Friday, January 6, 2012

Mississippi politics: Hilarious


Coahoma County District 5 Supervisor Dr. Roger Weiner has decided to move forward with plans of a Senatorial Campaign in 2012 against current U.S. Senator for the State of Mississippi Roger Wicker.

Weiner announced via the Clarksdale Press Register in early May that he would be forming an exploratory committee to see if it was feasible and viable option for him to seek election to the U.S. Senate in 2012.

Dr. Weiner has filed his qualification paperwork and says his run will not detract from his current duties as a Coahoma County Supervisor. If elected to the U.S. Senate, he will continue to serve in both capacities.

Currently Wicker serves as Deputy Whip and is a member of the Armed Services Committee; the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee; the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; and the Veterans Affairs Committee. [my emphasis]
How great is it to live in a state where a (democrat) county supervisor challenges a (republican) incumbent US Senator and pledges that if elected he'll keep his day job? (Which, by the way, he's not doing too well.)

Let me be clear. I am no fan of Roger Wicker. But to understand why I find this so hilarious, let's first look at what Dr. Weiner says. From the Clarksdale Press Register:
“I am extremely concerned where Mississippi has been, where it is currently and the direction it continues to go,” said Weiner. “When you are last or next to last in education, healthcare and family income, it leaves significant opportunity for improvement. My extensive background in healthcare and education certainly could maximize that opportunity.”

“Our leadership in Mississippi has failed to address these and other issues over the last decade in any cohesive matter. Even the extremely important responsibility of appointing U.S. attorneys has been deferred for 2 ½ years.  This is an embarrassment which underlines the lack of leadership. For these reasons, I am seriously giving thought as to whether I can be an effective candidate against Roger Wicker in 2012.” [punctuation problems belong to the Clarkdale Press Register; my emphasis]
And then let's look at some quick facts about Coahoma County, which is situated on the Mississippi River in the northwest corner of the state, one county to the south of Tunica County. 

According to numbers from the 2010 census 

-- the population of Coahoma Co. is 26,000-- down 14.6% from 2000

-- almost 1/3 of the population is under age 18 (1/4 in Mississippi overall, and 24% US)

-- 54% of the population is female (about 51% in Mississippi and US)

-- 23% of the population is white (compared to 59% in Mississippi overall)

-- home ownership rate is 53% (compared to 70% MS overall); 20% of the population lives in "multi-unit structures (compared to 13.6% overall)

-- per capita income is $15,100; median household income is $24,800 (compared to $36,800 MS overall)

-- almost 40% of the population lives below the poverty line (22% overall)

-- 74% of the population 25+ years old graduated from high school (79% overall Mississippi, 85% US)

-- private non-farm employment is down 22.6% from 2000 (5.5% overall)

You can infer what you will from these stats. I'm thinking Dr. Weiner should put his "extensive background in healthcare and education" to work to address the high rate of unwed pregnancies* among his under-educated poor, unemployed, apartment dwelling fellow Coahoma County citizens.

*From these data, this is a leap, I know. But come on. Look at the age breakdown by sex available here. There just are not enough men in this county to pair 1:1 with the female population. 

It's hard to copy/paste tables. From left to right the columns are age group, absolute number, percent of total.
___________________________
Males:

6 years and over    8,620    33.0
18 years and over    8,159    31.2
21 years and over    7,454    28.5
62 years and over    1,576    6.0
65 years and over    1,222    4.7

Females:

16 years and over    10,818    41.4
18 years and over    10,328    39.5
21 years and over    9,623    36.8
62 years and over    2,331    8.9
65 years and over    1,964    7.5
____________________________

Do a quick calculation. By sex, take the number of males 18 and older, and subtract from that the number 62 and older. There are 6583 men in the county age 18-62. There are 7997 females in this age range.

Dang. If I'd just looked before typing... 
________________________________________________

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE        
Total households    9,461    100.0
Family households (families) [7]    6,393    67.6
With own children under 18 years    2,882    30.5
         
Husband-wife family    3,004    31.8
   With own children under 18 years    1,079    11.4
Male householder, no wife present    531    5.6
   With own children under 18 years    223    2.4
Female householder, no husband present    2,858    30.2
   With own children under 18 years    1,580    16.7

Nonfamily households [7]    3,068    32.4
Householder living alone    2,691    28.4
Male    1,166    12.3
65 years and over    286    3.0
Female    1,525    16.1
65 years and over    749    7.9
         
Households with individuals under 18 years    3,661    38.7
Households with individuals 65 years and over    2,439    25.8
         
Average household size    2.69     ( X )
Average family size [7]    3.32     ( X )
________________________________________________

In Mississippi overall 10% of female householders live with their own children with no husband present. 

Again-- I'd say Dr. Weiner has some work to do in his own backyard before he goes to The US Senate and starts asking the rest of America to fix the "issues" in Coahoma County, Mississippi.

11 comments:

  1. This could get into some lengthy philosophical discussion here!

    What is the role of the State when it comes to marriage? As a Catholic, I learned that the _primary_ (not only, but primary) purpose of marriage was the procreation of children. Procreation here meaning not just having as many as you're able to have, but to raise them to responsible adulthood.

    Now, it's obvious (from your table alone!) that the creation of children does not require marriage. It's also apparent - since more and more are in favor of homosexual marriage - that marriage is no longer perceived as the only - or even the ideal - condition in which to raise children. So it would seem that only religions now hold the view that the prime purpose of marriage is to make babies and raise them to responsible adulthood.

    That being so, what is the function of the State related to marriage?

    Then I'd ask, why is there State support for illegitimate children? If marriage isn't "required" to raise children, then why is it the job of the State to do so? Since birth control and abortions are so widely provided by the State, shouldn't we consider that each and every child is wanted? And if wanted, shouldn't one or both parents be responsible for nurturing same child?

    I'd allow for one mistake. If you have one illegitimate child, I'd offer necessary support until that child is in first grade. Second child and any thereafter are your problem - not the State's.

    But you know where we're headed - State "owns" the children. Provides for them and educates them. Then those same children belong to the State - we're right back to slavery!!

    http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/05/work-opportunity/

    Did you see this? how long before the "opportunity" becomes a requirement - they're already talking about volunteer social work being a requirement for a high school diploma...

    Yup. Right back to slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  2. By the way...

    Why the big imbalance of the sexes? young males go off to the big city to find jobs? or to run away from the responsibility of the children they've created?

    Any idea??

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm cool with philosophy! I'm also cool with (some) philosophers-- so no worries.

    It is not the proper function of state, federal or local government to be involved in voluntary relationships among individuals other than to enforce contracts. I find the whole concept of a marriage license bogus. Likewise, the need to gain the permission of the state to terminate a contract/marriage.

    If the two individuals are of a mind, the church (God) oversees the contract. You say your vows and get married in the church. Should one or both wish to end the marriage, the church-- or more precisely the congregants/preacher-- should make counseling available should the couple wish it. If it doesn't work, the church terminates the marriage.

    If the couple is not religious, well then I guess it falls to the individuals themselves (and no doubt their lawyers) to severe the contract.

    Very few things in my life have pissed me off more than having to have my first marriage officially terminated by the state except having to petition the state to give me back my maiden name.

    Children. It is not the proper function blah blah blah. Children are a special case, though, right? Still, it seems to me that if there is such a thing as a contract between parents and their children, and if the contract is violated by one or more parents, there are plenty of folks out there who can and should act on behalf of the child. Family, church, charities and so on.

    I think I could be persuaded that the state did have a role in enforcing the contract between a child and divorced parents with respect to financial support. Maybe. Not alimony but child support.

    And for the record, individuals should file federal income tax returns, not couples.

    What world am I living in??

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry for the tone above!

    Anything I'd have to say about the sex ratio is speculative.

    One thing to note-- and I should go back and update-- is that the table with # & % by sex is a lifespan table. That's why the %s don't sum to 100.

    I went back and looked at the detailed numbers, by sex & age group: under 5, 5-9, 10-14, etc. Summing these three (which gives you total boys/girls under 15) it's 50/50-- which is sort of surprising b/c I'd expect higher infant mortality in boys.

    More analysis in a bit. This is interesting stuff if you are a numbers geek!

    ReplyDelete
  5. >>It is not the proper function of state, federal or local government to be involved in voluntary relationships among individuals other than to enforce contracts. I find the whole concept of a marriage license bogus. Likewise, the need to gain the permission of the state to terminate a contract/marriage. >>

    I both agree and disagree. It seems to me that the function of the state is due to the fact that children _do_ exist, and the expectation is that they are the responsibility of the parents. The state then says: Do you agree to accept the responsibility of children? if so, yes, we issue you a marriage license.

    Remember too that when all these laws were initiated (along with that license) wives stayed at home and raised the children. In the case of a divorce, she had no way to support herself. Part of the marriage contract was to support that wife unless she remarried. All that has changed. Maybe for better, maybe for worse, but nevertheless, changed.

    So...that takes me back to the original question: What is the function of the State when it comes to marriage?

    I have no doubt it comes down to the two issues of property rights and children - which could probably be addressed by contracts...but then, that's theoretically what the marriage license/bonds is/are - a contract. Just shorthand for a contract.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Off the top of my head-- which is in a separate but related place right now-- -- and I've thought about this in another context of our discussions (double em's)-- -- is that we come at these issues from flip sides of the same coin. I look at things from a bottom up perspective, i.e., I tend to start with the individual and work my way up, and you look at things top down, i.e., you start with some larger unit of analysis (church, state) and work your way down.

    So happens we meet. Which is why you both agree and disagree.

    "It seems to me that the function of the state is due to the fact that children _do_ exist, and the expectation is that they are the responsibility of the parents. The state then says: Do you agree to accept the responsibility of children? if so, yes, we issue you a marriage license."

    This assumes your Catholic premise. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But it's a BIG assumption, that as you note, may have been valid enough at one time but may no longer be.

    It also assumes that the state is the only group with expectations about responsibilities. In matters such as these, why is the state given primacy over other groups to which people grant authority?

    Bazinga!

    ReplyDelete
  7. More thought on the topic on my part...

    Marriage is and always has been part of society. Societies have had somewhat different perspectives over time, but first and foremost has been the children. Even in primitive societies, marriage is somewhat formalized in such a way as to affirm the public knowledge of the relationship. It's interesting to note that in the Bible, there is a frequently noted difference between a wife and a mistress, even though both relationships exist at the same time, with the full knowledge of both the women and the tribe(their society). Women brought a dowry to the marriage, and we could probably argue about whether women were "bought" for marriage, given that the arrangements were usually between parents of the young people, and hard bargains were driven about who would supply what for the young couple. Which probably meant that there were also hard bargains driven about what happened if there was a divorce. I guess it was a pre-marital contract situation. The marriage was then publicly declared for the entire tribe to know that the agreement had been made.

    In the middle ages, basically the same arrangement existed although the Church was the officiating party - because no State as such existed. The Church doesn't "marry" people, the priest is merely an official witness. He witnesses that the two are free to marry, and both are freely choosing to marry. (You know that part about "does anyone here know of any reason why these two should not marry?") All of the above is done to assure the continuation of the tribe and material possessions of same.

    As you point out, things have changed and these concerns may no longer be valid. In that case, what is the point of marriage?


    >>Why is the State...etc.>>

    That one is easy - because the State has the power to enforce its decisions. And other groups _don't_.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've been pondering (while doing deep cleaning). I wish I had more to offer to the conversation.

    Question, though. Should the "point" of marriage be viewed from the perspective of the two individuals, or from that of those outside the relationship (family, church, "society," state)? I think the point changes depending on the answer. Keep in mind, this is a normative question. So we've moved deeper in to philosophy! LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Interesting question.

    What do the two individuals want from a relationship? Do they want to "marry"? If so, what does that mean to them, and what do they hope to gain by it?

    Likewise, why does society (et al) want to have a voice in the matter? What does it gain by establishing "rules" for marriage?

    I think you have to ask the why before you get to the wherefores...

    ReplyDelete
  10. And if you ask "why" you're asking about motivations.

    WRT society-- desire to maintain organization? structure? (This is motivation for a lot of societal norms.)

    WRT individuals-- desire to be part of that structure, i.e., part of society?

    At some point, this conversation will have to more into the biological. LOTS of other animals "pair bond" for life and have "family units."

    ReplyDelete
  11. I wouldn't go so far as to say "LOTS", but it is true that many have pair bonds for life and the family unit is the norm if you're talking about one of the pack/herd animals. Not so true about solo animals, though.

    Even in pair bond animals, there's also a herd/pack dominance issue as well. You normally have a dominant male who mates with a dominant female who keeps the other females away from the male so that he mates only with her. Or you may have a dominant male who runs off the young males when they come of breeding age.

    There's also the fact that some species - I'm thinking of swans - mate for life, but it's also only pairing that is active during the breeding season.

    Usually the juvenile period is fairly short - as is their life span. I think that's a factor. And there's a geographical limitation factor as well. That used to be true of humans, but not so much any more - that's another of the things that has changed society...our mobility.

    So...I think "why" might be a poor choice of words. Maybe "what's the purpose" is a better question. If the purpose isn't to have children, then maybe marriage - as we have understood it - is also a poor choice of words. Maybe we need a new vocabulary. You certainly don't need the State's permission to co-habit. And if you take the State licensing arrangement out of the picture, there are many who are not religious and so wouldn't marry if the religious ceremony was the only option...

    So...where does that leave us?

    ReplyDelete

Be nice. Nothing inappropriate, please.