In so many ways . . .

. . . we are really two different countries and the similarities to Civil War era America abound.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

And there’s this too  – the ten poorest States. I got it from a 2011 story at Glenn Beck’s The Blaze where commenters were not surprised, reasoning that that’s what Obama had done to us in just 20 months. The man worked fast!

  1. Mississippi
  2. Arkansas
  3. Tennessee
  4. West Virginia
  5. Louisiana
  6. Montana
  7. South CArolina
  8. Kentucky
  9. Alabama
  10. North Carolina

How about teen pregnancies? Below the mid point and dominating the list for ‘least teen pregnancies’, all of New England and most of the NorthEast. And what region dominates the list for ‘most teen pregnancies’? Lookee here:

STATES WITH MOST TEEN PREGNANCIES:
New Mexico – 93/1,000
Mississippi – 90/1,000
Texas – 85/1,000
Nevada – 84/1,000
Arkansas – 82/1,000
Arizona – 82/1,000
Delaware – 81/1,000
Louisiana – 80/1,000
Oklahoma – 80/1,000
Georgia – 78/1,000

STATES WITH FEWEST TEEN PREGNANCIES:
Iowa – 51/1,000
Nebraska – 50/1,000
Utah – 48/1,000
Wisconsin – 45/1,000
Maine – 43/1,000
Massachusetts – 42/1,000
North Dakota – 42/1,000
Minnesota – 42/1,000
Vermont – 38/1,000
New Hampshire – 33/1,000

How about high school dropouts by State? A pattern emerges.

bbbbbbbbbbbb

15 responses to “In so many ways . . .

  1. The reverse correlation between religiosity and prosperity is clear, but at first I was confused by the high school drop-out stats. Then I realized, it’s not drop-out percentages on the map but rather graduation rates. Moral of the story: culture matters.

    Like

    • The correlation between religiosity and prosperity is flawed because it doesn’t factor in race. Areas with high Black and Latino populations skew the results since they tend to be more religious and poorer.

      Frankly, the same is largely true of teen pregnancies in that more minorities mean more teen pregnancies per capita.

      Like

      • But the question here is why poverty correlates with race. The answer is not biological.

        Like

        • The answer could quite easily be biological, Jim, though I’m not saying that is or, at least, not solely. Then “biological” is a pretty broad category.

          There’s a strong correlation between lead poisoning, minorities, and poor life outcomes.

          There’s pretty good evidence to support that gestational stress, i.e., a stressed out mother can produce children with a version of the MAOA gene that predisposes them towards aggressive behavior and poor impulse control, and there’s a correlation between gestational stress and minorities.

          Those are both biological answers for poverty among minorities, especially Blacks since lead poisoning and stress are more common in urban settings where they congregate.

          But much of it more likely to be cultural, especially in the case of Blacks. Black Culture, being deliberately exilic in nature, does not lend itself well to success in America. Combine that with Americans’ growing loss of tolerance for making allowances for this and you have another strong vector for Black poverty.

          Latinos are a bit different but, since I don’t know if the illegals are included in any figures, I can’t speak strongly to that situation. I can say though that they tend towards rural lifestyles and those pay less for most…but also cost less, which is never really factored into poverty figures.

          Like

          • OK, points taken. However, nothing you mention is unfixable, at least theoretically. In fact, you make a good case for social programs.

            Like

            • No, nothing I said is unfixable, and some of it – lead poisoning – is in steady decline. I’m doubtful of the social programs angle though because of two things: Blacks who have the cultural problem strongly resist change because they see it as changing into Whites or House Negroes; and most Liberals would do whatever they could to scuttle the programs because those program would be, per force, cultural genocide.

              Like

              • Blacks who have the cultural problem strongly resist change because they see it as changing into Whites or House Negroes

                That’s a narrow and, dare I say, bigoted view. Examples of the contrary would include, just off the top of my head, would include Colin Powell, Barack Obama, and Bill Cosby. In case you haven’t noticed, the black middle class has been growing steadily and television is replete with their images.

                most Liberals would do whatever they could to scuttle the programs because those program would be, per force, cultural genocide.

                I have no idea where you are getting this. Liberals are the ones who push such programs, jonolan.

                Like

                • Jim, your example don’t have the problem. In fact, Bill Cosby has made a lot of waves describing the same problem as I just did. Does that make him a race traitor to match my “bigotry?”

                  Here’s some sad facts I’ve learned as applied to Blacks by Blacks ( within the context of those with the problem):

                  Dress too “normally” = Acting too White.
                  Speak too well = Speaking too White.
                  Getting along with Whites = Being a sellout, race traitor, or House Nigger

                  “Black America” and / Vs. “White America” – ’nuff said

                  These are people that truly believe that you can’t be Black and be American…and, within the context of their culture, they’re right.

                  But yes, this is a declining phenomenon or, at least, it was so. It might, in the wake of the economic collapse and Obama’s election be on the rise again. You also have to look at how many of Black middle class end up with kids that move downwards due to their social problems…

                  As for the Liberals – No social program that would be an attempt to actually fix the problem would be one that the Liberals would approve of because such programs would have to be focused on getting the Blacks with problem – still the majority of them though a slim majority – to stop being “Black” as they see being so.

                  Do you really see any Liberal agreeing to that?

                  Like

                • What I think liberals would agree to, enthusiastically, is a trend toward mutual respect for cultural differences and away from adversarial attitudes. I have seen that happening and the election of a black president in 2008 is a prominent symbol of it, as were the appointments of a black chairman of the Joint Chiefs and blacks on the Supreme Court before. The question is, however, whether that trend has enough legs not to be destroyed by those who are intolerant of diversity.

                  Like

                • Translation – You think – rightly – the Liberals would agree to same old attempts at pandering the Blacks that have failed so many times before.

                  Please remember that there hasn’t been a single prominent Black outside of the entertainment industry and the racial-activist circuit that hasn’t left “being Black” behind – at least in public, assuming they ever were such since Obama was raised White.

                  Like

                • No, your translation is flawed. It isn’t pandering to accept someone else’s cultural differences so long as there are also common interests. Among the latter I include many aspects of popular entertainment, sports and the arts as well as a pride of citizenship under the umbrella of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Military service is another common area in which people of many cultures serve ably and well, and that I do have considerable personal experience in. In fact, the success of the military in that regard is something that gives me hope that similar progress is being made in the private arena.

                  Like

                • My contention is that there are no common interests between normative American society and the “Black Community.” Hence, accepting their meaningful differences is nothing but making allowances for them and pandering to them.

                  Funny that you bring up the military. You and I both served so you should remember as well as I that we all had to leave our previous cultures behind and fully join the military’s culture. That’s why it all worked. We stopped being different and became the same in the ways that mattered.

                  Like

                • We have probably beaten this dead horse enough, but let me close with this. Is it pandering to admire elements of a different culture? Moe’s Friday night oldies often present black music, and you seem to like them. Should Southern cooking be off limits to Yankees? Is there nothing to admire in Japanese respect for elders? Does not the voice of Julio Iglesias resonate with all nationalities?

                  Is it possible that a perception of pandering in this context might be just a more-narrow view of a cosmopolitan attitude? Maybe not on a micro scale. There are obnoxious individuals out there of all colors, but I submit it is the wider view that would benefit society.

                  And finally, if the military can integrate successfully, does that not evidence the possibility in the larger culture?

                  Like

  2. I think I remember reading that the murder rate follows a similar north/south divide.

    Like

  3. Pingback: The United States of America…Different places under One Flag…. | Politicaldog101.Com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s