Ethnic map of the USA

This map looks more like the German States of America, if you ask me.  Das ist fantastisch!

Pretty cool stuff:

This Map Shows Which Ethnicities Have The Largest Ancestry In U.S. Cities

By Megan Carberry

August 31, 2013 | Upworthy

URL: http://www.upworthy.com/this-map-shows-which-ethnicities-have-the-largest-ancestry-in-us-cities

Census tool shows how gerrymandered you are

Folks, here's a neat little tool.  

With this site from the U.S. Census and a little arithmetic, I am able to see, for example, that my home Congressional district is 92 percent white, (and 3.6 percent black); 70 percent of residents identify their ancestry as "American," English, Irish or German; 18 percent are over the age of 60; and 40 percent of residents are over 45.  

No wonder the GOP doesn't even need to campaign there!   

Find out how slanted toward one party your district is here.

UPDATE (08.12.2013):  This graphic from Mother Jones says it all, how badly Republicans have stacked the electoral deck:

My Congressional District (113th Congress)

Powered by The American Community Survey

U.S. Census Bureau

URL: http://www.census.gov/mycd/?eml=gd

Pitts: 'Race is the stupidest idea in history'

Sums up Pitts:  "Race is the stupidest idea in history. It is also, arguably, the most powerful."

His meditation on race -- and humanity's relatively recent preoccupation with race, and how it determines identity -- is worth reading in full.  

In America, attitudes and prejudices about race concern mostly blacks, and mostly black males, in negative ways.  Ironically,

When Africans were gathered on the shores of that continent to be packed into the reeking holds of slave ships for the voyage to this country, they saw themselves as Taureg, Mandinkan, Fulani, Mende or Songhay -- not black. As Noel Ingnatiev, author of How The Irish Became White, has observed, those Africans did not become slaves because they were black. They “became” black because they were enslaved.

On the flip side, continues Pitts:

I’ve often thought the word “white” had a tendency to discomfit the people to whom it is applied, to carry some hint of accusation that is no less real for being unspoken. In my experience, white people are often ill at ease with being referred to as white people.

There is, I think, a reason for that. “Black” and “white” are equally artificial, but black fairly quickly took on the contours of a real culture.

Whereas "white" includes all the categories not covered by anything else. Like on those applications and Census forms, where we white guys are supposed to check "Non-Hispanic White." [SPOILER ALERT: I'm white.] That's a pretty big catch-all, if you ask me.  Although there is a lot of truth to this, too: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/ . So maybe a true "white guy" culture with our own shared historical identity -- shaped by pop culture and consumption trends -- is indeed coalescing in America?....

Seriously though, I should add that, among academics, the idea is taking hold that we should talk about ethnicity, not race. FYI, here's as good a definition of ethnicity or ethnic groups as any:

An ethnic group is a social category of people who share a common culture, such as a common language, a common religion, or common norms, customs, practices, and history. Ethnic groups have a consciousness of their common cultural bond. An ethnic group does not exist simply because of the common national or cultural origins of the group, however. They develop because of their unique historical and social experiences, which become the basis for the group’s ethnic identity. For example, prior to immigration to the United States, Italians did not think of themselves as a distinct group with common interests and experiences. However, the process of immigration and the experiences they faced as a group in the United States, including discrimination, created a new identity for the group. 

If you accept this definition then you must conclude, as Pitts has, that the term "African-American" is meaningless. Indeed, a long time ago I babysat for an African-American woman who emigrated from South Africa, and she was white as can be. But there are even more subtle but important distinctions than that among the so-called African-American community....

P.S. -- Happy New Year!  (That is, if you subscribe to the Western-European-centric Gregorian calendar....)

Dumbest idea in history? Race

By Leonard Pitts, Jr.

January 1, 2013 | Miami Herald

URL: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/01/178695/commentary-dumbest-idea-in-history.html#storylink=cpy

Census makes it official: W. worst prez ever

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Truth behind Census's 46 million uninsured?

Allow me to debunk the debunker.  First, either Sally's not giving us all her numbers, or she can't add.  When the Census's survey was taken, (more or less a snapshot in time), 45.7 million Americans did not have health insurance.  Sally says that "many" of them "may have" been between jobs and lost their insurance.  But how many?  She doesn't say.  

Further, she estimates the number of those who could afford health insurance but don't buy it (17.5 million), those who are eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, or SCHIP but don't apply for it (14 million), and uninsured immigrants (10 million), which adds up to 41.5 million people.  That leaves 4.2 million people unaccounted for.  Then she claims that "roughly" 8 million Americans are "chronically uninsured."  Where does this figure come from?  Is there significant overlap, such as uninsured immigrants who can afford health insurance?  She doesn't specify.  So, Sally better be honest about her own estimates before she criticizes others'.

Even if it is true that "many" of the uninsured in any given year are people between jobs, it's extraordinarily cavalier of Sally to gloss over their anxiety and lack of access to affordable health care for themselves and their families, even if it's only for a few months.  Illnesses and health emergencies, unfortunately, don't wait until the most convenient moment to appear.  

Moreover, the lack of portability of health insurance, and the huge cost of COBRA insurance, scare U.S. workers from leaving dead-end jobs in the first place.  This limits their potential productivity.  According to Adam Smith, labor should flow freely to where it is most useful and highly rewarded.  Lack of health insurance impedes the free movement of labor.  And health care costs employers an arm and a leg, too: $2,000 of the price of every American-made GM car goes toward its health insurance costs.  For both employers and employees, the American "system" hurts our economic competitiveness. 

Then there's the cost issue, which she totally ignores.  America spends 15 cents out of every dollar on health care, or $2 trillion a year.  That's twice as much on a per capita* basis as in Europe, and 83 percent more per capita than in Canada, which have "socialized" medicine.  (*The cost per capita includes Americans who are uninsured, i.e. those whose health insurance costs are zero, meaning the actual cost of health insurance per payer in America is even higher!)  And our costs keep increasing: health insurance premiums have risen 87 percent since 2000.

So, Obama is correct to note that lack of access is a result of high cost.  If we can bring down the cost, then we can ensure full access to everybody who wants health insurance.  The current system of mainly employer-funded health insurance is not working -- neither for those who do, or don't, have health insurance.

The truth behind the Census Bureau's insurance figure

By Sally C. Pipes

September 21, 2008  |  DC Examiner  

Officials at the U.S. Census Bureau recently released new health insurance figures purporting to show that the number of Americans officially classified as uninsured in 2007 was 45.7 million, down from 47 million in 2006.

Despite the decline, the new figure is being spun as proof positive that America's healthcare system is still in awful shape. Advocates of socialized medicine are repeating it ad nauseam, arguing that the main problem with the country's health system is the massive uninsured population. After all, if a whopping 15 percent of the population is uninsured, then the current system must be failing.

As Dr. Oliver Fein of Physicians for a National Health Program wrote when the figure came out, "[t]he plight of the uninsured… shows how the for-profit, private health insurance model of financing health care has outlived its usefulness."

But it's grossly misleading to use the Census Bureau number as an indication of a crisis. A closer look at the agency's survey methods reveals that the situation isn't nearly as bad as the pundits and the politicians would have you believe.

To generate this figure, the Census Bureau relied entirely on a questionnaire known as the Current Population Survey (CPS). The survey is intended to garner information about, among other things, the income, age, race, living situation, and, of course, health insurance status of individuals living in the United States.

As with any survey of this size and scope, the accuracy of the data it produces has substantial margins of error. As the Census Bureau itself explains in its annual report, "health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported on the Current Population Survey."

The Census Bureau doesn't tell us that 45.7 million people are chronically uninsured for the entire year. The agency has stated elsewhere that "the CPS estimate of the number of people without health insurance more closely approximates the number of people who are uninsured at a specific point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the entire year."

In other words, many of the survey respondents counted as "uninsured" may have experienced only a temporary interruption in their insurance. This circumstance is quite common. When workers quit or lose their job, they are technically uninsured. But they are usually in transition between one employer-provided insurance policy and another.

Despite the media's tendency to depict the 45.7 million uninsured as a single, homogeneous group, the demographic character of these individuals cuts across age, ethnic, and socioeconomic categories. Many are uninsured for reasons unrelated to cost and don't need to be "rescued" by mandatory socialized medicine.

We may be accustomed to thinking of the uninsured as low-income individuals and struggling families. But the Census Bureau data show that many are relatively affluent. Over 17.5 million -- 38 percent -- of the uninsured make more than $50,000 a year.  And 9.1 million have an annual income of over $75,000 a year.

How can this be? In part, it's because a number of financially comfortable young Americans choose not to purchase health insurance. Known in the healthcare trade as the "invincibles" -- because they're so sure they won't get sick -- these young singles would rather keep their money than shell out for expensive monthly insurance premiums because of the many mandates and regulations place on insurers by the states.

This intentional avoidance of health insurance is quite common. According to the Commonwealth Fund, Americans age 19-29 comprise one of the largest and fastest-growing segments of the uninsured population.

If the fact that over a third of the uninsured are pulling down more than $50,000 a year isn't shocking enough, how about this:  Nearly 10 million uninsured aren't even U.S. citizens!

It's certainly unfortunate that these individuals don't have health insurance, of course. But they can still get free treatment in emergency rooms. And even a fully nationalized healthcare system would be unlikely to provide them with health insurance.

Another 14 million of the uninsured are fully eligible for government assistance through programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP.

How does that break down? A 2008 study by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute showed that a whopping 70 percent of uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid, SCHIP, or both programs. And roughly 27 percent of non-elderly Americans who are eligible for Medicaid haven't enrolled and simply live their lives without health insurance, according to the Urban Institute.

Is it really fair to say that such individuals don't have health insurance? Further, if millions of Americans aren't availing themselves of taxpayer-funded coverage, why should we think that an even bigger government healthcare bureaucracy would solve the problem?

Of course, there are people who really do fall through the cracks. These are the chronically uninsured -- the working poor. They are people who struggle to hold down jobs and support their families. They earn less than $50,000 per year but too much to qualify for government help. They simply can't afford insurance.

There are roughly 8 million of these chronically uninsured. Any attempt to solve the problem of the uninsured should focus on this narrow slice of the 45.7 million person pie.

The key to helping these people isn't to create more government red tape. In fact, too much regulation is why health insurance is so expensive in the first place. What these people need is straightforward, affordable coverage that will cover them in the event of a health catastrophe.  They should be able to purchase insurance in the state that has the best plan for them, regardless of where they live.

It's true that far too many Americans go without health insurance. And that is a serious problem.  But the Census Bureau figure shouldn't be presented as anything other than what it really is: an imprecise snapshot of a heterogeneous group of Americans, many of whom wouldn't benefit from additional government intrusion into the healthcare market.