sonicbloom11:

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate
America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty
Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.
But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?
The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.
The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.
Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.

But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.
First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).



Reblogging in light of Sunday’s shooting in Milwaukee.

sonicbloom11:

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate

America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty

Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.

But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?

The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.

The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.

Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.

But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.

First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).

Reblogging in light of Sunday’s shooting in Milwaukee.

"Moon landing was real. Evolution exists. Tax cuts lose revenue. The research has shown this a thousand times. Enough already."

Former Obama adviser and University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee

shortformblog:

futurejournalismproject:

Of Total Income Increase in 2010…
Steven Rattner, a Wall Street executive and New York Times Op-Ed contributor, writes:

In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.
Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.
The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income.

Steven Rattner, The New York Times. The Rich Get Even Richer.

Yikes. The balance is off.

I agree.
Why isn’t the Top .01% getting more? Something needs to be done about this.

shortformblog:

futurejournalismproject:

Of Total Income Increase in 2010…

Steven Rattner, a Wall Street executive and New York Times Op-Ed contributor, writes:

In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.

Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.

The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income.

Steven Rattner, The New York Times. The Rich Get Even Richer.

Yikes. The balance is off.

I agree.

Why isn’t the Top .01% getting more? Something needs to be done about this.

"People who don’t have money don’t understand the stress."

Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy. (via officialssay)

madillac:

bestrooftalkever:

It’s A Wonderful Lie: Bank Fraud, Bailouts And Ponzi Schemes In Bedford Falls

that weasel Harry Bailey

Al Jazeera:

The men who crashed the world

The first of a four-part investigation into a world of greed and recklessness that led to financial collapse.

In the first episode of Meltdown, we hear about four men who brought down the global economy: a billionaire mortgage-seller who fooled millions; a high-rolling banker with a fatal weakness; a ferocious Wall Street predator; and the power behind the throne.

The crash of September 2008 brought the largest bankruptcies in world history, pushing more than 30 million people into unemployment and bringing many countries to the edge of insolvency. Wall Street turned back the clock to 1929.

But how did it all go so wrong?

Lack of government regulation; easy lending in the US housing market meant anyone could qualify for a home loan with no government regulations in place.

Also, London was competing with New York as the banking capital of the world. Gordon Brown, the British finance minister at the time, introduced ‘light touch regulation’ - giving bankers a free hand in the marketplace.

All this, and with key players making the wrong financial decisions, saw the world’s biggest financial collapse.

theatlantic:

bbo13 writes:

I am a teacher. And I could easily write volumes about the variety of things about teaching in general that many people (particularly parents and politicians) just don’t seem to understand. For example, those couple of “free” months many (though certainly not all) of us might get in the summertime? Not so free. Many of us (though certainly not all) routinely work above and beyond a 40-hour week during the school year, and spend at least part of our summers in workshops or taking college courses. I promise you, the time off during summer and on holidays earned. With interest. Instead, I choose to focus on what people don’t understand about my job specifically: teaching social studies. 

Whenever I meet someone new, this exchange invariably occurs:

Them: “So, what do you do for a living?”

Me: “I’m a high school teacher. Mainly seniors.”

Them: “Oh, a teacher! Kids that age must be tough/crazy/scary. But at least you get all that time off! What subject do you teach?”

Me: “Social Studies.”

Them (looking like the just took a gulp of past-its-expiration-date warm milk): “I hated history. So boring.”

It never fails. “I hated history.” The rare times I hear any response other than this are when I’m talking to other social studies teachers, or folks who majored in something like history or political science. And the respondents often look at me in a way that seems to indicate they want me to apologize for their lack of interest in the subjects I love. Most times, I smile and nod, or chuckle politely, and the subject quickly changes. But this seems like the ideal arena for me to express the response I want to give these people:

First of all, “history” is not all there is of “social studies”, just like “geometry” is not the only thing in “mathematics.” “Social Studies” encompasses a variety of subjects, from Economics, to Sociology/Psychology, to Government, to Geography, and yes, a variety of specific histories categorized by subject and/or time period. Now, the most frequent complaint about social studies seems to be about the role of memorization—names and dates in particular—and the perceived “irrelevance” of this. While I do not deny thatsome teachers may take this approach, the good ones incorporate that “irrelevant” memorization as part of the larger lesson; namely, the “who’s” and “why’s” are important to the big picture. Put another way? Context matters. This is not an unimportant life lesson. But math, too, involves a good deal of memorization. As do language courses. But it’s social studies that gets the most grumbles about the practice. Why? Because learning math formulas and the basics of language appear to have practicalapplicable uses. Social studies does not. Right? 

Wrong. Social studies is at least as practical as these other subjects mentioned. Confused/frustrated as to why those people, over there, in someforeign land can’t seem to get it together politically/socially/economically? Social studies can help you understand why! How has their geography influenced where people settled and what they do with their environment? How has their history created the societal and religious conditions in which they live? How might their norms and values help determine what they choose to do? How does the interconnected global economy affect what they can buy or sell or trade? People are a product of their surrounds, physical and otherwise. Social studies can explain that. Heck, maybe you’ll even start to think of them as just people dealing with their own circumstances, just like you and I. Imagine that. Or maybe you’re more focused on a seemingly chaotic domestic scene here at home: frustrated with our politicians, or faltering economy, or muddled moral paths? Understand politics and government, and you’ll begin to see why our system is the way it is. Understand our history, and see how morality and religion have reached the points they have in our society, and why we live where we live and do what we do. Learn about economics, and suddenly the basics behind how America in its post-industrial phase relates to the rest of the world in terms of jobs makes a bit more sense, and how much a loan will cost you when you go car or house shopping will seem more than just a random figure forced on you by a financial institution. You might even be able to figure out what this whole debt-ceiling mess is all about! Social studies is the very definition of practical knowledge. But it’s not passive—it must be actively applied. And that doesn’t happen if you’re choosing to just “get through it” or watching the bastardized Hollywood version of events. Social studies can be as exciting as your favorite movies and as practical as addition and subtraction, but only if you allow it to be. And I, for one, love it.

What do people not understand or appreciate about your job? Submit a post, tweet your thoughts with the tag #AboutMyJob, or email us at aboutmyjob1@gmail.com

The social studies courses were my favorites in high school. Then English. Then math(s).

Mother Jones:

Watch Rick Scott’s CNN Implosion

By Adam Weinstein

When not looking for national security news, I like to check in on Florida politics, which are a great bellwether for the nation at large. Specifically, I like to track tea party Republican Gov. Rick Scott, who lives just a couple blocks from me, and who’s setting records for unpopularity, just months into his tenure.

Scott’s latest crusade is to argue against any rise in the federal debt ceiling—an issue in which he has no official say, and whose basic economic consequences he seems to grasp not one jot. (This week, Scott said Florida would see no effects from a US default; his opponent in last year’s gubernatorial race, former state CFO Alex Sink, called his statement ”clueless…That’s Florida Budgeting 101.”) The beleaguered guv took his case to CNN today, and managed to get himself yelled at by two anchors. At one point, Ali Velshi gave up. “Why is this difficult for you to understand, governor?”

A failure to articulate basic principles of macroeconomics is all the more disturbing when you consider all of Scott’s corporate work before taking over the Sunshine State. That MBA really paid off.

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection."

Warren Buffett on CNBC

"

Appellant has filed a substantial brief and an adequate reply brief and has argued his full share of allotted time in support for a demand that his $50.00 Federal Reserve Bank Note be redeemed in “lawful money” of the United States, which he says, in effect, must be gold or silver. Appellant refused appellees’ tender of an equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes.

[…]

While we agree that golden eagles, double eagles and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, we must at the same time recognize that time marches on, and that even the time honored silver dollar is no longer available in its last bastion of defense, the brilliant casinos of the houses of chance in the state of Nevada. Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal. Simply stated, we find his contentions frivolous.

"

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judgement in Milam v. United States524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), which upheld the constitutionality of paper money, or fiat currency. Federal Reserve Bank Notes hold the same value as Federal Reserve Notes, the official name of those greenbacks in your wallet.

This means that, constitutionally, the United States is not required to pin its currency to precious metals, nor is it required to redeem its currency for such.

MoveOn.org:

Robert Reich, the Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, breaks down how the economy went from great to horrific in six simple steps. Take a look:

The Stewart-Zakaria Plan

  • Jon Stewart: If we could just keep starting world wars and then doubling down on GI Bills, we'd have this figured out.
  • Fareed Zakaria: World wars are actually really useful. The small wars don't help at all. And then you've got to destroy the other competitors. See, that was the great thing about World War II: You flatten all the other competitors; you're left on top. Hey, that's the Stewart-Zakaria Plan.
  • Stewart: Fareed, let me tell you something: I don't know why no one's running on that platform. "America. We'll flatten you."
  • Zakaria: And then we'll sell to you.

drinkthe-koolaid:

No shit, Sherlock.

(Source: savagemike)

"The United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa."

President Obama’s Middle East speech

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate
America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty
Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.
But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?
The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.
The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.
Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.
 
But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.
First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate

America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty

Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.

But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?

The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.

The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.

Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.

But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.

First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).