Articles and Analysis


AZ: 56% Brewer, 37% Goddard (Rasmussen 7/21)

Topics: Arizona , poll

7/21/10; 1,200 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)


2010 Governor
56% Brewer (R), 37% Goddard (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Terry Goddard: 48 / 41
Jan Brewer: 63 / 32

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 42 / 58
Gov. Brewer: 63 / 36



56% of Arizona = racist.



37% of Arizona = stupid.

That makes as much or more sense than always assuming everything is about race.



As I said before, there is a big political pay off in scapegoating and states' rights. At least in the short term.



And whether or not the "papers please" law is struck down, and it looks like the district court judge is poised to strike down at least a part of it, Brewer will win. She'll either be vindicated or can claim that Arizona is being picked on by the big, bad feds.

Not since Joe McCarthy stumbled into red baiting, has such a non-entity gotten so much mileage out of playing the witch hunt card.



@Bigmike: Was being sarcastic. No way to make that clear on the internet though I suppose.



July 29th is next week,in you can bet there will be 100s of incidents involving American born Hispanics being pulled over by cops to check for proof of Citizenship.This is all going to blow up in the GOP face, because America is going to see racial profiling at its best starting next Thursday,but who is Gov.Brewer and the Republicans going to blame when all hell break loose next week' You guessed it President Obama.



melvin: You clearly have no idea what the bill does.



Dave: Starting next Thursday you are going to see American born Hispanics coming on CNN and MSNBC crying with so much emotion talking about how they was pulled over, because they was Latino.America is going to see a race of people being discriminated against like this Country never seen before,its going to be ugly.Am afraid many people are going to get hurt or killed,because they're emotions are going to take over because of this racist law.



melvin: Again, you have no clue what the law does. It DOES NOT allow police to pull anyone over. It allows them to catch people who commit crimes or other violations, and then, if they feel like the person the have caught may be here illegally, they can ask for papers.



Melvin did your parent not teach you that lying is bad?



Melvin did your parents not teach you that lying is bad?






I can give you a example Dave: last week 1300 letters was sent out to people who they thought was illegal immigrants in Utah,asking them to leave the Country,but only 1000 of the residents was illegal immigrants,the other 300 residents was American born Citizens,now if that wasn't a case of racial profiling tell me something.Utah have suspended 9 State workers without pay because of what they did last week in Utah.Now what in the hell you think they're going to do in Arizona come next week Dave?



The issues regarding the balance between state and federal authority are legitimate constitutional issues to be decided by the courts.

The profiling issue is more one of perception - and potential for abuse. It seems to me that potential is already there so operationally it will be the differences in perception that might change if/when the law takes effect (perception on the part of the hispanic community that there will be more profiling AND perception on the part of the police that their actions towards hispanics will be backed up by their superiors and by the population).

As I've said before - operationally a part of the law that will cause much pain to innocent individuals is where temporarily blocking traffic when you pick up someone to take them to work is punishable by 6 months in prison and a $2500 fine. I don't know why that gets so little discussion.



Dave: The crime can be running a red light or talking on your cell phone while you driving,now how many people do that every day Dave? let me guess' Millions.



Dave: You are so naive its unbelievable.



dpearl: Thanks for giving me that information,i didn't know the ARZ law stated you can go to jail for 6 months, because you are waiting for a passenger. The Republicans in ARZ are sick people who needs help.



melvin: Yes, running a red light can get you pulled over. If the person who ran that red is an illegal, he'll be in a load of trouble. If the person who ran the red light is not here illegally, no problem. (Except for the traffic fine).

So where's the racism?



Jim Webb and Hispanics:
In today's WSJ, Senator Webb (D) makes some points I have tried to make here in the past (with no responses):

(1) there is a historical/ethical argument to support positive discrimination towards blacks (let's drop the "affirmative action" and other euphemisms, please),

(2) there is no such ethical or historical basis for positive discrimination for "Hispanics" and others who are not descendants of American slaves (maybe Indians, also). They have never suffered legal discrimination remotely approaching what blacks have suffered.

(3) the net effect of these positive discriminations is negative discrimination against white men,

(4) poor whites, in particular, did NOT benefit from slavery in the South. They were hurt by it, which was a common opinion at the time (see Democracy in American by deTocqueville). Fewer than 5% of southern whites owned slaves.

In particular, the number of slave holders in Appalachia was trivial. It was probably lower than New England until the just before the civil war.

(5) whites in particular geographic areas (e.g., Appalachia, almost any rural area) have high rates of poverty but are given no positive discrimination, only negative discrimination.

(6) Conclusion: positive discrimination towards non-blacks should end immediately.

I add the following:

(1) in admissions to elite colleges, there is now well-documented evidence (Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford) that whites who are poor, rural, conservative, or from Red States, suffer very strong discrimination when their credentials are the same as other whites. Incredibly, listing membership in H.S. ROTC, 4H, or FHA reduced chances of acceptance by 65% for the SAME SAT scores, especially if the applicant was an officer in any of those organizations.

Furthermore, not that these things helped the disfavored whites when they had done them, but the elite colleges emphasis on "helping others" could be cynically viewed as a way to advantage affluent whites who can afford to forego summer jobs and can pay for their travel to Guatamala and other needy places.

(2) in admissions to elite colleges, Asians also are victims of similar strong discrimination

(3) "To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550."

Perhaps not coincidentally, blacks are over-represented in the bottom 25% of class ranks and have poor graduation rates in elite schools. If you look at those not in "black studies," the record is even worse. Note that black graduation rates are poor for 2nd and 3rd tier schools, also, perhaps because of the similar placement advantages at every level. A study a few months ago showed that blacks having the same GPAs and SATs as whites in the same school did about as well. Hence, as Thomas Sowell argues, pushing them up levels ("over-placement") is a poisonous gift. This is typical of current affirmative action efforts in not achieving intended effects.

(4) affirmative action for blacks is poorly done in general, benefitting the children of the black elite but doing little for those truly in need. Black academics also complain bitterly that a large proportion of preferences for blacks in admissions are given to blacks from Africa and the Carribean. Since they are not the children of American slaves, the only justification for this practice is to recruit more academically competitive blacks so that the school's admissions and graduation numbers look better. Never mind that most of these students have affluent parents.

And, please, it is irrelevant if ancestors of the Africans or Carribeans were slaves. All of us have ancestors who were slaves, but neither they nor we whites grew up with the pernicious effects of Jim Crow. Besides, why should we give advantages to non-Americans?

(5) positive discrimination in favor of women is no longer needed: women make up the majority in colleges at every level, including PhD. Women candidates are surging in both the Republican and Democratic parties and in business.

There is a lag in reaching the top due to time in grade (that and having babies constitute the real "glass ceiling"), but the former will pass quickly enough and, at least in academia, women are given tremendous leeway for reduced hours to accommodate bearing and raising small children.

(6) We MUST end affirmative action for Hispanics, south Asians, Pacific Islanders, etc., before naturalizing millions of currently illegal immigrants. Otherwise, ending it will be politically impossible and will lead to increasing inanities and conflicts over time. If you are a Hispanic voter, why should you give up any advantage you can get for your children?

I, personally, have had students originally from Central and South America or Mexico who were white, blue-eyed blondes with affluent (sometimes rich) parents, who nevertheless were given advantages in scholarships and admissions. One expressed guilt about it, but took the benefits, anyway.

(7) It would be better to switch the basis for positive discrimination from race to poverty. Blacks and Hispanics make up roughly half of poor people, so they would benefit, but so would poor whites. It should provide the poor more financial help but should not continue the over-placement debacle, whether for elite schools admissions or later job placements (e.g., firefighters, pilots, physicians).

(8) As I have stated before, I don't think many liberals understand the anger of many working class and rural whites towards liberals. They know very well that big-city democrats despise them and their values and see their resentment of affirmative action as being racism.

They resent it because it is not liberals who suffer from reverse discrimination, as Espenshade and Alexandria Radford have documented for admissions to elite colleges. Likewise, the quotas are for firemen, not "intellectual" jobs, such as advertising, newspapers, etc.

Hey, I have an idea: If we can't end affirmative action, perhaps we should simply set quotas by race, ethnicity, religion, geographical area, income, etc. That would be truly egalitarian, wouldn't it? Amazingly, liberals are much happier just discriminating against Asians and against fellow whites who are conservative, evangelicals (a white Baptist has a roughly zero chance of getting into an elite school), or from rural areas, especially the south. When affirmative discrimination applies to them, also, that is okay only if they are tenured or otherwise secure and have no children.

admissions study: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9072.html




You must really feel passionate about affirmative action or "positive discrimination." What I would question about that study were the 10 "elite" schools they chose. They were unspecified. What made them "elite?"

It doesn't seem to jive with my college experience. Particularly what you're talking about re: Asians. I looked up the top 5 "national universities" in Texas and searched their student demographics.

Per their websites:

Rice University: #17 in U.S. News rankings; student enrollment demographics: 52% white, 19% Asian-American, 12% hispanic, 7% African-American, 5% International, 2% multiracial, 0.5% native american, 2% other.

University of Texas at Austin: #47; - 51% white, 21% hispanic, 18% Asian-American, 5% African-American, 4% international, 2% other. (every time I go on this campus I'm surprised at the large number of Asian students, which is why I thought it strange you would claim they are discriminated against).

Texas A&M University - College Station #61; 69% white, 13% hispanic, 3% black, 5% Asian, 10% other/undefined

Southern Methodist University: #68; 78% white, 8% hispanic, 6% Asian, 6% black,

Baylor University: #80; 70% white, 12% hispanic, 8% black, 8% Asian, 3% other.

Here are the state demographics:

47% white, 37% hispanic, 12% black, 4% Asian,

These would be the elite schools in Texas, in any case (we have terribly inadequate higher ed given the size of the state) and in all of them whites and Asians are over-represented, hispanics and blacks under-represented. Asians particularly at the 2 most prestigious.

I guarantee a white baptist will be will feel right at home at Baylor, where there are quite good law and medical schools.

I don't know what that study defined as "elite." Harvard has 54% white, 8% black, 7% hispanic, 17% Asian, 11% international, 3% other. Again, Asians over-represented, blacks, hispanics underrepresented. A few too many internationals, maybe, that causes whites to be somewhat under-represented based on national demographics, but it seems reasonable.

So I don't accept that there is much discrimination in the admissions process, nor is there in the federal financial aid that most students use. Your award is based on your expected family contribution, calculated by tax returns.

What I agree on is the availability of scholarships. At my college we have scores of scholarships available for minority students and none that are exclusively for whites. That is something that should be addressed. However, a lot of times the minority scholarships go unused but the principle of fairness should still apply. If you have above average qualifications and are black, you can literally get educated for free and have a lot left over, more importantly, you could come from a well-off family and it wouldn't matter. I had a friend who was black and took full advantage of all that. Of course, he didn't have much competition. For whites with the same qualifications that probably wouldn't be possible.

"(2) there is no such ethical or historical basis for positive discrimination for "Hispanics" and others who are not descendants of American slaves (maybe Indians, also). They have never suffered legal discrimination remotely approaching what blacks have suffered."

WTF!? This is untrue. There was segregation for them too, it just wasn't as high-profile and hispanics were a smaller minority. Read anything about LBJ's history like what conditions were for the kids he taught in Cotulla, TX. Or google the Felix Longoria affair. In Texas hispanics were certainly discriminated against. There were places of business they couldn't enter, things they couldn't do. Ask any hispanic person who was around prior to the 1970s.



Two problems here. First, I'm not sure how you arrive at your demographic information, but it's not quite accurate. Texas is about 70% white, some of those self-identifying as hispanic. That's one problem with treating "hispanic" as a racial group.

25% of Texans refer to their ethnicity as "Mexican." Again, some of those are, or consider themselves, white.

But there's a much bigger problem. You compare population % with the % attending various schools....but this is meaningless unless you assume the test scores and grades of all races are the same. If a particular racial group - most notably Asians - has higher mean test scores and better grades, its "overrepresentation" indicates nothing nefarious whatsover. Same goes for "underrepresentation." If a racial group has lower test scores, it might be "undderrepresneted" as measured against the entire population but properly represented or even overrepresented as compared to the objective qualifications of its members.

This is similar to the fallacy people often peddled about banks discriminating against creditworthy blacks in favor of less qualified whites for home loans. The truth of this used to be widely accepted at face value until somebody realized out that if it were true, blacks would have lower loan default rates than whites. That is, if the black pool of acceptees is more creditworthy than the white pool of acceptees, than logically, whites should default more.

Guess what. One of the Federal Reserve Banks did a study and found no such thing.

To no one's particular surprise.




I'm probably wasting time responding to someone who's handle is "Obamamarxistfilth"

"Texas is about 70% white, some of those self-identifying as hispanic."

Texas hasn't been 70% white in decades, where are you getting your numbers? I used the 2009 census estimate:




"f a particular racial group - most notably Asians - has higher mean test scores and better grades, its "overrepresentation" indicates nothing nefarious whatsover."

I didn't say it was bad. I just used that to show that Asian-Americans are not discriminated against. If they were, they wouldn't make up almost a fifth of the students at UT, which is TX's best public university.


Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.