law), you understand we simply won’t take some ethereal pronouncement from you as fact.
The “unsubstantiated hearsay” is here.
One thing to mention – the discussed research was performed in Chicago and Boston. In Illinois, the state funds all racial employment lawsuits. So if you hire a minority, they can sue you using taxpayer money to fund their legal costs. So hiring a minority in Illinois opens yourself to substantial legal risk. Unless you are a mega-corp, it is not sane to hire a minority.
There are many people that go through Chicago abusing this system. For example, in one business over half the employees were minorities. A new guy was hired (same minority type as everyone else). The new guy didn’t show up for work, and so the new guy was fired. The new guy then sued for racism. The state refused any evidence that it could not possibly be racism, just look at his coworkers, and demanded a jury trial. That would have cost >$100k, so it was settled out of court.
Do you really think that a reasonable person that has experienced that is going to hire minorities and non-minorities at the same rate?
Look up Charge_Discrimination_English_Brochure.pdf in Google, for the curious.
Hmmm, Jim says that racism in hiring is widespread but when you read the study, it doesn’t say what Jim and other Democrats claim it says. Table 2 shows that that vast majority of people are treated equally with only a small percentage of white people having an advantage. The table also shows that in some cases black people have an advantage.
Perhaps there was a statistically significant population used in the study but not in terms of geography. You can’t draw any conclusions about society at large based on the limited geography in the study. And the locations studied are very progressive, so wouldn’t that be an indictment of Democrat voting populations? But people like Jim apply the studies conclusions to society at large and non-Democrats especially.
You know there is trouble when you read this sentence, “For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more
callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase”
Quality of resume elicited a better response for whites and blacks but they don’t even bother to say what the increases is for blacks. This says to me they are trying to sex up their study.
It appears to be agenda driven. Look at this sentence, “Applicants living in better
neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race” in comparrison to this one just a few lines later, “We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something
other than race, such as social class, from the names” But perhaps social class was determined by address and not by name?
“These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.” It suggests that race may still be a small factor but not a prominent feature of the labor market.
“Relatedly, because we are not assigning race but only race-specific name, our results are not representative of the average African American (who may
not have such a racially distinct name).29”
This is the kicker. The study isn’t about race but about strange names. Did they happen to look at hippie kid names? Does a Hummingbird or Moonblossom have as hard a time getting a job as a Shaquanda?
There are so many flaws with this study that it shouldn’t be used the way it is by Jim and his fellow Democrats.
That study is garbage. They stipulate their own weaknesses (some black people have names similar to white people). In addition to the points Wodun mentioned, they don’t even consider the order in which the resumes were read:
If I am reading hundreds of resumes (as I have – bring task – and as most employers have to do), and I see a qualified person I’m going to call that person. I am not going to continue to read resumes. If the first person is white and the next qualified person is black well ti was merely a question of the order read.
Secondly, HR organizations now use automatic computer filtering of resumes, mainly because they get thousands every day. I can tell you from personal experience that this filtering can really REALLY suck. In my experience qualified people were filtered out and unqualified people sent through. So the resumes I get are already filtered by an admittedly bad system.
Thirdly, they subtly alter the resumes – that’s a very subjective act.
Next, it’s done in two cities only..hardly a nationwide test.
And on and on…..
Systemic, institutionalized racism in this country is a solved problem
To put it another way: how do you know this? What metrics do you consult? Systemic racism was a big problem in this country for most of its history. When and how was it solved?
“To put it another way: how do you know this? What metrics do you consult? Systemic racism was a big problem in this country for most of its history. When and how was it solved?”
Example 1:
It is illegal to put “Whites Only” “Blacks Only” on waterfountains and seats in a diner. Thanks to a law. You don’t see them anymore. Anywhere. Ever.
Example 2:
People have grown up and society has changed.
Example 3:
The penetration of Blacks into the upper echelons of society is commensurate with their numbers in the population. There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of a black person becoming a corporate head (Herman Cain), or run for President (Obama and Cain), or become a Supreme Court Justice (Clarence Thomas), or a world reknown Neuro-Surgeon (Ben Carson), or Secretary of State (Condoleeza Rice), a leading, published economist (Thomas Sowell) and on and on….nothing but the same hard work and determination anyone has to have to achieve these lofty stations or other less lofty ones.
In fact the racism that does exist comes from liberals such as the nasty racist politcal cartoons regarding Rice; Clarence Thomas is an Oreo, etc.
Example 5:
The number of EEOC charges based upon racial discrimination in 2013 was 33, 068…thirty three thousand…..35.3% of the total kinds of discrimination.
Because individuals often file charges claiming multiple types of discrimination, the number of total charges for any given fiscal year will be less than the total of the ten types of discrimination listed.
The data are compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning from data reported via the quarterly reconciled Data Summary Reports and compiled from EEOC’s Charge Data System and, from FY 2004 forward, EEOC’s Integrated Mission System.
Example 6:
Countless anti-discrimination laws are on the books. IN every state of the Union and in the Federal government. Anti-discrimination is therefore institutionalized. During Slavery and Jim Crow black people had zero recourse. Today they have as much recourse as the next person.
………………………..
Example N:
We elected a black President whose approval numbers were – before he began to remake society – in the high 70’s.
I could go on and on and on with the myriad of ways our society has changed. It’s immediately obvious to the most casual of observers that this is not 1850-1970. Perhaps you are too young to know, given that you were too young to experience Watergate.
Whereas what do you have?
This delusional fantasy that within millions and millions of Americans there burns racial hatred.
“To put it another way: how do you know this? What metrics do you consult? ”
Translation:
I (Jim) made a statement I cannot in any way defend and I’ve been exposed. I cannot meet the challenge so all I have left is a weak conter-challenge.
“To put it another way: how do you know this? What metrics do you consult? ”
We have seen your metrics. They are disingenuous at best. Often as “evidence” Democrats will use racist, geographic, and gender based stereotypes they have for the “other”.
“Because racism is never a source of political disagreement? Are you acquainted with American history?”
Exactly right. One only has to look back to the last election to see how racism played a major role in Obama’s campaign. The racism of the Democrat party is institutionalized in the party, their activist groups, and even taught in the classroom. Who else determines who is allowed to speak at public events based on their race and gender?
Yet another typical stupid strawman argument by Jim. Who said racism is never a source of political disagreement? No one. But to the Left, it seems that any disagreement with Obama must be caused by racism.
God, you’re pathetic.
“Because racism is never a source of political disagreement? Are you acquainted with American history?”
Lookit that strawman of Jim’s; it burns quite merrily.
They always do, but his generally burn particularly brightly.
Rick C virtually took the words out of my computer.
Of course, without the Straw Man, the Argument from Pity, the Tu Quoque and the Shifting Sands argument, “liberals” would pretty much be mute.
I wonder how Democrats will deflect when a white man is in charge of them again?
Well, if it’s a white woman, they’ll say opposition is obviously sexist.
Here’s a glimpse:
“The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men. This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, and we are going to do something about it.”
— Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), remarks to reporters, on July 8
That’s Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, who I guess became white the moment he disagreed with the white man Harry Reid.
It was interesting how he didn’t just go for a gender based attack but also dropped race into it as well.
“Because racism is never a source of political disagreement?……”
Jim has earned from his masters well, the art of demogogy
Just like Holder’s statement, Jim’s is factually true in the sense that there is certainly one person in the US who doesn’t like Obama’s policy based upon sheer racism.
But it is an empty, meaningless, misleading statement nevertheless. Why? Because it doesn’t say how many and that’s a crucial piece of information. And the speaker (Jim or Holder) CANNOT prove that it’s widespread or even 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/2400th of the reason for political disagreement today.
But the statement CAN leave some people people with the impression that it is widespread and a major factor in citizen thinking….even though it’s not. Especially when uttered by people in power like Holder. The idea is to stoke racial guilt. Even where there’s nothing to feel guilty about.
And just to sweeten the deal you got people like Jim spouting all kinds of anecdotes which are not statistically supportable in any way. Stoke that racial guilt.
“Are you acquainted with American history?”
This is especially misleading, and insidious, because it enhances the stoking of racial guilt by making the person of today guilty for the sins of people long dead. Not only are you supposed to feel guilty for what other people allegedly do, but which you cannot prove and there’s zero reason to believe it. You are ALSO supposed to feel guilty about what people did hundreds of years ago.
I like to ask “liberals” (and by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellators”) who they would vote for in a race between Hillary Clinton and, say, Ben Carson. The moment they utter “Hil–” I yell at Sam Kinnison-like decibel levels, right in their faces, “RACIST!!!”
Actually, I’ve never done this, but it sure would be fun.
Of course there is systemic racism in the United States. It’s called Affirmative Action. It combines the soft bigotry of low expectations with collective punishment.