February 20, 2013

Why did Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife risk everything to buy such stupid stuff?

Spending $750,000 in campaign money on... what?! In with the Rolex watch and the furs, there's all this memorabilia: Michael Jackson memorabilia, Bruce Lee memorabilia, Martin Luther King Jr. memorabilia, Malcolm X memorabilia, Jimi Hendrix memorabilia, a football signed by American presidents. So embarrassing.

WaPo columnist  Michelle Singletary says:
Ironically, Jackson and his father in 1999 co-authored a book on personal finance, “It’s About the Money!: How You Can Get Out of Debt, Build Wealth, and Achieve Your Financial Dreams.” The Jacksons wrote: “Many of our churches breed material needs, as do many of our public schools, with peer pressure to buy expensive clothing.”

I was critical of the portions of the book in which the Jacksons found it necessary to chide blacks for what they characterize as shameless spending....

At least the Jacksons are showing remorse....

Before you pass judgment on the Jacksons, think about the mess you might have made of your finances or the financial follies of people you know. It might not be a crime to get what you want (not what you need), but acting as if you are rich without being able to afford it can ruin your life.
Hmm. Using debt to buy stuff is hugely different from diverting money that isn't yours to spend that way. But I guess we can look at Jackson's list of items and use it as an occasion to reflect on the idiotic crap we've felt tempted to buy. Get some distance. What if the newspapers published a list of the 100 stupidest things you've thrown your money away on over the course of a lifetime?

Look around. If you could snap your fingers and cause any item in your house to transform into the cash you spent on it (or even only half of what you spent), what percentage of your possessions would be left? The items suddenly turn into piles of dollar bills. Better gather them up quickly. How much have you got there? Now, bills disappear to eradicate your debts. What do you have left now in your hands and in your house? How do you feel?

And by the way, Singletary said she chided the Jesse Jacksons, Sr. and Jr., for chiding black people for spending too much money on stuff, but then she turned around and chided her readers for spending too much money on stuff. Isn't that a contradiction? Or is it a problem to speak specifically to black people? The Jacksons shouldn't write a book talking specifically to black people? What are the rules here?

120 comments:

TMink said...

Well, that is what they SAY they spent the money on, but once the money is transfered, who knows where it goes?

Trey

SteveR said...

Next out a book about fidelity in marriage and the negative consequences of unmarried fatherhood.

Christy said...

When moving I sold piles and piles of books, lucky to get 10 cents on the dollar. Somehow I can't regret all my money going to books and travel. Although I have developed a new appreciation for libraries.

Shouting Thomas said...

The Jackson family made its fortune through racial extortion of corporations, i.e., payoffs and jobs for family members in exchange for dropping race mongering lawsuits.

I doubt that Jackson, Jr., expected to ever be indicted, not matter how egregious his behavior, because he thought being black in Chicago and part of the Jackson family gave him a Get Out of Jail Free card.

I'm surprised he was indicted. He must have pissed somebody off, or exceeded the boundaries of accepted corruption in some way we don't know about.

The corruption of the race and sex quota systems is systemic and celebrated. Jackson stepped on the wrong person's toes. Only explanation I can think of.

As for the other part, I don't buy a lot of stuff. Unless I really need it, I don't buy it. eBay exists to rid yourself of unwanted junk.

campy said...

I think Forrest Gump's mother had something to say on the subject.

traditionalguy said...

IMO Jackson fell into the Lottery Winner's sense that everyone should be a winner in life's lottery of unearned riches.

So Jackson felt that winning Megaball political spoils became his to spend. Who enforces silly contribution laws against black celebrity con men?

The answer is another black celebrity con man who understands the system. This town was not big enough for both of them.

Meade said...

Singletary is talking down to black people.

jimbino said...

Quite right: you often come to regret the good money spent on bad geegaws. Part of the regret pertains to hours spent in a dark cubicle under a sad boss working to afford the geegaws.

I take pride in having avoided this problem by quitting my cubicle job and attending to improvements to my own property by learning cabinetmaking, framing, roofing, plumbing and electrical installation.

When I look at my remodeled bathrooms, kitchens, decks and verandas, I feel good.

AllenS said...

It's called bling. Blacks are into that shit.

Scott M said...

FURS? A spawn of one of the most liberal of liberals bought a bunch of FURS?

rabble-rabble-rabble-rabble...

Tank said...

I think ST accurately sums up what Jackson's expectations were. I too am shocked they're going after him.

Looking around my house, I just don't have much stuff. I'm not interested in accumulating stuff or showing off. The stuff I have consists mostly of golf stuff and guitar stuff and I use that all the time (and altogether it wouldn't bring in more than maybe $3,000 max - I don't even have much of that stuff).

rhhardin said...

Iowahawk called Jr the interior decorator from hell.

DADvocate said...

I resent the implication that Michael Jackson memorabilia and Bruce Lee memorabilia is "stupid stuff." I have huge collections of both. Jackson is the KING OF POP for God's sake!! He moonwalked on Earth!

Bruce Lee is the king of martial arts movies. I have a cloth banner of him hanging on the wall of my living room. He gives me strength and inspiration.

If Michael Jackson and Bruce Lee had been one person (Michael Bruce Lee Jackson), it would have been the second coming.

lincolntf said...

I liked this story better last year when JJ Junior was doing naked Kung Fu at the YMCA.

rhhardin said...

I never spent more than $1800 for an airplane.

Tank said...

rh

Elvis was the King of the Interior Decorators from Hell.

Ever been to Graceland?

ricpic said...

Maybe Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife risked everything to buy stupid stuff because they're stupid people. Or is the obvious beyond the pale?

Darrell said...

You're forgetting about all the businesses the Rev. Jaackson acquired by Bogarting corporations--the Anheuser Busch franchise for the North side of Chicago, the Toyota dealerships, and many more. They are run by family members and they are worth $Millions. And yoy forgot about the Nigerian drug dealing Triple J was doing during the Clinton Administration--that Bill got him out of after Jesse's intervention. And groups saying that Oliver North was doing the same thing, or some such.

Know that whatever is being told, the truth is a hundred times worse. They are giving you the little stuff to let you feel superior while the wipe the slate clean. He is not done with politics yet.

virgil xenophon said...

Ann wonders why Blacks squander money on BLING? Hell, Ann, what racial/sociocultural segment of our society do you think INVENTED the word "Bling?"

Glen Filthie said...

They bought stupid stuff because they are stupid people.

And though I will get egged for saying it, I am correct none the less:

The racists are right about a few things.

FleetUSA said...

@Meade, Only blacks are allowed to talk down to blacks....

Someone needs to give the black community a "Come to Jesus" talk about a lot of things wrong in their society. Maybe Dr. Carson and Bill Cosby could take that on -- but would the MSM cover it?

Mitchell the Bat said...

I offered to give my guitars to my nephew but his father said he needs to earn the money himself.

Turns out, he now has a bunch of guitars and no interest in playing music.

I'll bet we're not the only ones.

virgil xenophon said...

Oh, and what Darrell, above, just said..

Humperdink said...

JJ Jr. was the last political hack I would've expected to be indicted. Black, Chicago, son of JJ Sr., ... yeah he must have scorched somebody.

You could see maybe Reverend Al or even JJ Sr. of Operation Procreate, but the kid? Count me as stunned also.

EDH said...

And by the way, Singletary said she chided the Jesse Jacksons, Sr. and Jr., for chiding black people for spending too much money on stuff, but then she turned around and chided her readers for spending too much money on stuff. Isn't that a contradiction? Or is it a problem to speak specifically to black people? The Jacksons shouldn't write a book talking specifically to black people? What are the rules here?

You never heard the old stereotype...?

AllenS said...

I purposefully bought 40 acres so I could have stuff. I have 6 buildings and they are full. I don't own any stupid shit. A month ago, I bought an aerial picture of my place for $70. I really didn't need it, but it gives me a different perspective of all of my stuff. I like that.

F said...

Traditionalguy is on the right track here. Jackson watched his father feed his personal appetites from ill-got gains and took that as his role model. When he got elected and saw that people and organizations would hand him money for the asking, he figured "why not spend? There's a lot more where this came from." Then someone decided to teach him a lesson. Now the question is, will someone decide some day that Obama needs the same lesson? That would be a gruesome scene.

Shouting Thomas said...

Given his dad's history, my bet is that Jackson, Jr. slept with an off-limits piece of ass...

Thus, creating an enemy who could not be bought off.

Jay said...

The son of a man who smeared MLK's blood on his shirt while MLK was dying from a gunshot wound and wore said shirt on TV the next day to create a false narrative about his actions that day, goes out and buys furs, bling, and Jacko posters.

I'm shocked by this.

Sorun said...

It's a sick, materialistic culture.

Jay said...

The good news is, even if he goes to jail, the taxpayers will be paying for Jesse Jr's monthly pension payments & medical care for the rest of his life.

Isn't that swell?

EDH said...

George Carlin, "A place for your stuff".

Brilliant. A classic.

furious_a said...

...an occasion to reflect on the idiotic crap we've felt tempted to buy.

Three words: "Trip to Costco."

Shouting Thomas said...

Althouse's question is, of course, entirely rhetorical and meaningless when it comes to blacks.

Blacks, in the liberal way of looking at things, are supposed to engage in corruption and wild materialism. This is the appropriate insult to the white man, and thus, part of that wonderful uppity-ness that exacts revenge against the white man.

The Democratic Party is organized around this principle. Blacks repay the favor by voting 95% for Democratic candidates.

Surfed said...

"Your debutante knows what you want,but I know what you need."

Shanna said...

Ironically, Jackson and his father in 1999 co-authored a book on personal finance, “It’s About the Money!: How You Can Get Out of Debt, Build Wealth, and Achieve Your Financial Dreams.”

Jesse Jackson as Dave Ramsey? Or RichDadPoorDad. That's a weird thought.

Most people spend their money on stupid things.

Aridog said...

Why did Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife risk everything to buy such stupid stuff?"

How cool is that? A title line that asks a question and answers it all in one sentence.

PsssT: Stupid, really stupid, doesn't mean "not cunning." Stupid is as stupid does, and bears NO reflection on race or color. Think Blagojevich. It may be a geographic genetic thing ":-)

mccullough said...

Nothing is so odd as how other people spend their money.

Scott M said...

A month ago, I bought an aerial picture of my place for $70. I really didn't need it, but it gives me a different perspective of all of my stuff. I like that.

George Carlin is trying to call you.

Bob R said...

Tools. If I could have all the money that I spent on tools of all kinds (woodworking, gardening, mechanical, cooking, computing, musical instruments, recording equipment) and I could spend it in a more rational and systematic way, I'd have a lot left over...to spend on more tools.

DADvocate said...

How cool is that? A title line that asks a question and answers it all in one sentence.

It's called begging the question. It's common here at Althouse.

AllenS said...

Here's a picture of a picture where I keep my stuff.

Sorry about the flash.

Shanna said...

You never heard the old stereotype...?

Did you see the Dave Chappelle reparations sketch? It seems to fit here.

Humperdink said...

Bob R. Tools? Too funny.

My brother-in-law and I are in a race to see who can collect the most tools. Chatting with him one day he said he had four chain saws. Four, I asked inquisitively? You have 4 chain saws? He said no, I have 13 chain saws, but only 4 in the truck.

Ha has me beat up to this point.

edutcher said...

While his color may have something to do with it (black people have been educated by their white Leftist betters to value bling over value), let's not forget Little Jess is from CHICAGO.

He figured he could do anything he wanted and get away with it.

But I think Shout is right, "Given his dad's history, my bet is that Jackson, Jr. slept with an off-limits piece of ass...

Thus, creating an enemy who could not be bought off."

This is how it happens often, or somebody who is protected rolled over on him to save his neck.

Oso Negro said...

Black people who spend too much is a national problem as well.

William said...

If I were setting myself up as the tribune for the poor and oppressed, I wouldn't want to be caught dead in a $45,000 Rolex. The hypocrisy is just as glaring as the hyperbole.....The tragedy of my life is that I have been able to buy anything I have ever wanted, but the catch is I never had the money until five years after I stopped wanting it. When I was a kid, I thought that it would be a tremendous thing to go to the comic book store and buy every comic book I wanted. When I finally came into those kind of big bucks, my appetite for comic books had expired. Frequently gratification delayed is gratification denied.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedarford said...

Sorry, but a niggah that came into real cheddar that bought 5 lbs of 14K bling to festoon himself in 1987 when gold was 400 an ounce and kept all that Mr T starter kit - is looking like a Warren Buffett level genius investor these days.

Which brings up Mr T.
Why hasn't he worked much in the last 10 years?

Ans: Because he doesn't need to.

Cedarford said...

Sorry, but a niggah that came into real cheddar that bought 5 lbs of 14K bling to festoon himself in 1987 when gold was 400 an ounce and kept all that Mr T starter kit - is looking like a Warren Buffett level genius investor these days.

Which brings up Mr T.
Why hasn't he worked much in the last 10 years?

Ans: Because he doesn't need to.

edutcher said...

Oso Negro said...

Black people who spend too much is a national problem as well.

Two in particular.

edutcher said...

Cedarford said...

Sorry, but a niggah that came into real cheddar that bought 5 lbs of 14K bling to festoon himself in 1987 when gold was 400 an ounce and kept all that Mr T starter kit - is looking like a Warren Buffett level genius investor these days.

Which brings up Mr T.
Why hasn't he worked much in the last 10 years?

Ans: Because he doesn't need to.


No, he's been sick.

Cancer, I believe.

In remission, if memory serves.

madAsHell said...

I'll bet they didn't use the Althouse Amazon portal either!!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Well.....to be fair, some of the "Memorabilia" could be considered investments that might appreciate with time. This is negated by the fact that they bought it with illegal money.

Personally, most everything we own is functional so I wouldn't get rid of any of it. We don't buy many things unless we need them. Other items are art, antiques, collectibles, silver etc. Things which we not only appreciate and use on a daily basis, but also will appreciate in value. (isn't it cool to use the same word in such two different meanings?)

Other than our home and a couple of low limit credit cards for traveling, we have no debt. However, if we did turn unwanted or duplicate things into cash, I would feel liberated.

We did sell quite a lot of unused items when we were building our home about 12 years ago. Everything went into storage for 8 months with the exception of some clothing and some cooking utensils and a few pieces of furniture. When we were ready to move into the house we realized that we didn't miss "our stuff" and actually forgot what we owned. We sold it to buy NEW stuff.

elkh1 said...

"acting as if you are rich without being able to afford it can ruin your life"

Tell it to the Fed.

Scott M said...

attributing negative behavior solely to someone's race is racist thinking... specially when you white folks do it too, just as much or even more...

Wrong. That's prejudiced or bigoted thinking.

If I were to say you (if you're black) don't know the correct definitions of English words while I do because I'm white and white people know more correct definitions than black people...THAT would be racist. Ridiculous, but correctly termed as racism, ie, the holding of one race over another.

Race, by the way, is a bullshit term that no serious biologist gives freight to. If you want to slam bigotry, feel free and more power to you. Just try not to double-down on stupid.

sydney said...

Look around. If you could snap your fingers and cause any item in your house to transform into the cash you spent on it (or even only half of what you spent), what percentage of your possessions would be left?

I used to spend money like that, but now I only spend it on necessities.

Cedarford said...

scott m - "Race, by the way, is a bullshit term that no serious biologist gives freight to. "

????????

edutcher said...

Scott M said...

Race, by the way, is a bullshit term that no serious biologist gives freight to. If you want to slam bigotry, feel free and more power to you. Just try not to double-down on stupid.

Actually, that's not true.

For example, the races each have a different basic smell. It's why the dogs go crazy if a black guy walks through an all white neighborhood.

Or vice versa.

Black people's skin is tougher (according to The Blonde, who's had to give shots, run IVs, etc.).

How far race goes beyond such externals is another matter.

lemondog said...

“It’s About the Money!: How You Can Get Out of Debt, Build Wealth, and Achieve Your Financial Dreams.”

Yes, that Jesse James, er...um..., Jesse JACKSON, Sr. was quite the entrepreneur.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Race, by the way, is a bullshit term that no serious biologist gives freight to

Forensic and Physical Anthropology deals with racial characteristics that have nothing to do with skin color. There is scientific support for race and skeletal identification.

Just because you don't like something or because the concept has been misused, doesn't make it not so.

drozz said...

i am expecting my first baby soon. i reflect every day on the multitudes of needless crap i am forced to buy.

Nichevo said...

White or not: it's pretentious to be white and to address others as if they are white and you are not and that is why they are at fault.

Dog: have or are?

...

Validity of "race": does that mean the other words should be used for the same referent? because obviously something is in existence that we are calling race.

Nichevo said...

Look, when you can identify a Japanese from a Chinese from Korean based on their facial features, let alone an Asian from a Caucasian from a Negro, there's something at work there.

I Callahan said...

This all sounds very familiar to me.

Here in Detroit, we have the Kwame Kilpatrick saga. His parents were very politically connected (his mother was a Congresswoman), and I see the same parallels:

A spoiled, entitled child of the inner-city black elite who expected to keep getting more and more, in spite of the ability to pay for it.

Kwame is no different. He was known to do stuff just a stupid as the Jacksons.

David said...

"But I guess we can look at Jackson's list of items and use it as an occasion to reflect on the idiotic crap we've felt tempted to buy."

Always use the Althouse portal to Amazon when you buy your own idiotic crap.

edutcher said...

Nichevo said...

Look, when you can identify a Japanese from a Chinese from Korean based on their facial features, let alone an Asian from a Caucasian from a Negro, there's something at work there.

Actually, you can. The Japanese tend to be fairer complected, among other things.

FWIW, before the World Wars, you could distinguish between a Frenchman and an Italian, or an Italian and an Austrian, even if both were from the Alpine regions.

A friend of mine's grandfather, who lived most of his life in Europe and served in WWI, remarked upon it often.

Bob R said...

If Jackson had used the Althouse portal, this would probably be a much better blog.

Methadras said...

Um, why did they spend so much money on stupid shit? I can tell you why, but that would be RACIST!!!

Aridog said...

Uh, from a layman's viewpoint... Scott M is correct, "race" per se is not a recognized taxonomy in biology beyond the concept of genetically divergent populations within the same species. If a significant deviation is observed it may be ranked a sub-species.

Think of dogs as an example that isn't politically charged. Dogs are a ranked sub-species within the species Canis Lupus, ranked as Canis Lupus Familiaris. C.L. Familiaris is not further ranked within the sub-species, no matter the wide range of characteristics from say a Pekinese to a Newfoundland. Therefore, for "races" within the canine world we have "breeds" as differentiation all within the same sub-species.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens, a sub-species of archaic Homo Sapiens, is no different, the "race" distinctions are not significant enough to be ranked.

In my life's experience I find "race" to be a political conjecture shaped to fit prejudices. In meeting and working with different people, around the world, I never found significant differences in individual hopes and desires. Introduce politics and suddenly we have hostility and prejudices. Political solutions cannot solve racism, because they cause it.

I acknowledge my opinion on this is biased by my personal experiences, not scientific research.

bgates said...

Before you pass judgment on the Jacksons, think about the mess you might have made of your finances

I've thought about it, and one way I'm better than them is I made my mess without committing fraud, conspiracy, making false statements, mail fraud, wire fraud, or criminal forfeiture.

It might not be a crime to get what you want

Yeah, but you know what might be a crime? Fraud, conspiracy, making false statements, mail fraud, wire fraud, and criminal forfeiture.

AllenS said...

A DNA test will tell you your genetic makeup. IIRC there are 7 different classifications for blacks. For instance, Somalians are different than Pygmies.

Original Mike said...

"What if the newspapers published a list of the 100 stupidest things you've thrown your money away on over the course of a lifetime?"

My list would top out well below 100.

Original Mike said...

"Look around. If you could snap your fingers and cause any item in your house to transform into the cash you spent on it (or even only half of what you spent), what percentage of your possessions would be left?"

I'm looking around. Not finding anything obvious.

Scott M said...

My list would top out well below 100.

Mine too, though only if duplication weren't allowed.

Aridog said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Forensic and Physical Anthropology deals with racial characteristics that have nothing to do with skin color. There is scientific support for race and skeletal identification.

Of course there is...just as there are physical differences between Garage's Labrador and my German Shepherd and wider differences between either and someone's Pekingese. Still they are the same sub-species..."race" is an informal term applied to humans to differentiate within the sub-species where with dogs we refer to "breeds", informally from a biological standpoint.

Maybe we'd be better off referring to physical and cultural differences as "breed" distinctions, not race. It is really immaterial biologically as neither concept is a ranked distinction.

Aridog said...

AllenS said...

A DNA test will tell you your genetic makeup ...

Using my canine analogy, my DNA would reveal my race/breed as "Mongrel!"

Hey, I've been called worse :-))

Rusty said...

ricpic said...
Maybe Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife risked everything to buy stupid stuff because they're stupid people. Or is the obvious beyond the pale?

It's OK. Stupid isn't a race. Yet.

kimsch said...

Jesse Jackson and his wife didn't think they were risking anything at all. They were above the law. They could spend those campaign funds on anything they wanted with no repercussions. That's why they bought all that stupid stuff. In their minds there was no risk.

Rusty said...

Bob R said...
Tools. If I could have all the money that I spent on tools of all kinds (woodworking, gardening, mechanical, cooking, computing, musical instruments, recording equipment) and I could spend it in a more rational and systematic way, I'd have a lot left over...to spend on more tools.

Yep.
I only sell a tool to buy another tool.
Anybody need a plasma cutter?
I got to buy another welder.

AllenS said...

Aridog, 11% of my DNA isn't even identifiable. How's that for Mongrel?

Revenant said...

Isn't "because he's not that smart" a decent-enough explanation?

Original Mike said...

If he didn't have all that crap, how would we know he's better than us?

Chuck Currie said...

Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid people do stupid things - including electing stupid people.

Cheers

Aridog said...

Kimsch has a point. I suspect Jackson and his wife actually thought the money contributed to his campaign treasury was in fact homage donations for their personal use.

Forest Gump's momma had it right. What you do defines you.

Aridog said...

AllenS said...

Aridog, 11% of my DNA isn't even identifiable. How's that for Mongrel?

In the canine world, some organizations call that "All American" as an identifier for "Mutt."

I think "All American" fits you. Hell, I'd be scared to check my DNA...can they tell if horse thief or cattle rustler or just "wise-ass" is in there?

David said...

Jessee Jr. isn't stupid. That's way too easy. He is so foolish and reckless that its hard not to call him self destructive. One of my kids knew him a ways back. Said he was a good guy. Bright, decent, thoughtful, ambitious to do something good with his life. Why? What was missing? To me it's a very sad story.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Still they are the same sub-species..."race" is an informal term applied to humans to differentiate within the sub-species where with dogs we refer to "breeds", informally from a biological standpoint.

No one is arguing that the different 'races' of mankind are different species. Race or Breed. Same thing. So what does the difference in terminology mean. Nothing. The idea is the same: that there are certain physical characteristics that are specific or that are generally specific to the various races (or breeds if you prefer) of homo-sapiens-sapiens. This is undeniable and there is nothing derogatory or "racist" about noticing this scientific fact. Just like noticing that a poodle is different from a chihuahua, it doesn't make either any less of a dog.


Maybe we'd be better off referring to physical and cultural differences as "breed" distinctions, not race. It is really immaterial biologically as neither concept is a ranked distinction.


Cultural differences are not biological. Neither are religious sects biologically selected for. Muslim is not a race. Jewish is not a race.

Race or physical morphology is a fact. That the races are not as distinct as they perhaps were 10,000 years ago due to human mobility and interbreeding does not erase the fact that there evolved distinct races of humans that are physically distinguishable from each other. As time goes on, the concept of race WILL become meaningless as more and more intermingling occurs. This is a good thing.

Hiding our heads in the sand about this issue because it has become a political hot potato and is used to divide people is not a solution to anything.

kimsch said...

Aridog and Allen S.

Ancestry.com has me at 45% British Isles, 29% Scandinavian, 22% Central European, and 4% undetermined. I was a beta tester of the DNA testing there.

Mutt.

Allen S, that's a nice spread you have...

Aridog said...

Dust Bunny Queen ... you are missing my point...or I misunderstand you. Maybe unintentionally. I've traveled a fair bit and yes, I am aware that physical differences are "facts"...my take? Big deal! I still say "race" as we use it today is a political contrivance to divide not unify. A Pygmy or a Celt...very different, yet fundamentally they both follow Maslow's hierarchy, at the base both looking for a warm place to eat, shit, procreate, and sleep.

I find far more similarities than differences once past the phenotype differences. I am not "color blind"...I see color or other physical difference, such as in Asians, and I am curious not suspicious. You seem to be projecting "race" as a "determinant" fact for relationships (unless I misunderstand)...and that is simply not my experience.

My experience is that politicians make "race" an issue wholly unrelated to any science, least of all biology or anthropology. It is a cheap and easy way to pose opposition for the sake of it. And that is bullshit to me.

An recent example...Dr. Benjamin Carson. Politicians & pundits quickly made a fuss about his race conflated with his politics. Would his speech at the prayer fandango have caused the same stir if he'd been white, or even Asian? What frigging difference of significance does his "race" make?

I feel the same way about Obama, his race doesn't make him an asshole, his personality does.

I have very little use for professional politicians or pundits who specialize in "race awareness" ...fact is I despise them.

And born in the 40's, raised and educated through the 60's, including a bit of war, I am very damn tired of the entire issue of "Race." Citing it on any side is the first step to building a prejudice in my opinion. There is no worthwhile conversation that can't be race-free if we'd let it be.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You seem to be projecting "race" as a "determinant" fact for relationships (unless I misunderstand)...and that is simply not my experience.

Absolutely NOT. You completely misunderstand. I am discussing race as a physical fact in the context of forensic anthropology. When you look at the bones, you only see the structural morphology.

People developed or evolved certain physical characteristics to deal with environmental and other selection criteria, some of which are sexual preference, to help them survive, cope and prosper. It just IS. There is nothing wrong with it

My experience is that politicians make "race" an issue wholly unrelated to any science, least of all biology or anthropology. It is a cheap and easy way to pose opposition for the sake of it. And that is bullshit to me.

I am in 100% agreement here too. Using race as a dividing tactic is despicable.

However, you can't just wish the concept of race/breed away because you might think it is icky or that some people are exploiting it. People also need to realize that at some point, race is going to be a completely obsolete concept as people blend themselves more and more together. Some day the forensic science of race will be useless. As I said. THAT is a good thing.

I'm not taking a stand on anything political. It is science.

If people want to try to make the Jackson's actions as described in the original post topic, a racial thing, they are being stupid. Race has nothing to do with culture.

Third Coast said...

IIRC, recent polling shows that Jesse Jr. would still win his Congressional seat despite his travails.
The Chicago Way.

Revenant said...

I am aware that physical differences are "facts"

Mental differences, too.

Shanna said...

4% undetermined

That part is neanderthal!

kimsch said...

Shanna, then maybe I can get me some minority perqs. Can I put it on applications? The census?

Aridog said...

Dust Bunny Queen...

I am discussing race as a physical fact in the context of forensic anthropology.

This derivative discussion began about race vis a vis biology, where some comments said Scott M was "wrong." He was not wrong vis a vis biology. Biologically races are of insufficient significance to be ranked..e.g., accorded sub-species status.

How racial or "breed" characteristics are utilized in forensic anthropology is irrelevant to the concept of race in biology....where race signifies insufficient divergence for ranking, however striking we might see the differences.

The minute we give "race" credence outside of the narrow field of physical anthropology we are relating it to far more than physical aspects, no matter how hard we might try not to do so. Then the politicians step in and screw everything up.

Please note that in my first post (9:19 Am) on the subject of Jackson's stupidity I made clear that I saw no connection between race and stupidity....e.g, Jackson or Blagojevich, same/same = stupid.

Rusty said...

David said...
Jessee Jr. isn't stupid. That's way too easy. He is so foolish and reckless that its hard not to call him self destructive. One of my kids knew him a ways back. Said he was a good guy. Bright, decent, thoughtful, ambitious to do something good with his life. Why? What was missing? To me it's a very sad story.

And yet he acted like any other base ward healer.
It's Chicago. It's what they do.

Mumpsimus said...

What makes any luxury a "stupid" purchase, other than personal taste? And, maybe, snobbery?

I'd be just as disgusted if he'd spent the money on first editions, or a summer home in the Hamptons.

ampersand said...

I saw an estimate of the Jackson family worth as being One hundred million dollars. That was about 10 years ago. I assume they don't share amongst themselves.

Here in Chicago there wasn't any media interest in this affair until now,as they can't ignore it anymore.
The media never spent much time,if any, on the fact that Jr's wife was a high salaried Chicago alderman who lived full time in DC.

Locally they still treat Sr. as if he was the voice of God.

AllenS said...

Kimsch, I also used Ancestry.com for my DNA and previously I used Family Tree, and share British Isles and Central European with you. We're you surprised at the number of distant relatives that you had? Thanks for the nice comment.

kimsch said...

AllenS,

I've had a few people contact me to see if they are, indeed, fourth or fifth cousins. But I don't find any of the same family names in their trees, so probably not. Cousins of cousins.

Our trees double every generation in direct ancestors alone. Then add in all the siblings and their children and it's no surprise that there are so many distant relatives. Especially as we get older and have our own nieces and nephews and grand-nieces and grand-nephews, and our cousins become grandparents (or we do!)

Rusty said...

Here in Chicago there wasn't any media interest in this affair until now,as they can't ignore it anymore.
The media never spent much time,if any, on the fact that Jr's wife was a high salaried Chicago alderman who lived full time in DC.


Looks like his wife is going away as well.
The only reason they both went for public office is so they could grab as much as they could with both hands. The same reason Jesse Sr. went into the race grievance business.

Aridog said...

Kimsch & AllenS ... I think I am behind the times here. Please tell me how Ancestry dot com determines "DNA"? Do they request a swab of mucus membrane be sent in to them for analysis?

In other words, how do they know that great grandma X didn't boink the milkman or pony express dude instead of Gee-paw to create a lineage?

Equiring minds need to know this stuff ":-))

themightypuck said...

If it hasn't been said, I'd like all the money I paid on law school back.

Broomhandle said...

'Hood rich. It's a black thing. Oh, and a white trash thing.

kimsch said...

Aridog, cheek swab. Then they use that to try to determine generalized DNA - Where people are from rather than common alleles for actual family.

Gene said...

Scott m: Race, by the way, is a bullshit term that no serious biologist gives freight to.

You ought to tell that to the Justice Department and the EEOC, both of which use race to pursue racial justice. You also ought to tell college admission officers, diversity officials (UC San Diego has 47 of them), and federal judges who oversee consent decrees requiring hiring and promotion quotas in police and fire departments.

As far as "serious biologists" not believing in race either, you obviously don't pay much attention to the New York Times. Despite the paper's liberal ideology in virtually every other respect, their science reporters regularly publish stories about racial differences, the most recent (from one week ago) being about a 35,000 year old genetic mutation responsible for the more numerous sweat glands, thicker hair shafts and small breasts of East Asians.

The geneticists doing these studies are not fringe characters. The New York Times story about East Asians came from a paper published in Cell, a peer-reviewed scientific founded 40 years ago by MIT Press.

Many people who deny the existence of race consider themselves on the side of the angels. They may be. But thanks to the advances of genetic research in recent decades they are also scientifically illiterate angels.

AllenS said...

Aridog,

I first did my YDNA (fathers to sons only) and it was with Family Tree. I had to take two swabs from the inside of my mouth. I ordered another test for all relatives, and they had enough of my DNA to do that test with what they had.

Interestingly, they have a chromosone chart where you can see where your DNA matches with relatives. I think that Ancestry.com is going to add this feature some time in the future.

I have 2 third cousins who belong to FT and we share an enormous amount of DNA according to the chart.

When I used Ancestry.com last year, I spit in a tube. They have a very good feature, where you can create a Family Tree of your known ancesters and are very helpful with providing information to help you create your tree.

AllenS said...

According to Family Tree, I'm mostly an R1B1A2. You can Google it.

I found 2 second cousins with Ancestry, and both of them had all kinds of pictures of my relatives. Such as my grandmother with my father when he was 2 years old. One in Utah, the other in Texas.

AprilApple said...

The media never use the word "disgraced" to describe this man and his corrupt, illegal and selfish actions. I'm certain if JJ Jr. was a republcian, he'd be "disgraced".
No. poor JJ Jr. is a victim.

AprilApple said...

Shouting Thomas said:
I'm surprised he was indicted. He must have pissed somebody off, or exceeded the boundaries of accepted corruption in some way we don't know about.

my thoughts too.

AprilApple said...

Democrat backers don't care. The checks to democrats keep pouring in.

Aridog said...

Gene said...

Reference "Scott m: Race, by the way, is a bullshit term that no serious biologist gives freight to."

You ought to tell that to the Justice Department et al ad infinitum...[snip]...The geneticists doing these studies are not fringe characters.

No they're not, actually they are Molecular Biologists working within a single sub-species in taxonomy terms in order to analyze the divergence that occurs there. No one argues, least of all me, that the divergences are not wide and amazing. It is certainly science at a high level, but it is not proof of race per se in biological terms. In decades of horse and dog breeding I've yet to see a ranking within the sub-species for the domestic horse or dog, regardless of their wide differentials which we colloquially call "breeds." Breed per se is not a taxonomic term...e.g., it is not scientifically ranked.

This work has not, at least to date, provided for biology to rank these divergences as significant enough to establish formal taxonomic ranking. If you can provide me with a scientific citation that says otherwise, that "race" [or "breed"] per se is officially ranked, I will stand corrected.

As for government and courts citing "race"...ignorance has never been a disqualifying criteria for those positions. That is part of the problem where they/we to qualify "race" as a rent seeking mechanism.

Yes, there is science behind the study of divergences with a sub-species...aka "races,"...and when it determines innate capabilities & capacities diverging significantly, such as innate intelligence, rather than different hair follicles and skin types environmentally influenced, let me know.

I am no kumbaya feel good race ignorer...at the ordinary man level, I celebrate race and our differences, it sponsors curiosity in me, not suspicion or hostility. That said, we are all the same sub-species and that infers we all have similar innate features, however divergent externally.

With that I give up this race debate. If it makes anyone feel better that "race" per se is significant substantially, then so be it. Just ask yourself what your real reasons are for insisting that race per se makes a difference. It's been done before when trying to source the "Aryan Race"..quite popular until the source turned out to be some brown people.

S. I Hayakawa said, paraphrasing the semanticist, that we ought to only concern ourselves with significant differences, not differences minutely.

Gene said...

AprilApple: Just ask yourself what your real reasons are for insisting that race per se makes a difference. It's been done before when trying to source the "Aryan Race"..quite popular until the source turned out to be some brown people.

People who have screwy genetic theories which they then force on the rest of society can wreck a country for half a century, as happened in the Soviet Union when the communists tried to grow wheat in Siberia because that agreed with communist doctrine of human malleability

Yes, there is science behind the study of divergences with a sub-species...aka "races,"...and when it determines innate capabilities & capacities diverging significantly, such as innate intelligence, rather than different hair follicles and skin types environmentally influenced, let me know.

Well, I will but anyone who found something (such as a racially-based difference in IQ) would never publish it for fear he'd be hounded out of the academy. That's where we are today--with some people even arguing that doctors shouldn't talk about diseases which impact different races in different ways because that empowers racists. Well maybe it does. But it also helps people who are sick and that's where our focus should be--not stubbornly maintaining there are no differences in racial abilities, despite their being prominently on display every weekend in track meets, football games and basketball contests. Anyone who follows sports knows about differences in racial abilities. You just can't mention them in public or you'll end up like Jimmy, the Greek, or Frank Gifford (which is to say fired or forced to apologize for saying what everyone else knows is true).

Aridog said...

Gene ... you and I seem to be on different wave lengths. When I first commented I merely was saying what Scot M said was true for biology and its official ranking taxonomy. You begged to differ by showing there is research in externalities within a sub-species, and then assert "race" is an official terms because of these studies. That's cart before horse....the term is a colloquialism used for convenience. When I refer to innate capabilities, which can include intelligence, you shift quickly to external potentialities, such as disease, later to come back to innate features, citing sports,management, etc., potentials as identified by that renown biological taxonomist Jimmy the Greek, etc. You assert that no scientist would publish findings of innate significant divergence in intelligence. So much for veracity in science, eh?. You appear, in this part, to be implying you believe there are innate intellectual differences between "races"...e.g., significantdivergence within a sub-species. Good luck with that. There is no scientific peer reviewed and accepted research establishing that feature. How convenient.

Gene said...

You appear, in this part, to be implying you believe there are innate intellectual differences between "races"...e.g., significantdivergence within a sub-species. Good luck with that. There is no scientific peer reviewed and accepted research establishing that feature. How convenient.

And now we get back to what you wanted to talk about all along--IQ. Because if anyone disagrees, then you get to call them a racist. Well, screw that. Let's talk about the obvious racial differences we see on TV ever weekend--athletic ability. If you think there are no racial differences in athletic ability in say the 100 meter dash or the 440, fine--show me your evidence (use numbers if you have them because I can). And remember, if it's true, it's not racist, although there are people who argue that any difference is racist.

Aridog said...

Gene...somehow you make a worthwhile discussion pointless, by implying my point is political vis a vis "race". Nonsense. As someone who has bred horses I hardly would debate the performance characteristic differences between "races" or "breeds" or within them per se.

The point is STILL that in Biology, the organized science, there is no official ranking taxonomically for "race" or "breed". That is all I said initially.

Physical Anthropology is NOT Biology and, for example, the use of anthropometry is now utilized to study ancestry and environmental influences....not racial distinctions per se....like when I was in grade school and we were taught about racing skulls with dry beans, etc.

Within Biology (the original assertion by Scott M) the terms for races are colloquialisms used to indicate distinctions WITHIN a sub-species. We could also discriminate between "fat" and "skinny", "tall" and "short", etc. and that would not make those descriptors taxonomic rankings either.

All that said, by way of trying to explain my position, of course there is scientific study of differences and divergences within the sub-species...if for no other reason than THAT is precisely how further taxonomic ranking is determined.

For an example of taxonomic ranking, see: the domestic horse, Equus ferus caballus, versus Przewalski's horse, Equus ferus przewalskii, both separate sub-species of horse, Equus ferus, ranked separately due to significant and highly repeatable genetic divergences in the rarer Przewalski's horse compared to the Domestic Horse.

I hope you get it that I'm not denying differences between races or breeds. If not, I can't help you. And you need no help, as you've already made up your mind on the subject.



Paul Ciotti said...

Aridog,

If I understand you--and I probably do not--you agree there are differences between different breeds/races of horses but at the same you say there are no significant differences between different breed or races of humans?

Well, I say there are significant differences between the human races in everything from breast size to penis size, number of sweat glands, jumping ability, hair shaft thickness, resistance to malaria, susceptibility to high blood pressure and tolerance for solar radiation.

As far as there being no such thing as race when it comes to humans (I don't know if this is your position or not) but when I was a student at Columbia many years I remember walking out of one class in (I think) anthropology, where we heard that race was a social construct, and then walking a few doors down the hall to another class (physiology?) where we were told to ignore professors who let their political beliefs corrupt their scientific ones. I may have the classes reversed (maybe it was the anthropology department pushing the concept of race) but I will never forget my surprise at having consecutive lecturers take such strong opposite positions on the existence (or non-existence) of race.

Given that my professors couldn't agree (and these were no amateurs--Margaret Mead was still at Columbia then) I did what one is supposed to do with a liberal education, I formed my own opinion. Yes, it was formed by watching track meets and football games but there many thousands of individual experiments in such games, which makes the resulting statistics hard to dismiss.




Aridog said...

Paul Ciotti said...

Aridog, ... If I understand you--and I probably do not ..[you don't, ed.]--you agree there are differences between different breeds/races of horses but at the same you say there are no significant differences between different breed or races of humans?

No, I did not say there were [just?, ed.] differences in one sub-species and no significant differences, taxonomically, in another. I said there were no biologically, taxonomically, significant variances in either one.

Okay, one last time: I have consistently referred to BIOLOGY, not Anthropology, especially not "Physical anthropology." However, everyone who disputes my simple assertion, supporting Scott M's statement, that "race" is not taxonomically ranked in Biology immediately switches to Anthropology as their proof. They-Are-Not-The-Same. Within Biology there are known variances within sub-species, be it equine, canine or human. These physical variations may appear huge, but they are not genetically significant enough to warrant a separate ranking....e.g., Great Dane to Pekingese, Nordic White man to African Black man, Thoroughbred race horse to Shetland Pony IN THE FORMAL STRUCTURE OF TAXONOMY IN BIOLOGY...repeat BIOLOGY.

More importantly, I have NOT said the Biology today is an absolute determinant that cannot change its findings over time. I have simply said, that, today, Biology does not taxonomically rank variations in the human sub-species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Anthropology is a different field of study, focusing more on externalities of creatures, human in particular, and rightly defines physical measurement as significant IN ANTHROPOLOGY, which deals with environmental variations, cultural variations, and ancestral variations. It is not BIOLOGY. The two science fields look at and evaluate different phenomena....and in reality , there is no dispute between them except, as you discovered, in the political opinions of various professors and politicians.

There will always be discussions and debate in science...for example that referring to Homo erectus versus Homo ergaster, both conceivably precedent to Homo sapiens, and Homo sapiens sapiens....in both biological and anthropological terms.

The fact is, in biological terms, we haven't, YET, distinguished sufficient divergences within the human sub-species to classify a new set of sub-species or formally recognize "race" as a rank. Anthropology can do that for other reasons and not be in conflict. Just laymen insisting that it is so doesn't make it so. Not to mention that if we did create these taxonomic distinctions, how would be treat hybrids? That debate is already in play for Brown Bears, Grizzly Bears, and Polar Bears and their hybrids....hybrid of distinct separate species no less.

Speaking of hybrids, if we were in a new world of multiple human sub-species, what would be call Barack Obama?

Gene said...

I said there were no biologically, taxonomically, significant variances in either one.

Our differences then are whether are not there are significant differences between the races? I would say overwhelming dominance in speed and jumping ability at the high end of these ranges is a significant difference. It's too bad we can't bet against each other on the outcomes of track meets and basketball games because then I could retire early.

And what is not significant about the differences in breast size and penis size? I've only ever seen one guy in a locker room whose penis hung nearly down to his kneecap and he wasn't Japanese. By the same token, I've gotten to know two Asian women fairly well over the years but if I were looking for someone to impersonate Dolly Parton neither one would be my first choice.

Such variations are neither cultural nor environmental. Anyone who thinks that is letting her ideology dominate her common sense.

You asked how I would classify someone like Barack Obama since is half one race and half another. Unlike most of the media (and Obama himself who threw the woman who raised him, his white grandmother, under the bus in heat of the 2008 election), I would classify him as mixed race. But the fact that so many people are mixed in some way doesn't mean that race doesn't exist or isn't a useful category (medicine comes to mind). Few things in nature are exclusively black or white (no pun intended).