I can’t confirm this (being too lazy to drive out there myself), but I’m getting word from reliable sources that a group of 88 faculty members at the University of Colorado at Boulder is preparing to stage a protest against the state’s rash of winter storms—the idea being to accuse our near-record snowfalls of “white privilege” and environmental “rape” before demanding that the university’s president and trustees expel the vile, lily-white accumulation from polite company. With torches and pitchforks, if needs be.
Unless, of course, the snow in question has been sullied by some animal or some confused frat boy. In which case, the group is prepared to expand its protest to combat the new Yellow Peril.
Because to be an academic, one must remain flexible.*
Personally, I’m not sure such tactics will work—snow tends to be less socially constructed than opportunistic ideologues would probably like it to be—but what the hell. At least the argument is par for the course.
Developing…
That’s great. How long has he been iPod-free? Just remember: one day at a time.
I’ve never owned one. I also keep all my music on wax recording tubes and all my blogs work in cuniform. You have no idea how well that “you talk, it types” software is tuned until you unleash a little “Gilgimesh” on it.
PS: Welcome back, bwana
Jeff, this flakey post really leaves me cold and is bound to net you an icy reception.
Welcome back! Dang, we’ve missed you.
Uh, does this mean I’m not allowed to write my name in the snow because it’s sexist, or racist, or Gaiea raping.
Only I like to keep these things straight.
Or because at my age I’m luck to manage the initials.
Denver continues to dig out from “global warming”. From Texas to Illinois people are slipping and sliding on “global warming” and power lines are down from the weight of accumulated “global warming”. Can we make Algore president by proclamation? I’m afraid 2008 will be too late!
“Can we make Algore president by proclamation? I’m afraid 2008 will be too late!”
Lew,
I think that train left the station a long time ago…Sucks to be Al at this point….
Speaking of yellow snow and lead-filled snowshoes!
All the cuddly MLK shit on TV today made me forget how much I hate Whitey.
(Pours MiracleGro on Jewfro.)
Li @ NYT:
That’s not a facade, motherfucker. That’s what progressive means–historically, and still. They just got better at it–so much so, they’ve got you, a motherfuckin’ race enemy, spewing their “facade” bullshit.
Fuckin’ Uncre Tom.
Mr. Goldstein,
Is your opposition to affirmative action based on a belief that Caucasion and Asian people are inherently, genetically smarter than African and Hispanic people (and other races)? Are you saying that affirmative action is unfair because it is allowing inferior races to get into colleges that should be reserved for the genetically superior races?
If not, how do you account for the higher percentage of Caucasions and Asians in prestigous universities and higher paying jobs? If I’m to understand you, you don’t think it has to do with racism, correct?
If hockey is outlawed, only outlaws will play hockey. It’s the last bastion of white male privilege, with apologies to Donald Brashear.
ex expat,
Should we have quotas for short, slow white guys in the NBA? Or should we just let whomever best meets the qualifications play? I’m just curious, because Carmello Anthony, to name one example, is going to earn more money this year than I will in my entire life.
If so, what about the least talented NBA guy who doesn’t make the big bucks because the quota guy took his spot?
Somebody always pays.
Welcome back, Jeff.
To answer that last pair of question would require that I write a book. And because I don’t have the time to write one just now, I’m grateful the book has been written. Definitely worth checking out. But no, I don’t think racism has much to do with the overrepresentation of Caucasians and Asians in upper-tier universities.
Short answers to the other questions.
No. It is based on the fact that we shouldn’t be deciding things on the basis of pigmentation.
I don’t believe there is any such thing as an “inferior” race. Hell, I don’t even believe there’s such a thing as race, as I note in an earlier post.
As for the “unfair”-ness of race-based affirmative action (I have noted in other posts on the topic that I am certainly willing to consider affirmative action programs based on economic disadvantage), it’s self evident, as far as I’m concerned. It uses a totally irrelevant marker to drive policy decisions that have the net effect of trivializing merit.
Oops. That last comment was a response to steve ex-pat.
Sorry, Mark. And thanks.
Well, steve-of-nobushwar, how do you account for it?
Authoritative sourcing would be good, too, for credible argument.
Excuse, I’m going to go make some popcorn while you “think up” an answer.
Anyone else need something from the kitchen while I’m there? (I’m such a tool of The Patriarchy)
Could you get me a beer, please? Thanks.
Darleen,
You could give an answer yourself you go off to make popcorn.
Jeff said,
“To answer that last pair of question would require that I write a book. And because I don’t have the time to write one just now, I’m grateful the book has been written. Definitely worth checking out. But no, I don’t think racism has much to do with the overrepresentation of Caucasians and Asians in upper-tier universities.”
It would be hard to engage in much of a discussion of the issue without an answer to those questions, of course. If you say there is no such thing as race and racism isn’t a cause of the “overrepresentation” of Caucasions and Asians and that Causcasions and Asians are not more intelligent than other races, than I’m not sure what argument is left to explain the disparity, so I look forward to your book.
I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practiced at the art of deception
Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands
You cant always get what you want
You cant always get what you want
You cant always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need
— The Rolling Stones
Could it perhaps relate to the fact that Faux Liberals did not try to “save” Caucasians and Asians?
Where do these squirrels come from? And how can we convince them to go back?
You know, generally discussions involve some sort of thesis, an antithesis, and, if everyone behaves themselves, a synthesis – or at least an agreement to disagree. I see nothing from you except questions and insinuations, so you might want to look in the mirror when you’re claiming how hard it is to engage in a discussion.
Not bad. Not bad at all.
I say there is no such thing as race. Unfortunately, my view is a minority view. I also don’t believe that whites or Asians hold some sort of special genetic gift for learning to write essays or answer mathematical questions.
Which means there can be any number of social factors that account for underachievement of Blacks and Hispanics in standard education curricula—many of which are examined in the book I recommended to you. Most of those factors are cultural. But they only become “racial” once cultural factors are conflated with racial determinism.
And THAT can only happen if you buy into the idea of racial identity being essential to begin with.
You appear to be setting up an odd binary: you are suggesting (though you are attributing it to me) that either racism or else some innate difference in the races accounts for the disparity you describe. But there any number of other factors you simply refuse to consider—from time spent watching television to peer pressure to the makeup of the family to time spent doing homework—that can account for the disparity.
Hell, something so simple as where one puts one’s priorities can account for the difference.
So you tell me: are there not other explanations besides either institutionalized racism or genetic superiority that might account for the disparities you highlight?
I suspect that they must be under someone’s pay to do what they do here and elsewhere, as they certainly seem ill-equipped to be able to do anything else.
Steve,
How about Fathers in the house? May be to simple, but who knows.
So you’re not really trying to engage, as you won’t answer it yourself. instead we get the “Admit that it’s racism or admit your a racist” dichotomy.
Come on, steve, you can do better than that. Unless you’re one of those people.
Oh, I’ll go out on a limb and say it’s because of shame.
If my priority was to be as little “white” as possible, and I was also taught according to the postmodern higher truth that “being forward looking is racist”, I just might end up almost totally off the totem-pole, stuck in a Ray Nagin Welfare slum, speaking only Ebonics.
I strongly disagree with affirmative action, and I’m a minority. Affirmative action is highly insulting. It’s like saying, “Your people are so stupid that you need artificial policies to help you advance.” I’ll have none of this.
As far as the representation of certain types of people, I have two words: social imperative. And “social” in this context is something far more complex and variable than one’s ethnicity or skin color or even socio-economic level. But when one’s society has as one of its imperative demands that one get a higher education, and excel therein, chances are higher that social structures and expectations will be arrayed thusly, providing for a child a better environment within which to prepare and develop oneself to excel academically.
If there’s no social imperative, there’ll be no motivation for one to attend such institutions nor any supporting structures or expectations for one who many want to do so.
There are exceptions, of course.
Jeff: Correct me if I’m wrong.
Yeah, but you’d never be accused of not being authentic, and that’s what’s really important.
steve-of-nobushwar
You can’t think of any argument, stevie? It’s just The White & Yellow Man conspiring to keep the round-eyed Brown/Browner/Black Man down?
Is that your final answer? No sourcing? No copies of the double-secret White/Yellow summit where the conspiracy was well met?
You can’t even be sure enough of your position to state it unequivocally, just leaving yourself a poltroon’s trapdoor escape while trying to bait others into doing your heavy lifting?
No. Never mind. I just wandered back with more beer and a few sandwiches, after starching and ironing the white sheets for the bonfire meeting later.
See, Nancy Pelosi isn’t the only granny who can multi-task.
Yay, more beer! Thanks Darleen.
Darleen,
I think that you could gleen my primary argument from my original questions if you were truly interested. You seem to be someone that would prefer to insult and mock and try to turn any discussion into a back and forth of insults. I’ve been down that road and won’t be baited. If you would like to have an intellectually honest discussion on the subject, I might be interested, otherwise please go have your popcorn and look for someone else. Try me again on another thread sometime.
Steve…are you a fucking moron? And what color are you? Thanks in advance.
tw: seems
Because it seemsthat you may indeed be a fucking moron.
Jeff said:
“But there any number of other factors you simply refuse to considerâ€â€from time spent watching television to peer pressure to the makeup of the family to time spent doing homeworkâ€â€that can account for the disparity.
Hell, something so simple as where one puts one’s priorities can account for the difference.”
I’m not refusing to consider the factors you discuss. I’m not aware that Caucasions watch less television than African Americans or Asians etc. (I’m not sure if you are making the argument that television makes you dumber or smarter – put me in the camp for it makes you dumber). If you are saying there is no such thing as race, then why would one race watch more television or have more peer pressure or do more homework, etc.? It still implies some inherent difference in people and if you are not attributing it to genetics or racism, then what do you attribute it to?
From my end, I think the primary source is probably racism, which I doubt surprises you. Tied in with that are poverty and circumstances that perpetuate the situation. I also think that culture is a much stronger driving force and not so easily changeable. I don’t consider affirmative action inherently unfair and I’ve yet to hear of a better remedy to a disparity that shouldn’t exist. I got into medical school in part because I had the grades and test scores to be accepted. But I also came from a reasonably well-off white family with a doctor for a father and enough money available to me to allow me to fart around for a few years partying and screwing up, then returning to school. No way could I have done that if I had come from a poor family living in the projects. Not even close. So on paper, I might have better qualifications than some, but I don’t consider my qualifications to be exclusively “merit,” when others didn’t really have the same opportunities and advantages that I had.
I’ll leave it here for now and try a new thread. I find that when I hop onto right leaning blogs, I have trouble cutting myself off. So take the last word if you’d like.
Steve,
Look, I’m well into a sixpack, so I’m gleening impared…plus I’m not too bright.
Can you please just state your primary argument in plain english, so we at the back of the room can keep up?
m’kay steve, maybe we can start with your original question and my, and I’m guessing others, interpretation of it.
You are probably racist and don’t know it.
RACIST!!!!
Please say yes so I can then make fun of you for not knowing how RACIST!!! you are.
Finally, I’ll just say, you might do better if you had some stats to back you up steve. there’s been lots written and studied on the subject. Hell, some of it even linked to a few posts back.
And just whose projects were these, Steve?
Well, you might not be, but social scientists tend to do demographic studies on such things. It’s one of the reasons I pointed you to the Thernstrom’s book, which is replete with the findings of such studies.
Uh, I’m not sure how you’re getting “innate” out of watching TV. It can imply for instance (among other non-innate things), later bed-times, or different parenting rules, etc.
I agree. But I also believe that it is easier to change if we try than if we do not.
Opportunities and advantages are nice if you are able to parlay them into test scores, etc. Which is why I’ve said I’d be willing to support an affirmative action that targeted those with limited opportunity. But it is the assumption of race-based affirmative action that your skin color by necessity has left you at a disadvantage. This is untrue, presumptuous, and more than a little bit insulting, I should think.
The point being that there is nothing innate in a race that puts its members at a decided disadvantage—though those who support race based affirmative action lend their support to that assumption, sadly.
I’m beginning to suspect that the amount of disparity in success between “races”—insomuch as any exists at all—might well be directly proportional to the amount of time individuals spend seething about the disparity in success between races—and their personal identification with such groups.
See: Recent History of the Middle East.
Maggie,
I tried to be “racist” once but never made it past “bigot.” Those upper level classes are a bitch. I scrapped the whole thing and became an art major. Yep, got my degree in colorin’.
By the way, did they change the spelling of “Caucasian” to “Caucasion” while I was out? If so, I’m going to have to redo my tax returns.
steve-of-nobushwar
Somehow I suspect you are not aware of quite a lot on this subject.
And you wonder why I, or others, treat you with disdain.
Why am I not surprised that you are of such little character? Any number of people have exceeded their background …
Are you wallowing in “white guilt” because you think you had it too easy?
The absolution you seek isn’t here, steve. Own your own life.
Wow, I almost forgot why I don’t bother posting on right wing blogs. Oh, make sure you don’t have any typos or misspellings. Make sure everything you say won’t get twisted by pulling out half a sentence. Watch them put liberal strawman words in your mouth. Then try to endure silly insults like “moron” or “asshole”, etc. without saying anything back (because if you do, you will quickly be banned from the website). It’s not even worth it. I gave it another try, but this is apparently the best you can do. If any of you would like to have an actual discussion, feel free to e-mail me, because rather than waste more time here – I’ll say the obvious to all of you under 42 (which I assume is just about all of you):
http://www.goarmy.com
“gleen”, though, that was a pretty bad one I must admit.
That’s gonna leave a mark.
Well carp, I was referring to Darleen’s statement,
and not little stevie’s bit. Such is life.
Yeah, yeah…tell that to Bill Cosby.
If it is indeed racism, the result of desire to keep “them” down, (as opposed to a desire to excel personally, as individuals) then I gotta say, someones letting the side down, letting all those juicy basketball contracts get away.
I thought I answered you quite seriously, steve. And I’ve only banned a handful of people over the years—most of whom are interested in nothing but attacking me personally.
If you treat the subject seriously—and treat your debate opponents seriously—I promise you you’ll get thoughtful responses here. Not only have I had notable leftwing bloggers guest blog on this site, but I’ve welcomed open discussions with left-leaning sites on any number of issues, from Katrina to the NSA to feminism and linguistics.
So before you throw on the victim’s cloak and claim you’ve been turned into a strawman, it might help if you not turn my site into some proxy for your caricatures of “rightwing sites.”
The fact is, you came in here trying to trap me rhetorically with a binary gambit. I’ve explained to you why and how that fails, and I’ve pointed you to a well-respected book on the subject by some Harvard profs, one of whom was on the President’s civil rights council.
I don’t know how I can be any more accomodating except to declare that you won the debate and offer you a cookie. Because that seems to be the only thing that will appease you.
Now, it’s true that some commenters here are quick to hurl epithets. But that hasn’t happened in a vaccuum: it just so happens that my site has been routinely targeted by some of the most vicious leftwing smear sites on the web, and I’ve been personally attacked on a number of occasions. So forgive the regulars here if when they sniff out a newcomer asking loaded questions and dropping suggestive hints that the people here are closet Klansmen, they get a bit defensive.
And stevie snits off with a not too veiled chickenhawk reference!!!
Steve,
Jeff himself (by the way, hella glad your back Jeff!) has favoured you with a couple of very proper, interesting responses, and you cry about the ankle bitting?
Sounds like an excuse to me. You got scared, huh?
Dinesh D’Souza, in his book “The End of Racism” does assert that IQ differs among the races and is an important factor in SAT scores, who is accepted to college, and who gets the better jobs.
Not surprisingly, Asians have the highest average IQ at 105. Caucasians come in second at 100; Hispanics third at 90 and Blacks last at 85.
It’s not racism, it’s just a fact. If you have a problem with it, take it up with God. If you disagree with the reported IQ levels or their effect on SAT scores and college and job performance, then do some scientific experiments and refute them. Since “The Bell Curve” came out, some liberals have attempted to refute it but have not done so convincingly. They have made silly claims that there are different kinds of intelligences; yeah, right.
Hell, I always wanted to improve myself, so I married an Asian. Our son is not only a brain, but damned good looking as well. Thank God he takes after his mother.
But I would stress this one important belief: all races should be equal before the law and all have the same rights and opportunities, but this is the real world. The opportunities will have to be earned by merit. No affirmative action.
It doesn’t really matter which “race” has what i.q., since no individual can be predicted to have any particular i.q. virtually on any basis whatsoever. Unless you are into groupist/bigoted stereotypes, that is.
Thus the main current font of racism I see is that practiced by Faux Liberals, who as a self-annointed group of alleged moral and intellectual superiors themselves in turn see everyone else in a groupist, bigoted stereotypical way based upon arbitrary external characteristics such as skin color, sex, “culture”, religion, age, occupation, income, education, Party, region, and so on – whatever it takes to assign other bigoted characteristics to the members of that group.
But this is not going to be news for most of us familiar with the practitioners of identity politics, its denial of the very existence of individuality, and its desperate need for competing grievance groups and hence, conveniently and racistly, for “elite” groupist saviors – saviors who are actually also in competition with those they are trying to “save”, for the mantle of [false, constructed] superiority.
Therefore, it is a big mistake for any one or group to accept the “help” of Faux Liberals.
Sorry Jeff, I was actually not referring to your posts. I was referring to the others directed at me. You were actually quite forthcoming and I meant to mention that fact in my previous post, but was rather annoyed by the other posts and hit the “submit” button with a certain relish.
As for your assertion that I was trying to trap you in a binary gambit, there is a certain amount of truth to that. I think that the affirmative action debate is largely based on the attitude that whites are intellectually superior to blacks and that blacks are getting something they don’t deserve. I prefer to address the issue head on rather than dancing around it by pointing out other failings of affirmative action. In the same way, the anti-immigrant debates talk about jobs being lost, etc., but that often cloaks racist attitudes about Mexicans. This is not to say that they are the only reasons for these positions, but shouldn’t be ignored. I can almost bond with your “no race” premise, but I think that ignores culture which I think is a much more powerful element for people than is commonly acknowledged. This opinion comes from my background in psychiatry and a “Jungian” view towards the collective unconscious.
It’s relatively difficult, though, to have these discussions and just ignore the next 6 or 7 posts calling me a moron or some derivation before answering your next post, which (at least up to now has been quite reasonable). So, I think the whole situation is really pointless. I could try to just ignore it, but it gets tiresome and occasionally I feel the need to respond, which traps me in a cycle of attacks/couterattacks and the discussion deteriorates. Also, I have to find posts where I actually understand what you’re talking about. I don’t mean that as an insult, but most of these posts seem to have some inside joke element that is entirely lost on me.
I can’t believe we are arguing about things like the difference between race and culture on a day like this, when we should be celebrating how Dr. King freed the slaves.
Why can’t we all just get along.
One of the most frustrating things about people like steve is the assertion without any substance; usually couched with just enough qualifying terms—“largely” “almost” et al—as to provide a safe haven from having to actually defend the claimed assertion—“That’s not what I really meant!”
Steve…PAY ATTENTION… it is the assertion that only programs such as quotas, setasides, etc, can the minority du jour suceed that is a racist attitude. It is the soft bigotry of low expectations … “Now everyone, when young Malcom gets here and we decide what play we are going to attend, don’t embarrass him by suggesting Shakespeare. Some do suggest something much more acceptable to his kind and we’ll all have a nice outting.”
Oh…btw, Steve?
What “race” is Mexican?
I just imagine steve-XX at home collecting his crocodile tears in jars. poor wittle steve. why can’t we all just accept we’re a little bit racist?
Actually, steve, if you simply stated your argument, instead of making people deduce it from your insinuations, you might get taken seriously.
As near as I can tell, you took the old trick question, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”, and updated it for modern progressive values: “When will you admit that you’re a racist?”
Not a great way to start a discussion.
TW: quite45. Quite, indeed. Dunno about the 45.
What a depressing load of self-pitying drivel to spoil Jeff’s return.
And what a tolerant lot you are compared to any socialist site, where I have generally found that one dissenting view is enough to get you barred.
It seems to me, Steve, if you are still around, that Jeff answered your initial questions with his initial response.
I don’t know how you would describe your first remark addressed to Darleen:
It rather detracted from the weight I was able to give to anything you said subsequently.
Try to hold just one thought in your mind:
For every beneficiary of “affirmative action”, there is irrevocably a victim.
How would you like to choose your victims?
And you prefer to address this racist attitude by endorsing it through affirmative action?
That’s very telling, steve.
The thing is, steve, that its obvious you want to come in here and set all the racist right wingers to rights with your take on the need for affirmitive action, but you just dont have a basic enough understanding of the subject to be able to do so. Maybe if you weren’t so sure of your own intellect you might have done better. As it is, you just come off like a condescending know nothing.
Now, if you’d like to learn something and be better equipped, why not try again from a less judgmental starting point? It seems to me that most of the people here have the capability to discuss the big ticket items rationaly.
Except me, I’m just gonna call you a cockmunch for pulling that chickenhawk slur out of your vagina. Asshole.
Say no to affirmative action. Why mess with evolution?
Actually, I have problems with unrestricted immigration for two reasons:
1) We have laws. They’re already more lax than the laws of the biggest source of immigrants. Let’s enforce those laws, lest we find ourselves deciding not to enforce a whole raft of laws out of some odd notion of convenience or morality.
2) Unrestricted immigration drives down wages and hurts the ability of those most in need of a hand-up to get it. Look to Crider, GA, where, after an immigration raid, the local employer raised its wages and started actively recruiting from the local (poor) community. Even the WSJ had to admit it happened, and they’re hardly fans of doing anything but hanging a “Open” sign on the border.
No racism there. Unless you’re going to start declaring that you truly know what lurks in the hearts of others, and that we’re all deluding ourselves.