Serious Question

15 Comments

1. 

   sjct on February 22, 2009 at 2:34 pm

   Quick google search result: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#010 (pdf)

   This might be where Pat gets his 70% out-of-wedlock talking point. I don’t want to look for sources on his other points. He’s a rabid dog and I’m really uncomfortable about him being even close to right about anything.

   • 

     benjamink on February 22, 2009 at 2:57 pm

     It always scares the heck out of me when i happen to agree with him on some issue or another. He is a crazy man.

     • 

       wilderness wench on February 22, 2009 at 3:04 pm

       Well, even a stopped clock etc.

2. 

   michaelmt on February 22, 2009 at 3:06 pm

   I have long wondered what Pat Buchanan had on the owners of MSNBC, to get that air time and paycheck. Even a cursory look at the website he’s maintained (much less his writing) would show him as a blatant racist. (After the 2000 election, he admitted on television that “No Jewish person would vote for me.”)

   Even Rachel Maddow seems to view him as a benevolent if crazy uncle. He is not! He’s a very ugly bigot who has made a huge fortune by making people forget it.

   • 

     wilderness wench on February 22, 2009 at 3:12 pm

     At this point, I figure Buchanan’s still on air for the same reason as any shock jock. Basically, folks love a freak show — most especially if the freak seems to speak with authority. Which is definitely a subjective judgement, depending on your alternate sources of information.
     Otherwise, I dunno.

   • 

     on February 23, 2009 at 11:42 am

     The statement “No jewish person would vote for me” is NOT the same as “I would never vote for a Jewish person” or something else equally anti-semitic.  That statement seems a statement of fact.  Considering how many Jewish people DID vote for him, in Dade County  in 2000 due to the “butterfly ballot”, it’s particularly ironic, and he may be refering back to that situation.  

     That statement alone is not problematic.  He has said other things that are anti-semitic, true.  That statement is not.

     • 

       michaelmt on February 23, 2009 at 12:06 pm

       It was a precinct located in (of all things) a synagogue in Palm Beach County. (Delray Beach) There was an elderly “activist” in Century Village who printed up flyers telling people how to vote for both Gore and “that nice Joey Liebermann mensch.” Many attribute virtually all of Gore’s loss to that small but very homogeneous group of senior Jewish residents.

3. 

   Dongi 2 on February 22, 2009 at 4:29 pm

   What a gasbag Buchanan is and a dishonest one at that and what a coincidence, his opponent’s mike goes out right in the middle of the argument. Buchanan is another sorry example of an evil Republican.  God, will this parade of nitwits ever end?

4. 

   Chief on February 23, 2009 at 7:29 am

   Why – how – does Rachel Maddow see anything in a bigot like Buchanan ?  She has rational conversations with him on the TV machine.

   Is the rant just put on for “show?”  Don’t know.  Don’t care.  Ban the racist.  Don’t need to see him ever again.

   Point of clarification:  the only time I see him is when MSNBC has a round-table during the elections.

5. 

   on February 23, 2009 at 11:28 am

   67 % unmarried is a serious social problem.

   Why are inner city schools problematic?  Could single parenthood have anything to do with it?

   That the white births are 50 % is a problem too, but the black rate is higher.  Now, looking at that table from the CDC, you would have to argue that the WHITE unmarried rate is the explosion.  I am not very comfortable with the rates in that table staying relatively stable for blacks for a long time.

   Unmarried motherhood is a serious problem.  It’s not a lifestyle choice.  When you are an unmarried mom, you deprive your child of the formative influence of a second adult.  Have a sister (also schizophrenic which doubles-triples the problems) who is an unmarried mom, it has been a disaster.  The kid is not a success in many ways.  Considering the situation, you might say “He’s a great success.”  but he ain’t.

   • 

     on February 23, 2009 at 11:39 am

     One thing about that table that is interesting and troubling is that the increase in white unmarried is primarily due to the increase in Hispanic white unmarried.  Also troubling.

     Many people are comfortable with unmarried moms.  I am not.  My wife and I have raised 3 children, all of whom are now in college. We have said to one another that it is INCOMPREHENSIBLE how this could have been done by one of us alone, especially K-8.  High school, less involvement.  But, K-8 there was a LOT of work with the kids.  If you are a single mom/dad, you are coaching, cooking, laundry-doing, bathing.  Guess which is left out?  Helping with homework.

   • 

     michaelmt on February 23, 2009 at 12:07 pm

     Your numbers and understanding are wrong.

     Birth rate among “northern European” whites is about 1.8%; among Hispanics more like 2.8% or higher.

     • 

       on February 23, 2009 at 12:38 pm

       I am talking about the table shown in the first posting.  The table shows the percent of all live births that are unmarried.

       it is totally irrelevant and of no importance whatsoever what the rate per person is.  People are either married or unmarried.  The more important rate is the between-person rate mostly shown in that table.

       Have you looked at the table?  If not, please do so.

     • 

       on February 23, 2009 at 1:14 pm

       Confined to years ending in 0 and 5

       What about my numbers are incorrect?  

       And where do your numbers come from?

        Live births per 1,000 unmarried women 15-44  

                

                

       	1970	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000	2005
       All races and origins……………….	26.4	24.5	29.4	32.8	43.8	44.3	44.0	47.5
       White2…………………………….	13.9	12.4	18.1	22.5	32.9	37.0	38.2	43.0
       Black or African American2…………..	95.5	84.2	81.1	77.0	90.5	74.5	70.5	67.8
       Asian or Pacific Islander……………	—	—	—	—	—	—	20.9	24.9
       Hispanic or Latina3…………………	—	—	—	—	89.6	88.7	87.2	100.3
       White, not Hispanic or Latina………..	—	—	—	—	24.4	28.1	28.0	30.1

6. 

   michaelmt on February 24, 2009 at 9:23 pm

   You are saying virtually the same thing Birth rates for Hispanics three times that of whites

   Within the past two decades, fertility rates have declined substantially among non-Hispanic blacks (from 91 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in 1980 to 67 per 1,000 in 2005)* and among American Indian and Alaska Native women (from 83 births per 1,000 to 60 births per 1,000 women between 1980 and 2005). Fertility rates also declined slightly overall among non-Hispanic whites (from 62 births per 1,000 women in 1980 to 58 births per 1,000 women in 2005). Fertility rates among Hispanics, however, increased from 95 births per 1,000 women in 1980 to 108 per 1,000 women in 1990 before declining to 93 per 1,000 in 1998*. The fertility rate has since slightly increased to 99 births per 1,000 Hispanic women in 2005*

   http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/79BirthRates.cfm