Mickey Kaus has a masterful debunk of this bunk-filled article in the Washington Post on the trials and tribulations of the black middle class.
Previous Entry: Affirmative Mismatch
Next Entry: Where There’s Fire There’s … A Quota?
Mickey Kaus has a masterful debunk of this bunk-filled article in the Washington Post on the trials and tribulations of the black middle class.
Rip & Read Blog Podcast for December 21, 2004
Here’s what I Ripped & Read today:
Liberal Media Alert
John at Discriminations points to a post by Mickey Kaus, who read the Washington Post yesterday and had this to say about it:
Let’s see:
Rip & Read Blog Podcast for December 21, 2004
Here’s what I Ripped & Read today:
Liberal Media Alert
John at Discriminations points to a post by Mickey Kaus, who read the Washington Post yesterday and had this to say about it:
Let’s see:
Rip & Read Blog Podcast for December 21, 2004
Here’s what I Ripped & Read today:
Liberal Media Alert
John at Discriminations points to a post by Mickey Kaus, who read the Washington Post yesterday and had this to say about it:
Let’s see:
Rip & Read Blog Podcast for December 21, 2004
Here’s what I Ripped & Read today:
Liberal Media Alert
John at Discriminations points to a post by Mickey Kaus, who read the Washington Post yesterday and had this to say about it:
Let’s see:
Mickey Kaus writes:
>>>P.S.: Middle class life is clearly less secure than it once was, for all races. I’m not saying middle class African-Americans aren’t even less secure than whites, or even that the black middle class isn’t somehow reeling after the boom years of the late ’90s. I’m saying this weak story, featuring vague complaints about how “blacks have taken it on the chin,” doesn’t come close to demonstrating those propositions, or to debunking the optimistic scenario painted by the statistics Klein tries to skate around–i.e., that big, permanent progress is being made. …”
If Kaus is AGREEING with the author that “blacks are less secure than whites”, and that they may be “reeling after the ’90’s boom”, and his only issue is that apparently, the author didn’t provide enough negative statistics. If anything, the author was COMPETANT enough to provide a BALANCED depiction of REALITY,with gains as well as deficits listed. I wouldn’t consider that, “debunking” but more of an overly critical review.
-Cobra
I held off commenting before because, as a non-academic, I am not skilled at dancing along the racial/ethnic/gender lines and I may give offence to someone by getting a little mud on my boots (ah, ah, that is NOT mixed). However, Cobra
Notherbob writes:
>>>Furthermore, the reader wonders, since the author knows the 40% statistic, why they chose to write the story in the first place.”
Notherbob, I don’t know why you have a fear of commenting on a piece like this, especially on this weblog. But that being said, if there is a problem with nearly 1/3rd (30%) of a given group, I believe that is a large enough issue to merit discussion. There are stories and issues that affect a much smaller percentage of the population that receives wide coverage. Take the “death tax/estate tax” issue, which really only dealt with people receiving inheritances over $3 million. That certainly doesn’t describe the vast majority of Americans, but lo and behold, many conservative writers heralded the apocalypse.
–Cobra
Rip & Read Blog Podcast for December 21, 2004
Here’s what I Ripped & Read today:
Liberal Media Alert
John at Discriminations points to a post by Mickey Kaus, who read the Washington Post yesterday and had this to say about it:
Let’s see:
Rip & Read Blog Podcast for December 21, 2004
Here’s what I Ripped & Read today:
Liberal Media Alert
John at Discriminations points to a post by Mickey Kaus, who read the Washington Post yesterday and had this to say about it:
Let’s see:
Rip & Read Blog Podcast for December 21, 2004
Here’s what I Ripped & Read today:
Liberal Media Alert
John at Discriminations points to a post by Mickey Kaus, who read the Washington Post yesterday and had this to say about it:
Let’s see:
Rip & Read Blog Podcast for December 21, 2004
Here’s what I Ripped & Read today:
Liberal Media Alert
John at Discriminations points to a post by Mickey Kaus, who read the Washington Post yesterday and had this to say about it:
Let’s see:
The complaint was not that it was written, but that it was written poorly. 10,000 liberal newspapers could not put John Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas Eve so maybe the power of the press is overrated, but when stories make the wrong points in the wrong way they should be contested, else they constitute more clutter to be gotten out of the way in our search for the truth. Kaus thought that was the case here. BTW is this site a safe house of some kind?
Notherbob2 writes:
>>>10,000 liberal newspapers could not put John Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas Eve so maybe the power of the press is overrated, but when stories make the wrong points in the wrong way they should be contested, else they constitute more clutter to be gotten out of the way in our search for the truth. Kaus thought that was the case here. BTW is this site a safe house of some kind?”
Who decides whether points are “wrong” or not? Doesn’t that depend on the perspective of the reader? The farmer and the baseball coach may view the same approaching thunderstorm with a decidedly different attitude.
In my opinion, as an African American, statistics detailing the wealth gap between whites and blacks, the vanishing labor market and the lack of healthcare availability added to the continuing presence of racism and the ardent desire by many to destroy Affirmative Action doesn’t paint a rosy picture. But that’s MY perspective. It doesn’t make the alternative view “evil”, or wrong.
Facts are neutral. “Truth” is relative to the communicative power of the messenger.
–Cobra
I see our problem. I think Truth is neutral and Facts are relative to the communicative power of the messenger. Fact is Kaus thinks the article was filled with bunk and so does John. You think they are being too critical. That works.
Ah, moral relativism…how inane of an argument you are.
Andrew writes:
>>>Ah, moral relativism…how inane of an argument you are.”
Care to elaborate?
–Cobra
Andrew writes:
>>>Ah, moral relativism…how inane of an argument you are.”
Care to elaborate?
–Cobra