It seems ages ago, but it was just early yesterday morning that I wrote an article comparing the rates of syphillis infection in Texas and in Vermont. It was kind of a parable about the unintuited truth behind the right wing’s moralistic preaching about sex.
It turns out that the article stirred up a bit of controversy with a right wing Texan who couldn’t seem to handle the idea that the rate of people catching a sexually transmitted disease is higher in Texas than it is in Vermont. He blamed it on black people. Seriously.
Well, fair is fair, so I thought I’d give Texas another chance to prove itself as the virtuous haven for moral uprightness that it so often claims to be. Right wing politicians from Texas are always giving the rest of us Americans hypermoralistic sermons about family values. Why, you’d think that there was some kind of 75% off sale on families down in Texas, there’s so much preaching about family values coming from there.
One of the best indicators of true family values has got to be the degree of success with which children come out of the family environment. High school graduation rates ought to provide a pretty good reflection of that success. If a kid doesn’t graduate from high school, after all, then it’s going to be pretty difficult for that kid to be successful in today’s America.
It just so happens that a new report on high school graduation rates just got released from the Department of Education. This report offers a much more accurate reflection of graduation rates than previous reports, because what the new report measures is the degree to which children graduate from high school on time – in the year that they would be expected to graduate. This means that there’s not the usual opportunity for state departments of education to fudge the numbers with GEDs, life experience certificates, and that sort of thing.
So, how did Texas size up to Vermont, when it came to the family value of a high school education? Not very well. For the two school years included in the report, Texas graduation rates were lower than the national average, with a two-year average of only 74.5 percent of students graduating high school on time. Vermont, on the other hand, did very well, scoring well above the national average, with a two-year average of 82.8 percent of students graduating high school on time.
When it comes down to real measurements of family values, liberal Vermont seems to do a much better job than right wing Texas. Families in Vermont seem to have the kind of liberal values that help a child succeed in life. The right wing values of Texas seem to be failing families, resulting in children who have a much higher rate of failure.
This trend applies nationally, by the way. The blue states that voted for John Kerry have higher rates of on-time high school graduation than the red states that voted for George W. Bush do.
Talk is cheap. Preaching is easy. It’s the results that matter. Looking at how well these two different types of family do in preparing their children for adulthood, the difference is clear. Liberal family values work better. In comparison, right wing family values are weak.
I never said Texas was more righteous or didn’t have as many cases. It’s a fact, Peregrin, that Texas has more Syphillis cases than Vermont.
I said your comparison was stupid, and it is. Your are comparing apples and Ford trucks, plain and simple. I’ve presented your argument to several “Liberals” I work with and they all laughed at your logic. Seriously. You were cornered and YOU made this out to be more than it was.
CDC stats confirm more blacks have syphillis overall. That’s a fact. A fact is not racism, but Liberals/Progressives such as you, Peregrin, can’t seem to tell the difference.
Sad. Very sad.
And Peregrin, the “educational” shortcomings that you speak of… easily explained, just like Syphillis madness.
A higher population means a more diverse range of people, and that range includes more Special Ed. populations, learning disabled populations, and emotionally distrubed populations. Plus, Texas has a lot of “transient”students that move here because of the oil industry. Also, unlike your beloved Vermont (which I have actually been to, seeing as how my grandfather was born and raised there), Texas has a high immigrant population. What does that mean? It means the kids of those immigrants have, on the whole, less support at home ’cause their parents don’t speak English.
I’m not excusing Texas. That’s the difference between you and me. I don’t make excuses, but you sure are quick to point the finger.
If viewers will just follow the link in the article above, Kevin, they’ll see that you offer separate attacks on black people in at least four separate ways.
Now, Kevin, you’re adding onto your racist attacks against blacks new xenophobic attacks. This time, you’re adding anti-immigrant bigotry into the mix. Congratulations!
People who don’t speak English support their kids less than people who speak English, huh?
Ah, well. As with the topic of sexually transmitted diseases, you fail to understand the difference between a basic count and a rate. A percentage is a rate, so once again, citing the larger population of Texas does not adequately explain the markedly lower rate of high school graduation in Texas than in Vermont.
See, if all other things are equal in two poplations, but one is one tenth the size of the other population, the two populations will have different numbers of people with learning disabilities, but the percentages of people with learning disabilities should be almost exactly the same.
Of course, all things are not equal between Texas and Vermont. As is demonstrated with the general comparison between pro-Bush and pro-Kerry states (red states and blue states in 2004), Texas is handicapped by having right wing family values that don’t support an educational system that works as well as the liberal family values that Vermont has.
Ha ha! Made me laugh Kevin! Not in the way you wanted to, though.
Yeah, I presented your arguments to several Republicans, and they all thought you were stupid.
Oh, yeah, and I have an invisible friend, and when I told him what you said, he laughed at how stupid your logic is.
Then, I called Jodie Foster, and she said that you just don’t make sense.
Afterwards, I called my good friend Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he said that your ideas about immigrants are outdated and nasty, and his Nazi father would attest to that, if he weren’t dead.
This argument is tragically flawed,
and the reasons for its failure have already been
lucidly articulated. If you’re going to speak
for liberals, please do your homework before you
publish. This is the kind of polemicist diarrhea
that has made people like Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter
famous.
Gee unfortunate. Absolutely no substance–just vile, mean-spirited whining about what you call “polemicist diarrhea.” Well clean up after yourself, because you just dropped a load.
Oh, it’s just fine to dump crap all over “Northeast Liberals,” but heaven forbid someone points a disparaging finger at the crackers down in Dumfukistan (i.e. the Torture Belt, i.e. the Syphillis Belt).
If you want a discussion based on substance, address actual problems with Peregrin’s methodology. There are valid critiques to be made:
First of all, Peregrin’s article was more of a debunking essay than an actual impartial study. He pointed out two bits of data that, when juxtaposed, seem to undermine the Deep South’s claim to moral superiority as opposed to New England. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a point well taken, though far from conclusive.
More questionable is the criticism of the moral character of a given population based on the prevalence of a disease within that population. Charitably, we might assume Peregrin was parodying conservatives who make such arguments frequently.
Unfortunately, Peregrin’s detractors never raised any valid criticisms. Instead, they began a weird series of arguments confusing “per capita” and “total,” then devolved from there into bizarre racist polemics.
Perhaps “unfortunate” could deal with the substance of the article. Are you actually claiming, “unfortunate”, that red states do NOT have a lower rate of high school graduation, on average, than blue states do?
That’s a fact. Either it’s right or it’s wrong. It can not be “tragically flawed”.
Have you looked at the U.S. Department of Education study that Peregrin is citing? If not, how could you know that Peregrin is wrong?
If, by “argument”, you are referring to the comparison of Vermont and Texas, well, that comparison is quite valid, given that the comparisons are of percents and not raw numbers. Kevin doesn’t seem to understand this simple mathematical principle, and if that’s what you’re complaining about, then you’ve made the same mistake. It’s your understanding of math that is tragically flawed, not the argument.
If, on the other hand, you’re criticising Peregrin’s connection of family values to children’s graduation rate from high school, then I challenge you to come up with a better statistical measure. In order to make a genuine argument against this connection between family values and high school education, you would have to argue that education should not be highly valued by American families.
The unfortunate problem in all of this is the fact that there are more ignorant people voting for the mean, attack-ad Republinazis than for the well-meaning liberal candidates. So we’ve got a tough fight ahead of us to educate these simpletons to the effect their right wing elected representatives are having on us all. The environmental, economic, domestic and foreign policy effects should begin to turn some of these voters around. I always liked the simple question people can ask themselves: Are we (keep it to you and your family, for starters) better off now than we were before these people were elected? Are general conditions improved? We needn’t argue with them and turn the whole dialogue into a side-taking verbal battle (although i concede it’s unavoidable with those who won’t acknowledge the facts and who are handicapped by dull witted simplistic views). Let’s bring these people into the fold by remaining non-confrontational as best we can.
Sorry, Tom, but I don’t buy the non-confrontational line.
Tom Daschle was non-confrontational. Joe Lieberman avoids confrontation with the Republicans.
You know how those non-confrontational Democrats in the Senate voted yesterday? Some of them voted for Lindsay Graham’s amendment to protect the people who torture.
We need to confront, strongly, what’s wrong with the right wing vision for America. We need to confront, strongly, the failures that their radical agenda has brought about in our society – failures in education, failures in public health, failures in our economy, and failures in the protection of our democratic system.
It’s funny how most of you who have posted regarding my comments are so quick to label me a racist, xenophobe, hater– whatever. Most of you, I’m sure, have never worked in an inner-city school where the majority of the population is classified as being a minority, and the ESL department has three teachers to handle to workload with students. I’m curious as to what Howard Dean funded study y’all are deriving your information from, ’cause it sure as hell ain’t got nothin’ to do with the United States census data that I have access to.
Are you who are finger pointing denying these facts, based on census data:
1) Minorities suffer more poverty
2) Blacks, as a whole, suffer more poverty among minorities
3) Students from backgrounds with parents who do not speak English or have limited English speaking abilities tend to, based on confirmed data from testing, struggle more in the classroom than native English speakers.
Again, quoting FACTS that don’t agree with your Utopian vision of this country is not racism or xenophobia or whatever the hell the PC terms are these days.
Oh and Peregrin: Thanks for completely ignoring most of my questions posed to you regarding the peculiar spike in Syphillis cases in Maryland, a state that ranks 19th in population yet has the 7th highest rate of Syphillis per 100,000.
And what about San Francisco, that Liberal Oasis, that has 42 cases per 100,000? (Actually, that figure is for the whole county but you get the idea.)
No, what we have here is a dodging of the facts in favor of accusations.
If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
If you have the law on your side, argue the law.
When you have neither, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.
Hmmm, who is arguing facts, facts based on CDC and census data ,that I have provided links to the former? ME.
Hmmm, who has changed the subject? Y’ALL (that’s Texan for ‘you all.’)
Oh, and Supine: Arnold called me and he says to stay out of his garbage. He’s tired of picking up after you.
If any of you care, I’ve posted my (hopefully) last response to this utterly ridiculous issue on my blog. Click on my name for the link.
Cheers, and enjoy your weekends. (Seriously.)
It appears to me that if you really wanted to make a convincing case for the moral superiority of a certain state based on the kind of data you’re using here, you’d have to establish a full set of criteria and apply them across the board. So you couldn’t focus just on syphillis rates or just on Texas and Vermont, and saying “what about Maryland” does nothing to rectify that.
Ah, now we see what this is all about. Kevin is trying to promote his little blog by being bigoted and controversial. He’s a little Ann Coulter wannabe.
La, la, la, la! I believe in ritual cannibalism! Click on the link above to read my blog and find out why!
Can’t resist: Yes, Supine, I am a whore for advetising, and I’ll suckle on any teat offered to me for free advertising.
Oh wise one, you are so perceptive! May I offer you my soul? Perhaps you and your star connections can put in a good word to Shirley Maclaine, and we can write up the contract for my soul through her.
Geez, I bet you even clicked or will click on the link. Be sure to comment if you do. I’d love to hash it out with you, but not here. Oh, and as far as advertising my blog, I really didn’t even need to mention it. Simply click on my name or anyone else’s name that provides a link to their blog and voila!, there you are.
But if you knew that, you wouldn’t have been able to come back with such a witty commentary! (Oh, and what a nice way to avoid the topic at hand!)
Geoff: I’m not arguing moral superiority. I’m saying that Peregrin’s conclusion is ludicrous, given the differences in population and demographics between Vermont and Texas. I could care less which state is morally superior; besides, there is no litmus test for that. What’s moral to you may or may not be moral to me.
Kevin, the whole leaving your name so that people can click on it and go to your blog was my whole point. It seems that’s all that you come here for, because you don’t really engage in the discussion. It’s like the math thing. You’re clearly proved to be wrong about a basic mathematical principle, but you pretend that the other people here aren’t even talking. Your inane continuance with the idea that, because Texas has a different population than Vermont, the two can’t be compared in terms of per capita statistics. Everyone here has pointed out to you, over and over, that it is a perfectly valid statistical comparison. They’ve given you examples to prove their point. You just seem not to read or not to care what others think. You just babble on and on, in the hope, I guess, that your boring little blog will eventually get some attention from somebody. Shameless. You’re not even very good at this shameless self-advertising. You manage to be offensive and boring at the same time.
I love to see a right winger like you arguing for moral relativism! However, this article is arguing for linking a particular moralist phrase, “family values”, with a particular measure – a family’s ability to promote childrens’ education. The point of this article, Kevin, is that it’s not good family values to let lots of children not graduate from high school. You say, “What’s moral to you may or may not be moral to me.” Are you arguing, then that it’s moral to let lots of children fail to graduate from high school?
One way or the other, Kevin. Which is it?
Well, which is it Kevin? Is Peregrin’s conclusion ludicrous because of the difference in population between Vermont and Texas, or the difference in demographics between the two states? You’ve been shifting between the two as though they were the same thing.
Your argument began with an erroneous criticism of Peregrin: Of course Texas has a higher syphillis rate, you argued, it has a higher total population. It was pointed out to you that, statistically, speaking in terms of rate controls for disparities in raw population totals. Then you stopped talking about population totals and switched to talking about demographics.
But demographics doesn’t solve the problem either. The spread of a sexually transmitted disease is not caused by demographics, it’s caused by behavior. If we judge the behavior to be immoral, that judgement reflects upon the people who indulge in that behavior, regardless of population demographics.
The reason Peregrin’s argument is flawed is because he’s cherry-picking medical data to make a case about morality. If you pursued a critique along these lines, you might get somewhere.
You certainly are talking about moral superiority. You’re going to a tremendous amount of trouble to deny the moral superiority of Vermont over Texas.
Geoff,
I think you’re right, mostly. I don’t think that it’s valid to state that one place is morally superior to another based on syphillis statistics. I do think that right wing Christian fundamentalists think so, and often make that argument. They make that claim especially in relation to their abstainence-only education programs, in which they don’t tell kids all the facts about sex, just tell them some scary stuff, and then tell them not to have sex. This has a direct bearing on transmission rates of syphillis. So, the syphillis argument is, I think meant to demonstrate that the claims of right wing Christian fundamentalists are false, not that Texas is especially wicked. The abstainence-only approach could come under some critique, but we’d have to look more at the behavior of high school level kids, and kids recently graduated from high school.
I find it interesting that Kevin keeps avoiding discussion of the facts presented in this article: Texas’s rate of high school graduation, Vermont’s rate of high school graduation, and the gap between the two. What’s he afraid of?
What I would be afraid of is implicitly employing “morality” as a technical sociological term, identifying one statistic as a simple, direct expression of morality.
With education, like disease, a number of moral factors can play into a statistic. High school students may reject learning, for reasons ranging from personal preference to social influence. Various levels of government may allow public schools to become unpleasant places where it is hard to learn, and where people are afraid to go. Parents may not support their children in the pursuit of education. Leaded paint–which the government still hasn’t issued protocols for dealing with during remodeling–could be damaging children’s brains. It could be a combination of some or all of these factors, and more.
So who’s fault is an unfortunate social statistic? Pointing simplistic fingers (usually away from yourself) has a long, stupid history in America. It’s the individual’s fault, not society’s. No, it’s society’s fault, not the individual’s…
Christian wingnuts in this country have a long, stupid history of simplistically citing sexually transmitted disease statistics as evidence of moral virtue or vice. I can only hope Peregrin wasn’t trying to take the same path.
J. Clifford:
I’m not afraid of addressing those two items; in fact, I already have. Read post #2. But I’ll elaborate… Texas, for the most part, has a good school system. Not great, not horrible, but good (in an average kind of way). Texas also has more neighborhoods where poverty and crime are more prevalent. And statistics show that educational performance in areas where these two factors are prevalent suffers. But lack of educational performance is not limited to poor areas.
And I also agree, mostly, with your post and Geoff’s posts. But, J. Clifford, how can you say “abstinence-only” educational programs have a direct correlation with syphillis? Now, I’m not about to advocate abstinence only; I believe that giving children the facts about consequences for their behaviors is always the best approach. Be honest with them, and hope that they make the right decision.
Supine: I was posting on here loooooooooooong before I ever heard of you. I simply have not been here (at least posting) for about 5 months. Look back in the archives; you’ll find some of my posts. And as far as my blog, I don’t care if no one or everyone reads it. I use it as a platform to voice my opinions and hone my writing skills, as sad as there are. But then again, if I’m so shameless and boring, why do you respond to me??? Oh, before I forget: Nice attempt to change the subject; I guess my posts are so boring that your attention wanders into areas such as the morality of kids graduating from high school. Have you ever worked in a school, Supine? Have you? I do work in one, and I’ll duke out your concerns about graduation anytime. On my blog, not this one.
Facts. Facts, Kevin. Facts.
Fact: Texas has a high school graduation rate below the national average. That does not support your opinion that Texas has a “good school system”.
Facts.
How can you possibly agree with me, Kevin?
I asked: Is it population or demographics that makes Peregrin’s argument absurd?
You answered: I agree with you.
I appreciate that you agree with me and all, but the response just doesn’t make sense or answer the question.
Geoff, Kevin didn’t read what you said. He simply wrote down something so that he could try to get another link to his blog registered on Google.
And, I suppose that I could rant on and on about how Kevin hasn’t refuted my argument defending my substantiation of the charge that he’s a sexist… if I wanted to make a pointless post just to promote my blog. But, Kevin has run away again.
Patricia: You should be so lucky that I ran away. It’s funny to read your posts, it really is! First, you accuse me of being sexist and when I call you on it and demand proof, you disappear. (Who was it you said “ran away???”) Then, you figure I’ve forgotten all about your false allegations but you didn’t count on my memory being sharp. So again, I PLEAD with you Patricia: Prove that I ever addressed a female on this site as a “bitch, ho, whore, slut” or insinuated that women are inferior. Please, Patricia!
I provided the refutation LOOOOOOOOOOOONG ago. I STILL have the refuation! Don’t change the subject.
There’s only two of you accusing me of using this blog for promotion of mine (which I’m not). Hmm, the STATISTICS don’t favor you Patricia, nor you Supine. My blog doesn’t make money, it will probably never make money; I use it to, like I pointed out to Supine, hone my pathetic writing skills and to voice my ignorant opinions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Geoff: I was referring to your comment, #18, not the comment above that. But, since you brought it up, I’ll address it. It’s a combination of the two, but demographics plays the full house to population’s 2-of-a-kind. Demographics is more accurate determinant of the behaviors and trends within a population. For example, a community with more people living their possessing college degrees can be assumed to be more affluent (in terms of income) than a community where the majority does not possess a college degree. With that in mind, a state with more at-risk populations can be assumed to have more of “X” than a state with a lower at-risk population. But, then again, a higher population gives a statistically better chance of having more “at-risk” populations than one with a lower population.
Patricia: “And, I suppose that I could rant on and on about how Kevin hasn’t refuted my argument defending my substantiation of the charge that he’s a sexist…”
So Patricia, if I accuse you of being a murderer and you ignore me and don’t offer any proof that you aren’t a murderer does that make you a murderer? If I continue to accuse you and then you “run away” for a few months does that make you a murderer? Oh, and if you return and I bring up the accusation again and you ask for proof but I then say you didn’t “refute” my claim, does that make you a murderer?
Think about it. If our courts operated the same way you do, we’d all be (slang term for sexual intercourse, past tense).
Oh, and Patricia: When you said that, “You’re the one, who, when you didn’t like the fact that a bunch of uppity liberals here were proving you wrong time after time, ran away, saying that you just couldn’t hack the discussion here any more.”
Well, let’s look at how I acutally DID end it last time:
“…Like I said, how can you, as someone who doesn’t believe in God, possibly explain what happened to me that day? The answer is you can’t. You won’t. And you probably never will.
With that, I am 99% sure that this is my last post here. I’ve decided to devote my time to my book and my blog. I’ve enjoyed the discussions with most of you, and I hope I didn’t irritate too many people on here. J.Matthew, you are the Scarecrow to my Dorothy (“I think I’ll miss you most of all…), but in a purely heterosexual way.
Happy trails, vaya con whatever…”
Comment by Kevin  4/7/2005 @ 7:38 pm
Patricia, it’s not looking good for you.
First, you say “You never accepted my accusations of your sexism. That isn’t the same thing as me never substantiating them.” Meaning, of course, that if someone doesn’t ACCEPT your accusations it’s all the proof you need to file charges.
WRONG.
Then, you invent this wild notion that I am using this website for free advertising. I’d believe you except that you are only one of two people on here to believe that. And I’ve removed the link to my blog, yet still I post…
WRONG AGAIN.
Now you think I left in the spring ’cause I couldn’t hack it anymore?
WRONG… YET AGAIN.
Kevin, you’re coming off as a self-centered, bigoted, JERK. I looked at that thread, and found what’s there, and I agree with Patricia. As well as being a racist, anti-immigrant bigot, you do give the impression of being a sexist, belittling women with little diminitive labels like that. I wouldn’t imagine your mother would appreciate being talked to that way, and so neither do other women. Maybe you ought to consider that, Kevin, before you open your mouth.
Frank: I issue the same challenge I have issued to Patricia: PROVE MY SEXISM. What, is poor little Patricia supposed to be immune from comments that make her feel bad? Did I call her a bitch? Did I call her a whore? Did I say that her being a woman caused her to be inferior?
What’s the saying, if you can’t take the heat stay outta the kitchen? Does that only go for men, Frank? Are you insinuating that women are incapable of defending themselves??? Gee, that sounds awfully sexist of you if that IS what you are saying…
And, praytell, where did I ever say blacks, browns, pinks, blues, reds, yellows, greens, purples, and immigrants were inferior? I merely pointed out FACTS supported by DATA conducted by the CDC and various educational instittuions, as well as my own observations (in education; not VD). So, where do you get off calling me those things? Oh, never mind. It’s ’cause I don’t think the same as you, that everyone is wonderful and everyone sings and joins hands and gets along and all that.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with Frank = Bigot.
Anyone who doesn’t accept Patricia’s accusations = Whatever she accuses that person of
(ex: Patricia accuses you of being an alien and you don’t accept her accusation, you’re an alien)
Funkin’ A, Patricia! You still ain’t provided proof for your accusations. I’m beginin’ to think youse was just bull(poopin’) to make a name fer you’self!
Kevin, why are you so obsessed? You screwed up. Why can’t you just admit it and get on with your life?
You kind of remind me of Bush in this way.
Here’s a title from an article written by Kevin, who has said that he’s a “moderate”: “Why Most Liberals Are Stoopid”.
Moderate, huh? Sounds more like Ann Coulter to me.
Anybody know where to purchase one of those stickers “President
of Dumfukistan”??
noel444@access4less.net