Spot the discrimination

There have been some complaints that businesses owned by women and racial minorities have not received as much stimulus funding as those owned by white males. Because they will be needed if this debate continues, here are the most recent stats on business ownership by race and gender, from the 2002 U.S. Survey of Business Owners. Read at your pleasure. (According to the website, a similar survey that began in 2007 is still underway.)

Those quoted in the first link offer no reasons why businesses owned by white males are receiving this amount of stimulus funding, only complaints about it. Could this be because more firms that have been eligible for stimulus funding, on the basis of sector and financial performance, are owned by white men? The possibility is not entertained.

There is also no evidence that systemic discrimination has been a problem in state distribution of these funds. This is much like the argument that the average earnings gap proves wage discrimination against women. It does not factor in such variables as title, industry, qualifications, seniority, productivity, and salary expectations. Show me a woman who earns less than her male counterpart when all of the above are equal, and then we’ll talk about sexism.

Here’s how Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wants to satisfy the complaints: offer “lending and bonding assistance” to help states meet race- and gender-based funding targets; calling for large contractors to pursue joint ventures with women- and minority-owned businesses; and encouraging breaking up individual contracts to increase competition.

I’ll support that last one, because who doesn’t want competition? But everything else is just appeasement. Stimulus funding should go to the businesses who a) need it most and b) can use it the most effectively. If more of those businesses happen to be owned by white men, so be it. The age when affirmative action was even remotely necessary is long dead. Anyone who feels they can’t compete without it isn’t trying hard enough, and anyone who offers it to them isn’t taking them seriously enough.

Then there’s an idea of having low-income workers do more of the actual work on stimulus projects. This I like, assuming those workers are qualified. A low income is something that can change with the proper employment. But when the playing field is level and you still aren’t playing very well, might it be your own fault? Show me it isn’t level or start kicking some balls.

The Sunday Drill, Vol. 1, No. 41

A Senate vote is coming up for the omnibus spending bill that totals $1.1 trillion, more than half in entitlements funding. If it doesn’t pass, or if it does pass and President Obama vetoes it, it will be a good week.

Commentators Tucker Carlson, Andrew Breitbart, and David Frum (one of my friends thinks I’m the newer, female version of that last one) are preparing to jump on the gravy train of right-wing journalism. If the word “journalism” is preceded by a political adjective, it won’t be very journalistic.

The White House’s top economic advisor, Larry Summers, says the need for jobs supersedes the need for deficit reduction. Is that why House Democrats used the omnibus bill to make jobs in the federal government so much more tempting?

Summers also says the consensus is that the recession is over, despite the unemployment rate. I  love it when news shows provide opportunities for civics lessons.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) thinks Democrats are trying to turn the U.S. into a clone of Western Europe. For God’s sake, Mac, taxes aren’t going to go up that much, on that many people. Get a grip.

Some worries abound that funds for stimulus jobs may not be reaching enough women and minorities. Prepare for a good, long eye-roll about this from me tomorrow.

Jenny Sanford, the soon-to-be ex-First Lady of South Carolina, is now a political wife who refuses to stand by her scumsucker of a man (Gov. Mark Sanford [R-SC]). And she is officially awesome.

The AP has reviewed the Climategate e-mails and determined that no science has been falsified, but they were working (badly) on media strategy. Adam will be pleased; he’s not fond of those who question the concept of climate change.

Homeless people in Canada are now allowed to set up tent cities. Honestly, what’s wrong with those? That they’re unsightly? Big deal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sends out more mixed signals to the world about settlements. Funny that he won because of his resoluteness, but he can’t even decide who to please about this.

Welcome to the world, Latin American Union! (No, they’re not using that name, but I am.) And my socialist friends at the radio station were worried about a North American Union. No prescience there, I don’t mind telling you.

A slave to his own ambitions

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). I’ve never liked him too much, seeing as he’s the Senate counterpart of another partisan Democratic hack, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In fact, I’ve always imagined their relationship to look something like this:

REID: “Nancy, I’m worried that we’re not doing enough to stop the Republicans from stonewalling on health care, and –”
PELOSI: “Stop questioning our authoritah! We shall be victorious, dammit! Now go fetch me a Hot Pocket!”
REID: “Yes, ma’am, right away . . .”

Combine the hackery with his worry about stonewalling and you get this, a comparison of opponents of health care reform to opponents of women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery. It’s too bad that classes are over for the semester for me, because this would have made an excellent discussion in PR: “Is it ever a good idea to draw comparisons between everyday political machinations to stuff like that?”

No. It’s not. Because suffrage and slavery were issues of basic human rights, and no one disputes that everyone has the right to health care. They simply dispute how it should be distributed and financed, which is a perfectly reasonable argument in which to engage. So even beyond the level of offensiveness to anyone whose family has witnessed both of this first-hand, the mere statement is logically fallacious.

Not to mention historically fallacious, due to Reid’s casting of Democrats as the party of the people and Republicans as the party of no. The above link quotes a poli-sci professor from U. Maryland who points out that Republicans ended slavery, and that Southern Democrats of the Strom Thurmond variety were seen as bigots. So it’s a fail from the communications angle, the logic angle, and the history angle. Nicely done.

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele got it exactly right when he accused Reid of “running roughshod over any citizen who opposes his left-wing effort to jam big-government run health care down our throats.” Well, almost exactly; I think Reid has given up on government-run health care by now. But he attempted a shaming tactic and ended up shaming himself.