America's True Colors?

The really HOT topics of the day... be careful to not get burned! Please try to remain open minded...

Moderator: The Moderating Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Hostrauser
All Star
All Star
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Poway, CA
Contact:

America's True Colors?

Post by Hostrauser » Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:57 pm

Atlanta – In rural Georgia, a group of high-schoolers gets a visit from the Secret Service after posting "inappropriate" comments about President-elect Barack Obama on the Web. In Raleigh, N.C., four college students admit to spraying race-tinged graffiti in a pedestrian tunnel after the election. On Nov. 6, a cross burns on the lawn of a biracial couple in Apolacon Township, Pa.

The election of America's first black president has triggered more than 200 hate-related incidents, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center – a record in modern presidential elections. Moreover, the white nationalist movement, bemoaning an election that confirmed voters' comfort with a multiracial demography, expects Mr. Obama's election to be a potent recruiting tool – one that watchdog groups warn could give new impetus to a mostly defanged fringe element.

Most election-related threats have so far been little more than juvenile pranks. But the political marginalization of certain Southern whites, economic distress in rural areas, and a White House occupant who symbolizes a multiethnic United States could combine to produce a backlash against what some have heralded as the dawn of a postracial America. In some parts of the South, there's even talk of secession.

"Most of this movement is not violent, but there is a substantive underbelly that is violent and does try to make a bridge to people who feel disenfranchised," says Brian Levin of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. "The question is: Will this swirl become a tornado or just an ill wind? We're not there yet, but there's dust on the horizon, a swirling of wind, and the atmospherics are getting put together for [conflict]"...

...post-election, at least two white nationalist websites – Stormfront and the Council of Conservative Citizens – report their servers have crashed because of heavy traffic. The League of the South, a secessionist group, says Web hits jumped from 50,000 a month to 300,000 since Nov. 4, and its phones are ringing off the hook...

...Supremacist propaganda is already on the upswing. In Oklahoma, fringe groups have distributed anti-Obama propaganda through newspapers and taped it to home mail boxes. Ugly incidents such as cross-burnings, assassination betting pools, and Obama effigies are also being reported from Maine to Alabama.

The Ku Klux Klan has been tied to recent news events, as well. Two Tennessee men implicated for plotting to kill 88 black men, including Obama, were tied to the KKK chapter whose leader was convicted in a civil trial in Brandenburg, Ky., last week, for inciting violence. The murder last week in Louisiana of a KKK initiate, allegedly killed after trying to back out of joining, came at the hands of a new group called Sons of Dixie, authorities say...

...In an election in which barely 20 percent of native Southern whites in Deep South states voted for Obama, the newly apparent political clout of "outsiders" and people of color has been unnerving to some.

"In states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, there was extraordinary racial polarization in the vote," says Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. "Black Americans really do believe that Obama is going to represent their interests and views in ways that they haven't been before, and, in the Deep South, whites feel exactly the opposite."

But for nonviolent secessionist groups like the League of the South, the hope is for a more vigorous debate about the direction of the US and the South's role in it, says Michael Tuggle, a League blogger in North Carolina.

Mr. Tuggle says his group isn't looking for an 1860-style secession but, rather, a model that Spain, for one, is moving toward, in which "there's a great deal of autonomy for constituent regions" – a foil to what is seen as unchecked, dangerous federal power in Washington.

"To a lot of people, the idea of secession doesn't seem so crazy anymore," says Tuggle.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti

Blurae1
All Star
All Star
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: North Louisiana

Post by Blurae1 » Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:09 pm

I'm not trying to challenge their findings, but I don't really see how they could know for sure that 20% of the native southern white people in Louisiana voted for Obama. Do these people have access to secret ballots cast inside polling places? Surely they can't be using exit polls as inaccurate as they are. How do they know this?..................Bill

User avatar
Malibu
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 4803
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 4:13 am
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Malibu » Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:56 pm

On the night of the election on 3 major news net works, they were posting results of the percentage of blacks in certain states who voted for or against Obama.
I'm like you.....if we are supposed to be voting in secret, how do they know who voted for who?

BTW, I heard today that 99% of blacks and Hispanics voted for Obama while the white votes were closely split. Again.....how do they know this???

I think it would have been a more interesting campaign had McCain picked Condoleezza as his running mate.
Malibu
Crossmen Alumni

"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."

Image

User avatar
Hostrauser
All Star
All Star
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Poway, CA
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:08 am

Malibu wrote:I'm like you.....if we are supposed to be voting in secret, how do they know who voted for who?
I voted for Obama.

See, wasn't that easy to find out?

"Secret balloting" means that no one has the right to know how you voted unless you willingly share it. It should be self-evident (there I go again) that it doesn't mean you can never share how you voted.

Malibu wrote:BTW, I heard today that 99% of blacks and Hispanics voted for Obama while the white votes were closely split. Again.....how do they know this???
Statistics.

Want to know how statisticians figure it all out? Go to your local community college and take an intro to statistics class. But, to make a long story short: they ask people. The bigger and more random the sampling, the more accurate the statistic will be when applied to the total population.

And your percentage is grossly inflated. The numbers I have heard are 80-85% of African-Americans nationwide, and about 60-70% of Latino voters.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti

User avatar
LAMystreaux
All Star
All Star
Posts: 4374
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Leesville, LA

Post by LAMystreaux » Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:01 am

I voted for Obama.

See, wasn't that easy to find out?

"Secret balloting" means that no one has the right to know how you voted unless you willingly share it. It should be self-evident (there I go again) that it doesn't mean you can never share how you voted.

And then we are to assume people are being honest, which we know some will not be. In the end, we are still left with the question of we will never truly know the correct statistics.

And your percentage is grossly inflated. The numbers I have heard are 80-85% of African-Americans nationwide, and about 60-70% of Latino voters.
Well, I find your #'s too low! I heard different.

See, that was easy.
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.

Blurae1
All Star
All Star
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: North Louisiana

Post by Blurae1 » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:12 am

There we go again. Suppositions based on supposositions. I voted for Ron Paul. But I don't really know you voted for Obama any more than you really know I voted for Ron Paul. These people are presenting these statistics as fact. Are they fact or are they supposition? If they are are supposition or even based on exit polls they should be labeled as such.

Again, I'm just reading it the way it is presented, and it is presented as fact.............................Bill

User avatar
Hostrauser
All Star
All Star
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Poway, CA
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:31 am

LAMystreaux wrote:
I voted for Obama.

See, wasn't that easy to find out?

"Secret balloting" means that no one has the right to know how you voted unless you willingly share it. It should be self-evident (there I go again) that it doesn't mean you can never share how you voted.

And then we are to assume people are being honest, which we know some will not be. In the end, we are still left with the question of we will never truly know the correct statistics.
That's a worthless statement. The goal of statistics is to provide an estimate, not an exact number.

Every statistical study needs to report three things: the method of sampling, the statistical result, and the margin of error. It's almost de facto in journalism to report only the middle value (such as in this article). Still, the only truly respectable method of sampling when dealing with people is anonymous random sampling, which is what's used by every legitimate polling place I've ever heard of. The margin of error is what accounts for human dishonesty, people who refuse to respond, etc.

You'd infer from these statements that statistics are very vague and inaccurate but, when collected and applied correctly, they can be shockingly accurate. And, surprising to even the most pessimistic of people (me), the amount of misinformation or outright lies in a well-designed statistical sampling is almost non-existent.

As I said before, take a statistics class to learn how to quantify statistical reports and to learn when and when not to pay them heed.

Regardless, the point of the article does not revolve around the few statistics mentioned. Discard them if you don't like them and take the rest of the article as a whole (though the article is from a reputable news source that is usually very careful with their research).
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti

User avatar
LAMystreaux
All Star
All Star
Posts: 4374
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Leesville, LA

Post by LAMystreaux » Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:52 am

Hostrauser wrote:
LAMystreaux wrote:
I voted for Obama.

See, wasn't that easy to find out?

"Secret balloting" means that no one has the right to know how you voted unless you willingly share it. It should be self-evident (there I go again) that it doesn't mean you can never share how you voted.

And then we are to assume people are being honest, which we know some will not be. In the end, we are still left with the question of we will never truly know the correct statistics.
That's a worthless statement. The goal of statistics is to provide an estimate, not an exact number.

Every statistical study needs to report three things: the method of sampling, the statistical result, and the margin of error. It's almost de facto in journalism to report only the middle value (such as in this article). Still, the only truly respectable method of sampling when dealing with people is anonymous random sampling, which is what's used by every legitimate polling place I've ever heard of. The margin of error is what accounts for human dishonesty, people who refuse to respond, etc.

You'd infer from these statements that statistics are very vague and inaccurate but, when collected and applied correctly, they can be shockingly accurate. And, surprising to even the most pessimistic of people (me), the amount of misinformation or outright lies in a well-designed statistical sampling is almost non-existent.

As I said before, take a statistics class to learn how to quantify statistical reports and to learn when and when not to pay them heed.

Regardless, the point of the article does not revolve around the few statistics mentioned. Discard them if you don't like them and take the rest of the article as a whole (though the article is from a reputable news source that is usually very careful with their research).
More of you on your pedestal. The very likely assumption stands that many who were asked were probably not honest about who they voted for. You can't prove the worthiness of these statistics anymore than I can disprove them since it based on something none of us can quantify with actual fact.
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.

User avatar
Hostrauser
All Star
All Star
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Poway, CA
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:02 pm

No, you're pretty much wrong and don't understand statistics.

Anything else?
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti

Post Reply