Pacifica's Mitch Jeserich hosts “Letters & Politics,” a look at burning political issues and debates, and their historical context, within the US and worldwide.
Live on KPFA at 10:00 AM Pacific Time: Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays
See the KPFA Program Grid for more details.
Subscribe to this show's podcast:
Comments
Tuesday Sept 20 - Mitch: I listen to your show almost every day and it usually informative. However, today I am listening to you giving enormous air time to Dorothy Roberts with a demonstrably idiotic, anti-scientific argument. She relies on the human genome project, a fairly primitive analysis of human genes, to prove (her claim) that there is no basis in genetics for racial differences.
It is a settled fact that two black Africans will have a child immediately identifiable as being a black African. Ditto with northern Europeans or Japanese or Pacific Islanders. Race is present in genes. End of discussion. Anyone who disputes that is pushing a political agenda unrelated to genetics. For example, Gregor Mendel did early work on genetics a hundred years ago without the benefit of knowing the human genome. The locus of race in the genome will undoubtedly be discovered when biologists become more sophisticated. Your guest is desperate to try to prove that night is day using bogus arguments.
On the other hand, there is ample room for opposing the use of race for political purposes. KPFA discusses this all day long every day. If she were to make arguments ideally separating race from politics, she would at least be honest. But as her argument stands it is dishonest and wrong.
As a scientist, I am sorry that you choose to grant this fraudulent faux science such a commodious forum, particularly when actual science goes begging in this society. Even KPFA has only a single science based show (Explorations) which, while wonderful, is still prominent in its isolation on the dial.
Paul Palmer confuses SOME biological differences with "race". I suggest he look at the the American Anthropological Association's NSF-funded museum exhibit and website, RACE, and also our book, developed as part of that project, How Real is Race? Race Culture and Biology [Rowman and LIttlefield]. As a scientist, I'm surprised at his comments. I suggest he look at what the scientific evidence presented in these sources.
My opinion is that the idea that there is are "races" is undeniably a cultural construct (i.e. Mexican, Mayan, Guatamalen, Oaxacan - what is a race).
I see that the simplification of genetics has been used in politics since the idea of genes was conceived.
This guy writes about "european" and "african" genes, totally false because it fails to stand up and oversimplifies the situation.
Could be that a true statement would be "Test may be able to determine how many generations back two individuals had a common ancestor because some genes tend to be more common in certain ancestral lines."
However, could you really show the similarity between a Moroccan and a South African?
So, I read a stupid article that said that red heads were dying out -- because the number of european redheads being born was dropping, completely ignoring that there are so many red heads from india -- with the same genes for hair that the europeans have, so maybe I could make a test that would "prove" that an indian was actually scottish -- maybe then they could get on the dole!
Undeniably that will never happen, but in all our chromosones we could find so much complete similarity between all human inidividuals that the small difference you would find becomes numerically insignificant.
Continuing the idea, then I argue that the test to see who is black and who is white is itself a cultural construct.
Krazy as it sounds it is true.
Scientists would have to choose genetic archetypes - selecting a small number of alleles out of millions for the tests basis -- they begin with the conclusion and fudge the science to fit the cultural role of a racial test.
I think at this time, at the dawn of scientific investigation into the genetics of intelligence, it's bad strategy for anti-racists and liberals to argue that there are no races, or that IQ tests don't measure "real" intelligence.
Nor should we argue that because we believe on principle that all races inherit equal average intelligence, that genetic research will bear our assumption out. Once genes associated with high intelligence are identified, it may turn out otherwise. We don't want to be forced at some future time to concede we were wrong; we want to avoid handing racists any victories. So we should anticipate and avoid that potential pitfall.
If it turns out the average white person inherits more genetic factors that confer high intelligence than the average black person inherits (or that the average east Asian person inherits more genetic factors that confer high intelligence than the average white person inherits), I think our response should be, "So what?" Such differences would not justify the racist social agenda. The only thing that should be done about it would be to learn more about the genetics of intelligence.
I strongly believe that intelligence is relative. While some feel that a strong memory defines intelligence, others would value problem solving skills over memory. And even then, I would argue that someone who is able to readily improvise in the arts, such as with poetry, has a different type of intelligence that a biologist or an engineer lack.
Having said this, I can definitely see how popular values on what intelligence is will bias the research you have mentioned, and result in the publication of unjust claims, that will then have "scientific backing" and thus contribute to the maintenance of a racial hierarchy.
Dr. Ashley Montagu understood long ago the difference between phenotype and genotype. See Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, New York: Harper, 1942. The phenotypical characteristics we ascribe to "races" are merely superficial family traits, just as some families have bigger ears or different cheekbones, or what have you. They do not reflect genotypic differences, which would presuppose subspecies. What we think of as "race," may be more accurately called ethnicity, which are broad family groups within the same species, Homo sapiens sapiens.
Who defines what race is? In South Africa, race used to be defined as three categories: White, Colored and Black. Chinese people, such as myself, were defined as white. Now that apartheid is over, the Chinese community filed a lawsuit to be defined as black!
Do you think my genes know all that, Paul?
What an incredibly ignorant and preposterous notion. Children have their parents' genes; this is true. But who defines them as black or white, or, in fact, as anything?
I enjoy listening to Robert Reich but was surprised today that he was
disingenuous about the Federal Reserve System which is a private banking
scam that is privately owned and operated for profit of it's owners most of whom
are foreign people and entities whose goals and interests are contrary to that of the people
of the USA.
The nature of the FRS was kept mum for many years but the cat is out of the bag.
The late great Eustace Mullins wrote the first book that exposed the FRS scam.
Mr. Reich persists with hiding the key fact that it -the FRS-is privately owned and operated for profit with no process for oversight or control by the US government.
Also Reich suggest a false dichotomy that it is either FRS with fiat FRS notes or US money backed by precious metals. But the US could and should issue debt free mony backed by this nation, it need not be backed by precious metals--nor borrowed through the FRS scam--.
I am disappointed in Mr. Reich. I hope he is not, like Professor Wolf, an advocator for Socialism.
Socialism is a system with a small oligarchy in control of everyone else; the endgame of communism. Capitalism is not incompatable with it as it lends itself to monopolies and cartels and to a plutocracy that then created the vision of socialism for it's goal.
The people of the US benefit from SocialSecurity Insurance and Medicare which are not icompatable with free enterprise and freedoms -especially freedom of speech -recognized in the Bill of Rights. Socialism, envisioned and birthed by a hostile elite, is definitely not compatable with a free people. We have but to look at the Utopia they created in the USSR, albeit rarely mentioned, and the 100 million citizens killed in peace time by a hostile elite who created the Utopia there and then created a daughter Utopia in Palestine.
2011/12/31, Mike Whitney
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/30/ron-paul-and-the-killing-machine/
2011/12/31, Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/...
this article is filled with background links, video footage of RP, and Greenwald's trenchant commentary.
2011/12/29, Robert Scheer (Truthdig)
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/marginalizing_ron_paul_20111229/P0/
2011/12/29, Matt Stoller (worked for former Rep. Alan Grayson)
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challen...
2011/12/27, Dave Lindorff
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/27/why-the-establishment-is-terrifie...
2011/08/24, Clancy Sigal (writer, screenwriter)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/24/in-praise-of-ron-paul/
2011/04/28, Charles Davis (journalist)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04/28/is-ron-paul-more-progressive-than...
A focus, as in today's program, on conflict with police is a completely bogus issue.
Let's concentrate on real issues.
The police are not the enemy.
When large, armed people in uniform give an order the best action is to move on, not fight. Fighting is counterproductive and distracts from the important issues of the day.
well, sort of... What it does, though, is explain the vulnerability of the system's walls against us - its laws, its armies...
Most of us are afraid to stand against THeir militaries - we have a choice-ish here on U.S.'s streets at demonstrations. Most people have no choice when they come to our doors and take us away - well, you know ...
Meanwhile, don't miss the loud raising of the important issues of the day we're always doing, fighting police, marching where we'not allowed, as well.
I am a teacher on summer break, and am so happy to be able to listen to Letters and Politics more often. I often listen to your show while doing the household chores--it makes the laundry and dishes more bearable! Keep up the great show!
--Cathy S.
Recently there has been much hyperbola about funding abortion with taxpayer dollars. The case is being made that public funds should not be provided because of objections by persons because it is incompatible with their religious values. I think we should raise the bar and ante up the discussion that there are those of us who think that we should be able to withdraw support for public funding for war on the basis of moral and religious convictions. Lets have that discussion.
Agreed!! We need that discussion.
First point to make, amount of $ spent on each!
Sounds like (international) capitalism would/should new called a 'cancer' - since it behaves like a cancer - unlimited growth with no consideration for the "host" (body/earth/environment)
Cancers kill people. Capitalism harnesses/motivates their best efforts to improve life on earth. Not without faults (unequal distribution of income, pollution, etc.) but capitalism (decentralized market economies) must get much of the credit for bringing the masses in developed countries out of poverty.
Thank you for this timely and well produced show. To those who attempt to re-frame and/or deny the evidence: life will teach you. The time of energy shifts has arrived, and the truth will set us all free.
To hear Pollin tell it, those who worry about the deficit want to slow growth so employees will not be able to negotiate for higher wages and businesses will profit. In what slow-growth world do businesses do well? According to Pollin, there is no reason to worry about the deficit as the interest rate is so low. This is very myopic. Debt has to be refinanced and higher rates will be a tremendous burden for the U.S. taxpayer. According to Pollin, the one percent cares only for themselves and politicians support them because they plan to be in the one percent themselves. How they get votes from almost 1/2 the voters in the U.S. seems inexplicable taking Pollin's view. Most listeners don't know enough about the economy to see the errors in Pollin's view. It is irresponsible to have him on without at least offering a critique. The best we got was when the interviewer asked how it is possible that there are no costs associated with the Fed's creation of money. Pollin said there is no inflation now, so it's not a concern. Again, he needs to be challenged when he makes such a short-sighted defense. Using his model, we could look back to the pre-2007 days when banks were being encouraged to make loans to non-credit-worthy households and say there is no reason for concern, as nothing yet had happened. According to Pollin green energy creates more jobs than other industries. Using his logic, we could spend the money on digging ditches and then refilling them. That would create a lot of jobs for very little money. The problem with green energy is that it is expensive and will slow growth, as can be expected in Los Angeles and California where laws require a shift to higher-cost green energy. Whether that is good or bad is for a separate discussion, even if you agree green energy is good, you can't give it credit for economic growth and job creation. This is very irresponsible journalism as intelligent listeners who have no training in economics have no way to think about what could be wrong in what Pollin said.
This show has really pulled together for me why as a young adult I so loved the Clash and how essential it still is to meaning for our times!
I listen almost every day on my way to work. I have learned so much from your educated guests.
I wish you had a transcript!
Listening to your Friday guest talk about beer. He talks about whiskey as the popular drink before the Germans introduced beer -- but totally leaves hard cider out of his discussion.
Mitch sometimes talks about the show having a facebook page, but I've never been able to find it. Can someone send the link? Thanks.
Generally spending on science is a good use of funds. But your guest revealed most of the results of the brain mapping would go to DARPA, and military funding. Black people could use 100 Million dollars, and the money would not go to making combat robots or better prosthetics, it would go to people who desperately need the money and the money through spending would go back into the economy.
I was surprised that the irony of the great "liberal" Justice Holmes" articulation of the limits of free speech was not mentioned. Most people think that premise would have given Debs an acquittal, when in fact Debs's appeal failed because of Holmes's oft-cited declaration that purports to defend free speech. It's a Humpty Dumpty world, don't you know? "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Please do more shows on forgotten radical movements!
I was listening to KPFA on the way to work and the subject was the Boston Marathon bombings. The President's speech was very good, and the subsequent information on the latest news was fine. But then the show's host (Mitch Jeserich, presumably) was interviewing someone in Boston and for three questions in a row kept badgering him for speculation and rumor. To the credit of the interviewee, he declined to speculate on the political fallout, and managed to handle the "Have you heard any rumors" question with an acknowledgement that there were rumors, without specifying any. But the host kept badgering him, "What about the rumor of the police raiding an apartment?" I thought the interviewer's relentless thirst for speculation and rumor was very unprofessional. I turned off the radio at that point as I had arrived at my destination, but I hope the Boston correspondent continued to stick to facts and avoid unhelpful rumor-mongering. In case the host was wondering whether one day after the bombing is too soon to start talking about the political repercussions, the answer is yes. The fact that other organizations are doing it is no excuse.
Enjoyed hearing from your guests John Nichols and Robert Pollin today. They both spoke about Pollin's research that found large calculation errors in the 2010 paper, "Growth in a Time of Debt" .
Thank you for your questions as you try to make complicated subjects understandable for the general public. Listening to Letters and Politics is like taking an enjoyable civics course. I look forward to your show everyday.
All are lying about the reasons for never to free the torture victims from Guantánamo BEFORE their death: The real reasons are exactly the same which were prescribed long before our time within the torture manuals used by the spanish inquisition.
It's long overdue to remind and discuss them again!
All other so-called "political" reasons are a HOAX. Please prevent us on your radio show from listening to such bull shit!!!
Thank you Mitch for your consistently high quality topics, guests, reporting and analysis.
Hi Mitch!
I'm a HUGE fan of your show!
I wonder what you think of the Pentagon's unilateral move to grant itself military authority over "civil disturbances". This is the kind of thing you see in a police state.
http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-i...
The US media isn't really covering this story. Perhaps this would make a great topic for one of your shows?
Thanks again for your informative, intelligent, enlightening program--I look forward to it every day.
Post new comment