Broadband Politics - Latest Comments in Bandwagon du jour

Re: Bandwagon du jour

harmon — Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:31:33 -0000

Razib, "intelligence" is contextural. For example, in the context of a literate environment, a person who uses the word "effect" when the proper term is "affect" is subnormal. Speaking as a person who has in his life earned all the requisite labels - scholarships, SAT scores, the works - in the top 99% from start to finish - let me tell you that life has taught me that the smartest person around is usually the one who works the hardest.

That's why I find all this pseudoscientific discussion of "race" & "intelligence" to be so much bunk. It always hides some other agenda. It is, I suppose, a discussion that interests those without much experience of life.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Richard Bennett — Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:38:10 -0000

The the more recent thread, Is Gene Expression racist? for updates on the race topic.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Diana — Tue, 14 Jan 2003 06:18:12 -0000

LOL! What? You've banned Razib after one comment while you've put half a dozen on his blog???

"Have you no shred of decency, sir? Have you no shame?"

Of course, you know where _that_ quote is from!

(I have responded to your weak objections to my post about Ashkenazi Jews and HBC on Razib's blog, and I look forward to reading your responses, which I am sure Razib will allow.)

Re: Bandwagon du jour

David — Tue, 14 Jan 2003 03:54:12 -0000

Always easier to prevent someone from talking than to address the "libel," eh, Dick?

David

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Richard Bennett — Tue, 14 Jan 2003 01:37:17 -0000

I'm less permissive than you, Razib. Because you made a libelous statement in your last comment (which I've corrected), you're banned from posting comments on this site.

Free Speech doesn't mean I have to provide you with the means to break the law.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

razib — Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:03:45 -0000

remember when people were getting on LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS for the comments that were being posted on its message boards by some persons? smearing that blog because of the message boards was asinine in my opinion. what next? attack blogs where one might sumrise that people might have salacious thoughts? perhaps readers of ANDREW SULLIVAN fantasize about bareback sex-eeewwww....

quote me all you want-i'm sure you can find all you want to 'incriminate' me richard-but don't EVER expect me to go around banning people if they are stating their opinions and avoiding personal attacks. (i have a pretty high tolerance of attacks directed at me-as you might have noticed since you told me take my penis out of [my brain] on my own blog-i tend to ban people only when they attack others on the message board).

Re: Bandwagon du jour

the alpha male — Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:14:07 -0000

The invective some of you direct at members of Gene Expression amounts to nothing more than ideological chicanery. Gene Expression is open to all points of view in regards to Human Biodiversity. My advice to anyone interested is to go see for your self what Gene Expression is all about. Check out the archives, read the posts, and the responses for a few weeks and come to your own conclusions. Only someone deeply committed to a particular ideology would be so closed minded as to characterize individuals who are genuinely interested in individual and group differences out of curiosity as racists. You seem to like to bifurcate the world into two camps. Those who are open to possible population differences are labelled as racists and those who are closed minded to the possibility of ethnic differences as non-racist.

I cannot for the life of me, think of anything more obscurantist than to oppose ideas that may interfere with one?s beliefs. As someone who has always supported the goal of one-man one vote and equality before the law in South Africa, and is opposed to discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender, I am rather perturbed by your ignominious accusations of racism. I also happen to firmly believe in the way in which science operates. And right now, the weight of the evidence is clearly leaning heavily towards ethnic/population differences in a wide variety of abilities, traits, and aptitudes. The only way I would shift my views from the views I currently hold (and I am assuming most if not all of the members of Gene Expression would do the same), would be if there were a shift in scientific evidence supporting the absence of ethnic/population differences. If you don?t like Rushton?s or Jensen?s work because you feel it is tainted by their prejudicial, racist views, then conduct your own studies and have them peer reviewed in a respected journal. Perhaps you are afraid what you may find.

You're taking one person's views (W.J. Phillip) as representative of the views of the entire blog. W.J. has had disagreements with other members of Gene Expression in the past, mostly in regards to religion. When I read what W.J. had posted, in regards to the black illegitimacy rate, I knew that it would be taken by Richard Bennett as an example of Gene Expression?s ecumenical view on the matter. Why is it inconceivable that those opinions stated by W.J. are just W.J.'s opinions? I don?t necessarily agree with W.J.?s view 100%, especially the way he characterizes it as a fact, but it is a plausible explanation nonetheless.

Julia Mittros: You are setting up a Straw Man when you say, ?Gene Expressions favorite writer on race is Rushton?. In fact, he is not their favourite writer on race. I have read a few posters comment on some of Ruston?s theories that are positive and I have read comments that view some of Rushton?s theories in a negative light. And just because white supremacist groups happen to quote Rushton?s work because it is inline with their ideology doesn?t discredit Rushton. Marxists are firm believers in egalitarianism, but it would be wrong of me to assume that everyone who is egalitarian is a Marxist. Most Canadians are in favour of public health care (a socialist program), but they are, for the most part, neither socialists nor Marxists.

If there were a favourite writer among Gene Expressionists, Jensen would seem to be your man, at least in terms of writing on intelligence. If Jensen is such a racist, why is he always touting the benefits of miscegenation? Hybrid vigour, also known as heterosis is, in Jensen?s view (pages 196, 327; Jensen, ?The g Factor?) a eugenic outcome of race mixing.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

David — Mon, 13 Jan 2003 07:42:09 -0000

Richard. The black illegitimacy rate has always been higher than the white rate in the USA. In 1900, in 1950, in 2002.

The rates for all races has been rising, but the black rate went from, in Moyniham's famous report (in 1964), from 25% to the nearly 70% today. The white rate in 1964 was much smaller, and, as you know, is still smaller today (about 20-30%, in my recollection).

No, blacks aren't genetically all that different than they were 50 years ago. But the differences in the illegitimate birth rate continues.

You can argue whether that's genetic or social in origin, but it's dishonest to make the claim you did, and you know it.

David

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Richard Bennett — Mon, 13 Jan 2003 06:21:09 -0000

Here's a comment that was directed at me by one of the regulars at Gene Expression:

The reason why the black illegitimacy rate has worsened faster than that for whites or orientals since WW2 is easy. The same environmental or cultural shift in the USA- loosely, towards "permissiveness"- has impacted more on the tribalistic phenotype of the Negroid (whose living conditions have converged with those of other Americans since desgregation) than on the more civilised phenotypes of Caucasoids and Mongoloids.

Is this racist, or not? We report, you decide.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Julia Mittros — Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:23:41 -0000

Gene Expressions favorite writer on race is Rushton. Guess who else cites Rushton favorably for his views on race? Just about every racist or eugenics organization you can think of, that's who. For example you can read Rushton postulating on "Race and crime" on David Duke's website.
http://www.duke.org/library...

Rushton's views on race are also considered favorably by the Aryan Nations:
http://www.twelvearyannatio...

Rushton's funding comes from the Pioneer Fund, a neo-fascist eugenics-supporting organization.

Given that kind of intellectual company I'd have to conclude that, yeah, they are indeed racist.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Andrew Chin — Mon, 13 Jan 2003 04:00:38 -0000

Yeah Richard, bad form. Gene Expression has every ethnicity you can think of posting over there, including people who are south asian, east asian, white, and black. You can disagree with them, but it hardly makes sense to accuse a blog with every race present to be racist. Racist means "hatred".

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Ole Eichhorn — Mon, 13 Jan 2003 00:00:06 -0000

I don't think referring to Gene Expression as racist is fair. To me the term means "unrationally prejudicial". Seems like the posters are uniformly logical and rational, and if the conclusions are politically incorrect, well, so be it.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

blaster — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:59:07 -0000

Maybe he was just trying to be a nice guy. I don't think, however, that this good beahvior should be held against him, because there are lot of men paying money for children they didn't father - probably 20% of child support orders have misidentified the father.

Please. You are just being silly now. He had sex with the woman, so he had knew he was a candidate for fatherhood.

The child support orders have nothing to do with anything, since he was doing it voluntarily.

And if it was good behavior to pay, wasn't it bad behavior not to pay?

And the bottom line is, he turns out to be the father.

I don't see where any of it makes him out to be a good guy.

DC gets the government it deserves, I guess.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Mason — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:27:11 -0000

I came across the original Washington Post article a day or two ago and happen to agree with most of your points, Richard. I don't see how bringing up Andrew Sullivan's HIV status or sexual preferences has any bearing whatsoever to this story -- paragon of sexual virtue or not, he's not the one in charge of any programs.

Don't think I'll be back for a second look at your site. Oh well.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Richard Bennett — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:39:15 -0000

Joanne, you're dead wrong on all points.

1. You don't know what happened with respect to custody and contact, and neither do I. But it is not the case that some guy can just "take custody" of a child without a court order. It's called kidnapping.

2. Child support is never, ever owed to the child directly - it's a debt that as a matter of law belongs to the custodial parent, regardless of the child's age. This is such a bizarre claim that it makes me shudder that a former journalist who's covered this issue could make it.

3. A husband is ALWAYS presumed to be the father of the issue of the marriage, EVEN if he can prove he's not the biological father. This has been the case for hundreds of years. It is also NOT the case that a paternity test is required in order to establish a child support order: a voluntary declaration on the man's part will do, as will a declaration by the woman that isn't challenged in 90 days. I know you covered a bill on this subject matter at the Merc, because I sent you the info on it.

It's also the case that false statements about paternity are almost never followed-up by prosecution. If you can find even one case in California where this has happened, I'll eat Rushton's research on head size and IQ.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Joanne Jacobs — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:26:57 -0000

1. If Grant thought the money he was providing was going for coke (probably true), he should have taken custody of his son, not abandoned him with no money and no contact.

2. The child support will be paid -- if Grant ever does pay -- to Octavious, since he's now over 18. It will not go to his mother.

3. It's not true that a welfare mother can stick some guy with child support obligations by giving a phony address. A husband is presumed to be the father of his wife's child unless he proves otherwise. There's no such presumption if the couple isn't married and the man hasn't voluntarily declared himself to be the father. A paternity test is required before support can be ordered.

Making a false statement to collect welfare -- such as lying about the father's identity -- is a federal crime. As a reporter, I sat in on welfare intake interviews. Pregnant women are warned that their statement will be investigated, and that it's a crime to lie about anything. Almost always, of course, they're claiming not to know who the father is because they don't want the boyfriend to have to pay.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Richard Bennett — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:04:30 -0000

It's interesting to note that the bloggers who're all over this story, with the exception of Bareback Sullivan, all link to the racist Gene Expression web site, and that the man in question happens to be black.

Take that for what it's worth.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Richard Bennett — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:02:35 -0000

Why did Grant pay for the first few years - because he didn't think the child was his?

As to whether the father of an out-of-wedlock child should be allowed to work in the child support agency, I have to say that it's been my experience as a child support agency overseer that a large number of child support recipients are employed by these agencies, and that's not held against them. So sauce for the goose, etc.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

blaster — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:47:47 -0000

I am still looking for the good part of this story. Sometimes divorce and paternity cases are troublesome. Sometimes women will lie to injure a man or go after his income. However, in this case, the woman was correct.

Why did Grant pay for the first few years - because he didn't think the child was his?

Do you not see a problem with a man with two illegitimate children he does not care for being in charge of the Department of Child Support? Sure, he has experience, but that means you should make a lifer the warden, too.

Jeez, might as well pick a convicted crack smoker for the mayor. Oh, wait...

Re: Bandwagon du jour

harmon — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:39:32 -0000

This whole discussion points to how messed up things have become as a result of the changes in our sexual morality over the past thirty years. We are operating out of conflicting beliefs & understandings about what the proper responsibilities of men & women are when they have children.

I'm a traditionalist in this area, & have for many years thought that men should be held strictly responsible for supporting their children, out of wedlock or otherwise. But the law in so many areas - abortion is the most obvious - has reached the conclusion that women are autonomous in all their sexual decisions, regardless of the interest of the man, even if they are married (to each other) that I have strong doubts whether the traditionalist view makes any sense any more. It surely does not make sense to a lot of women when it comes to regulating their sexual behavior - but of course, when it comes to paying over some money, they are all traditionalists!

So I've about reached my own conclusion that the law should be radically simplified - if a woman has a child by a man to whom she is not married, it is her problem, and not the man's responsibility.

The objection will be raised that this hurts the kids, but that might not prove true. In the first place, it looks like the kids are being hurt anyway. And in the second place, maybe women will get their heads screwed (pardon the pun) on straight and stop doling out free sex to any guy that comes along.

I don't think that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of the results of all these sexually irresponsible people. And the outcome of welfare reform seems to me to suggest very strongly that if we stop paying women to support out of wedlock children, they will stop having them.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Richard Bennett — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:58:51 -0000

Colbert King is a regular fill-in guest on Inside Washington, when one of the regulars can't make it. You only have to watch him once to know he's not the brightest light on the tree.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Richard Bennett — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:57:44 -0000

The mom stopped working in 1987, and the dad stopped paying her about 1988 or 1989, according to the other story in the Washington Post.

I wouldn't pay an unemployed crackhead either, but that's just me.

Some time after that, an aunt took custody, which means that mom has an obligation to pay child support as well. I don't see anybody complaining about her.

With the interest charged on unpaid child support, and the fact that money paid without a court order is not considered child support under the law, Mr. Williams will be paying the mom at least until the boy is 35 or 40; is this "child support" or "mom support"?

Re: Bandwagon du jour

tom brennan — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:43:08 -0000

Started with Sullivan? It started with a little neighborhood daily called the Washington Post. Why didn't you attack Colbert King with such spite? It's his column Sullivan linked with a brief comment. "Dim bulb" is the best you could do? What's the matter, don't know any good slander about King's sex life?

But you only write this crap because "there are cases where hypocrisy crosses a line and becomes obscene and therefore worthy of mention." And the "obscene" hypocrisy is that Andrew Sullivan, an OPENLY HIV+ man who has in the past sought sex with other HIV+ men, linked to a story about a government official whose private affairs appear to clash mightily with his public duties? There is obscenity on display in your post, but not it's not in the direction your index finger points. Three fingers on your hand are pointing in the right direction though.

The navel of the blogosphere, Mr Bennett? Go a little lower on the body, male and female , front and rear. Your retread slurs against Sullivan are scabby enough but to pretend that real concern lies behind your dishonest shorthand for Sullivans's circumstances is a breakthrough in scumbucket polemics. You should add it to your resume.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Eric E. Coe — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:25:01 -0000

The mom's a coke addict? Then that is a different story. Probably the dad noticed that little or none of the money he was giving at first was actually being used for the child's benefit - more likely it it went up her nose or got smoked in a crack pipe. And so he stopped making wasted payments.

But the law does not care if the "child support" is really supporting a child. The law is a blunt instrument.

Re: Bandwagon du jour

Richard Riley — Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:12:03 -0000

In California it's very common for an unwed mother wanting welfare to pick a man with a good income as the named father, even if she's never met him. She provides a false address for him (often her own). He never receives anything from the court, so he doesn't show up for the paternity hearing and looses by default. A few months or years later he's notified that he owes this woman 20% of his gross income - and there's no appeal, no way to overturn it even if he does prove beyond doubt that he isn't the father.