News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[turbo]

If you live in DC you are over twice as likely to have an advanced degree and nearly twice as likely to be a college graduate as the average American. I think that counts as being "more educated".

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/253_educational_attainment_by_state.html

I think that also counts as being "more likely to go to DC to suck off the federal government and all the agencies, lobbying groups and other clients that our government encourages suck money from us". Just sayin'

 

[Evo]

I think that also counts as being "more likely to go to DC to suck off the federal government and all the agencies, lobbying groups and other clients that our government encourages suck money from us". Just sayin'

That's what Tea Partiers say.

 

[turbo]

That's what Tea Partiers say.

The people who comprise our government (including the elected representatives and all their hangers-on) are not living in Foggy Bottom for their health. They claw their way to the top and emerges as millionaires. The successful Tea Party candidates will be no different. Power corrupts, especially in an atmosphere when rich powerful people demonstrate to you how easy and risk-free the corruption is to execute.

 

[WhoWee]

Exactly.

I was pointing out that making broad, sweeping generalizations that can't be backed up is wrong.

To claim that people that don't live in big cities are somehow more qualified is just downright wrong, no?

Basic living is much different in a big city than in a small community. Big city life is faster, costs are higher, and the population more diverse than most small/rural communities. Set these basic factors as a backdrop for a very powerful person in the entertainment, media, finance, or political centers and it's easy to see how such a person would lose touch with daily life in a small community in the midwest (or some other Tea Party location). I'm not saying small town people are more qualified - it's a matter of perception.

 

[NobodySpecial]

The successful Tea Party candidates will be no different.

Is anyone else suspicous of the Tea Party ?

Their website is covered in Red White and Blue banners.
They talk about loyalty
While they claim to be speaking English - nobody can understand what they are saying
They want to 'take back' America
And most revealing of all they drink tea...

[PLAIN]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcagQYdCWTSZ3HYYAPYBaqWIfo0XFwD4KSc6j5NfvvB5yYTtGejw

 

[Gokul43201]

... it's easy to see how such a person would lose touch with daily life in a small community in the midwest (or some other Tea Party location).

What exactly is a "Tea Party location"?

 

[Char. Limit]

Your follow up statement about intelligence is confusing. We were talking about educational levels, not intelligence.

Aren't educational levels directly related to intelligence? I would assume that those two would be related.

 

[Gokul43201]

Aren't educational levels directly related to intelligence? I would assume that those two would be related.

In that case I think you should read post #990. I believe it makes a strong case that you owe me $5.

 

[Char. Limit]

In that case I think you should read post #990. I believe it makes a strong case that you owe me $5.

In that case I think you should read post #991. I believe it makes a case that I don't.

 

[Gokul43201]

In that case I think you should read post #991. I believe it makes a case that I don't.

How? It says absolutely nothing about education levels in cities vs towns?

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's more convincing proof: http://www.dailyyonder.com/ba-divide/2010/10/17/2995

The United States is segregating by education.

Americans are better educated now than ever, but the distribution of people with college degrees is growing increasingly unequal.

And the clustering of people with higher education is creating greater disparities in regional incomes and unemployment. The places with high percentages of educated adults do better economically than do the counties with low proportions of adults with B.A. degrees. Better educated populations have higher incomes and lower unemployment.
...
In general, rural areas are falling behind the cities in terms of the percent of their adult populations with at least a college (B.A.) degree.

Or if you like pictures:

 

[Char. Limit]

I noticed that Spokane County is listed as "below average", even though it's the second-most urban area in Washington and is home to three universities and two community colleges, at least.

What was your point again?

 

[CAC1001]

If you live in DC you are over twice as likely to have an advanced degree and nearly twice as likely to be a college graduate as the average American. I think that counts as being "more educated".

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/253_educational_attainment_by_state.html

This is educational attainment by state though. You are comparing the average educational attainment level of people in D.C., a city, to the average educational attainment level of people in whole other states.

 

[Char. Limit]

Oh, one more thing. What exactly are "college degress"?

 

[CAC1001]

A big city like New York or Los Angelos will of course have far more formally-educated people than any small town, but it also will have an enormous amount of average working-class people as well. In terms of collective intelligence, I'd say that a big city like NY is no more culturally sophisticated or educated than an average small town, because while the big city has a lot of very educated people, this is contradicted by a huge amount of extraordinarily ignorant people as well. I'd think the same thing probably happens, albeit to a lesser degree, within small towns as well.

Go interview the people in a town of say 10,000 on the issues, you'll probably find some smart, educated people, and other ignorant people. Go to NYC, and once you get through interviewing everyone from the guys working on Wall Street to the people living in some of the very poor ghetto areas, and the collective intelligence I'd bet is the same as the small town.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is educational attainment by state though. You are comparing the average educational attainment level of people in D.C., a city, to the average educational attainment level of people in whole other states.

Numbers are cited for percentages of the population that have a degree (not for "average educational attainment"). So it is measuring exactly what I described. The likelihood that a resident in the "city" of DC has a college degree is significantly greater than the likelihood for the average US citizen.

 

[Gokul43201]

A big city like New York or Los Angelos will of course have far more formally-educated people than any small town, but it also will have an enormous amount of average working-class people as well.

You are not paying attention to the numbers! Please look carefully; these are per capita rates of college degrees, not gross counts.

 

[Gokul43201]

What was your point again?

The point, again: people living in big cities are not "no more educated than people living in small towns".

 

[CAC1001]

Numbers are cited for percentages of the population that have a degree (not for "average educational attainment").

I should have clarified (and not make up my own terms); by "average educational attainment," I meant the percentage of the population with a degree, not the amount of education each person in the population has.

So it is measuring exactly what I described. The likelihood that a resident in the "city" of DC has a college degree is significantly greater than the likelihood for the average US citizen.

How is comparing the likelihood a resident of D.C. will have a degree with the likelihood for populations of states a proper comparison though? For example if you compare Texas to D.C., then sure, the likelihood a person of D.C. has a degree is higher than the likelihood of a person in Texas overall, but what about if comparing say D.C. to Houston or Dallas or Austin?

 

[Gokul43201]

How is comparing the likelihood a resident of D.C. will have a degree with the likelihood for populations of states a proper comparison though? For example if you compare Texas to D.C., then sure, the likelihood a person of D.C. has a degree is higher than the likelihood of a person in Texas overall, but what about if comparing say D.C. to Houston or Dallas or Austin?

Houston, Dallas and Austin are all big cities. The comparison I was making was between people living in big cities (I picked DC, because it is the only "city" that would appear on a state list) versus the "average person".

 

[CAC1001]

Houston, Dallas and Austin are all big cities. The comparison I was making was between people living in big cities (I picked DC, because it is the only "city" that would appear on a state list) versus the "average person".

What do you use to measure the "average person" though?

 

[Astronuc]

Yesterday I came across http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE&feature=related", and as a conservative who has never attended any tea party convention or supported them, I was quite surprised, as it says a very different story than the way they've been portrayed in the media. Naturally, this raises the question of what the media's true agenda may have been in their off-center portrayal of the tea party and other grassroots movements?

A core belief of Conservatism according to Bill Whittle is that they "don't think people are perfectable", that people are "motivated by their own self-interest", and that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable. That is indeed pessimistic and cynical.

Then Whittle explains that it this belief (that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable) that generates a society with the checks and balances against the natural human bastardliness that basically wants to tell other people what to do. [1:48-2:03]. That seems logically inconsistent. It is that type of personality that results in oligarchy, or a corrupt system that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

Compare that philosophy with the preamble of the US Constitution. Clearly the Tea Party/Conservatives are at odds with the Constitution and the thinking of the founding fathers, who wrote "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . " I guess the founding fathers were a bunch of flaming liberals.

Selfish goes well beyond self-interest. Selfish means that one is "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness

And this is the kind of person Whittle proposes to run the US government.


I was taught to be concerned about well-being or welfare of others!

 

[mugaliens]

A core belief of Conservatism according to Bill Whittle is that they "don't think people are perfectable", that people are "motivated by their own self-interest", and that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable. That is indeed pessimistic and cynical.

Then Whittle explains that it this belief (that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable) that generates a society with the checks and balances against the natural human bastardliness that basically wants to tell other people what to do. [1:48-2:03]. That seems logically inconsistent. It is that type of personality that results in oligarchy, or a corrupt system that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

Compare that philosophy with the preamble of the US Constitution. Clearly the Tea Party/Conservatives are at odds with the Constitution and the thinking of the founding fathers, who wrote "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . " I guess the founding fathers were a bunch of flaming liberals.

Selfish goes well beyond self-interest. Selfish means that one is "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness

And this is the kind of person Whittle proposes to run the US government.

I was taught to be concerned about well-being or welfare of others!

Wow. I spot no less than five clearly-defined logical conundrums.

Would you care to elucidate, Astronuc? I have, after all, in the past enumerated my own errors. Perhaps you'd be willing to join me in our joint endeavor towards humanity's endeavor towards enlightenment?

 

[WhoWee]

What exactly is a "Tea Party location"?

Any location that has a resident Tea Party - that's the point - it could be right down the block. I've witnessed (midwest) small (5 to 10 people) Tea Party gatherings in local restaurants and heard of back yard BBQ gatherings. I've also observed some larger gatherings (50 to 100 people) on village greens and at lakeside picnic areas.

 

[Astronuc]

Wow. I spot no less than five clearly-defined logical conundrums.

Would you care to elucidate, Astronuc? I have, after all, in the past enumerated my own errors. Perhaps you'd be willing to join me in our joint endeavor towards humanity's endeavor towards enlightenment?

Where would you like to begin?

 

[BobG]

Compare that philosophy with the preamble of the US Constitution. Clearly the Tea Party/Conservatives are at odds with the Constitution and the thinking of the founding fathers, who wrote "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . " I guess the founding fathers were a bunch of flaming liberals.

Someone seriously suggested they weren't?!

Of course, I guess the question would have different connotations today. A person asking the question would probably be more curious about how the founding fathers' would fit into today's political climate rather than their own.

In a way, not only did they lead a revolution against England, but they also revolutionized the political landscape so much that they redefined what it meant to be conservative or liberal.

 

[WhoWee]

A core belief of Conservatism according to Bill Whittle is that they "don't think people are perfectable", that people are "motivated by their own self-interest", and that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable. That is indeed pessimistic and cynical.

I interpreted his comments to mean that people are not perfect (expect flaws), people are motivated by self interest-even if that interest is wanting to help others (don't give anyone too much power), and human nature is flawed/selfish/unchangeable (ot is what it is) - history keeps repeating itself - we continue to struggle and fight each other and people continue to rob and deceive (regardless of level of success) - more never seems to be enough.

I contend that change is good in the House of Representatives-and favor term limits. I'm not sure everyone elected should have life-long benefits though.

At the same time, in order to be elected Senator - (I think) a candidate should first complete 2 terms in the House (where they can do less damage - Al Franken) and voters can evaluate their voting records.

I'm also very much against "fact finding trips" by Congress -House members especially. We have a State Department and an Executive Branch.

 

[mheslep]

So you agree. Or do you disagree with Whowee?

Sorry I was flip last night Evo, but I agree with Whowee's and George Clooney's contentions that people in NY, DC, LA are "out of touch" with the average American. The characteristics you cite for the NY, DC populations vs elsewhere are arguable, but even assuming they are accurate I don't grant they are the reason for the lack of cohesion. An extraordinarily high self-opinion was the trait (for NY, DC, SF) was the first thing came to my mind.

 

[mheslep]

If you live in DC you are over twice as likely to have an advanced degree and nearly twice as likely to be a college graduate as the average American. I think that counts as being "more educated".

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/253_educational_attainment_by_state.html

First, I think that counts as having a more specialized education, and specialization is an increasing trend. The merits of this trend continuing are a topic of much debate as you've likely heard; over specialization has been a concern for some corners in physics, for instance, or so I've read and been told. One consequence is that it comes at a sacrifice of less and less breadth, and similarly less contact with people outside one's field.

Second, in those areas, DC especially, you will also find some of the most appallingly terrible primary public education in the country, that, in my opinion, have been largely produced by by the very holders of the specialized educations mentioned above, and who continue to constrain children to stay in those schools.

 

[mheslep]

Here's more convincing proof: http://www.dailyyonder.com/ba-divide/2010/10/17/2995

Or if you like pictures:

I'd like to see i) a per capita picture as some of those counties might have about six people and 100,000 goats in them, and ii) a graphic that can manage to present education data with using the word 'elite' and that renders the correct spelling of the word 'degrees'.