Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Adder
Um... these are consequences of Roe and desegregation by busing?? And why would busing be necessary if there had been no white flight?

And yes, I have seen a northern city lately. Philly, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis - all doing pretty damn well. And DC, which isn't a northern city, but certainly experienced all of the phenomina you apparently believe were caused by busing and abortion, is doing much better these days too. But I'm sure that is just 'cause of all of the Repulican politicians these places have elected.

Ad(that's one mighty big conspiracy theory ya got going on there)der

Chicago? Let's see here. North of Roosevelt and east of Halsted, right?

I'm just talking about bussing for the white flight, and I don't mean to say it was the sole cause. But, ya heard anyone say they're moving to the city for better schools lately? Now how bout the opposite? Bussing was an aggravating factor. And lets see here, did that expensive solve any problems? No. Every report I read says that schools are entirely segregated still. Coincidence no doubt because those people were all gonna move to the 'burbs anyway and the minorities were all gonna stay in the city. Really.

DC is doing much better compared to when? You might not have been here 4 weeks or so ago, but scabbed Texan put on her Rosy Colored glasses and tried saying the same thing about how things were better. I'll give you a short cut to the answer though. Compare to when the problems were "fixed" by Judicial fiat, not to the height of the crack wars. DC is doing better than 5 years ago. Its still a freakin zoo by any standard, particularly when compared on any metric to just before the liberals and activist judges fixed things.

Did you say conspiracy theory? You might want to sit down with your parents and ask them about what's improved in their lifetimes. It ain't gonna be murder, teenage pregnancy, incarceration rates, concentration of poverty, tax rates, abortion rates, divorce rates or desegregation of schools. Yet, my taxes keep going up to pay for the solutions that you think are working.

This is just another one of those reruns I hate watching. You can tell how it ended from my smug tone.

Hello

[Adder]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm just talking about bussing for the white flight, and I don't mean to say it was the sole cause. But, ya heard anyone say they're moving to the city for better schools lately? Now how bout the opposite? Bussing was an aggravating factor. And lets see here, did that expensive solve any problems? No. Every report I read says that schools are entirely segregated still. Coincidence no doubt because those people were all gonna move to the 'burbs anyway and the minorities were all gonna stay in the city. Really.

I see. So your real beef is with desegretation of schools then. Okay.

DC is doing much better compared to when?

Than pretty much any time in the last 35 years.

You might not have been here 4 weeks or so ago, but scabbed Texan put on her Rosy Colored glasses and tried saying the same thing about how things were better. I'll give you a short cut to the answer though. Compare to when the problems were "fixed" by Judicial fiat, not to the height of the crack wars. DC is doing better than 5 years ago.

You are confused. You were the one saying that busing and Roe were the source of all urban problems. I never said they fixed any problems either.

That said, you (and you are not alone by any means), must have your head entirely up your ass if you look at the last 40 years and see only negative changes.

Its still a freakin zoo by any standard, particularly when compared on any metric to just before the liberals and activist judges fixed things.

Did you say conspiracy theory? You might want to sit down with your parents and ask them about what's improved in their lifetimes. It ain't gonna be murder, teenage pregnancy, incarceration rates, concentration of poverty, tax rates, abortion rates, divorce rates or desegregation of schools.

Again. Busing and Roe caused these things (other than abortion rates, obviously)?

Yet, my taxes keep going up to pay for the solutions that you think are working.

I assure you that bussing (largely non-existent these days) and abortion are an infinitesimal portion of your tax burden.

And again, I said nothing about whether things were working. I asked you what negative consequences had Roe and busing caused. Your answer appears to be that you can point to no negative consequences for Roe, other than the obvious increase in abortion rates, and that white flight is entirely the fault of busing. As if white America would have stayed happily in the inner city as industrial jobs disappeared and people of color could no longer be barred from their neighborhoods as long as they didn't bring any kids from across town to share their children's schools.

But the difference in our viewpoints is obvious. I (and others like me) put substantial value on progress toward racial and gender equality (although recognizing that there is still a long way to go). To the extent that you do, you seem to feel that the positives are outweighed by the negative effects caused by the behavior of those who are uncomfortable with progess towards racial and gender equality.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Adder
I see. So your real beef is with desegretation of schools then. Okay.

Hey, when you can't beat em, mischaracterize em. Did Sebby give you the cliff notes on this? My beef is on a judicial fiat to desegregate schools by bussing. You want desegregation? Desegregate housing and don't give people an opt-out clause known as the suburbs where section 8 and public housing don't exist. But that's another story. If you want to wave the banner for bussing, have at it. But the program was an utter failure almost everywhere, simple as that. Your failure to recognize this is why I'm making fun of whatever part of the northern cities you think you've "seen", because it assuredly ain't the part that has the people you might be trying to help.

Originally posted by Adder
Than pretty much any time in the last 35 years.

Great. Know any social programs that have been added in the last 35 years or did you give up on any comparison to the times before liberals started "fixing" things? Does this part escape you?

Not to mention, what metrics are you using, because even the last 35 years (not that its the comparison I was inviting) sounds like complete and utter horseshit.

Originally posted by Adder
[a]You are confused. You were the one saying that busing and Roe were the source of all urban problems. I never said they fixed any problems either.

[b]That said, you (and you are not alone by any means), must have your head entirely up your ass if you look at the last 40 years and see only negative changes.

[a] Then we are in agreement, because they didn't. But isn't it pretty to characterize my statement as "busing and Roe were the source of all urban problems". I'd call you names for this lie, but I'm too tired.

[b] And you are completely avoiding both the metrics and the time frame I mentioned while gratuitously throwing out the insults. Look at any of the metrics and compare them to the time immediately before the relevant great society programs and judicial fiats were imposed on us. Any of the metrics.

Otherwise, if you have a specific social metric in mind that you think compares well to 1928, please let me know.

Originally posted by Adder
[a]Again. Busing and Roe caused these things (other than abortion rates, obviously)?

[b]I assure you that bussing (largely non-existent these days) and abortion are an infinitesimal portion of your tax burden.

[a]Keep thinking that those were the whole argument and not just examples (though you've already admitted that they didn't fix anything).

[b] and I assure you that you are conveniently ignoring the cost of white-flight sheltered suburbs.

Originally posted by Adder

And again, I said nothing about whether things were working. I asked you what negative consequences had Roe and busing caused. Your answer appears to be that you can point to no negative consequences for Roe, other than the obvious increase in abortion rates, and that white flight is entirely the fault of busing. As if white America would have stayed happily in the inner city as industrial jobs disappeared and people of color could no longer be barred from their neighborhoods as long as they didn't bring any kids from across town to share their children's schools.

As if schools would still be segregated if people didn't have the choice to opt out by moving to other districts. What's the point though, you've already admitted that the program didn't work.

Originally posted by Adder

But the difference in our viewpoints is obvious. I (and others like me) put substantial value on progress toward racial and gender equality (although recognizing that there is still a long way to go). To the extent that you do, you seem to feel that the positives are outweighed by the negative effects caused by the behavior of those who are uncomfortable with progess towards racial and gender equality.

The difference in our viewpoints is obvious. You and others like you hate democracy and refuse to take responsibility for your failed social programs. For you, your good intentions justify the means and outweigh the failures.

As for me, I think social programs should work and achieve good results with minimal costs. You are the apologist for the programs that achieved bad results at exorbitant costs.

[viet_mom]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Even born again Christians choke the chicken from time to time. (NTTAWWT)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Hello, you seem to think that "liberal" government over the last 35 years is responsible for most of the ills that beset this country. I find this odd for a few reasons, one of which is that the New Deal was in the 1930s, not the 1960s, and another of which is that conservatives are usually primarily skeptical of government's ability to change society, not convinced that government is so effective at doing so. You also seem to think things are bad that I don't think are so bad. Weird.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hello, you seem to think that "liberal" government over the last 35 years is responsible for most of the ills that beset this country. I find this odd for a few reasons, one of which is that the New Deal was in the 1930s, not the 1960s, and another of which is that conservatives are usually primarily skeptical of government's ability to change society, not convinced that government is so effective at doing so. You also seem to think things are bad that I don't think are so bad. Weird.

Let me make a few concessions and points of order here:

1. Nixon provided over a huge expansion. For that he is hatable. For other reasons, he is despised. So not just "liberals", though I use it as perjorative shorthand. That said, the New Deal has had disastrous consequences once it wasn't cancelled on December 8, 1941 (when poor people had sufficient reason to, e.g., join the military).

I guess you could say the bigger problem is that we start programs on a broad scale without testing them first, and without ending them when they have proven themselves useless (or at least no longer useful).

And yo, I ain't just blaming liberals for crop subsidies and highways to nowhere etc.

2. I wouldn't really say "most" of the ills. Hey, this country has some unique traits (like 45% gun ownership in households or something like that... yikes!).

3. Conservatives aren't merely skeptical that the G can change society... more like, conservatives are skeptical that the G can change society in the way that the G might think it can. Exhibit 1: section 8/public housing; Exhibit 2: Welfare (pre-Gingrich).

But I think society can if its vigilant. You might call this practical conservatism. If something ain't working, either fix it or end it, but don't whistle Dixie and pretend it ain't broke.

4. You and 1 or 2 others here know my background more-or-less. Which is to say, you've got to excuse me if I'm a bit cynical about how things are in America, though things are just beautiful in Virginia thank-you-very-much. I'm not saying America can't be fixed. I'm just saying that we need a willingness to try, and we aren't going to get this willingness if people (almost entirely on your side of the aisle if this board is any reflection of society) refuse to acknowledge how messed up things are now.

Ironically, I think its the best platform the Ds can have in 4 years if they want to have a serious domestic platform.

Hello

[Adder]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Same old

Let's be clear here. The only thing I am defending is the proposition that judicial fiat is not a significant source of the social ills of today's society.

You, on the other hand, suggested that judges' failure to understand the consequences of their decisions was a contributing factor to white flight. While no one can say that is total bullshit, it comes pretty damn close.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Adder
Let's be clear here. The only thing I am defending is the proposition that judicial fiat is not a significant source of the social ills of today's society.

You, on the other hand, suggested that judges' failure to understand the consequences of their decisions was a contributing factor to white flight. While no one can say that is total bullshit, it comes pretty damn close.

and I'm telling you that I was one of the people who were bussed, back when white people were still willing to send their kids to public schools. In a white Catholic city neighborhood with 300 kids my age in my parish, exactly 12 went to public schools.

12 of the 16 closest city parishes have gone from almost all white to almost all black in my lifetime, 2 of the remainder are upper-middle-class and integrated.

Which is to say, my experience, and all relevant social data... let me repeat that... all relevant social data, suggests that white flight from cities and from public schools continued and was accelerated after desegregation bussing. And the end result is zilch, though it costs public schools systems billions over time.

So I'm ok with you having an opinion on the matter. I'm just laughing at your inability to justify it in any way.

Ironically, there have been a variety of opinions in recent years where federal judges had to sheepishly tear down old orders and admit that the orders had destroyed the potential for integration by exaggerating the flight from public schools. Got that? Even the federal judiciary has accepted my position that their system failed and they contributed to the system failure.

And meantime, the entire substance of your position is pretty much, "dude, that's bullshit".

So, if you've got any support for your position aside from mischaracterizations of my position or blind denial, bring em out. Christ, I'll accept a quote from Michael Moore if you have one that supports your position.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

After four years of this crap, how many of the conservatives on this board will still want to identify with the Republican party? The GOP you used to know is fading. The party has been taken over by a new brand of Southern "conservative," and there are no checks and balances left.

Congress is considering an omnibus spending bill right now. At the behest of Rep. Ernest Istook (R.--Okla.), GOP leaders in the Senate slipped in a provision that would permit that some committee chairmen and their designees unlimited access to any American's tax return, without any privacy protections.

Here's the provision:

• "Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."

Josh is on top of it.

Unbelievable.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

Otherwise, if you have a specific social metric in mind that you think compares well to 1928, please let me know.

Life expectancy
Infant mortality rates
Literacy
Child labor laws
Safe housing
Educational opportunity
wages
Nutrition
Sanitation
Alcoholism
Women's rights
Medical care
Food safety
Widespread epidemics
Population density
Workplace safety
Overall standard of living at all but the top end
Voting rights
Employment opportunity


That's all I can thin of off the top of my head. Throw another softball.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Which is to say, my experience, and all relevant social data... let me repeat that... all relevant social data, suggests that white flight from cities and from public schools continued and was accelerated after desegregation bussing.

And we have come back to a topic that makes the subject line appropriate: correlation does not imply causation.

You have isolated one of many factors. One that I happen to think is minor, especially compared to the many other structural changes in American (and world) economy and society during the same time period.

The industrial cities of Europe have experienced many of the same social problems you highlight, over the same time period, where bussing (and, of course, white flight) was a non-issue.

All I have been saying is that you exaggerated when you said the unintended consequences of judicial fiat were a significant source of our social ills.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
After four years of this crap, how many of the conservatives on this board will still want to identify with the Republican party? The GOP you used to know is fading. The party has been taken over by a new brand of Southern "conservative," and there are no checks and balances left.

Congress is considering an omnibus spending bill right now. At the behest of Rep. Ernest Istook (R.--Okla.), GOP leaders in the Senate slipped in a provision that would permit that some committee chairmen and their designees unlimited access to any American's tax return, without any privacy protections.

Here's the provision:

• "Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."

Josh is on top of it.

Unbelievable.

FYI, the link is broken, but what was the state of the law pre-bill? I thought tax returns were public records, no?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
My beef is on a judicial fiat to desegregate schools by bussing. You want desegregation?

But you're okay with desegregation that didn't involve busing? Because, honestly, that's not coming through. Your message is that judges should not prevent the states from doing anything at all.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Fugee

But you were so busy exchanging insults with Sebby that you didn't answer his very interesting question: Do you really think the GOP power structure really wants to overturn Roe? Does Bush really want to?

Bush, and a certain sector of the GOP, want Roe overturned. BUT, they do not want to be seen as responsible for that overturning. No matter what SHFM writes, he can't argue with the fact that if the GOP gets Roe overturned, it will lose a lot of votes.

There is nothing for the GOP to gain and everything for it to lose in overturning Roe. It would be a horrible political blunder. It is "going nuclear" in every sense. The GOP has a very tenuous grip on moderates at the moment - the last thing it wants to do is make radical policy change which alienates a lot of moderates. Although the GOP's Jesus Fanatic wing gets all the press, a much larger percentage of its base are moderates who only vote GOP for fiscal reasons. These people tend to view Roe as an imperfect, but necessary pillar of women's rights. If it yanks Roe, the GOP risks freaking out these moderates, without whom it cannot remain in power. The GOP can't keep power solely on the votes of its extremist base.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
FYI, the link is broken, but what was the state of the law pre-bill? I thought tax returns were public records, no?

No. Remember the hullaballoo over Teresa not wanting hers disclosed?