Assistance in understanding those unwoke Hispanics in places like the Bronx

    I have scanned the English side of a large campaign postcard I just found on my car's windshield at my home in the Bronx (the other side is in Spanish.) Then I went and put it on a picture hosting website and I looked up the background of family name of the candidate > it is Ecuadorian. The scan is posted after the jump, it's quite self-explanatory.

    Bronx political flyer

    Comments

    got another postcard the other day, how the Election Commission is trying out ranked choice voting on this race and another one...


    Not from the Bronx

    DGA calls to mind director's guild and Democratic Governors

    If Democrats are perceived as Socialists, I'm not sure where there is common ground

    I think many Republicans would not meet the criteria of the Patriot Party

    http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/platform/

     


    If Democrats are perceived as Socialists, I'm not sure where there is common ground

    well then you don't have common ground with a significant number of Democratic politicians, as I read that enough of them had been using the term positively before the election, that in a "family meeting" after the election, they had to be scolded to stop doing so until after the Georgia election. And some still argued about that, they didn't see it as a reason that seats were lost in moderate districts. They just thought you had to spin socialism more as a good word, like go door to door and convince Hispanics in Spanish that socialism was a good thing....

    Ask AOC,  she'll splain it all to you in either language. Plenty of Bernie Bros too. Or you can just look on Twitter for anyone with a red rose next to their user name. They are Democrats who consider themselves socialists, that's basically what the red rose stands for. Bonafide socialists are part of the Democratic party's big tent, whether you like it or not. They come with the package of the two-party system if you buy into it.


    You presented a Patriot Party member

    There is no way to reach out to him

    It is normal for Democrats to disagree

    Democrats are still moving legislation without help from the GOP

    Come 2022, Democrats can present legislation 

    Republicans will yell about the gender of a plastic potato and the removal of books with racist imagery by the publisher 

    Republicans are OK with overthrowing a Constitutional government 


    Let's just get one thing straight: the Republicans did not start the Woke movement, the Woke did.

    As far as this post, I just provided it to help people understand why some Hispanics around the country voted in ways that were surprising to clueless Democrats, who thought they were going to get a blue wave from many more Hispanics turning out to vote and didn't.

    It wasn't news to me. I live with lots of these people in the Bronx. I learned that you can't presume minority people, especially legal immigrants who have become citizens, agree with the Democratic party. I KNOW a lot of them really really disagreed with Black Lives Matter protests, the elite white Brooklyn kids running a lot of those are not their favorite kind of people.

    And hello, a reminder, I am not part of your political clan.

     I have been a registered as an Independent voter since 1980.

    I don't give a damn about winning people over to either party, I really don't.

    I wish both parties would dissolve and we would not have any to replace them, like Geo. Washington advised in his Farewell Address.

    (Furthermore, for others that might be interested in nuance: in NY State there is a complicated system of many political parties, and single candidates often run on more than one of those lines, representing more than one party. And I think rank choice voting is an experiment to make party line even more unimportant, and to vote for the individual, especially for local offices. I haven't investigated what is going on with that yet. But I suspect that is the reason this candidate says he is running on the Patriot Party platform but that the Bronx GOP has marked his postcard as the party funding the advertising. This experiment, it's complicated, and the two main parties may be trying to manipulate it.)

    Edit to add one thing: the more Democrats turn people like this off, the smaller your party will be.


    If he joined the Patriot Party, there is no way to reach him.


    Well sure that's if you, Mr. Defend-BLM-and-The Woke-at-all-costs, is trying to win him over to your purist leftist activist party, whatever you're going to call it. Thank god you're not running the Democratic party. As plenty of other people who are, like Obama and Biden (both of whom actually won the presidency) Pelosi, Clyburn, Schumer etc. and their political advisers are trying to win people EXACTLY LIKE THIS back over. Or the Democratic party could lose a lot more power in 2022.


    The folks running the Democratic Party understand the problem

    Democrats are offering money to help those in need

    The party does not oppose abortion.

    Their are women in leadership positions 

    As noted by the NYT, this may not appeal to some male Latino voters

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/us/politics/latino-voters-democrats.html

    BTW, my candidates won


    BTW, my candidates won

    You've said that for years, and no one with brains would take it seriously as anything more than hearsay because even though you post here under a pseudonym, you have never revealed any specifics about where you live and vote, you just speak as if you represent all people who have black skin nationwide, as if they are a monolith.

    If you're going to do BTW,  here's this BTW > more black males also voted for Trump this time in many places than did in 2016. And smart people in Democratic politics are worried and interested in all these trends. But never fear, if they would just listen to rmrd instead, they would win every time. Because he knows what all minorities want allover the country.

      Do you always dis data instead of using it? Why do you need to say anything about this bit of data I offered about the Bronx demographics except "thank you, gee that's interesting."

      It's like you have to CANCEL info that doesn't fit your narrative. Don't you realize everyone here knows you are selling a narrative from inside a bubble (which you will not reveal where it is) instead of being interested in analyzing and decoding politics and spin?

      I DON'T CARE THAT YOUR CANDIDATES WON OR LOST!  Why don't you get that? That's not the issue at all. I give a shit who you support and don't support. You are just one guy on the internet. I am not pushing any candidates here, I am interested in figuring out reality, not into canceling reality.


      I posted an article from the NYT on the problems Democrats had with a subset of male Latino voters

      I never suggested a magic solution.

      I never said that the Black community was a monolith

      You are the one who wants to speak for the entire Black community 

      You are the one who makes demands on how BLM should operate

      You are the one who talks of pity olympics 

       

      Regarding GOTV, I don't care if you believe me or not



      Barack Obama recommends that Democrats consider the New York Magazine interview with David Shor on where Dems came up short in 2020, including why they lost Hispanic support, and what they must do to avoid disaster in 2022

      And as we rightly celebrate what Democrats accomplished in the 2020 election, it’s always worth analyzing those successes in depth—and looking at where we came up short—as we look toward future cycles. This interview includes some ideas worth considering: https://t.co/c75VpLwkgD

      — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) March 4, 2021

      Related and VERY well said:


      similar discussion around today's voting on minimum wage in the Senate:

      discussion continues on thread

      ( I wonder if Kevin Pazmino would be for minimum wage laws! He certainly seems to want to priortize small business and entrepreneurial thinking ("encourage citizens to incorporate themselves, opening opportunity"), while at the same time he proudly intimates that he has been a Directors Guild member for a long time,. which is definitely a form of unionization, just more of a free-lancers union.)


      This too, great point:


      The NYTimes article from today: A Vexing Question for Democrats: What Drives Latino Men to Republicans?

      Several voters said values like individual responsibility and providing for one’s family, and a desire for lower taxes and financial stability, led them to reject a party embraced by their parents.

      ​By Jennifer Media, March 5 (leaving out the numerous photographs, text copied for FAIR USE purposes, my own future reference)

      Erik Ortiz, a 41-year-old hip-hop music producer in Florida, grew up poor in the South Bronx, and spent much of his time as a young adult trying to establish himself financially. Now he considers himself rich. And he believes shaking off the politics of his youth had something to do with it.

      “Everybody was a liberal Democrat — in my neighborhood, in the Bronx, in the local government,” said Mr. Ortiz, whose family is Black and from Puerto Rico. “The welfare state was bad for our people — the state became the father in the Black and brown household and that was a bad, bad mistake.” Mr. Ortiz became a Republican, drawn to messages of individual responsibility and lower taxes. To him, generations of poor people have stayed loyal to a Democratic Party that has failed to transform their lives.

      “Why would I want to be stuck in that mentality?” he said.

      While Democrats won the vast majority of Hispanic voters in the 2020 presidential race, the results also showed Republicans making inroads with this demographic, the largest nonwhite voting group — and particularly among Latino men. According to exit polls, 36 percent of Latino men voted for Donald J. Trump in 2020, up from 32 percent in 2016. These voters also helped Republicans win several House seats in racially diverse districts that Democrats thought were winnable, particularly in Texas and Florida. Both parties see winning more Hispanic votes as critical in future elections.

      Yet a question still lingers from the most recent one, especially for Democrats who have long believed they had a major edge: What is driving the political views of Latino men?

      For decades, Democratic candidates worked with the assumption that if Latinos voted in higher numbers, the party was more likely to win. But interviews with dozens of Hispanic men from across the country who voted Republican last year showed deep frustration with such presumptions, and rejected the idea that Latino men would instinctively support liberal candidates. These men challenged the notion that they were part of a minority ethnic group or demographic reliant on Democrats; many of them grew up in areas where Hispanics are the majority and are represented in government. And they said many Democrats did not understand how much Latino men identified with being a provider — earning enough money to support their families is central to the way they view both themselves and the political world.

      Like any voter, these men are also driven by their opinions on a variety of issues: Many mention their anti-abortion views, support for gun rights and strict immigration policies. They have watched their friends and relatives go to western Texas to work the oil fields, and worry that new environmental regulations will wipe out the industry there. Still, most say their favorable view of Republicans stems from economic concerns, a desire for low taxes and few regulations. They say they want to support the party they believe will allow them to work and become wealthy.

      Public polling has long showed political divides within the Latino electorate — Cuban-Americans have favored Republicans far more than have Mexican-Americans, for example. During the 2020 election, precincts with large numbers of Colombian and Venezuelan immigrants swung considerably toward Mr. Trump. Surveys conducted last year by Equis Research, which studies Latino voters, showed a striking gender gap, with Latino men far more inclined than Latina women to support Republicans.

      And researchers believe that Mexican-American men under the age of 50 are perhaps the demographic that should most concern Democrats, because they are more likely to drift toward conservative candidates. According to a precinct-level analysis by OpenLabs, a liberal research group, Hispanic support for Democrats dropped by as much as 9 percent in last year’s election, and far more in parts of Florida and South Texas.

      Winning over Latino men is in some ways a decades-old challenge for Democrats — a nagging reminder that the party has never had a forceful grip on this demographic. Still, some strategists on the left are increasingly alarmed that the party is not doing enough to reach men whose top priorities are based on economics, rather than racial justice or equality. And they warn that Hispanic men are likely to provide crucial swing votes in future races for control of Congress in the midterm elections, as well as who governs from the White House.

      “Democrats have lots of real reasons they should be worried,” said Joshua Ulibarri, a Democratic strategist who has researched Hispanic men for years. “We haven’t figured out a way to speak to them, to say that we have something for them, that we understand them. They look at us and say: We believe we work harder, we want the opportunity to build something of our own, and why should we punish people who do well?”

       

      Jose Aguilar grew up in McAllen, Texas, in the 1960s, raised by parents who had limited means for buying food and clothing. They were hard workers, and instilled in him that “if you apply yourself, you will get what you deserve.” His family welcomed relatives from Mexico who stayed for a short time and then returned across the border; some managed to immigrate legally and become citizens, and he believes that’s how anyone else should do so.

      Still, Mr. Aguilar did benefit from an affirmative action-style program that recruited Hispanic students from South Texas to enter an engineering program.

      “They were trying to fill quotas to hire Hispanic people in their company,” he said. “The first I ever got on was on a paid ticket to interview for a job, so I did. I saw that as a good opportunity for me to take advantage of, this was my chance, to take that opportunity and run.”

      Mr. Aguilar, who now lives near Houston, said he saw Mr. Trump as a model of prosperity in the United States.

      “I’m an American, I can take advantage of whatever opportunities just as Anglo people did,” he added. “There’s really no secret to success — it’s really that if you apply yourself, then things will work out.”

      Sergio Arellano of Phoenix, Ariz., said he had a story he liked to tell about the moment he registered as a Republican. When he was an 18-year-old Army infantryman on home leave, he went to a July 4 event and spotted the voter registration table. He asked the woman sitting there: What’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats?

      Democrats, he recalled her saying, are for the poor. Republicans are for the rich.

      “Well that made it easy — I didn’t want to be poor, I wanted to be rich, so I chose Republican,” Mr. Arellano said. “Obviously she figured I would identify with the poor. There’s an assumption that you’re starting out in this country, you don’t have any money, you will identify with the poor. But what I wanted was to make my own money.”

      Last fall, Mr. Arellano campaigned for Mr. Trump in Arizona, and this year, he narrowly lost his bid for chairman of the state Republican Party. Still, he does not fit the Trumpian conservative mold, often urging politicians to soften their political rhetoric against immigrants.

      “Trump is not the party, the party is what we make it — a pro-business, pro-family values,” he said. “People who understand we want to make it as something here.”

      All of this sounds familiar to Mike Madrid, a Republican strategist who is deeply critical of the party under Mr. Trump, and who has worked for decades to push the party to do more to attract Hispanic voters.

      “Paying rent is more important than fighting social injustice in their minds,” Mr. Madrid said. “The Democratic Party has always been proud to be a working-class party, but they do not have a working-class message. The central question is going to be, Who can convince these voters their concerns are being heard?”

      Ricardo Portillo has contempt for most politicians, but has been inclined to vote for Republicans for most of his life. The owner of a jewelry store in McAllen, Texas, for the past 20 years, Mr. Portillo prides himself on his business acumen. And from his point of view, both he and his customers did well under a Trump administration. Though he describes most politicians as “terrible” — Republicans, he said, “at least let me keep more of my money, and are for the government doing less and allowing me for doing more for myself.”

      In the last year, Mr. Portillo, 45, has seen business dip as fewer Mexican citizens are crossing the border to shop at his store. Before the coronavirus pandemic, business was brisk with customers from both sides of the border.

      A sense of economic security is a shift for Mr. Portillo, who grew up often struggling.

      “We were brought up the old-school way, that men are men, they have to provide, that there’s no excuses and there’s no crying. If you don’t make it, it’s because you’re a pendejo,” he said, using a Spanish term for idiot. “Maybe that’s not nice, but it breeds strong men, mentally strong men.”

      The question now, he said, is “what am I going to be able to do for myself and for my family? We don’t feel entitled to much, but we’re entitled to the fruit of our labor.”

      As a child in New Mexico, Valentin Cortez, 46, was raised by two parents who voted as Democrats, but were personally conservative. Mr. Cortez was around “a lot of cowboys and a lot of farmers” who were also Hispanic, but he never felt as though he was part of a minority and said he never personally experienced any racism.

      Like so many other men interviewed, he views politics as hopelessly divisive now: “You can’t have an opinion without being attacked.”

      Though a handful of friends have blocked him on social media when he expressed conservative views, he said, he does not feel silenced in his own life.

      Mr. Cortez occasionally resents being seen as a minority — he grew up around other Hispanics in New Mexico and believes he has the same kinds of opportunities as his white counterparts. The bigger problem, as he sees it, is the lack of willingness to disagree: “I’ve got friends, they think that I hate my own culture. I have been shut down personally, but I am comfortable with who I am.”

      Like other men interviewed, Mr. Cortez, a registered independent, said he voted for Mr. Trump in large part because he believed he had done better financially under his administration and worried that a government run by President Biden would raise taxes and support policies that would favor the elite.

      Some of the frustrations voiced by Hispanic Republican men are stoked by misinformation, including conspiracy theories claiming that the “deep state” took over during the Trump administration and a belief that Black Lives Matter protests caused widespread violence.

      In interviews, many cite their support for law enforcement and the military as reasons they favor the Republican Party.

      For Chuck Rocha, a Democratic strategist who helped run Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign last year, the warning signs about losing Latino men were there for months. In focus groups conducted in North Carolina, Nevada and Arizona, Hispanic men spoke of deep disillusionment with politics broadly, saying that most political officials offer nothing more than empty promises, spurring apathy among many would-be voters.

      “We’re not speaking to the rage and the inequality that they feel,” he said. “They just wanted their lives to get better, they just wanted somebody to explain to them how their lives would get better under a President Biden.”

      To Mr. Rocha, the skepticism of Democrats is a sign of political maturity in some ways.

      “We’re coming-of-age, we’re getting older, and now it’s no longer just survival, now you need prosperity,” he said. “But when you start to feel like you just can’t get ahead, you’re going to have the same kind of rage we’ve long seen with white working-class voters.”

      For some Latino men who favor Republicans, they simply want the government to stay out of their way and not impede their chances of success.

      “You can’t legislate equality, you can’t legislate work ethic and you can’t legislate being a good person,” Mr. Ortiz said. “I am not perfect and nobody is perfect, but for me it starts with individual responsibility.”


      Dump of  mixed interesting commentary on woke related issues that these kind of people don't like, and which I found thought-provoking (Keep in mind woke theology is mostly a creation of the educated liberal elites):

      The real question here is why have these obscure academic departments that have been churning out paranoiac pseudo-scholarship for decades suddenly acquired the potency to force publishers to do their will? https://t.co/iJLDXzXdEt

      — Wesley Yang (@wesyang) March 6, 2021

      Not gonna presume to pronounce on this thing that I just Googled for first time, just that the divisions seem pretty familiar at first glance https://t.co/QNqZfzFNr0

      — Wesley Yang (@wesyang) March 6, 2021

      That he *thinks* himself so suave, so French & so irresistible, in that Maurice Chevalier voice, & is anything but is part of the parody. Pepe is being lampooned, not lionized.

      — JayVee (@Ulfhirtha) March 6, 2021

      Most of the leftist rhetoric originates at the very top and gets pushed through institutions and corporations to keep us plebes fighting over imaginary issues. Otherwise we might realize that we’re all on the same side and the real enemy is the elite Cathedral class.

      — Billy (@realBillyBaxter) March 4, 2021

      The great thing about this thread is that you can replace anti-wokeness with wokeness and it works just as well. https://t.co/jz4GWe3Nqz

      — Timothy B. Lee (@binarybits) March 6, 2021

      1/My new report, Academic Freedom in Crisis, is out @CSPICenterOrg. It uses 8 surveys in US, Canada & UK on academic support for cancelling controversial scholars & discriminating against conservative or gender-critical academics https://t.co/GZdJJHREFt

      — Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) March 1, 2021

      The most ridiculous part of this ridiculous story, is the fact that the translator was selected by Amanda Gorman herself.

      The toxicity and absurdity of woke racists : they remove agency from the people they’re supposed to support and defend. pic.twitter.com/jXbfA3Cyv9

      — Fred Martin (@fred_connection) March 2, 2021

      see thread:

      Those are its sources, but it only becomes an instrument of elite control when it captures East Coast institutions

      — Wesley Yang (@wesyang) March 5, 2021


      another dump of assorted tweets suggestive of how counterproductive The Elite Woke are to left of center political goals, especially counter lots of immigrants' ethos

      (check whole thread on this first one):

      I'm working with some other good people to push back on racial essentialism. Nobody is just their skin color and we should see the depth of every person. It's time our leading institutions realize that. Sign up here: https://t.co/hVeeNmuhNr

      — Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) March 4, 2021

      example:

      A divisive curriculum masquerading as “anti-racism” is being embraced by our K-12 institutions. It is hurting our kids and hurting our country. It’s time to stand up and say so. Join @fairforall_orghttps://t.co/r0nY2jfOfT

      — Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) March 8, 2021


      "The woke are setting up black kids for failure in high schools, while telling them that failure is actually success, and then discriminating against Asian kids to cover up for the racial imbalance their policies create."https://t.co/8gBgLg9Hgx

      — Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) March 5, 2021

      This is graphic presented to 8th graders at LA’s most exclusive prep schools is not just something to chuckle at, it is a visual representation of a coherent ideology that sees the world as a matrix of interlocking oppressions pic.twitter.com/HVTmUJ9CAo

      — Wesley Yang (@wesyang) March 8, 2021

      Harvard Westland tuition —$42,600 a year pic.twitter.com/li4Up5HOM0

      — Wesley Yang (@wesyang) March 8, 2021

      NYT: it’s a conspiracy theory to believe riots were caused by the BLM protests last summer. It really is Pravda-like. https://t.co/NLZrUPJAcL

      — Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) March 6, 2021


      The pushback. Because of over-reach. Why isn’t exclusive attraction to cisgender members of the same or opposite sex a legitimate form of sexual attraction? https://t.co/MPe6PkOfgd

      — Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) March 6, 2021

      Bonjour, here is your unroll: Since I appear to be getting a bit of a rep as some sort of alt-right… https://t.co/DzEcGy62gW Talk to you soon.

      — Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) March 7, 2021

      More flags please. And consonants. And oxymorons. This was once a serious movement. https://t.co/ZqYVVHv4OX

      — Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) March 7, 2021

      Meghan called herself "mixed" and Huffpost found it "amazing" or somesuch that she didn't say "black" in the interview. But why isn't she allowed to self-identity in a much more obvious way than so many of these concocted labels? Why should a drop of "black" mean you're all black? Conversely if being a bit black means you feel "black", use that - obviously there are societal and historical norms that support that feeling/view. But "mixed" is certainly a valid more-neutral view, as is "human", "of color", and other ways of seeing herself (or others seeing themselves). If that white part is Finnish or Romanian or Bashkir or Georgian (Gruzhia), why should the bit of black genericize the white part into "black" the same as the more commonplace English/Scotch-Irish/German?


      Cut the crap it gets tiresome, but it is predictable. She can identify as she wishes. But ...........

      Meghan Markle, during an interview with Oprah Winfrey on CBS Sunday night, said members of the Royal family had concerns about her unborn child having dark skin color when he was born.

      Markle has a mixed-race background, and her mother is Black, with whom she has a close relationship with. Markle told Winfrey that she learned her son, Archie, would not have a prince title or the security that comes with a member of the royal family.

      "All around this same time, we have in tandem the conversation of he won't be given security, he's not going to be given a title and also concerns and conversations as how dark his skin might be when he's born," Markle said.

      https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-says-royal-family-had-concerns-possible-dark-skin-color-her-child-1574359


      Trying to understand how that was "crap" and then quoting back the Oprah article to me. "She can identify as she wishes *BUT*..."? Why is there a BUT? And presumably son Archie will get the same choices. "BUT..."?


      PS - largely uninterested in the Meghan-Harry story (file under "what were they expecting"? I spent a summer once hanging out in the backyards of the cherry rich, with all their prima vintage cars and immaculate preppie clothes, a bit like anachronistic Gatsby, and, well, if I chose to stay, obviously for me it would've been hell...)

      But demographics was a nice reminder that UK ain't America:

      The most recent Census in 2011 highlights that in England and Wales, 80 per cent of the population were white British. Asian (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, other) 'groups' made up 6.8 per cent of the population; black groups 3.4 per cent; Chinese groups 0.7 cent, Arab groups 0.4 per cent and other groups 0.6 per cent.

      Note that outside London, Birmingham, Manchester even moreso.


      ditto, actually want to stay away from the royals story but I couldn't help noticing this article which I posted on the world news thread in mid Feb. being tweeted again more than a couple times in response just because I remembered the photo

      got plenty of this in my own family, ya know


      oh wait, I forgot I did notice this one related tweet which I didn't get right away, but then I did--going oh that's about the interview and he's thinking The British Twitter just waking is gonna back the royals picking on the American girl--I bookmarked it because I thought it way funny, never saw it before:

      He doesn't get British Twitter tho, in my experience they don't do stories on the royals either. wink


      and whaddya know, here's Dr. Adekoya himself, actual author of the book Biracial Britain: A Different Way of Looking at Race, a Brit with half Polish and half Nigerian heritage, tweeting in my feed that he


      speaking of tiresome I do happen to know that what is really tiresome to many people of many hispanic backgrounds in the Bronx and surrounding areas is being called Latinx, if you could inform your woke friends that would be nice. Puerto Ricans and Dominican-Americans especially seem to dislike it for some reason, seem to favor the strange label "American." 


      Meanwhile, speaking of chosen identity, in the real American world as opposed to online-which to most Americans means "sports" cheeky- I was vey interested to see that the NBA Allstar MVP for the second time in a row is a Nigerian-Greek who had to earn the right to Greek citizenship after being born of poor struggling Nigerian immigrants in Greece, and seems to want to keep it that way, shows little interest in becoming an American citizen, even tho bringing family to live in Milwaukee with him:

      Giannis Antetokounmpo makes all 16 of his shots, wins NBA All-Star Game Most Valuable Player https://t.co/5aqRosrk6e

      — Journal Sentinel (@journalsentinel) March 8, 2021

       


      Wait,i don't have that on my bingo card... Spell it again for me?


      more on the woke influencing education


      From the brochure, there are three founders and four people on the board of directors.

      It does not look like they have many schools as partners.

      https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf

      It looks like the business model is selling modules

      https://www.unitedwaygreaternashville.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/RTS_VidCon_Session_1._Dismantling_School_to_Prison_Nexus_Webinar_.pdf


      Looks like u didn't see the full list of partners, (extensive, incl a Bill & Melinda Gates grant) on the About page.

      https://equitablemath.org/#about


      I was talking about school partners

      As I said, they are selling packets to budget strapped school systems 

      How many schools are adopting the program?

      A million years ago, a school system in California was teaching Ebonics.

      Ebonics was supposed to be the end of education as we know it.

      School systems do not hand out textbooks on Ebonics.

      Look under the bed, it's the Woke

      Be very scared.

      Edit to add:

      There is a brochure from California 

      There is a grant for STEM programs aimed at minority youth in Philly

      https://www.phillymag.com/healthcare-news/2020/08/13/glaxosmithkline-stem-opportunities-program/

      Bet I can find more STEM programs than McWhorter can of "Woke" math aimed at minority youth


      Are you Elmer FUD?


      I just point out that McWhorter wants me to be afraid of some obscure "Woke" math program

      There are multiple programs aimed at STEM education for minority communities.

      The furor about "Woke" math is a rehash of the nonsense about Ebonics

      "Woke" is attached to the nonsense to scare people.

      Tell me why you think the brochure is more powerful than the STEM programs.


      let's cut to the chase where I am at on this, same as here:

      It's not "scary" to white people, it's racist and insulting to people of color. I repeat: racist and insulting.



      Nice find for this thread, especially re: I grew up in Dyckman. 

      That's just south of my hood, basically the heart of the little Dominican Republic. Dyckman St. itself is all commercial, very busy before pandemic with like triple parking, blocks and blocks of small stores with worn floors, inexpensive offerings serving blocks and blocks of crammed apartment buildings. That's where it was reported that during the worst nights of BLM-related looting in the middle of Manhattan, business owners formed a brigade of baseball-bat wielding defenders. They are very pro-police. (They also love baseball, of course...the business owners fund all the little league teams, they also have a very fancy Little League baseball field with elaborate lighting for night games. Which is not far from the 50th precinct station near my house, which of course supports the Little Leagues...)

      Edit to add: the Harvard elite reference is also very apt. The BLM protest organizers were mostly elite educateds from Brooklyn and hipster Manhattan, many of them white.(Not the same as the opportunistslooters, who came out late at night, taking advantage of the overworked police force also devastated by covid) Now scroll back to the political postcard I posted at the top of this thread. Worked his way up tio being a professional in TV & film production. It's not that these people don't know what the elites are like, they know them, they may work with them BUT they don't like their whole attitude to life.


      p.s. there was no looting (and no protests either) on Dyckman St., BTW. All the looting in the Bronx took place farther south in the Fordham shopping area, closer to the south Bronx.

      And got me thinking again about Dominican culture in the old country--there you get security for your family if you have money, and not if you don't. And they know all about preferences by shade of skin-color, they know about that to the max. The ones that emigrate here don't seem to favor either of those situations.


      I saw what you did there (i.e., Loony Tunes) cheeky


      It really Bugs me, all this Daffy talk.


      More on maths. Personally, I would like to hear Andrew Yang's answer to the question below, as he is running for NYC mayor and also our new school chancellor who has been rumored to be pro Critical Race Theory curricula

      not that I have kids, but I do have to pay ever rising property taxes to help pay for everyone else's to be educated



      Why Democrats Are Losing Non-White Voters Politics – and our political assumptions – are changing, from Britain to America

      Includes intriguing comparison with Labour Party and minority vote across the pond at the end. My underlining of what I think are well-said points.

      By Faisal Al Yafai @ Newslines Magazine, March 8. Faisal Al Yafai is the executive editor of Newlines

      [....] Glance across the Atlantic: The experience of white, working-class communities in the United Kingdom with Brexit shows that even voting blocs that have endured for decades can be broken apart. It just takes the right issue.

      The idea that voters of color could really desert the Democrats might seem extraordinary. The two major non-white groups in the United States, Black people and Hispanic/Latinos, overwhelmingly voted for Biden; in the case of Black people, 87%, in the case of Latinos, 65%. (“Hispanic” and “Latino” are contested terms, and polling companies often use them interchangeably.)

      That the Republican Party could completely peel away such support is fanciful. Certainly, in the case of Black voters that would appear impossible: Would the Black community really turn its back on the party that gave the country the first Black president and may well field a Black female presidential candidate in four years?

      But voting blocs can fragment. Peeling away an entire voting bloc may be difficult, but splintering one may be possible. Of course, individuals will often vote based on their personal circumstances, and successful Black doctors or Hispanic entrepreneurs may well hesitate over the Democrat box if it meant higher taxes on their wealth.

      But wider voting blocs can also fragment, depending on which part of their identity the group ranks higher at a particular point or which aspect of the candidate’s record is highlighted. Black voters, for example, may well have been pleased to see Biden continue President Barack Obama’s legacy – but in a different political context, they might have focused more on Biden’s own legacy of supporting tough criminal justice legislation in the 1990s, which fell disproportionately on communities of color.

      The fragmentation could also come over which political values are emphasized and whom the Democratic Party is perceived to be for because a lot of Black and Hispanic voters who vote Democratic don’t automatically see themselves as liberal.

      An intriguing survey of Pew Research Center data published at the start of 2020, but based on surveys in 2019, found that more Black Democratic voters called themselves moderate (43%) or conservative (25%), than liberal (29%). It was similar among Hispanic Democratic voters: More described themselves as moderate (38%) or conservative (22%) than liberal (37%). (The ratio was flipped for white Democratic voters: There a majority (55%) called themselves liberal.)

      What does that mean? Taken together, it means that the majority of Black and Hispanic voters who voted for the main liberal party do.n’t even see themselves as liberal. It means they are voting for the Democratic Party for reasons other than its perceived liberalism

      Perhaps the starkest example of these shifting demographics was the change in the Latino vote for Trump. Yes, Biden took the majority of that vote – but almost exactly a third, 32% according to the New York Times’ exit poll, went to Trump. The numbers fall differently depending on the pollsters, but the overall conclusion is stark: Not only did a third of Latinos vote for Donald Trump – but more Latinos, after four years of his presidency, voted for him in 2020 than in 2016.

      In seeking to explain this, Geraldo L. Cadava, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote in The Atlantic after the election that “Trump understood what motivated his Latino supporters – economic individualism, religious liberty, and law and order – and he made sure they knew he did.”

      On many significant topics, the Republicans speak the language of voters of color better than the Democrats.

      This is what Democrats should be most afraid of. Far from voters of color having no home in the Republican Party, in fact on many significant topics, the Republicans speak the language of voters of color better than the Democrats: on family, faith, and law and order; on individual responsibility; on small government.

      These are political topics that Republicans are currently associated with – and they are topics that matter a great deal to many communities of color, especially immigrant communities.

      There are many millions of Arabs, Africans, and Asians who immigrated to America for whom family is at the core of their identity; many Christians and Muslims from immigrant backgrounds would consider their faith an essential identity.

      Individual responsibility – that most unalluring of political subjects – matters a great deal to those who left their own countries behind, came with very little, and worked hard to get an education and a career or a business. These issues should not be underestimated, and Democrats should be wary of leaving the field clear to Republicans – even if, as seems likely for the foreseeable future, the opposition party appears mainly focused on arguing among itself.

      Even terms such as socialism can be weaponized, appealing to one demographic but repulsing another. For many young, white liberals in the U.S., socialism is not associated with the authoritarianism of the Cold War era but with Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, giving workers a greater stake in their companies, fighting for a Green New Deal, and creating a fairer society.

      But for people who have lived in socialist countries, socialism means something different. There were actual socialist governments in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Arab world. Many of those who fled those governments came to the United States. They remember the sharp end of socialism: the queues and bureaucracy, the confiscation of their businesses, having the schools of their children decided for them. Most of them have no wish to return to socialism, however agreeable the messenger, however embellished and adorned the policies.

      Liberals who don’t believe such a political pole reversal could happen among voters of color need only glance across the Atlantic to the experience of socially conservative, white, working-class voters in the U.K., especially in England. This is a political bloc that for decades voted staunchly in favor of one political party – until they didn’t.

      In 2019, the Conservative government won a resounding victory, in large part by taking seats from Labour across its “red wall.” (The color of the Labour Party’s logo is red.) These were solidly Labour-voting seats in the Midlands and the north of England, mainly, though not exclusively, working-class communities that had rarely or never in their history voted for a Conservative government. And yet they flipped – and flipped so comprehensively that just a year later a study by the Labour Party into those seats it lost concluded they may have been “lost for good.”

      What changed? Inevitably, many things. But while there was a “long retreat” over many years in those seats from the Labour Party, the final straw was an issue that came out of the blue: Brexit, the departure of the U.K. from the European Union. That was one specific issue, but for voters in these seats it crystallized many of their concerns and fears over many years.

      In northern seats, there was a sense that the Labour Party was too London-centric, too concerned with the issues of the metropolis in the south, too little connected to the values of family, patriotism, and aspiration – issues that these northern voters cared about and which coalesced around the topic of Brexit. Suddenly, a vote for that party, long thought inevitable, became impossible.

      Can the Democrats hope a similar issue won’t appear? That a similar “long retreat” from communities of color might not one day – suddenly – become apparent? That the issues on which left-wing Democrats are most vulnerable – faith, the military, and a sense that some in the party value questions of identity over hard questions of the economy – might not one day crystallize, and the party’s own “red wall” made up of communities of color might not crumble? That the Republicans – whisper it – won’t one day stop talking about race?

      Such hope would be profoundly dangerous. The Republicans are now locked into a narrow conversation. But one day, the party will no longer be a mere vehicle for Donald Trump. It could reemerge as a dynamic, modern party that speaks to young people and communities of color. On that day, the political consensus might be overturned, as it was in the U.K. by Brexit, and a Republican wave might punch holes in the Democrats’ own “red wall.”

       


      from my police precinct's twitter feed:


      A Morgan Stanley ad I just ran across. Just because: it's the kind of stuff I see all the time:


      RECENT dramatic drop in male college enrollment noted by female scholar with 3 sons:

      I know there's pressure not to care about this publicly but it matters a lot. https://t.co/hxjN7kQIB8

      — Erika Sanzi (@esanzi) March 12, 2021

      It's long been clear that the psychology of women is more suited for our education process than males. Whether it's cultural or genetic is debatable. It was inevitable that when the doors were opened for women they would make up a majority of admissions and degrees. A significant minority of men are distinctly not suited for our education process and when seeing other options the spike in enrollment is subsiding somewhat.


      Could you elaborate?

      I'd say delayed marriage/birthing is heavily tied to increased female enrollment (both ways). It may be that colleges once "boys club" no longer stoke the male ego, but I'd say it's more likely that guy's continue to be the primary earner, and when wages and jobs are poor, male enrollment will suffer, especially with soaring tuition either discouraging college or loading it up as a loan-indebted nightmare.

      I'm still surprised there's been little innovation in education, though Covid has given a boost to remote learning, but aside from using a laptop to read and write papers, it's still pretty much sit-in-your-chair and absorb like at the start of the industrial revolution 200 years ago. Compare this with peak sports or adrenalin sports performance and diversity since 1930. Instead of boosting quality and efficiency, it's all been boosting the participation rate, with little thought of tailoring and micro-targeting that we see in other endeavours. How many types of cereal, but 1 freshman econ class - read these 2-3 books and spit the info back at at me.


       it's still pretty much sit-in-your-chair and absorb like at the start of the industrial revolution 200 years ago. 

      Yes, that's why I said our education process. There have been many articles about making learning more boy friendly. But I've read dozens of articles over the years that as early as elementary school girls fit into that system better than boys. That may be cultural in that girls are trained to be more cooperative and docile or it may be "testosterone" (kinda a general term used in every context to denote male aggressiveness.) Males on the lower end of the bell curve for patience and concentration on reading materials can be motivated by future prospects to enter a system that's not a natural fit but when seeing peers making good money as plumbers, construction etc. they're more likely to choose the more hands on fields.


      But that's largely the jobs available, no? Wasn't long ago the Fields of Eton trained you to maraud across Asia or dig through the African brush, or even take on the French army and save Europe. Now it's all real estate and travel vouchers and legaltech. I mean, i can't even remember the last time I gutted an opponent in mortal combat. It's all for wussies now.


      But that's largely the jobs available, no? Wasn't long ago the Fields of Eton trained you to maraud across Asia or dig through the African brush, or even take on the French army and save Europe. Now it's all real estate and travel vouchers and legaltech. I mean, i can't even remember the last time I gutted an opponent in mortal combat. It's all for wussies now.


       


      Democrats Are Anxious About 2022 — and 2024 The fretting starts with the party’s declining share of the Hispanic vote, but it doesn’t end there. IMPORTANT RELATED ARTICLE COPIED IN FULL FOR FAIR USE PERSONAL RESEARCH

      By Thomas B. Edsall @ NYTimes.com, March 10

      In the wake of the 2020 election, Democratic strategists are worried — very worried — about the future of the Hispanic vote. One in 10 Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 switched to Donald Trump in 2020.

      Although the Hispanic electorate is often treated as a bloc, it is by no means a monolith. It is, in fact, impossible to speak of “the Hispanic vote” — in practice it is variegated by region, by country of origin, by ideology, by how many generations have lived in the United States, by depth of religiosity (and increasingly denomination), as well as a host of other factors.

      From 1970 to 2019, the number of Latinos in the United States increased from 9.6 million to 60.6 million, according to Pew Research. The number is projected by the census to reach 111.2 million, or 28 percent of the nation’s population, by 2060.

      Public Opinion Strategies, which conducts surveys for NBC News/Wall Street Journal, provided me with data on presidential voting from 2012 to 2020 that show significant Republican gains among the roughly 30 percent of Black and Hispanic voters who self-identify as conservative.

      From 2012 to 2020, Black conservatives shifted from voting 88-7 for the Democratic candidate to 76-17. Black conservative allegiance to the Democratic Party fell by less, from 75 percent Democratic, 9 percent Republican to 71 percent Democratic, 16 percent Republican.

      The changes in voting and partisan allegiance, however, were significantly larger for self-identified Hispanic conservatives. Their presidential vote went from 49-39 Democratic in 2012 to 67-27 Republican in 2020. Their partisan allegiance over the same period went from 50-37 Democratic to 59-22 Republican.

      The 2020 expansion of Republican voting among Hispanics and Asian-Americans — and to a lesser extent among African-Americans — deeply concerns the politicians and strategists seeking to maintain Democratic control of the House and Senate in 2022, not the mention the White House in 2024.

      The defection of Hispanic voters, together with an approximately 3 point drop in Black support for Joe Biden compared with Hillary Clinton, threatens a pillar of Democratic competitive strength, especially among Black men: sustained high margins of victory among minority voters whose share of the population is enlarging steadily.

      The increased level of support for the Republican Party among minority voters has raised the possibility that the cultural agenda pressed by another expanding and influential Democratic constituency — well-educated, young activists with strongly progressive views — is at loggerheads with the socially conservative beliefs of many older minority voters — although liberal economic policies remain popular with both cohorts. This social and cultural mismatch, according to some observers, is driving a number of minority voters into the opposition party.

      Joshua Estevan Ulibarri, a partner in the Democratic polling firm, Lake Research, argues that a substantial number of Latinos do not view themselves as people of color, reject a political alliance based on that bond and “want to be seen as white or as part of the mainstream.”

      Ulibarri emailed me to say that he believes that “Hispanics see what white America has done to Black America, and the backlash leads to more G.O.P. votes.”

      In shifting their vote from Democratic to Republican, Ulibarri contends, “it is not just partisan identity they are shedding, but also some racial identity as well.” In the past, “they may have been conservative and Latino, but you were Latino first and the way you were treated as a group and discriminated against trumped some ideology. Now, less so.”

      The Democratic Party, Ulibarri said, is responsible in part for the losses it has suffered:

      It is not just conservative men who have drifted away from Democrats. More and more younger people are identifying less with my party not because they are Republican or conservative, but because Democrats do not keep their word; Democrats are weak. And who wants to align with the weak?

      Ian F. Haney López, a law professor at Berkeley, who wrote about the danger to the Democrats of Hispanic defections in a September 2020 Times oped, expanded his argument in an email on the Lake Research study of Hispanic voters, which found most Latinos fell into three categories.

      The first, roughly a quarter of the Hispanic population, is made up of those who self-identify as people of color, according to the study, “as a group that, like African Americans, remains distinct over generations.”

      The second, roughly a third, are Hispanics who see themselves “as a group that, like European Americans, over generations become part of the American mainstream.” By a margin of 38-14, “this cohort is almost three times as likely to believe that ‘people of color who cannot get ahead are mostly responsible for their own situations,’ ” according to the report.

      The third Hispanic constituency, nearly three in ten, is made up of “bootstrappers” who “perceive Hispanics, not primarily as people of color or as white ethnics, but as a group that ‘over generations can get ahead through hard work.’ ” These voters tend to be “slightly more conservative regarding race, class, and government, and are the most likely to be Republican.”

      The Lake Research survey produced an unexpected result: Latinos were more sympathetic than either white or Black voters to Republican “dog whistle” messages.

      The dog whistle messages tested by Lake Research included:

      Taking a second look at illegal immigration from places overrun with drugs and criminal gangs, is just common sense. And so is fully funding the police, so our communities are not threatened by people who refuse to follow our laws.

      And

      We need to make sure we take care of our own people first, especially the people who politicians have cast aside for too long to cater to whatever special interest groups yell the loudest or riot in the street.

      The receptivity of Hispanics to such messages led Haney-López to conclude that “those Latinos most likely to vote Republican do so for racial reasons.”

      What matters most, Haney-López continued, “is susceptibility to Republican ‘dog whistle’ racial frames that trumpet the threat from illegal aliens, rapists, rioters and terrorists.”

      Julie Wronski, a political scientist at the University of Mississippi, offered a distinct but similar explanation for the increased Hispanic support for Republicans.

      “What may be changing is how certain ethnic and nationality groups within Hispanics perceive themselves with regards to their racial and ideological identities,” she wrote by email:

      If Latinos perceive themselves more as white than as a person of color, then they will react to messages about racial injustice and defunding the police as whites do — by using their ideological identity rather than racial identity to shape support.

      Wronski reports that

      there is also a burgeoning line of research on the role of skin tone among non-Whites. Nonwhites who perceive themselves as having lighter skin tone feel closer to whites and tend to be more conservative than their darker-skinned peers.

      Wronski made the case that conservative Hispanics who voted Republican in 2020 are not permanently lost to the Democratic Party:

      Identifying as a conservative and supporting conservative policy positions are not the same thing. This is especially true for economic issues, such as unemployment benefits and minimum wage. If you know that a group of Latinos tend to be symbolically conservative and economically liberal, then you can make appeals to them on the shared economic liberalism basis and avoid pointing out diverging views on social issues.

      Marc Farinella, a former Democratic consultant who helped run many statewide campaigns in the Midwest and is now at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, wrote in response to my inquiry that the fraying of Hispanic support is emblematic of a larger problem confronting Democrats:

      American politics in recent decades has become increasingly democratized. Historically-marginalized groups have been brought into the political process, and this, of course, improves representation. But democratization has also, for better or for worse, been highly disruptive to our two-party system.

      Traditionally, “party leaders tend to support centrist polices and candidates; they are, after all, in the business of winning general elections,” he continued:

      However, the ability of party leaders to set the party’s priorities and define its values has been eroded. They must now compete with activist factions that have been empowered by digital technologies that have greatly amplified their messaging.

      As a result, Farinella wrote,

      It’s now less clear to general election voters precisely what are the Democratic Party’s values and priorities. Last year, Republicans succeeded in exploiting this ambiguity by insisting that the messaging of certain leftist activist factions was an accurate reflection of the Party’s policy positions and, by and large, the policy positions of most Democratic candidates. As far left activists compete with Democratic Party leaders to define party values and messaging, the centrist voters needed to achieve a durable majority will remain wary about Democratic desires for dominance.

      On the other hand, according to Farinella, “the lunacy currently underway within the Republican Party” could prove to be the Democratic Party’s ace in the hole:

      A party that demands fealty to a single demagogic politician, condones or even embraces loopy conspiracy theories, recklessly undermines crucial democratic norms and institutions, and believes the best way to improve its electoral prospects is by making it more difficult to vote is not a party destined for long-term success. If the Republican Party continues on its current path, center-right voters might decide that their only real options are to vote Democratic or stay home.

      Farinella acknowledged that “this might just be wishful thinking.”

      Ryan Enos, a professor of government at Harvard, is concerned that liberal elites may threaten the vulnerable Democratic coalition:

      The question for parties is whether members of their coalition are a liability because they repel other voters from the coalition. For Democrats, this may increasingly be the case with college-educated whites. They are increasingly concentrated into large cities, which mitigates their electoral impact, and they dominate certain institutions, such as universities and the media.The views emanating from these cities and institutions are out of step with a large portion of the electorate.

      Many of these well-educated urban whites don’t “seem to appreciate the urgency of the struggles of middle and low-income Americans,” Enos continued:

      Most of them support, in theory, economically progressive agendas like minimum wage increases and affordable housing, but they don’t approach these issues with any urgency — even Covid relief and environmental protection take a back seat to a progressive agenda focused on social issues.

      Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, whose firm, North Star Opinion Research, has studied Hispanic partisan allegiance, wrote in an email that Latinos are far more flexible in their voting than African-Americans:

      As a general rule, about 50 percent of Hispanics vote fairly consistently for Democrats, 25 percent vote for Republicans and the remaining 25 percent are up for grabs.

      In the Latino electorate, Ayres said, “many are sensitive to charges of socialism because of their country of origin. Many are sensitive to law-and-order issues. And many are cultural conservatives, as Reagan argued years ago.”

      As a result, Ayres continued,

      When white liberal Democrats start talking about defunding the police, the Green New Deal and promoting policies that can be described as socialistic, they repel a lot of Hispanic voters. In other words, most Hispanics, like most African-Americans, are not ideological liberals.

      The current level of concern has been sharply elevated by a series of widely publicized interviews with David Shor, a 29-year-old Democratic data scientist whose analyses have captured the attention of Democratic elites.

      In brief, Shor makes the case that well-educated largely white liberals on the left wing of the party have pushed an agenda — from “socialism” to “defund the police” — far outside the mainstream, driving conservative and centrist minority voters into the arms of the opposition.

      In the summer of 2020, Shor told New York magazine,

      following the emergence of “defund the police” as a nationally salient issue, support for Biden among Hispanic voters declined. We raised the salience of an ideologically charged issue that millions of nonwhite voters disagreed with us on. And then, as a result, these conservative Hispanic voters who’d been voting for us despite their ideological inclinations started voting more like conservative whites.

      In Shor’s analysis:

      As Democrats have traded non-college-educated voters for college-educated ones, white liberals’ share of voice and clout in the Democratic Party has gone up. And since white voters are sorting on ideology more than nonwhite voters, we’ve ended up in a situation where white liberals are more left wing than Black and Hispanic Democrats on pretty much every issue: taxes, health care, policing, and even on racial issues or various measures of ‘racial resentment.’ So as white liberals increasingly define the party’s image and messaging, that’s going to turn off nonwhite conservative Democrats and push them against us.

      In an interview March 3, also with New York magazine, Shor noted that “I don’t think a lot of people expected Donald Trump’s G.O.P. to have a much more diverse support base than Mitt Romney’s did in 2012. But that’s what happened.”

      Robert M. Stein, a political scientist at Rice, argued that the 2020 shift to the right among Hispanic voters was driven more by a surge of new voters than by increased ideological voting. Stein wrote by email:

      Accompanying the Hispanic shift to Trump and the Republican Party was an increase in Hispanic voter turnout in Texas and in other states with significant Hispanic populations i.e., Florida, Arizona and New Mexico. There is evidence, at least in Texas that a significant portion of new Hispanic voters over 2016 occurred among registered Hispanic male voters over 45 who had not voted in 2016 and 2018. Moreover, it was these older male Hispanics who voted for Trump and down ballot Republicans at significantly greater proportions than all other Hispanics.

      These new voters

      remembered how strong the economy was before Covid-19 and associated Trump’s candidacy and re-election with a return to a strong economy and their own economic prosperity. Evaluating these new older Hispanic voters through the prism of ideology or even race may be premature or simply wrong.

      Bruce Cain, a political scientist at Stanford, replied to my query by pointing to developments over the long term:

      We have known for decades about the social conservatism of Black voters (e.g., they voted against gay marriage when it was on the California ballot) and Latinos (e.g., they voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger in the recall election even though Cruz Bustamante was on the ballot). What has changed is that the Democrats have become the secular party since Jimmy Carter and the Republicans the religious party. Nonwhite social conservatism kicks in with LGBTQ, transgender bathroom issues and the like.

      What is newer, Cain continued, “is the rise of Antifa and the boldness of progressivism.” Cain pointed out that

      Now we have Democratic candidates calling themselves democratic socialists, a term which I doubt any but a few voters could define. In addition, the progressive wing has put forward proposals for expansions of spending and government for Medicare for all, free tuition for college, new forms of political correctness and the like, and eagerly embrace unworkable ideas like defund the police.

      The real point, Cain concluded, “is that Democrats set themselves up for losses if they do not pay attention to the realities of public opinion.”

      I asked a top Democratic strategist — who declined to speak for attribution at the request of his employer — about the argument that as “white liberals increasingly define the party’s image and messaging, that’s going to turn off nonwhite conservative Democrats and push them against us.”

      The strategist contends that the argument that “Democrats are alienating voters with their cultural liberalism” is off base. Shor and others, he says,

      take for granted that the defecting voters are getting their view of the Democrats from Twitter. In fact, they aren’t. If you look at Democratic advertising in 2020, for example, you’ll see that the overwhelming proportion of Democratic ad spending was not about culturally left issues, and neither Biden nor most congressional or senate candidates ran that way. What’s true is that Fox et al and G.O.P. advertising consists almost entirely of attacking Democrats for being culturally liberal and out of touch or advocating socialism.

      His point is well-taken, but that may not matter. Conservative attacks claiming that the Democratic Party has become the home of out-of-control leftists would not work if the party were not in some way susceptible to such critiques.

      More important, insofar as the Republican Party is successful in using this critique to peel away minority voters from the Democratic Party, the more Republicans will claim that their party is not just the party of the white working class but that it is the party of a multiracial working class — despite an economic record that resoundingly refutes any such notion.

      If such a claim nonetheless gains traction, it will devalue a core, if long distressed, Democratic asset: that it stands for American workers and against their bosses. That image has taken a beating in recent decades, but still resonates among many voters, as reflected in polling that continues to show a Democratic advantage on such questions as “which party better represents people like me.”

      In most places, the decline in Democratic support from minority constituencies in 2020 was more than made up by Democratic gains among white voters, especially college-educated whites of both sexes and, more surprisingly, among non-college white men.

      Brookings analysis conducted by William Frey, a senior fellow there, showed that Biden won a smaller percentage of minority voters in the key states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 when she lost all three.

      Despite this drop in minority support, Biden carried all three states with gains among white voters.

      Can Democrats count on a continued increase in support from white voters without Trump on the ballot (or with him on it, if he runs in 2024)? It’s hard to say, but Democratic strategists certainly don’t want to find themselves having to rely on it.


      Moving to friendlier environs in elite tony liberal uptown Manhattan, leftists protest Chuck Schumer's "criminalization of immigrants" in front of his apt. building:


      cross-link to related news thread WHY THE GOP'S CANCEL CULTURE PITCH IS GOOD POLITICS

      By artappraiser on Sat, 03/13/2021 - 5:36pm | Analysis by Harry Enten @ CNN.com, March 13


      from a Bronx educator who promotes the hashtag #hispanicsforeducation:


      So 1 program run badly (20% black students=>2.73% participation) means *all* programs a waste of time?

      People will game systems - here employees rigged slots for their kids, surprise. Policing is needed in all facets of life - welcome to reality.


      the problem: Dem party associated with anti-anti-rioting and undisciplined BLM types


      Hooters Girl feminist? Do we even know what we're saying? Here's a *lawyer* describing working in a titty bar in the most obvious but somehow shocked way? Like duh, you were there to be ogled and you paid your way through law school. Meanwhile immigrant families prolly don't usually fit the job description. Still, kind of misidentified outrage.

      https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_604f7574c5b65bed87dca906


      all I got to say is that I am pretty sure that had CardiB had been a Hooters Girl, she would not be ashamed of it.


      OMG, i see a 50s style diner with Wet Ass Pussy hostesses on roller skates bringing me my plate of Big Boy onion rings. I'm pretty sure the horror goes on for 6 minutes in extended mix. The funny thing is i should be indulging these quasi-fem statements if self-fulfillment while doing penance for my male gaze and exploitive white male privilege at the same time, while you just have to look on in amazement thinking "these bitchez be kray-kray" or however you might (more elegantly no doubt) put it.


      "Angry sinks" - actually a pretty crappy list of "what amazes foreigners about America", but worth considering "what *does* amaze these Ecuadorans and others coming here?" (think in terms of housing, fees, kids, police, work, safety, pollution,  vacation/leisure,  marketing, technology, transportation, food...)

      And what parts have changed in 20, 40, 60 years?

      https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/michelleno/american-things-that-might-s...


      I'd be willing to bet we elite types underestimate the appeal of the aisle of  dry cereal. Most people love cereal (and yes with cold milk, hence the gallons) as an all day snack. That Brit should consider how porridge and bangers really never took off the same way



      In NYC there is a lot of this curriculum already, but a new schools Chancellor is also expected to amp it way up and also go for stripping as many other merit-based criteria as possible


      hope for an anti-tribal future:


      res ipsa loquitor, parents don't want their kids ending up like this, especially immigrants, they came here to become Americans:

      #HolaPapi: “My dad was Latino, and my mom is white. I feel lost, like I’m neither — not in one camp or the other or even both. Papi, I’m not sure what my question is, and I’m sorry about that. It seems desperate, doesn’t it?” @jpbrammer responds https://t.co/JSYFTGv641

      — The Cut (@TheCut) March 20, 2021

       


      2006: 

      [.....] As survey after survey has shown, Americans are very reluctant to identify themselves as belonging to the lower class and even more reluctant to identify themselves as belonging to the upper class. The class we like is the middle class.

      But the fact that we all like to think of ourselves as belonging to the same class doesn't, of course, mean that we actually do belong to the same class. In reality, we obviously and increasingly don't. “The last few decades,” as The Economist puts it, “have seen a huge increase in inequality in America.” The rich are different from you and me, and one of the ways they're different is that they're getting richer and we're not. And while it's not surprising that most of the rich and their apologists on the intellectual right are unperturbed by this development, it is at least a little surprising that the intellectual left has managed to remain almost equally unperturbed. Giving priority to issues like affirmative action and committing itself to the celebration of difference, the intellectual left has responded to the increase in economic inequality by insisting on the importance of cultural identity. So for 30 years, while the gap between the rich and the poor has grown larger, we've been urged to respect people's identities -- as if the problem of poverty would be solved if we just appreciated the poor. From the economic standpoint, however, what poor people want is not to contribute to diversity but to minimize their contribution to it -- they want to stop being poor. Celebrating the diversity of American life has become the American left's way of accepting their poverty, of accepting inequality [....]

      from

      We were having some of the same arguments 15 years ago, though which institutions would take which positions was different then. https://t.co/KAuKWSSboB

      — Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) March 25, 2021

      So for 45 years this has been going on, starting in universities. What good was accomplished?

      It's a surprise that some people of color decide after 4 years of Trump that they want to get prosperous instead of continuing as a poor pet identity of the elite left?


      related, I think:



      A bit odd to me, as it seems by 2021 we should be trying to do more individualized learning - some people more adapted to generalized learning, some more specialized (whether "vocational" - a somewhat pejorative term - or more of a higher calling), and just find people's sweet spots - even the demand that all 18-year-olds go to college it they're intelligent begs the question, "why exactly?" depending on what their other options are (many with programming enthusiasm would do as well programming for cash, & then learning theory when they're a bit more experienced. Those in health certainly have some thinking to do at this point. Etc. etc. But the idea of shooting down people doing too well is pretty much anathema to the concept of education. Icarus flew too high in Advanced Calculus, now he's back in remedial ethnic know-your-place class?


      a merit-based system certainly helps someone like this guy


      It is a simple fact that some children are more intelligent than other children. We can debate how much of that is genetics, nurture, or a personality more capable of fitting into our education systems but what ever the reasons some children advance more quickly. I remember learning to read and taking to it immediately and falling in love with it. As I sat in reading circles in first grade I was so bored with how slow the other children read and so interested in the story I began reading 2, then 5, then 10, then 20 pages ahead so that when it came to my turn to read out loud I had no idea where in the book we were. I began to divide my time reading ahead while trying to keep track of where the rest of the class was in the book. This is emblematic of my entire school experience. I spent most of my class time in higher mathematics, from geometry on, teaching my classmates the concepts they had difficulty grasping that I understood immediately.

      I'm not trying to brag as I'm sure most of us had similar experiences. We dagbloggers are significantly above the mean in intelligence and in the knowledge we've acquired by using that intelligence. It's not polite to say that and liberals especially keep trying to find other excuses to explain it away rather than face/admit the reality. Some people are more intelligent than other people and it's usually apparent at a very young age. Educators have spent significant time trying to understand why some are slower than others and trying to come up with systems to move then ahead more quickly, mostly without success. But holding back those who learn more quickly and leaving them bored in the classroom isn't going to make the slower students any better. Education dollars always tend to be insufficient but surely some of those funds can be spent on helping the fastest learning students move ahead at the speed they're capable of and not just on helping the slowest students keep from falling too far behind.


      There's a book "The Goal" on scheduling & optimization (theory of constraints, making factories and people flow more seamlessly.
      One memorable analogy is that of boy scout troop on a walk - counterintuitively putting the slow one at the front rather than the back helps cohesion and overall time (the long frequent "come on, catch up!" actually has a worse effect on the whole queue). In the particular application, *slowing down* the line can improve speed rather than fixing bottlenecks one after the other that just make the jams move further downstream.
      So is education for a *collective societal goal*, or an *individualistic self-fulfillment* purpose? Or to certain degrees and percents both?


      forgive the simplistic woke fighters for equity, they know not what they do:



      quote of interest in this commercial: I don't believe in cutting people slack; you should work for everything you get.




      I can't imagine anyone in the Bronx liking that this being taught to children:

      It's strictly Manhattan stuff.


      Williams is always so cynical. I'm sure there will be plenty of times on the show that Elmo talks to white puppets about how important it is to be white too.


      I'm worried for woke Marxist liberals - is Stalin still good, or has he become white privileged?

       



      WORK hard and have kids climb the ladder; some still believe:

      My mom sent me this video today. She’s the one in red sealing the lettuce bags. She has been doing this job for 46 years. This job has fed me, clothe me, and supported me. And now, I’m only a few weeks from graduating law school. Forever grateful for my momma. #CesarChavezDay pic.twitter.com/gv64xk3UcO

      — valley girl (@nathaliemarl) April 1, 2021

      Obi Okereke had his employer split his paycheck and deposit only 20% into an account he could spend from. At 24, he’s built a $100,000 net worth using this savings hack. https://t.co/hNiemzEYcW BusinessInsider

      — Dr. Joseph Frusci (@JFrusci) April 2, 2021

      excerpt, an alternative to rapper values: 

      [...[ While he's been investing for several years, it hasn't always been his priority. However, an experience buying a car — an item that generally loses value over time — made him re-think his priorities.

      "In college, I didn't go out a lot. I spent most of my time at home or at the library, and I didn't eat out much. I was saving a lot of my income, and I ended up buying a Mercedes. That depleted some of my savings," he said. 

      The experience taught him just how powerful money can be when put to work instead of spent. "I've learned that it's usually not worth splurging and buying things that you really want in the moment, but more so about thinking long-term," he told Insider.

      Over time, he's found investing to be more rewarding than spending, and he's since started teaching others his age the same principles on his website College Money Habits [....]


      horrific NYC schools stats for education of poor minorities and immigrants:

      Pretty damn sad that this is a recurring theme in blue cities. NYC suffering from exact same idiocy as well. Where is the outcry on the dismal academic outcomes?? But nooo....let’s focus on killing off the schools that work and dumbing down our future workforce https://t.co/HMpdBEUzxj

      — Mimi Reyes (@mimiko_reyes) April 1, 2021


      victimhood, clearly not this guy's thing: ...Approach Partnership as an Owner Not as an Employee...



      she has been subjected to "racist attacks"


      wishing not to become SF:



      Latest Comments