Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’

Assessing How Pivotal the Hispanic Vote Was to Obama’s Victory

Thursday, November 22nd, 2012

In the wake of the 2012 presidential election, there has been extensive discussion about the Republican Party’s failure to appeal to Hispanic voters, whether this failure was responsible—at least in part—for Mitt Romney’s defeat, and whether a change in immigration policy would be sufficient to shift the Latino vote rightward in the next election.

Looking at actual vote counts and the exit poll results from the recent election can provide insight into answering two important questions: First, was Mr. Obama’s electoral victory dependent on high Hispanic turnout and support from a large percentage of the Hispanic vote? And second, if the Hispanic vote did prove decisive in the outcome, how easy would it be for a Republican candidate to gain a significantly greater share than Mr. Romney in future elections, assuming the Republicans agree to some type of comprehensive immigration reform?

In states where polling data on the two candidates’ shares of the Hispanic vote were not available, we allocated the national Hispanic support level of 71 percent to Mr. Obama, and the remaining 29 percent to Mr. Romney.

By then removing the number of Hispanic votes from each candidate’s vote total and reallocating them back to the two candidates in order to equalize their total votes, one can determine what percentage of the Hispanic vote Mr. Obama needed to carry each of the key states. For example, in Wisconsin, 3,056,613 votes were cast, of which 4 percent, or 122,264 votes, were cast by Hispanics according to exit polls. Mr. Obama’s margin of victory in Wisconsin was over 200,000 votes—even if all Hispanics had voted for Mr. Romney instead of voting for Mr. Obama by more than two to one, he would have won the state.

Not unexpectedly, the Hispanic vote was also not decisive in Iowa or New Hampshire where Mr. Obama could have carried the states even if he had won none of the Hispanic vote whatsoever.

In Ohio, where the president received an estimated 54 percent of the Hispanic vote, according to exit poll data, we find he could have won the state with as little as 22 percent of the Hispanic vote, and in Virginia, where he received 64 percent of the Hispanic vote, we find that he could have carried the state with just over 33 percent.

It is also worth noting that in states that were not considered battleground territory, Mr. Obama could still have won without a majority of the Hispanic vote. In California, Mr. Obama took the state’s 55 electoral votes with 72 percent of the Hispanic vote, but could have won with as little as 25 percent. And in Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), where Mr. Obama received an estimated 80 percent of the Hispanic vote, he could have still carried the state with just over 37 percent.

With these five swing states, along with the safe Democratic states that Mr. Obama should have carried regardless of the Hispanic vote, the president would have reached 283 electoral votes, winning the Electoral College without needing to win a majority of the Hispanic vote in each state.

In the remaining swing states—Nevada, Florida and Colorado—along with New Mexico, Mr. Obama did require a majority of the Hispanic votes cast in order to carry those states, although the shares he achieved still exceeded the threshold minimums he needed. In Colorado, where Mr. Obama received an estimated 75 percent of the Hispanic vote, we estimate that he could have won with just over 58 percent, and in Nevada, where he won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, he could have carried the state with just under 54 percent. In the key battleground of Florida (29 electoral votes), Mr. Obama’s 60 percent share of the Hispanic vote was just above the 58 percent share required for victory in that state.

In New Mexico, Florida, Nevada and Colorado, slightly higher shares (but still less than a majority) of the Hispanic vote could have swung them to Mr. Romney, and this may well put these states in play in the next election if the Republican candidate and platform have broader appeal among Hispanic voters.

The exit poll results suggest that the Republicans’ assertion that Hispanics are socially conservative is not necessarily true.

Two-thirds of Hispanic voters said that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, compared with slightly more than half of white voters, according to exit poll results. Hispanics were also more liberal when it came to same-sex marriage, with 59 percent saying it should be legal in their state, compared with 51 percent of blacks and 47 percent of white voters.

Exit poll results also indicate that Hispanics are not necessarily racing to adopt the Republican platform of smaller government. Nearly 6 in 10 Hispanics said Mr. Obama’s health care law should be expanded or left as is, compared to about a third of white voters. And 57 percent of Hispanics said that government should be doing more to solve the problems of individuals, compared to 36 percent of whites. Hispanics, like the rest of the electorate, were also in favor of raising income taxes in order to reduce the federal deficit.

Enhanced by Zemanta

8 in 10 Want U.S. Aid Only to Legal Citizens

Saturday, September 22nd, 2012

As the nation debates the surging demand for federal aid and the status of children born here to illegal citizens, a new Rasmussen Reports poll finds remarkable agreement that those seeking federal financial help must first prove they are Americans.

Just over eight in 10 likely voters said “yes” when asked if “before anyone receives government services should they prove they are a citizen?” Rasmussen said 81 percent agreed, and just 9 percent said no.

In the new poll, Rasmussen also found that a majority do not believe that the children born here to illegal immigrant parents should automatically become U.S. citizens. Some 53 percent said no versus 37 percent who agreed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

On Air and Before Audiences, Romney Makes Push for Hispanic Vote

Friday, September 21st, 2012

Mitt Romney, hunting for an electoral edge in swing states, is intensifying his push for Hispanic voters, ratcheting up his Spanish-language advertising, deploying a Spanish-speaking son to court Latino leaders and putting himself in front of a growing number of Hispanic audiences.

On Wednesday, Mr. Romney brought his conspicuous outreach to Miami, where he participated in a candidate forum hosted by Univision, the dominant Spanish-language television network in the country, and attended a late night “Juntos con Romney” (“Together With Romney”) rally.

Mr. Romney’s brutal primary campaign at times put him at odds with quarters of the Hispanic community, a fact that the hosts of the Univision forum did not shy from. They posed pointed questions about illegal immigrants and whether the Spanish language has a place in American life. (“Spanish,” Mr. Romney said, quoting a friend, “is the language of our heritage. English is the language of opportunity.”)

Despite repeated inquiries, Mr. Romney avoided saying whether he would continue a program to suspend deportations of young illegal immigrants announced in June by Mr. Obama. Instead he accused the president of using immigration as a “political football,” and he returned to a promise to “put in place a permanent solution” to illegal immigration.

Pressed for details, Mr. Romney said again that he would support giving legal permanent residence to illegal immigrants who serve in the military. But he also suggested he would support another big piece of a bill in Congress known as the Dream Act. “Kids that get higher education could get permanent residence,” Mr. Romney said, in what appeared to be another step away from his position during the nominating contests, when he said he opposed the Dream Act.

Mr. Romney rejected mass deportation of illegal immigrants, but he sidestepped a question about whether he still supported encouraging “self-deportation”—encouraging such immigrants to leave the country by strictly enforcing immigration rules, a position he has advocated before.

“We are not going to round up people around the country and deport them,” he said. “Our system is not to deport people.”

Alberto Martinez, an adviser, said the Romney campaign was organizing “the most aggressive Hispanic outreach of any Republican presidential campaign.”

But during a rally on Wednesday night in Miami, surrounded by Spanish signs and introduced by his [Romney’s] son Craig in Spanish, he argued that the Republican Party had earned the affections of Hispanic voters.

“This party,” he said, “is the natural home for Hispanic-Americans.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Romney to Pledge to Fix Troubled U.S. Immigration System

Tuesday, September 18th, 2012

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will pledge to Hispanics on Monday that if elected he will fix the troubled U.S. immigration system in an appeal to a rising voter bloc that overwhelmingly favors Democratic President Barack Obama.

Romney’s immigration remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce will be aimed at shoring up a weakness in his candidacy: the fact that a huge majority of Hispanics support Obama.

Americans may disagree about how to fix our immigration system, but I think we can all agree that it is broken,” Romney will say.

In excerpts of his speech released by his campaign, Romney did not get into the specifics of how he would patch up a deep divide between Democrats and Republicans on the approach to repairing the U.S. immigration system.

After promising during his 2008 campaign to take on the immigration issue, Obama never followed through, leading to disappointment among various Hispanic groups.

Romney will point to Obama’s inability to work on the problem as a failure.

“Candidate Obama said that one of his highest priorities would be to fix immigration in his first year in office. Despite his party having majorities in both houses of Congress, the president never even offered up a bill,” Romney will say.

Romney will vow to “work with Republicans and Democrats to permanently fix our immigration system,” while stressing that any plan must first ensure the integrity of U.S. borders—a problem on which the Obama administration says it has already made progress.

“I believe we can all agree that what we need are fair and enforceable immigration laws that will stem the flow of illegal immigration, while strengthening legal immigration,” Romney will say.

“While national unemployment is 8.1 percent, Hispanic unemployment is over 10 percent. Over two million more Hispanics are living in poverty today than the day President Obama took office,” Romney will say.

Enhanced by Zemanta

10-foot-tall anti-Romney neon sign erected in California neighborhood

Tuesday, August 28th, 2012

Complaints poured in Monday about a 10-foot-high wooden structure and neon sign in a quiet Newbury Park neighborhood that says “Romney’s Racist Heart Dotcom. Save the GOP.”

“It’s obnoxious. It’s an eyesore here. I wish it was gone,” said one neighbor.

Steven Showers, 59, built the display after doing research into Mormonism after it became apparent that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would get the Republican nomination for president, according to the Ventura County Star.

“I love it. It’s the way I designed it,” Showers said.

Showers, who describes himself as white, a Republican and Christian, told the Star, “I was stunned to find out that the Mormon religion is a white supremacist, anti-black, racist ideology.”

According to Showers’ website, the following ideology is “embedded” in Mormon doctrine: “White skin indicates a pure character before God. Anything less than white skin indicates a corruption of character before God. Black skin, according to Mormon Doctrine, is an indicator of the worst corruption of character before God.”

Incensed, Showers spent most of the month building the 10-foot-high sign with the large red, flashing neon sign that says, “Romney’s Racist Heart Dotcom. Save the GOP.” The structure was completed and plugged in Thursday, alongside a window sign in red neon lights that says, “Romney’s Racist Heart Dotcom.”

Members of the Church Of Latter Day Saints deny the racist doctrine and say they were disappointed in the sign.

Since Friday, Showers has gotten several complaints from neighbors upset about the sign’s size and political message. A Ventura County code inspector also left notice that the monument was a violation of zoning laws.

“I find it appalling. For someone to do something like this in a neighborhood, especially like our neighborhood. I can’t believe the government even allowed it. But he has a right to say what he wants, but people also have the right to be wrong,” a neighbor said.

The smaller 24-by-24 window sign is available for $800 via Showers’ website. According to the site, the word “racist” flashes on and off and will “become a valuable collector’s item, associated with an historic event in American political history, increasing in value in the years ahead.”

Showers said he plans on keeping the sign up, at least until the end of the Republican National Convention.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Re-Classifying the Left

Saturday, June 23rd, 2012

Returning to the subject of re-classification (Chapter 28), let’s consider a different sort of classification, the classification by psychiatrists of certain behavior as “mental illness” in their manual, “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.” The objectivity of psychiatrists came into question in 1964 when U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater was the Republican candidate for President. Without ever examining him, 1,189 American psychiatrists responded to questions about the candidates in a (now-defunct) magazine and stated that Goldwater was mentally unbalanced. (Goldwater sued and won a substantial settlement; such behavior by psychiatrists has been banned as unethical.)
California psychologist Edward Dunbar has now circulated draft guidelines for a new category in the Manual for people who are “pathologically” prejudiced against gays, Jews, blacks, or others, but presumably not for people who are prejudiced against racists, homophobes, Christian fundamentalists, right-wing Republicans, and Nazis. 1 Presumably, people who are “pathologically” prejudiced in favor of certain groups would also end up in the Manual. Since everyone has likes and dislikes about groups of other people, Dr. Dunbar can determine which feelings constitute “prejudice” only by determining whether or not those feelings are justified by the facts. If a Jew hates the Nazis, is he “prejudiced” or does he have a perfectly normal and justifiable feeling? Must every psychiatrist be an historian?
Why is certain behavior listed in the Manual as a mental illness? 2 The reason usually given is that the behavior impairs the ability of a person to function “normally,” i.e., to work and take care of himself and his dependents. Biologically, such behavior is maladaptive because it reduces reproductive success. With few exceptions, the behavior that your genes induce in you (i.e., to nurse, care for your children, avoid danger, acquire resources, find a mate, have sex, etc.) is adaptive and behavior that is contrary to what your genes induce you to do, is maladaptive.
Let us first concede that any behavior, even behavior that is induced by our genes, is maladaptive if it so dominates a person’s life that he can not otherwise function. Someone who cannot hold a job because he is obsessed with sex, or with hating an ethnic group, or with fighting hatred of an ethnic group, probably has some psychological problems. Is racism, homophobia, etc. maladaptive, even if it is not obsessive, so that it could be described as a “mental illness”?
Homosexuality was actually in the Manual until 1973, when it became fashionable to the left and was removed. Homosexuality is hardly adaptive since it does not induce sexual behavior that passes on one’s alleles, and any argument that it is not maladaptive will be devious at best. 3 It is not contagious and it is not a threat to heterosexuals, other than the possibility that it might reduce the number of mates available to the opposite sex. Science is now uncovering more and more evidence that homosexuality is genetic, epigenetic, or due to exposure to the mother’s hormones in the womb 4 and is not a chosen behavior (except when the opposite sex is unavailable, as in prison). But a great many conditions in the Manual, such as schizophrenia, very likely also have a genetic basis, so that by itself should not keep homosexuality out of the Manual.
What about homophobia, a hatred of homosexuals? Should it also be in the manual? Homosexuality is accepted by some cultures and condemned by others, so there is unlikely to be a genetic inducement towards homophobia. But if homophobia is not so severe that it impairs a person’s ability to pass on his own genes (e.g., by physically attacking homosexuals and ending up in jail), it is probably less maladaptive than not liking broccoli.
Racism and ethnocentrism, however, are different. Certainly, caring for your family is adaptive, as they have more of your alleles than do strangers, so, by helping them, you help your own alleles to be passed on; conversely, it is usually maladaptive to not care for your family. Mathematical analysis of genetic distances has now shown – surprise, surprise – that your ethnic group also carries more of your alleles than do other ethnic groups, and the same is true of your race. (Chap. 7). Thus, using your resources to help people of your own race is adaptive and using your resources to instead help people of other races is, when there is no quid pro quo, maladaptive. In other words, it is the anti-racists who should be labeled “mentally ill” and worry about being put into the Manual, not the racists. Like the taxonomists and many social scientists, the psychiatrists have been corrupted by egalitarianism.
Man is a highly social animal and readily forms groups that compete with other groups for territory, mates, and resources. Given our social nature and the fact that resources are limited, the formation of a manageable group is the best strategy for surviving against competing groups. A loner, at least until modern times, would not have survived for long. For a group to be effective, it must be cohesive – the individuals in it must stick together and sacrifice for others in the group. Such cohesiveness cannot be easily obtained unless the people in the group are genetically similar so that any sacrifice for others is for those who have more of one’s own alleles and is therefore, in a biological sense, less of a sacrifice than it is a gain in fitness. Ethnocentrism and racism are built into our nature; 5 the alleles of those who support their own genetic family are more likely to survive than the alleles of those who do not, i.e., anti-racism is maladaptive. 6
“In 1998 President Clinton boasted to a cheering Portland State University audience that by 2050 whites would be a minority in America.” 7 Huh? White college students cheering for the loss of their homeland and their own extinction? And no one thinks there is anything “abnormal” about that? How can any people survive who cheer the prospect of their own demise? 8 Surely, this is as pathological as taking poisoned “Kool-Aide” at Jonestown, yet it is considered highly moral, not sick. Jews condemn and ostracize “self-hating Jews,” but a majority of whites love and lionize “self-hating whites.” Can there be any act of betrayal greater than rejecting the genetic heritage that made such betrayal possible?
Noel Ignatiev, who is white (but Jewish), 9 a fellow at Harvard’s WEB DuBois Institute, and the founder of the journal “Race Traitor,” whose slogan is “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity,” wrote, “abolishing the white race is desirable.” 10 Another Jewish writer, Susan Sontag, wrote, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” 11 Whites supposedly benefit from the “privilege” of being white, which consists of being able to live in safe, white neighborhoods, go to safe, white schools, have white friends, etc., in other words, enjoying and participating in the civilization that they themselves created. Condemning “white privilege” not only makes it hateful and racist for whites to create a society that others are not capable of creating, it also contradicts the multicultural argument that all cultures are equal.
The latest craze on college campuses is “whiteness studies,” which are courses or presentations, usually to whites by whites, on how evil whites are (e.g., “Exploration of Whiteness Week” at Occidental College). 12 Tim Wise, another Jewish white-hater, earns $4000 plus expenses for speeches that induce white college students to flagellate themselves with guilt and shame (“my sin is my skin”), 13 thereby enabling him to live in a white neighborhood and send his children to white schools. 14 “It is an established fact that white people favor integration throughout the United States exactly in proportion as they do not need to practice it.” (Putnam, 1961, p. 36). 

Figure 33-1

On January 15, 2007 Jared Taylor was scheduled to take the “Weakness” side of a debate on “Racial Diversity: North America’s Strength or Weakness,” but when the “Strength” side of the debate, Professor David Divine of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, chickened out, Taylor decided to present his speech at a small conference room he rented at the Lord Nelson Hotel. The audience, mostly young, white protestors, shouted, banged pots and pans so he could not be heard, then surrounded Mr. Taylor, linked arms, forced him from the room, and tore up copies of the American Renaissance that he had brought to hand out and tossed them at his head. 15 (Fig. 33-1).
No arrests were made although the identity of the ringleader is known. 16One may wonder why whites would risk jail to silence someone who tries to speak for the interests of whites. With the exception of radical Muslims, the most ideologically committed people in white countries today are the white egalitarians. They are the people who are so incensed by perceived affronts to non-whites they will use violence against their own people.
The first step to mental health is to love yourself. Even if you are the worst SOB ever, you can still be a mentally healthy worst SOB ever if you love yourself. And, even if you are Mother Teresa, if you don’t like yourself, you are not mentally healthy – hence the Popeye quote at the beginning of this chapter. The white anti-racists don’t like what they are. 17
How could creatures evolve who are capable of not liking themselves? Surely, such creatures would have been driven extinct long ago by others of their kind who do like themselves. Part of the answer is that man, unlike most other animals, does not entirely follow his instincts. Man feels his instincts as urges, but since man has free will he can override those urges by an exercise of his will, and he often does so, sometimes choosing maladaptive behavior instead of biologically programmed adaptive behavior. 18 That is why we have suicides, 19miscegenation, and a host of other maladaptive behaviors.
We inherit urges to behave in ways that increase our reproductive success. Foremost among these, often ahead of even self-preservation, is sex, the urge to reproduce. But, like all urges, it can be satisfied in multifarious ways that do not achieve reproduction. Similarly, our urge to survive, so that we can pass on our alleles to the next generation, can be perverted to accomplish something else entirely – the reproduction of those who possess far fewer of our alleles than do our own children. This is the perversion of the left, who sacrifice the continuation of their own alleles to proliferate alleles they don’t possess. Urges demand to be satisfied, but they can be misdirected to obtain satisfaction without fulfilling their raison d’être.
Some of the actions of anti-racists are more maladaptive than if they just went out and killed themselves. For example, a white anti-racist who is responsible for bringing 11 Bantu s-S African children into a European country causes a loss to his genetic interests equivalent to the death of 10 white children. 20 Being an anti-racist can be more maladaptive than behaviors that society rigorously condemns, such as murder, child molestation, and failing to support one’s children. Yet “anti-racism” is never likely to enter the Manual, though it may be quite a battle to keep “racism” out of it.
Every normal person is programmed to pass on his or her unique set of alleles; anyone not so programmed is an accident of nature who will die without issue. For both sexes, no price, not even the risk of death, is too high to pay to achieve this goal. If a person does not himself reproduce, does not help those who carry more of his alleles to reproduce or, at the very least, does not influence the reproductive choices made by others so as to increase the number of his alleles in the next generation (e.g., by discouraging miscegenation), he has failed his life’s biological mission and is but an inconsequential terminal twig on the Tree of Life.
He may be a financial success, a social success, or any other kind of success, but he is a biological success only if his actions increase the number of his alleles in the next generation, not only in absolute terms but as a percentage of all the alleles in the population. And, note carefully, some persons of the opposite sex carry more of his alleles than do other persons. It is those persons who carry more of his alleles who are the most important to his own reproductive success because, for each of his alleles that they also have, his children with them will have twice as many of those alleles. Table 33-1 gives the percent increase in kinship a parent gains with his child when the other parent of his child is from his own population. For example, if a European Caucasoid (left column) has a child with another European Caucasoid, his kinship with that child will be 66% greater than if he has a child with an African (2nd column), and vice versa. 21 

Table 33-1
Africans (AFR) AFR
Non-European Caucasoids (NEC) 54 NEC
European Caucasoids (EUC) 66 6 EUC
NE Asians (NEA) 70 26 38 NEA
Arctic NE Asians (ANE) 80 28 30 18 ANE
Amerindians (AME) 90 38 42 30 23 AME
SE Asians (SEA) 88 38 50 25 42 54 SEA
Pacific Islanders (PAI) 100 38 54 29 47 70 17 PAI
New Guineans & Australians (NGA) 99 47 54 29 41 58 50 32 NGA
Ave. % gained over other 8 races 81 34 43 33 39 51 46 48 47

Here’s another way of looking at it. Because Africans and Pacific Islanders are so genetically unrelated, the child of two Africans would carry 100% more (i.e., twice as many) uniquely African alleles than a child of an African and a Pacific Islander.22 Table 33-1 shows only the loss of alleles from different mates, however, and loss of alleles from interbreeding is not the same thing as less reproductive success. Africans lose the most alleles by mating with other races instead of with their own race, but they may gain more reproductive success if their hybrid offspring have traits that make them more likely to survive, and that gain in alleles may more than offset the loss from not mating with another African.
A person also has a strong genetic interest in who reproduces with persons of the opposite sex who carry more of his alleles, e.g., his children, his blood relatives, and people within his ethnic group and race – because he can place more of his alleles in future generations if they mate with people who carry more of his alleles. It is those individuals who are most genetically distant from him, i.e., blacks for Eurasians, 23who will most dilute his alleles in the next generation and most reduce his fitness, i.e., the likelihood of his alleles surviving in future generations will decrease. Thus, a normal, healthy person will be dismayed and angry when a person of his race mates with a person of different race, especially a black, because they are the most genetically different.
What are we to say, then, of whites today who not only make no objection to this coupling but actually encourage it? It is not believable that a lineage that has survived since mate choice began has produced an individual who has lost the most basic instincts that kept that lineage from going extinct. Of course, like the rest of us, he has been relentlessly subjected to the pervasive propaganda that permeates our society, so we should not be surprised if his brain has been so thoroughly washed that he now fears his own instincts more than the extinction of his lineage.
The egalitarians have succeeded, surely beyond their most extravagant hopes, for now almost all whites not only follow, but vehemently defend, the malignant ideology of egalitarianism, that people of all populations are genetically the same. Oprah, who is black, can say on national TV that is it hateful for whites to want to have more children in order to preserve their kind, and the only whites who are offended are a few racists. A white woman in Sweden says she likes seeing blond, blue-eyed children, and white Swedes condemn her. Today’s whites, males and females alike, cheer their own loss of fitness and eagerly anticipate the day when the presence of a white person, live or in history, is nowhere to be found. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, “Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.” Life is not a gift – it must be seized – and only those who love it above all else shall have it.
Before leaving this chapter, let us address the important question of why so many whites are anti-white. It has not escaped notice that the most fervent of the white white-haters are not only on the left politically, but many are Marxist. When the working class did not rise up against the exploiting capitalists, as predicted by Marx, the Marxists ideologues of the Frankfort school (Frankfort, Germany, which moved to Columbia University in New York City when Hitler came to power) sought out other classes of exploited victims who could be induced to rebel against the hated establishment. They settled on women, homosexuals, and minorities. The Marxists have no real concern with these oppressed classes, but find them handy weapons for weakening white societies so that they can be more easily overthrown. 24 Why so many whites eagerly embrace white-hating, however, remains to be explained.
If you have been reading this book, you know that egalitarianism is clearly false – populations are not genetically the same and that is obvious even to small children. To hold a view that so clearly conflicts with reality is surely psychopathological, i.e., these people are mentally ill. Nor is it a trivial illness, as it perverts their most important biological function – passing on their alleles. It is only because psychologists and psychiatrists are also mired in the same psychopathology that egalitarians do not have their own special place in the Manuel.
I have written elsewhere on this subject, 25 where I argue that the problem has its genesis in the inevitable conflicts that children have with their parents. If children decide that it is the parents who are wrong, unfair, even evil, they readily identify with those whom they see as similarly oppressed, urging them to overthrow the ruling class, i.e., initially their white parents but, by projection, all whites, including themselves. The parent’s justification for ruling over them, that there are biological classes, in this case, children and adults, must be refuted, hence fervently held egalitarianism, that there are no biological classes. Marxism, which promotes class warfare and hatred of those who have and rule (i.e., for children, their parents), is just an extension of this psychopathology. 26 Unfortunately, the egalitarians will be with us forever unless children can be raised to see their parents as wise and loving guardians, not as arbitrarily frustrating obstacles. 27

Enhanced by Zemanta

Poll: Most Americans Think Arizona Immigration Law Is “About Right”

Saturday, June 9th, 2012

As the Supreme Court weighs a decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law this summer, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that more than half of Americans see the law as “about right.”

According to the survey, conducted from May 31-June 3 among 976 adults nationwide, 52 percent of Americans believe Arizona’s immigration policy is about right, while 33 percent say it goes too far. Eleven percent say the law does not go far enough.

The U.S. Department of Justice is challenging the law on the grounds that it conflicts with what it contends is the federal government’s exclusive right to set immigration laws for the country.

Most Americans seem to disagree. Sixty-two percent of respondents—and majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents—say both the federal government and state governments should be able to determine laws regarding undocumented immigrants. Twenty-five percent (30 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of Republicans) think such laws should be determined exclusively by the federal government, and 11 percent (4 percent of Democrats and 15 percent of Republicans) think they should be determined by state governments only.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Romney Targets Hispanics in Latest Web Ad

Wednesday, June 6th, 2012


Romney Targets Hispanics in Latest Web Ad

Enhanced by Zemanta

US Senator Seeks 55,000 More ‘H-1B Visas’

Friday, May 25th, 2012

A leading Republican in the Senate has unveiled legislation to raise the number of temporary visas for skilled technical workers from foreign countries, but prospects of passage this year could be clouded by election-year politics.

Senator John Cornyn, the senior Republican on a panel that oversees immigration, introduced a bill that would make an additional 55,000 visas available each year for graduates with master’s and doctoral degrees who have studied at US research institutions.

Cornyn’s proposal to add visas for foreign-born engineers, mathematicians, scientists and other with high-tech skills are important to US technology companies that want to improve access to an international pool of workers and stem the shortage of such talent in this country.

A Cornyn aide said the measure would not add to the overall number of US visas available, because it would eliminate 55,000 “diversity visas” for individuals from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.

Boeing Co Chief Executive Jim McNerney last week told a conference in Washington that the United States was losing critically needed engineers and others to competitor countries because they were being forced out after obtaining advanced degrees at U.S. universities.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Censored Art Show’ rises in protest of canceled exhibit

Saturday, March 10th, 2012

I’m not sure anyone who watched the massive protests unfold at the Capitol a year ago in response to Gov. Scott Walker’s political agenda figured the people who marched, sang and slept their way into history there would knuckle under when a GOP legislator forced the sponsors to pull the plug on a planned exhibit of art from the protests.

They didn’t.

The exhibit “Art in Protest,” planned for UW-Madison’s Pyle Center later this month, morphed into a protest itself. It opened as “Censored Art Show” Friday at the Goodman Community Center on Madison’s east side.

Instead of a curated show with academic critiques, it is a come-one, come-all, hang-it-yourself assemblage of art great (and less so) inspired by the protests.

On Friday afternoon, artists were setting up protest signs and photographs, drawings, paintings and quilts on makeshift display space in a meeting room at the community center. Timed to coincide with the Reclaim Wisconsin rally starting at 1 p.m. Saturday on the Capitol Square in celebration of the one-year anniversary of the protests, the exhibit continues from 4 to 11 p.m. Saturday at the community center, 149 Waubesa St.

It is precisely because it is the anniversary of political protests that so outraged conservatives and Republicans that the UW-Extension’s School for Workers decided to cancel the exhibit. Sources told my colleague Todd Finkelmeyer that state Rep. Steve Nass’ office essentially threatened the school’s state funding (something Nass has done before) if the event wasn’t canceled.

“We just suggested that now, with all the tensions that still exist, this may not be the appropriate time for this arts festival,” Mike Mikalsen, a spokesman for Nass, R-Town of La Grange, told Finkelmeyer last month.

It is the precisely the moment for a celebration of creativity sparked by the protests, exhibitors said.

“We’re not going to be shut up,” says watercolorist Mary Kay Neumann. “It’s a slippery slope when you say art can’t be shown because of its content.” Such censorship is the mark of eras of oppression, including some as extreme as Nazi Germany, Neumann said.

“This is a huge movement,” Mike Rebholz tells me as he hangs a blown-up photo from one of the steel girders spanning the ceiling space in the renovated former metalworks where the community center is located. “The party trying to prevent the exhibit is trying to revise history as if that movement doesn’t exist. That never works.”

An exhibit to showcase art inspired by the protests is another way of assessing and preserving history, said several exhibitors who were at the Community Center Friday setting up displays. People have used art from the beginning of history to help understand the big events that shaped their lives, said Amber Solow. She created the popular poster reading “We are the 99% and we are HUNGRY,” that shows 99 little fish swimming together to swallow one big fat fish.

Cartoonist P.S. Mueller, one of the sponsors of the relocated exhibit, recalled the “endlessly inventive and hilarious” protest signs, a seminal expression of the First Amendment right to free speech.

Many ordinary people recognized the historic importance of the protests, said Linda Friend, a photojournalism instructor at Edgewood College who brought some of her photographs to share. She pointed out a favorite shot of a family who had driven all the way from the northern part of the state to be part of the protests at the Capitol last year. “They said they wanted to bring the kids to a historic event,” Friend recalled. “It’s unfortunate that those who objected couldn’t view this as a historic exhibit.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Lew Fidler rips David Storobin, opponent for Carl Kruger’s seat, saying foe has ties to racist groups

Monday, February 13th, 2012
In the race to replace disgraced Sen. Carl Kruger, Republicans emboldened by a recent Congressional victory are eager to grab the seat - but they’ll have to face a popular Democrat who’s flush with cash. Gov. Cuomo called a special election this week for March 20 to replace Kruger, who resigned and pled guilty to a massive bribery scheme. The race for the seat covering parts of Sheepshead Bay, Brighton Beach, Mill Basin, and Canarsie is likely to pit Democratic City Councilman Lew Fidler against David Storobin, a lawyer and vice-chairman of the Brooklyn GOP.Lawyer David Storobin called Lew Fidler’s attacks “nothing but an assault and a slander” and said he didn’t now how articles he wrote for a conservative website were linked to by skinhead and white supremacist sites.

Senate candidates are trading punches over charges by Democrat Lew Fidler that Republican David Storobin has ties to racist groups.

Fidler said Storobin “is busy scrubbing what little history he has because he’s embarrassed about his ties to skinheads, and neo-Nazi groups and white supremacist groups” in a video on the blog Sheepshead Bites — a charge Storobin calls offensive.

The comments refer to articles Storobin wrote for a conservative website, Global Politician, that were linked to by skinhead and white supremacist sites.

Storobin said he had no idea the posts — an article on the common genetic roots of Palestinians and Jews — had been picked up by extremist sites.

“This is nothing but an assault and a slander,” said Storobin.

Fidler, a City Council member, and Storobin, a lawyer, are vying in a March 20 special election for the seat vacated by disgraced Sen. Carl Kruger. Erin Durkin

BROOKLYN STATE Senate candidates are trading punches over charges by Democrat Lew Fidler that Republican David Storobin has ties to racist groups.

Fidler said Storobin “is busy scrubbing what little history he has because he’s embarrassed about his ties to skinheads, and neo-Nazi groups and white supremacist groups” in a video on the blog Sheepshead Bites — a charge Storobin calls offensive.

The comments refer to articles Storobin wrote for a conservative website, Global Politician, that were linked to by skinhead and white supremacist sites.

Storobin said he had no idea the posts — an article on the common genetic roots of Palestinians and Jews — had been picked up by extremist sites.

“This is nothing but an assault and a slander,” said Storobin.

Fidler, a City Council member, and Storobin, a lawyer, are vying in a March 20 special election for the seat vacated by disgraced Sen. Carl Kruger.


Enhanced by Zemanta