New York City Abortions changing the Color of the City

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrat’s most sacred issue is abortion.  Any attempts to restrict abortion and the left immediately starts bleating that the Republicans have a war on women.   As if the only thing women care about is having an abortion.  But could there be another reason behind their defense of abortion rights?  Perhaps.

New York City (NYC) requires that all abortions are reported.  They just released a report summarizing abortions in 2012 (see SUMMARY OF VITAL STATISTICS 2012 THE CITY OF NEW YORK PREGNANCY OUTCOMES released in February 2014).

All pregnancy outcomes, whether a live birth or a spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy, are required by law to be reported to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  This report compiles the information reported about these events to monitor the health of women and their infants in New York City.  For additional tables, technical notes and samples of NYC certificates of birth, please see the Bureau of Vital Statistics website at www.nyc.gov/vitalstats.

In Table 1. Pregnancy Outcomes, Pregnancy Outcome Rates*, and Pregnancy Rates* by Mother’s Age Group, Racial/Ethnic Group, and Borough of Residence, New York City, 2012 we see the information summarized here.

 NYC Live Births and Abortions R1

According to the U.S. census the demographic breakouts are approximately non-Hispanic white (63%), Hispanic (16.9%), non-Hispanic black (13.1%) and Asian and Pacific Islander (5.3%).  Which agrees with the order of the percentage of live births in the table above.  But things are different on the abortion side.  Where non-Hispanic blacks top the list of abortions.  With Hispanics a close second.  While non-Hispanic whites only come in third.   Despite their making up the largest percentage of the population.

If you look at the ratio of live births to abortions we see some startling statistics.  For every Asian and Pacific Islander abortion there were 4.71 live births.  For every non-Hispanic white abortion there were 4.03 live births.  But for every Hispanic abortion there were only 1.60 live births.  While for every non-Hispanic black abortion there were only 0.79 live births.  Or for every 10 abortions there were approximately 8 live births.  Meaning that more non-Hispanic black women are having abortions than having a live birth.

So what does this tell us about abortions?  That non-Hispanic blacks are more likely to have an abortion than any other group in NYC.  With Hispanics a close second.  Interesting.  For Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks typically vote Democrat.  As the Democrats constantly tell them that Republicans hate them.  Even though Republicans oppose abortion.  So if Republicans had their way there would be more black and Hispanics babies being born.  Which would suggest that it’s not the Republicans that don’t like blacks and Hispanics.  But the Democrats.  Because keeping abortion legal is making NYC whiter.

For the sake of argument let’s change the title from ‘Abortions” to ‘Infant Mortality’ in the table above.  What do you think people would be saying then?  Probably not what they’re saying now about these abortion numbers.  Which is nothing.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Perceived Racism helps Democrats win Elections

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 11th, 2013

Politics 101

The Media labeled George Zimmerman a ‘White’ Hispanic to create a Racial Component where there was None

On February 26, 2012, 28-year old ‘white’ Hispanic George Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year old black Trayvon Martin in Sanford in central Florida.  Zimmerman said it was self-defense.  Others are saying he stalked Martin because he was black.  It was the news media that called Zimmerman a ‘white’ Hispanic.  To make this a black-white racial issue.  Some cable channels are carrying the trial of George Zimmerman live.  Because they have made it a big story.  The trial is about over.  And they will soon turn it over to the jury.  Six women.  To decide Zimmerman’s fate.  While the city prepares for ‘Rodney King’ like rioting should the jury acquit Zimmerman.

On April 14th, 2012, a mob of 30 or more black youths brutally attack two white journalists from The Virginian-Pilot.  Which appeared to be more of a black-white racial issue than George Zimmerman.  A member of the neighborhood watch following a stranger in the neighborhood (Martin was living there temporarily).  Whereas the journalists from The Virginian-Pilot were sitting at a red light when someone threw a rock at their car.  Presumably because they were white.  When the male journalist got out of the car a black mob descended on him.  Making it look like an assault based solely on race.  Yet few reported this assault.  Even the journalists’ own paper.  Those who reluctantly reported on it played down the racial component.

So why is the apparently less racially motivated assault (the Zimmerman shooting of Martin) treated more like a racial hate crime while the apparently more racially motivated assault (the journalists from The Virginian-Pilot) is treated less like a racially motivated hate crime?  Why did the media label George Zimmerman a ‘white’ Hispanic?  Making a racial component where there was none?  While ignoring a racial component where there is one?  Well, because some believe that white-on-black crime is still a big problem in this country.  So much so that we can ignore instances of black-on-white crime.  To right past wrongs.  And end lingering racism in this country.

In 2011 the Majority of Homicide Victims AND Homicide Offenders were Black

Alright, what does the data say?  Is there still lingering racism in this country?  This nation that elected a black president?  Twice?  Are there still past wrongs to right?  Well, let’s begin with some homicide statistics.  Pulled from the CDC (see Table 34 (page 2 of 4). Death rates for homicide, by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age: United States, selected years 1950–2010).  Pulling the number of deaths for white and black males per 100,000 resident population we see that, in fact, blacks suffer a far higher homicide rate.

Black White Homicide Victims 1950-2010

So maybe there is something to say about lingering racism.  And past wrongs to right.  Until you dig a little deeper into the data, that is.  According to the FBI (see Expanded Homicide Data Table 3) there were 14,548 homicides in 2011.  Now, one would expect if there is lingering racism in this country that the higher number of black victims of homicide would correspond to a high number of white murderers.  But according to the FBI that’s not the case.  If you add up the number of black and white murderers in 2011 it totals 10,215.  Approximately 70% of all homicides.  So the lion’s share of homicides are committed by blacks and whites.  But whites were only responsible for 46.3% of those homicides.  While blacks were responsible for 53.7% of them.

So blacks committed the majority of homicides in 2011.  To put that into perspective you have to consider what percentage of the population is black.  Approximately 13%.  So you have about 13% of all Americans committing more than half of all homicides.   Which means the high homicide rate of blacks is not due to whites.  It’s due to blacks.  Suggesting that we don’t have lingering racism in the country.  Like the media is trying to say with the Zimmerman-Martin trial.  What we really have is a serious black-on-black crime problem.

A High Profile Case like the Zimmerman Trial can do Wonders to Create Actual Racism

While the Zimmerman trial is receiving full media coverage the brutal attack of The Virginian-Pilot journalists disappears into obscurity.  Because the racial component is wrong.  Just as it is wrong for the high homicide rates in Chicago.  So the media doesn’t cover it.  Unlike the Zimmerman trial.

In the first 6 months of this year there were 259 homicides in Chicago.  And 201 (77.6%) of these homicide victims were black.  While they only make up 33% of the population of the city.  In fact, not only were the majority of homicide victims black.  According to the Chicago Tribune (see Homicide numbers reveal stark contrast) the majority of murderers were black, too.  Which is why the media isn’t interested in the epidemic of crime in Chicago.  Especially the gun crime in Chicago.  Because the racial component is wrong.

So why is the media obsessed with white-on-black crime but ignores black-on-white and black-on-black crime?  Because white-on-black crime is politically useful.  Over 90% of blacks voted for President Obama.  As Democrats get the black vote.  Because of this perception of lingering racism.  And the perception that white Republicans are racists.  A high profile case like the Zimmerman trial can do wonders to create actual racism.  To drive a wedge between the races.  And further paint whites like the ‘white’ Hispanic George Zimmerman as racists.  Which resonates not only with blacks.  But with young people.  Those first-time voters.  And those college kids.  Who believe the United States is a racist country.  And vote Democrat to end that racism.  Which they believe they will do if they keep Republicans out of office.  And reporting on the epidemic of black-on-black crime in Chicago or blacks assaulting white journalists in Virginia do nothing to advance that political agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Expressing Conservatism Poorly loses the 2012 Election for Republicans

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 8th, 2012

Politics 101

Few Liberal Women would want their Daughter appearing in Playboy after all they did to Empower Women

After the massive Republican gains in the 2010 midterm elections Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Americans voted for maturity.  That is, the grownups voted and got their way.  While in 2012 it would appear the children voted and got their way.  More free stuff.  Regardless of the consequences of more massive deficit spending.

Children want their parents to buy them everything they desire.  And the parents have to say no.  Because most parents just don’t have the money to buy their children everything they want.  They have to make difficult spending decisions because of their limited income.  Children don’t understand this.  They just want their stuff.  It takes time for children to grow up and understand they can’t have everything.  This usually sets in when they start working and raising a family.  Until they do, though, they still want things without regard to their costs.  Which is why the Democrats go after the youth vote.  Before they start voting for maturity.

Young people often make errors in judgment.  Because they’re young.  Krysten Ritter who plays Chloe in Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23 did a modeling job when she was 15 that she felt later was inappropriate for someone her age.  In a Playboy interview she said, “At the time I didn’t think about it, because kids don’t. They say your brain doesn’t develop fully until you’re 25. When kids do crazy stuff, it’s because they really are crazy. I just wasn’t aware; I had no fear. But I have not one single regret or feeling of resentment, because of where I am now. I have a good head on my shoulders. I learned all my lessons on my own.”  Kind of an odd thing to publish in a Playboy interview considering that a lot of the women appearing in Playboy are under 25 years old.  Who do crazy stuff.  Like objectifying themselves for money.  And voting Democrat.  For most women appearing in Playboy probably vote Democrat.  Even though few liberal women would want their daughter appearing in Playboy after all they did to empower women so they could build a career.  So they didn’t have to use their sexuality to earn a living.  Or to find a husband.  But when these kids grow up and get a good head on their shoulders they can learn their lessons.  And go on to great success.

Young Single Women were Voting Against their Future Married/Mature Selves

The Obama campaign successfully turned young single women away from Mitt Romney.  By saying that Romney would take away their birth control.  And their access to abortion.  Something they believed.  And it wasn’t just their birth control and access to abortion they were worried about.  Some liberals took to Twitter after President Obama won the election saying that they were relieved as they didn’t have to hoard tampons with the Romney defeat.  As well as birth control pills.  Don’t know how many or how serious they were.  But some were saying that.  For they believed a Republican administration would take women back to Victorian times.  Denying them everything except having babies, cooking and cleaning.

Meanwhile married women favored Romney.  Not by as large a margin as single women favored President Obama.  But a majority.  The difference being that maturity.  Married women raising children care more about how high taxes increase their cost of living.  How the growing federal debt will affect their children’s future.  How the high cost of gasoline is consuming more of the family budget.  And raising the cost of food.  That is, they are thinking like a grownup.  And as a grownup birth control pills, abortion and tampons are not high on their list of concerns.  For they were there since the Sixties.  When women empowered themselves.  And there have been a few Republican administrations since then.  Other things are more important to them.  Like making the mortgage payment.  Paying for braces for their children.  And taking care of an elderly parent.  Things few women think about until after the age of 25.  So basically young single women were voting against their future married/mature selves.

This is something that the younger generation doesn’t understand.  The generation they are voting/rebelling against?  It’s not a fixed constant throughout time.  The older people today were once the younger generation of a previous time.  And a lot of them voted/rebelled against the older generation then like the younger generation is today.  Just as many in the younger generation will become the very people they bitterly oppose today.  This doesn’t change.  The rift between the grownups and the children.  Just the people in these generations change.  And as they mature and grow wiser more responsibility and less having fun fills their days.  And they vote accordingly.

Hispanic Families are little different from the 1950s American Nuclear Family

President Obama got 71% of the Hispanic vote.  He did similarly well with Asians.  A common conclusion is that the Republicans lost these voters because of Romney’s more ‘extreme’ position on immigration than Governor Perry during the primary election.  And for using insensitive language like ‘illegals’ and ‘amnesty’.  Which may have turned Hispanics and Asians away from Romney.  While others say that a lot of these immigrants are here only for the free ride.  And will vote for the party that offers the most free stuff.  The Democrat Party.  And, yes, there may be some truth to that.  But those who are here for the free stuff are probably a small percentage of the total.  For most of these immigrants have strong conservative values.  Who don’t seek handouts.

The Hispanics breaking the law to come here are doing it to find work.  So they can provide for their families.   And will take some of the hardest and lowest paying jobs to provide for their families.  Working long hours in some of the most grueling conditions.  So their kids can have a better life.  Their labors and sacrifices for their family sustained by a deep religious faith.  A strong Catholic faith.  That respects life.  And opposes abortion.  Making Hispanic families little different from the 1950s American nuclear family.  And the Asian family is as strong as the Hispanic family.  Who work as hard so their kids can have a better life.  And their kids work hard and sacrifice, too.  Graduating college at the top of their class.  And this while taking the hard program degrees.  Not film.  Or gender studies.

So a good portion of President Obama’s voters seem to be conservative.  Or will become conservative over time.  Which means Romney didn’t lose the election because the nation is becoming more liberal.  He lost it because he did not articulate conservatism well enough.  Unlike Ronald Reagan.  Who did such a good job of explaining conservative policies (reducing costly regulations, lowering tax rates, keeping inflation from raising gas and food prices, etc.) that even Democrats saw that their lives would improve under these policies.  And they voted Republican.  Becoming Reagan Democrats.  If conservatives articulate these policies well enough they should appeal to the conservative values of Hispanics.  Asians.  Even single women.  Who eventually learn there is more to life than birth control, abortion and tampons.  But only if conservatives communicate this well.  Which Romney didn’t.  As proven by a lower turnout of Republicans than John McCain got in 2008.  In an election that was far easier to win.  As the Obama economy was little different from the Carter economy.  Allowing Ronald Reagan to sweep into office thanks to those Reagan Democrats.  Who understood his conservative message.  And liked it.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #23: “Those who seek a third party cede the election to the opposition.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 20th, 2010

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES are often election spoilers.  Dissatisfied with the direction of their party, they leave that party to form a new party.  This, of course, will split the party they left.  Some may follow.  Most will probably not.

Third party candidates have small followings.  They typically have a single issue that pushes them to leave their party.  That single issue, though, may not be as important to those they leave behind.  And this one issue may be anathema to the opposition.  Guaranteeing very few, if any, will follow that candidate into a third party.

The Green Party, for example, is an environmental party.  Environmental issues, then, dominate their political agenda.  Environmental policies typically do not result in jobs or economic prosperity.  They will draw some people from the Democratic Party.  But only those with extreme environmental views.  They will draw no one from the Republican Party which is more associated with jobs and economic issues than environmental issues.  They, then, would have little impact on the party they oppose.  But they may have a negative impact on the party that they would have otherwise supported.

And then you have your core voters.  They have and always will vote for their party.  Populist movements rarely change the way they vote.  Populist movements may be single-issue.  They may be more of a subset of an existing political party.  Or they may be vague on details completely.  They may be many things but the paramount thing they are is popular.  And they pander to the people that are demanding something.  And whatever that is, they say they will give it to them.  Populist trends, though, don’t sway core voters.

SO WHO ARE in the two core parties?  The liberals?  And the conservatives?

Liberals are pseudo-intellectuals who want to tell others how to live.  Because they are ‘smarter’ than everyone else.  Most have never held a real job.  They inherited their money or made it big in Hollywood or in some other entertainment genre (the guilty rich), are college professors, sponged off of government (the self-proclaimed political aristocracy) or are in the mainstream media. 

Conservatives typically have jobs.

Few people agree with liberals so they have to offer special privileges in exchange for votes and political power.  They get the support of the poor because they get the poor dependent on their charity.  They get the entertainment elite by stroking their intellectual vanity.  They get the various minorities and single-issue groups by throwing a few bones to them (i.e., by buying their votes).  They get Big Business with crony capitalism.  They get the unions in exchange for anti-business legislation.  They get the young by being weak on drugs and morality.  They get a lot of women because of their abortion stance.  They get the illegal immigration community because they dangle citizenship in front of them while getting as many as they can addicted to welfare (so when they do become citizens they will become good Democrats.  Of course, with the majority of illegal immigrants in question being Hispanic, it will be interesting to see how that loyalty will play out.  A lot of Hispanics are practicing Catholics.  Will they continue to support the party that attacks their religion and religious values?  After all, they’re leaving a corrupt nation where only the ruling elite live well.  They come here for a better life for themselves and their families.  And many work hard for it.  With their religious values being a strong part of their lives.  Will the liberals tempt them with their welfare state after citizenship?  Time will tell).

Many agree with conservatives because they, too, just want to work and provide for their families.  And they would like their children’s future to be a good one.  (Again, the Hispanic question is interesting.  For they have conservative values, too.  Amnesty for illegals may be a Faustian bargain, but wouldn’t be ironic if it’s the Democrats who are selling their souls?  I mean, this large bloc of Catholics could very well vote for the religious right after citizenship.)

So liberals must appeal to their base during the primary election to get their party’s nomination.  Once they have that, they then must start lying about who they really are during the general election.  Because their views and opinions are minority views and opinions. 

The conservatives just need to be themselves.  When Ronald Reagan did just that, he won in a landslide.  Twice.

LET’S CRUNCH SOME numbers.  Some simple numbers.  Let’s say there are only 11 voters.  America is a center-right country based on honest polling.  So let’s say that 4 voters are conservative and 3 voters are liberals.  The 4 in the middle are independents and moderates.  So what happens at an election?

If all of the independents and moderates do not vote, conservatives win (4-3). 

Liberals cannot win unless some moderates and independents do vote.  So liberals must encourage the moderates and independents to vote.  And, of course, to vote for them.  While making sure their base votes (‘vote early and often’ is their mantra).  As well as some criminals.  And some dead who haven’t been purged from the election rolls.

Independents and moderates, therefore, determine elections.  And the general election is all about getting these votes.  Both sides turn down the volume on the ‘extremist’ positions they held during the primaries.  Conservatives talk about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle.  Liberals campaign as conservatives.  (Bill Clinton ran as a new kind of Democrat with some very conservative planks in his platform.  When he won, though, he moved so far back to the left that he lost the House and Senate at the midterm elections, proving once again America is a center-right country.)

So back to our little example.  If the conservatives get 2 of the 4 independent and moderate votes, they win (6-5).  Liberals need 3 of their votes for the same winning margin.  Advantage, conservatives.

Now let’s look at a rift in the conservative party.  Two leave and form a third party.  And take 2 votes with them.  For the sake of argument, let’s say these two call themselves the Anti-Abortion Party.  It is doubtful that any liberals will leave their party to join them.  And it is doubtful that independents and moderates would make overturning a Supreme Court decision a key voting issue.  They tend to tack to a centrist course through the prevailing political winds.

So the Anti-Abortion Party candidate will only get 2 votes.  This candidate will not win.  That leaves only 9 votes in play.  Which means getting only 5 votes will win the election (less than a majority of the total 11).  All the third party candidate did was to make it easier for the liberals to win.  They only need 2 of the 4 of the independent and moderate votes.  Conservatives now need 3.  The third party took the conservative advantage (only needing 2 additional votes to win) and gave it to the liberals.

THE MORAL OF the story here is that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the opposition.  The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but it is still ‘less’ evil.  You should never lose sight of that.  If a political statement is only going to result in the greater evil, it is better to be more pragmatic than idealistic when voting in a general election. 

The energy of a third party or third party-like movements (such as the new Tea Party) should be marshaled during the primary election.  To get good candidates who can win general elections.  And who will remember that they are the people’s representative, not a member of a privileged, ruling elite.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,