For a couple of months now the debate has been centered around immigration…..and after the appalling turnout for Mitt by minorities the GOP has said that it will outreach to more minorities in an effort to woe them into joining the GOP……they are trying hard to rid themselves of the tag that the GOP is nothing more than old whites….they want a bigger tent for the next election…..
The only problem is that nothing they do is appealing to women or Hispanics or African-American voters….they are still pushing the issues of women and their bodies, they are still not showing any genuine concern for the poor or for that matter the minorities……the big problem is that their actions are not the same as their words…..
Their actions on same sex marriage or voting or immigration talk volumes on their real intentions…….
Let’s move on for now……the conserv think tanks like American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation are the sources of all their policy papers (by they I mean GOP) and the biggest one is Heritage their academic papers have given us all the issues we debate today…..slashes in social programs, and now they have one on immigration……this should be a good one for the prez of the organization was a Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint. I believe his years in the Senate that he authored maybe one bill but he is however a master of campaigning and getting conservs elected……and usually by any means to include false information……
The newest paper is the party line for the GOP on immigration……and the paper shows their racist underpinnings……
Jason Richwine, the coauthor of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s controversial study on the supposed $6.3 trillion cost of comprehensive immigration reform, has received much attention and criticism for his 2009 Harvard dissertation that argued there was “a genetic component” to racial disparities in IQ. But this dissertation wasn’t the first time Richwine had expressed such views publicly. In 2008, he told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute that “major” ethnic or racial differences in intelligence between the Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants who flocked to the United States at the turn of the 20th century and the immigrants coming to the US today justified severely restricting immigration.
………Richwine argued for restricting immigration based on IQ differences, which he believes are partially the result of genetic differences between ethnic groups. In the dissertation’s acknowledgements, Richwine wrote that “no one was more influential” than AEI scholar Charles Murray, coauthor of the much-criticized book The Bell Curve, which argued that racial disparities in IQ are partially the result of genetic differences between races. After the Post broke the story about the dissertation, the Heritage Foundation distanced itself from Richwine’s immigration reform study.
Richwine closed his remarks with what he called a thought experiment: “Imagine if early immigrants in the 20th century—say, the Italians, the Poles, the Jews, the Irish. Imagine if we replaced them with say, Australian Aborigines, Pakistanis, and Cambodians. Can we really say with any kind of rational argument that they today would be considered absolutely indistinguishable from the white majority, that there would be no cultural differences between them? I think it’s very difficult to make that argument.” No one at the event seemed bothered by Richwine’s remarks—in fact, when he was finished, he received a smattering of applause from the audience.
Reminds of some random racist asshole from the 1990′s who used race and intelligence to state why Blacks were inferior…….I cannot recall his name but he was proven to be a racist academic that the lunatic Right fell in love with and quoted for weeks on end……And this whack-a-doodle can walk back his observations and statement but there is a transcript of what he said……
Here is the full transcript of Richwine’s statement at the 2008 event:
Despite the fact that I like the book overall, I have to say that I disagree with the very first sentence of the book. That was the introduction. I’ll just read very quickly: “What’s different about immigration today as opposed to a century ago is not the characteristics of the newcomers but the characteristics of our society.” I half agree with that. No argument at all from me that—our society has changed in ways that make it less amenable to assimilating immigrants, no doubt about it. But the argument that immigrants themselves are no different from the ones that came a hundred years ago I think is quite wrong. And I think that the major difference here is ethnicity, or race if you will. I think that race is important for two main reasons. One is that human beings as a species are a naturally tribal group of people. We have inside outside groups, we have families, for one example, family comes first in virtually every society. We tend to be very attuned to even small trivial differences between groups. I don’t mean to suggest that I think this is a good thing. I wish we could be more universalist, but the reality is that we are not going to be that way and we should not be basing policy on that either.
The second reason I think that race is important, is that there are real differences between groups, not just trivial ones that we happen to notice more than we should. Race is different in all sorts of ways, and probably the most important way is in IQ. Decades of psychometric testing has indicated that, at least in America, you have Jews with the highest average IQ, usually followed by East Asians, then you have non-Jewish whites, Hispanics, and then blacks. These are real differences, and they’re not going to go away tomorrow, and for that reason we have to address them in our immigration discussions and our debates. You can see that when you combine these two things, group differences in ability, combined with a natural tribal disposition, is going to create usually parallel cultures within a multiracial society, rather than an assimilated culture. And I think that is a major, major, obstacle to the assimilation of today’s immigrants, because they are not from Europe, which is I think a major difference which Mark sort of tries to avoid discussing.
I know what the common response is here, and Mark mentions it in his book for a little bit. Which is they say something like the Irish used to be considered nonwhite and now they’re white today, and the Sicilians were the same way. Could you imagine the Sicilians—well, they’re white today. This is based on a syllogism that is fairly obviously false right? The syllogism if you work it out logically goes like this: It says, some people in the past who were thought to be unassimilable actually ended up being assimilated. Therefore everyone who we think of as unassimilable will be actually be assimilated later on. Obviously you can see the fallacy here, where you can’t generalize this claim without evidence.
I think that there are a number of counterexamples here already in America, we have blacks, we have American Indians, and even early Mexican Americans, who have been living in the country for a long time, and who have not assimilated into the cultural mainstream as typified by white Americans. Obviously I think with blacks we know that, at least in my opinion, I think black and white culture has actually if anything diverged in the last 50 years rather than converged. American Indians have been here a long time, and we still have Indian reservations. And Mexican Americans, we tend to think of them as being here only recently, and I believe it’s something like three quarters of them have been first or second generation immigrants today. But they’ve been around since the Mexican-American War. Several thousand families were already living in the areas that the United States acquired during that war. And they’ve been here ever since, and I don’t think that they’ve been defined as white, certainly not by Europeans and really not by themselves either, except in the cases where they’re trying to distinguish themselves from being black.
In fact, it’s interesting that as part of the deal with Mexico, Mexican Americans were given a legal definition as white by the United States government, because they had to conform to the Naturalization Act which had reserved it to white people. Even that legal definition has not changed their status. I don’t know if Mark is going to get a chance to respond directly to what I’m saying, but if he does, I think it would be a good place to start by answering a question I’m about to pose in the form of a thought experiment, which is just to imagine if early immigrants in the 20th century—say, the Italians, the Poles, the Jews, the Irish—imagine if we replaced all of them with, say, Australian Aborigines, Pakistanis, and Cambodians, imagine if they were the immigrants in the early part of the 20th century. Can we really say with any kind of rational argument that they today would be considered absolutely indistinguishable from the white majority, that there would be no cultural differences between them? I think it’s very difficult to make that argument. So I think that would be a good place to start. I see your triangulation attempt in the book when you say immigrants are no different than anyone else. It’s helpful because at least you can say, I’m not like Richwine, and people like me. Nevertheless, I think it would be a lot healthier to discuss the racial issue here, because it’s here, it’s not going away, and we can’t wish it away. I do not believe that race is insurmountable, certainly not, but it is definitely a larger barrier today than it was for immigrants in the past simply because they are not from Europe.
This is the types of people the Heritage uses to write their “academic” white papers….now does any of that sound like they are truly wanting to expand the party beyond old white guys…….they are failing miserably or they were never that serious about that fabled Big tent.
Cheney’s Advice To GOP’ers Investigating Benghazi: ‘Hillary Should Be Subpoenaed If Necessary’ | MediaitePosted: 13 May 2013
Once I read this piece I knew I had to share it…..if anyone would know about public officials lying and covering up the truth….it would be this self-serving twat. he might want to learn to shut up…after all there is still the question of those elusive WMDs.
There is nothing to this but spin….spin from one party to the other……emails have become more important than the lives lost…..this is a self feeding monster that will continue until someone demands these do nothing twats start handling business of the country……these hearings are feeding the egos of little people that think they are GODS!
From time to time I look at the right wing sites just to see what is their big story of the day……….and we have a doozy going on……..
Has anyone else noticed that our Right wing counterparts write only what is the daily talking points on Drudge, Breibet, WorldNetDaily, et al?……and this week’s “big” scoop is a rehash of the Benghazi debacle….who knew what and why……..the big “news” is…….
At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.
Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.
Toensing declined to name her client. She also refused to say whether the individual was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorist attacks on two U.S. installations in the Libyan city killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
Let me see if I have this right? We have unnamed officials and unnamed people giving unsubstantiated accusations, about right? Just the type of information the fanatics can run with for a couple of weeks…….
FUX News and the others are screaming about this story….but yet a real news outlet has nothing about it (at least for now) but I expect the longer the Repubs keep regurgitating the Right wing conspiracies….we will hear it reported there also…..so far this is a theory that is perpetrated by the right…….
Back when this was a real story I asked a couple of questions……why would an ambassador go to a consulate in a danger zone without security……a covert meeting is my first guess. The embassy has mercenaries…..oh my bad… security consultants at their disposal and could have been used if needed…….it is that simple. One thing….the ambassador would not go in light unless it was a meeting that no attention needed to be drawn…….if it were mot important he would have sent the political affairs officer.
I know…I said a couple of questions…..Was the new ambassador so naive that he could not grasp the danger of venturing into a danger zone? I do not believe this one but it is a possibility.
So why the concern now?
An excellent question! The best answer is Hilary Clinton.
To me it looks like the GOP and the right wing whack-a-doodles are concerned that she will run for president and if she runs will win…..so they are doing their best to set up a narrative that can be carried over into a campaign, if needed.
Yes, sports fans….it is that simple……try to cut Hilary off at the knees before she can get a campaign in full swing……it is fun watching the panic set in……..
I will agree that there is probably more to this story than we may ever be made aware of……but anything to bring down the Obama administration? Doubtful!
We hear that the GOP wants to expand their standings among all aspects of Americans…..and now we see what it really is……The “big tent” can only hold so many……
The GOP is trying to be a milder, kinder face on the party these days….well at least the supposed leaders, that is…….mellowing their message and trying to appear more “populist” than they really…..they are jumping on the minority voter bandwagon, the immigration and the women’s bandwagon…..but after listening to them for a week or so…I ask just what part of their plans sound “populist”?
Do you even know what a populist is?
Populism–any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
Digest that for a minute.
One of the most famous populists of all time was Huey Long, governor of Louisiana and here is what he ran on…………
Number one, we propose that every family in America should at least own a homestead equal in value to not less than one third the average family wealth. The average family wealth of America, at normal values, is approximately $16,000. So our first proposition means that every family will have a home and the comforts of a home up to a value of not less than around $5,000 or a little more than that.
Number two, we propose that no family shall own more than three hundred times the average family wealth, which means that no family shall possess more than a wealth of approximately $5 million—none to own less than $5,000, none to own more than $5 million. We think that’s too much to allow them to own, but at least it’s extremely conservative.
Number three, we propose that every family shall have an income equal to at least one third of the average family income in America. If all were allowed to work, there’d be an income of from $5,000 to $10,000 per family. We propose that one third would be the minimum. We propose that no family will have an earning of less than around $2,000 to $2,500 and that none will have more than three hundred times the average less the ordinary income taxes, which means that a million dollars would be the limit on the highest income.
Does any of that sound like populism of today? Personally, I do not like the word populist because it has been misused for too long. Likewise the use of progressive to describe a liberal……it may be PC today but they are two different political animals….
In the truest sense of the term, the GOP can never be a populist movement, not with the issues it champions today.