By Mimikatz
John Tanner is the head of the Voting Rights section at DOJ, He's the one who believes Georgia's voter ID law discriminates against whites because fewer elderly have photo ID's and Black people "don't age like white people, they die first." It is ugly but entertaining to watch him squirm under questioning by Artur Davis and Keith Ellison. Artur Davis pointed out that in Alabama actually a higher percentage of Black people vote than white people, and got Tanner to admit that he did not look at actual statistics, he is going by his prejudices. Ellison tries to get him to see what was wrong with his comment, but Tanner just doesn't get it, except that his "tone" and "clumsy phrasing" hurt people.
But what no one seems to realize is that Tanner is just dead wrong statistically. You can look it up.
It is commonly known that at birth the life expectancy of white people is higher than Black people, about 6.4 years for men, 4.5 years for women), although the difference has been shrinking and the discrepancies between men and women within each race are about as high (+5 years for white women, +7 years for Black women). The differences between the races persist at about the same rate into the mid thirties. But then they begin to shrink, year by year, and by age 65 are down to about a year and a half. By age 80 the difference has disappeared, and after 80, Black people actually have a higher life expectancy than whites within each gender. And the life expectancy for Black women is actually higher than white men at every age. (But we all know women don't really count.) So Tanner is not only insensitive, but wrong.
Just another example of the Bush-Cheney regime making policy based on prejudice and with GOP dominance as their goal. And just another example that things that "everyone knows" sometimes aren't really true.
Because of higher infant mortality and the cumulative differences, a higher percentage of whites are alive at every age until about 90. But again, a larger or nearly equal percentage of Black females are alive as white males from about age 30 on, and they steadily outpace white men from age 72 on.
These statistics are all as of 2003. If trends have continued, the differences between races would have narrowed.
Posted by: Mimikatz | October 30, 2007 at 15:31
sorry, that's a bit too polite for my tastes
when I want it to stick, I give it to them loud and dirty
(wink)
Posted by: freepatriot | October 30, 2007 at 15:40
hey, dumsfeld just got charged with torture in France, whodathunkit ???
the repuglican party is just beginning to enjoy the great big glass of shit that george bush poured for them
under the terms of the ICC, any member Nation has a responsibility to arrest those who have committed CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
look at this gem from a commondreams article:
the repuglican party gets to spend it's remaining days defending the indefensible
I'll bet the shit stain even takes a whack at defending torture once in a while
and then they try to call themselves christians
the real question isn't who would Jesus torture
the real question is:
WHO AMONG US WOULD TORTURE JESUS
dick cheney says that's a "no brainer"
Posted by: freepatriot | October 30, 2007 at 15:51
It goes without saying that he's a racist. But his rationalization is also wrong. Although there is a difference based on early mortality, as people age Black survival rates actually begin to outpace whites. And, of course, everyone knows that women outlive men. The discrepancy is so great that Black women outlive white men, on average. But of course he wouldn't think about that, to the extent he thinks, because he's evidently a sexist too.
Posted by: Mimikatz | October 30, 2007 at 16:50
Every now and then someone comes along who can slowly and arduously, but with great determination, jam both feet deeply into his mouth, and show everyone with Pride!
Posted by: radiofreewill | October 30, 2007 at 17:03
The NYT is saying:
"Tanner has come under fire for clearing a Georgia law that requires voters to show government-issued photo IDs at the polls. It was upheld by a federal judge last month." link follows.
upheld the same law or the rewritten one.
Posted by: BlueStateRedhead | October 30, 2007 at 18:13
Mimikatz,
statistics are like probability. It is very important on "how" you look at the numbers, and lots of times, the first glance is wrong. (... rubbing my Pi Mu Epsilon pin for luck)
What you say is true in the start of the thread, but it doesn't have much to do with what Tanner said.
He is looking at the cumulative numbers, where at any age, the total number of black males that have died off WRT(with respect to) their original group is more than the white males WRT their group.
Then you start comparing black females to white males forgetting that the proper comparison should be black females to white females.
I don't know if the final numbers Tanner is using justify his actions, but you should get the statistics right and not compare apples to oranges.
Again Tanner is saying that if you start off with a group of whites (male and female) and some smaller number of blacks (male and female) in the same state, for that is the demographics of it, then as they get older a greater percentage of whites WRT their original group, will be alive than the blacks WRT their original group.
I agree you can ask "so what?"
But don't muddy the waters with a mixed up analysis.
By the way, at 90, not that many (total number) people are voting unfortunately no matter what their race So again that point is misleading.
And my opinion is that we need a national ID card for everyone, and if someone doesn't have it, then the Government should make it their business to get them one without making it a hardship. i.e. I could see sending a team (just like the census) to the old people whether black or white, and at their home ask the questions, verify their standing, fill out the forms, and deliver back to them the card. Of course the team would have representatives of both races to to monitor and mollify any fears. Yes this would cost money, but it would only have to be done once.
Posted by: Jodi | October 30, 2007 at 18:13
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Voting-Rights.html?hp
My last words "upheld the same law or the rewritten one" was meant to be a question. Sorry for any confusion and hope someone can see past Jodi's interruption to give me an answer.
In any case, NYT is emphasizing the apology and not the poor performance.
Posted by: BlueStateRedhead | October 30, 2007 at 18:17
mimiK
glad to read your thoughts here gain.
this argument seems one with the argument which justice scalia employed in gore v bush (or were the names reversed?)
it is the infamous
"black is white",
"good is bad",
"whites are disadvantaged",
"candidate bush will suffered irreparable damage"
that both george orwell and scalia have made famous in our lifetime (in mine, at least).
orwell was being sarcastic about an authoritarian political system in england.
scalia was being "sincere" in an effort to manufacture a legal argument to vault his favored candidate into the presidency,
using his position as a united states supreme court justice as a legal fulcrum.
announcing that the opposite of reality is reality is a well-established propaganda tactic.
affirmative action (for blacks) is discrimination.
white male professors are being discriminated against when female professors are given tenure.
american democracy is imperiled without government spying.
making false assertions and then declaring them an accurate map for action is, at present,
a fundamental technique of american rightwing politicians explaining their views or policies to the american public.
Posted by: orionATL | October 30, 2007 at 21:57
Fake data is the province of swine.
Just ask Karl.
Posted by: JMX | October 31, 2007 at 16:51