[mgkeith]

I liked this one because it not only describes the "theory," but discusses different opinions.

[Geo-Aggie]

Social theories are well backed by empirical evidence. Throwing quotation marks around it as if that somehow discredits an infrastructure that is supported by observation is reminiscent of "Well I don't believe in evolution, because it's just a theory." You've not discredited or even cast doubt on the theory, rather you've only reiterated that the theory is still valid under the premises which we've used to construct our model. Are there other theories? Well, yeah. This obviously isn't the grand unification theory of economics and the discussion even admits to its shortcomings, but it just drives me wild when "just a theory" is used as some sort of attempt to discredit a model, even social models.

I'm not a fan of calling it a "culture of poverty" because I believe it over complicates the situation. The situation being that in America, economic mobility is not what we think it is. This isn't due to any sort of learned behavior or poverty culture but rather just the fact that what your parents earn has a significant impact on what their kids will earn as adults. This lack of economic mobility is largely due to the number of connections available to young adults. This is the primary driver behind what perpetuates income levels from generation to generation.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/ass...inal.pdf?la=en

A child with no college degree, born to >80th percentile earners, is more likely to reach the 80th percentile themselves than a child with a college degree, born to <40th percentile earners. Toss in the fact that a kid with wealthy parents is twice as likely to finish college and you get our dynastic America.

https://www.treasury.gov/press-cente...RT%20CLEAN.pdf (See Figure 2)

How many people in Flint do we believe are >80th percentile earners? How many do we believe are <40th percentile? There ya go.

[belleislerunner]

I thought it was pretty comical yesterday President Obama came to Flint and said that he had consulted with all the science (doctors) that worked for him and that the filtered water in Flint was safe to drink. Republican governor. Democratic president.

The point is these are two different men who actually want to fix a problem instead of a bunch of ranting/screaming people who are only interested in their own sound and mocking those working for solutions.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

I thought it was pretty comical yesterday President Obama came to Flint and said that he had consulted with all the science (doctors) that worked for him and that the filtered water in Flint was safe to drink. Republican governor. Democratic president.

The point is these are two different men who actually want to fix a problem instead of a bunch of ranting/screaming people who are only interested in their own sound and mocking those working for solutions.

I thought it was funny. Obama said I got your back and they all cheered, but he is not providing any federal funding for anything. Snyder said I am working on this, we have funding and are moving ahead we will fix tis and they booed him out of the room. Maybe Snyder should have just said "I got your back" and not spent any money on the problem. Then he could have been applauded

[MS313]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

I thought it was funny. Obama said I got your back and they all cheered, but he is not providing any federal funding for anything. Snyder said I am working on this, we have funding and are moving ahead we will fix tis and they booed him out of the room. Maybe Snyder should have just said "I got your back" and not spent any money on the problem. Then he could have been applauded

If Obama sent an emergency manager to Flint that caused this mess in the first place... he would have been booed as well. But... Obama had nothing to do with that man made disaster.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

I thought it was pretty comical yesterday President Obama came to Flint and said that he had consulted with all the science (doctors) that worked for him and that the filtered water in Flint was safe to drink. Republican governor. Democratic president.

The point is these are two different men who actually want to fix a problem instead of a bunch of ranting/screaming people who are only interested in their own sound and mocking those working for solutions.

No, I think they're mocking those who caused the problem. Snyder is free to go work on his issues/problems on his own time, out of office.

[Coldjensens]

It is funny tome that people seem to think someone else would have made a different decision under the conditions that led to the decision. Having worked closely with many water board and being familiar with the issues and the problems involved in dealing with DWSD, I can tell you all politicians at any level from any party would have made the same decisions when told what these people were told. The bed decision was not switching to the Flint river, the bad decision was not treating the water and lying about the results. That decision was not made by politicians at any level, However that is not a satisfying response. We must have a which hunt so that people who did not give a darn about the people of Flint can feel satisfied and go back to not giving a darn about the people of Flint. The water issues is not even a measurable fraction of their problems but it is popular because the media tells us it should be. No one cared about Flint before the water issue and very few people are doing anything to help them other than the water issue now. Flint's problems are not about water any more than the transgender issue is about bathrooms. It is just a distraction. "Look everyone, a squirrel!"

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

It is funny tome that people seem to think someone else would have made a different decision under the conditions that led to the decision. Having worked closely with many water board and being familiar with the issues and the problems involved in dealing with DWSD, I can tell you all politicians at any level from any party would have made the same decisions when told what these people were told. The bed decision was not switching to the Flint river, the bad decision was not treating the water and lying about the results. That decision was not made by politicians at any level, However that is not a satisfying response. We must have a which hunt so that people who did not give a darn about the people of Flint can feel satisfied and go back to not giving a darn about the people of Flint. The water issues is not even a measurable fraction of their problems but it is popular because the media tells us it should be. No one cared about Flint before the water issue and very few people are doing anything to help them other than the water issue now. Flint's problems are not about water any more than the transgender issue is about bathrooms. It is just a distraction. "Look everyone, a squirrel!"

Must be nice to live in a world of convenient denial. It certainly does make life easier. By the way, did you go help the people of Flint today, or was it yesterday?

[JimmyInGreatLakes]

Originally Posted by magellan

Must be nice to live in a world of convenient denial. It certainly does make life easier. By the way, did you go help the people of Flint today, or was it yesterday?

I believe it is okay to make an observation or even judgment on the reaction and response of people to this crisis and who is to "blame" without having some moral high ground obtained from your level of assistance towards these specific people. Scorn and sarcasm are part of the risk you take in sharing them I suppose. Well deserved of course since he's probably never helped another human being or been involved in any other community project.

[Geo-Aggie]

Coldjensens is right on many aspects - it's a media distraction and we've made it about political blame rather than addressing the underlying issue which is as a society we neglect our infrastructure, both parties, both agendas and the problems in Flint are far and away worse than anything caused by water. The lead paint alone is a bigger driver of blood lead levels in children than water, and we've not even mentioned the urban decay, lack of living wage jobs, or corruption in local government. Where I disagree with coldjensens is that we can point to one specific event in which bad decisions were made. I don't believe we can.

This is all my personal opinion and based on nothing official, but you've got DWSD not playing well with others, you've a politically toxic emergency manager law, you've got politicians throwing their weight around science/engineering decisions, you've got scientists and engineers being told their decisions are wrong by people who know less than them, you've got a terrible lead/copper rule which is large-scale risk based and gives essentially zero consideration to the individual health of a person with poor quality water, and you've got a poor community with crumbling infrastructure and no way to address the issue, and you've got a media who is all about clickbait and agenda driven in a way Ron Burgundy can only dream of. It was a perfect storm and now everybody claims to be an expert because they read an article or two-hundred, when the reality is the experts are still learning exactly what the fallout will be and what specifically needs to be done going forward.

And before you ask, yesterday. Today is my day off, thanks.