Asians marry before they have children, so the kids have two parents
This article is written by the far-left radical Nicholas Kristof, writing in the radically-leftist New York Times. (A former newspaper)
Excerpt:
THIS is an awkward question, but here goes: Why are Asian-Americans so successful in America?
It’s no secret that Asian-Americans are disproportionately stars in American schools, and even in American society as a whole. Census data show that Americans of Asian heritage earn more than other groups, including whites. Asian-Americans also have higher educational attainment than any other group.
[…]Does the success of Asian-Americans suggest that the age of discrimination is behind us?
A new scholarly book, “The Asian American Achievement Paradox,” by Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou, notes that Asian-American immigrants in recent decades have started with one advantage: They are highly educated, more so even than the average American. These immigrants are disproportionately doctors, research scientists and other highly educated professionals.
It’s not surprising that the children of Asian-American doctors would flourish in the United States. But Lee and Zhou note that kids of working-class Asian-Americans often also thrive, showing remarkable upward mobility.
Part of the problem is that non-Asian Americans take a passive view of life, believing that high grades come to those who are naturally smart – not to those who work harder:
There’s also evidence that Americans believe that A’s go to smart kids, while Asians are more likely to think that they go to hard workers… Asian-American kids are allowed no excuse for getting B’s — or even an A-. The joke is that an A- is an “Asian F.”
And, as the image I posted above shows, Asian girls are given boundaries on their sexuality, causing them to choose men who will be good husbands and fathers, and making those men marry before being given sex – factors proven to improve marital stability:
Strong two-parent families are a factor, too. Divorce rates are much lower for many Asian-American communities than for Americans as a whole, and there’s evidence that two-parent households are less likely to sink into poverty and also have better outcomes for boys in particular.
So, let’s be real – if white racial discrimination held non-white groups back, then Asians would be in the same situation as blacks and hispanics. But Asians are not being held back, because of their strong marriage culture and focus on hard work. Whites don’t hold anyone back. This is just a myth that Democrats use to make blacks (and hispanics) think that they need government to save them from the bogeyman. Asians don’t need saving, and neither should any other non-white groups.
We can start by shaming women of all races who choose to have sex with men who are not ready for marriage. There are lots of men out there who are willing to marry, and that should be what women are looking for most if all in a man. That change alone will probably erase most of the achievement gap between different racial groups. Does anyone have the courage to tell young women (of all races) to be more responsible with their sexual decisions? The out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks is over 70%. This causes massive poverty and crime in the black community. Does anyone have the courage to tell blacks that they are doing this to themselves?
Well, just when you thought public relations couldn’t get any worse for the mainstream news media, CNN decides to grab a shovel and keep digging. This time, there was a discussion of abortion law, and the CNN journalist decided to announce her opinion that unborn children in the womb are not actually human beings at all.
Watch this:
The Federalist reported on the story, and I’ll quote them here for those who can’t watch the video:
On CNN’s “Primetime with Chris Cuomo” on Monday night, a segment on the legality of state-level fetal heartbeat bills quickly spiraled into a chaotic debate about whether unborn children should be considered human beings. CNN contributor and erstwhile New York City Democratic politician Christine Quinn said, “When a woman is pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her.”
When guest Rick Santorum asked CNN Host Chris Cuomo if he disagreed “that at the moment of conception that a child is human and alive?” Cumono replied that means it’s “viable.” When Santorum asked, “Is it biologically a human life?” Quinn shouted, “No!”
Cuomo and Quinn teamed up in pushing back on Santorum as he articulated what science tells us about unborn humans. At every stage of human life — as an embryo, a fetus, or after five weeks of age when his or her heartbeat can be detected by an ultrasound — an unborn child has his or her own unique DNA.
He or she has a unique genetic code, blood type, sex, and race, all which can differ from his or her mother and father’s. This unique individual is developed inside a women’s body, but is not part of a women’s body, and cannot be regulated as the mother’s property, Santorum argued.
Um, scientists understand very well what the DNA signature of the human species looks like, and unborn babies do indeed have a human DNA signature. One that is unique to them, and not the same as either parent. It’s a new person.
I looked up her biography to see if she was just a guest speaker, but apparently she really is an actual CNN Contributor:
Christine Callaghan Quinn is an American politician. A member of the Democratic Party, she formerly served as the Speaker of the New York City Council. The third person to hold this office, she was the first female and first openly gay speaker. Quinn is a CNN political contributor.
Wow! So now CNN “journalists” are in open denial of scientific facts about embryology and human reproduction.
Here’s Chris Cuomo explaining that there simply is no case for the right to life of the unborn based on logic and evidence:
CNN says “The pro- life position is more about faith and feeling than fact”
Really? Then how come I can find sophisticated defenses of the pro-life position from prestigious academic presses, like this one published by Cambridge University Press? How about this one from Routledge, a leading academic press? But we can’t expect CNN to be informed about such things, because CNN isn’t in the business of communicating truth to their audience.
CNN’s audience is vanishing
I wonder how that is working out for them in the new media ratings?
According to the latest television audience data from Nielsen, CNN’s prime time audience fell 26% in April 2019 compared to its audience in April 2018. Total audience in prime time for CNN last month was only 767,000 viewers, reported Forbes.
For comparison, MSNBC came in second place with 1.66 million viewers and the Fox News Channel (FNC) led the pack in prime time with 2.395 million viewers, said Forbes.
Wow, not working out too well. Well, they could always hire some conservatives if they want to get serious about reporting the news, instead of just doing campaign ads for the Democrat Party.
Something to share
My friend Nathan sent me this hilarious video of a Canadian pro-life advocate doing a parody of pro-abortion rhetoric. Except, it’s not really a parody if they really believe it, is it?
This might be worth sharing, to help your friends think clearly about right to life issues:
Indeed.
Look, there are academics who favor abortion rights over the right to life of the unborn. And we feature them on this blog, and we show academics debates on this blog that allow them to present their ideas. I know what the the best people on the other side have to say when they make their case. And that apparently makes me more honest and informed than CNN.
I found this op-ed in the radically-leftist Washington Post, of all places. The author took a look at the evidence on gun violence for Five Thirty Eight, and decided that gun control policies would not help the problems that we are actually facing.
Excerpt:
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.
I’ve written before about how banning handguns in the UK doubled the violent crime rate in the next four years. That’s not ambiguous in my book! But this is 538 and Washington Post, so we can’t expect them to agree with the evidence all the way, or they’d be conservatives. Regarding Australia’s gun ban, violent crime rates rose after they confiscated guns as well. It’s very important to look at the data on these issues, because on liberal web sites, they basically run headlines claiming the exact opposite of what studies show, and this is eaten up by their anti-intellectual leftist readers.
More:
When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.
As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them.
[…]However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.
This excerpt is basically correct, and I’ve explained in the past that inner-city gun violence is caused by fatherlessness, which is caused by the decisions that women make about men and when to have sex with them. Unless we are willing to tell women not to have sex with thuggish bad boys, then we aren’t going to get rid of inner-city gun violence. We certainly shouldn’t be paying women welfare money to have more fatherless children, if we want to stop gun violence. We’re not serious about gun violence, or we would ban single mother welfare, and give tax incentives for children who are raised in a home where the child’s biological is present and committed to the child’s mother for life. No one on the left who complains about gun violence is serious about solving the root cause of gun violence. Because they don’t want to be guided by facts.
The peer-reviewed research
Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.
Here is a paper by Dr. Malcolm that summarizes one of the key points of her book.
Excerpt:
Tracing the history of gun control in the United Kingdom since the late 19th century, this article details how the government has arrogated to itself a monopoly on the right to use force. The consequence has been a tremendous increase in violent crime, and harsh punishment for crime victims who dare to fight back. The article is based on the author’s most recent book, Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Harvard University Press, 2002). Joyce Malcom is professor of history at Bentley College, in Waltham, Massachusetts. She is also author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an AngloAmerican Right (Harvard University Press, 1994).
Upon the passage of The Firearms Act (No. 2) in 1997, British Deputy Home Secretary Alun Michael boasted: “Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world.” The Act was second handgun control measure passed that year, imposed a near-complete ban on private ownership of handguns, capping nearly eighty years of increasing firearms restrictions. Driven by an intense public campaign in the wake of the shooting of schoolchildren in Dunblane, Scotland, Parliament had been so zealous to outlaw all privately owned handguns that it rejected proposals to exempt Britain’s Olympic target-shooting team and handicapped target-shooters from the ban.
And the result of the 1997 gun ban:
The result of the ban has been costly. Thousands of weapons were confiscated at great financial cost to the public. Hundreds of thousands of police hours were devoted to the task. But in the six years since the 1997 handgun ban, crimes with the very weapons banned have more than doubled, and firearm crime has increased markedly. In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose—by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offences were committed.
[…]According to Scotland Yard, in the four years from 1991 to 1995 crimes against the person in England‟s inner cities increased by 91 percent. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.
I think that peer-reviewed studies – from Harvard University, no less – should be useful to those of us who believe in the right of self-defense for law-abiding people. The book by economist John Lott, linked above,compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, but both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.
