In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Ferrari Blind-Spot | Main | Becoming Creative 1: I'm So Boring »

March 24, 2006


Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Here's a new q&a with Shelby Steele. Years ago I got a lot out of reading Steele's "The Content of our Character." I see that Steele has a new book coming out soon. A good passage from the interview:

By accepting the idea that government is somehow going to take over the responsibility that only we can take, we relinquished authority over ourselves. We became child-like, and our families began to fall to pieces. Welfare—which promised a subsistence living for the rest of your days for doing absolutely nothing—provided a perfect incentive to not get married, yet still have babies. Then the babies will be state wards, and their babies, and so forth.

The incentive is just to stay in that rut. And so the goodwill of America finally did do to us what slavery and segregation failed to do. It destroyed our family, destroyed our character, and now black America is in a struggle. We struggle to stand up like men and women and take charge of our lives, and become competitive with other people in the modern world.

Here's an excellent interview with John McWhorter. Here's another. A few years ago, I got a lot out of reading McWhorter's book "Losing the Race." A good passage from the Salon interview:

The problem is that a lot of what's considered to help black people doesn't. For example, affirmative action. If what comes out of this is that the White House decides to nudge the Supreme Court into agreeing with the University of Michigan, they're supporting a policy where black people of any circumstances are allowed into top universities with lower grades and test scores than other people. That's what affirmative action is. We say "affirmative action" and we get kind of rosy inside, but it's a euphemism for lowering standards for people with pigment.

Here's an interview with Thomas Sowell. Years ago I enjoyed wrestles with many of Sowell's books. Here's the one I liked best. Or maybe it was this one. Well, this one was awfully good too ... In any case, for my money Sowell's a giant. A characteristically to-the-point passage from the interview:

Many of the people on the left discuss things in terms of what they hope will be. They frame their discussions in terms of what they hope will be. Like affordable housing. We're all for affordable housing. But when someone says affordable housing, I like to mention the words "builders" and "landlords" and see them cringe. They hate those people. But how are you going to have affordable housing if someone doesn't build it, and someone doesn't rent it?

Where politics is concerned I mostly dodge labels, although "skeptical of the whole ugly mess" is certainly something I can live with. But reading Steele, McWhorter, and Sowell, I sometimes think I wouldn't mind being labeled a "black conservative."

Hmmm. I notice that Sowell doesn't like being called a black conservative, and that McWhorter doesn't vote Republican. OK, so the political-label thing is complicated ...



posted by Michael at March 24, 2006


I understand what people mean when they say affirmative action "lowers the standards for people with pigment." But are we really just talking about entrance standards, or are we talking about performance standards once they are in? Is there evidence that the african american students who "got in" to the University of Michigan law school through affirmative action assistance actually take different tests, or are graded on a different curve, than their counterparts who didn't get the affirmative action assistance? Or are they taking the same tests, reading the same texts, going through the same moot court, and competing for the same jobs when they get out? Because I think the original argument was that students from lesser public schools simply haven't had the same preparation as, say, Andover-and-Harvard grads have had to "show" the same way according to entrance standards, like test scores. Now, this would make more sense if the affirmative action assistance was for lower income applicants rather than african american applicants, because, as many, including Bill Cosby, have said, its more an issue of economic class than race. Why aren't the standards applied more by the historical opportunity that someone has had for education--meaning white or hispanic people from disadvantaged households would get the same consideration as blacks from disadvantaged households---rather than just by race? I guess the answer is that it really is white guilt over slavery? It's so ridiculous. You simply can't "apologize" for slavery, no matter what you do. There's no saying "sorry" for that one. And lowering the entrance standards to the U of M doesn't do a damn thing to make up for "owning" someone's great-great-grandfather. I mean, it sure as hell wouldn't make up for it with me. But I do think there might be a place for "levelling the playing field" for people who simply haven't had the same educational opportunities in life, or the same connections, because I sure as hell believe there are kids from rural Mississippi who are "smarter" than, say, George Bush or John Kerry, who went to Yale!

Posted by: annette on March 24, 2006 12:07 PM

But are we really just talking about entrance standards, or are we talking about performance standards once they are in? Is there evidence that the african american students who "got in" to the University of Michigan law school through affirmative action assistance actually take different tests, or are graded on a different curve, than their counterparts who didn't get the affirmative action assistance? Or are they taking the same tests, reading the same texts, going through the same moot court, and competing for the same jobs when they get out?

I think one of the commenters over at the Volokh Conspiracy has delved into this issue. If I recall correctly (and I may not have done), matriculating Black applicants will take the same courses and the same course exams, and ultimately, the same Bar exams, and fail them all at significantly greater rates than Asians, Jews, and Whites. Admitting minority students under lowered standards is just a cosmetic solution if you're losing the marginal ones anyway because they flunk out.

Posted by: Taeyoung on March 24, 2006 12:27 PM

It's a terrible pickle, isn't it? It seems to leave a lot of people in a bad mood, some politicos and race hustlers aside. I guess my final feeling is that I don't have any trouble with any institution doing what it wants to promote women or blacks or whomever (although I suspect this also means that we have to allow other institutions to favor whites and men). Why shouldn't they? But I have terrible reservations about making this official, government-enforced policy. Any such effort seems bound to lead to tons of resentment and mucho corruption...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 24, 2006 1:04 PM

Michael--it doesn't matter what you think about colleges promoting any one group or the other. Its against the law. People who engage in this behavior should be thrown in jail, or sued until they have to walk around in an empty barrel. Admitting unqualified minorities has led to the massive grade inflation we now have in our wonderful PC university utopias, cheapening exorbitantly priced college "educations", making them into jokes. Nobody who gets a nickel of mandated tax money should do anything but seek out and hire the absolute best they can find. If they want to play social engineer (the most horrendous failures of the modern age), they should do so with their own money. Watch the charity end when that happens.

I guess the "pickle" you refer to is that we want blacks to do well, but unless we are going to create a blatantly illegal Potempkin Racial Village, that's not going to happen. Everybody here knows that blacks as a group are simply not as intelligent as whites. Millions and millions and millions and millions of tests, statistics, quantitative measures, personal experiences, etc. says so. We all know it. Its just people are too gutless to tell the truth, because they might be called a racist. You can call me a racist if you want. I don't care, and I'll accept the label, because I value the truth more than your personal opinion.

The next thing people will offer up as an argument to this plain fact is one of personal experience, as if some anecdotal evidence of highly intelligent blacks refutes the norm. Good luck with that. I know as well as anybody that there is variation in any group. That doesn't invalidate the general point, though.

The simple fact is that blacks simply can't compete intellectually with whites in this society. If you really believe that people should be evaluated based on their abilities and character, this means that blacks will be at the very bottom of the woodpile, and that this will be the case as far as the eye can see. Do people on the bottom of the woodpile suffer? Yes they do. I feel sorry for them too. But I'm not going to reward people for failure, or for experiencing pain. This is how our Victim Culture and welfare state has risen, to our great ruin. You'll notice how, when you create a system of wealth transfer from the productive to the unproductive, the line of recipients grows, while the ranks of donors dwindles (our low birthrates come from the welfare state phenomena, but I'll leave that for another time). The ability of our country to take on debt has masked the eventual collapse of this ponzi scheme for a time, but it will fail. The time is coming very soon. Social Security will raise the retirement age and not be indexed to true inflation rate (reduction in benefits). Medicare will simply be eliminated. It is bankrupt now. But your taxes will not be lowered. We'll see how long the welfare state lasts when people pay more than 50% of their earnings in taxes and receive NO BENEFITS AT ALL! Ibelieve the Potemkin Village will be razed at that point, with great relish.

As far as black "intellectuals" like Steele, Sowell, and the newest hype, McWhorter, I don't take them seriously at all. Black conservatives blame white liberals for their problems, and black liberals blame white conservatives for their problems. Big surprise! Sowell's latest book tries to palm off dysfunctional black behavior on the imitation of white hillbillies, even though most blacks lived on aristocratic white southern plantations! The truth is that, with Civil Rights movement, blacks no longer felt compelled to imitate white norms, and even took pride in rejecting them, including family structure. So they reverted back to the polygamous, low paternal investment pattern so prevalent in Africa. And even with all the handouts, its getting worse. Blacks can't compete with global labor (chinese, indian, or mexican). Now they are so dependent, cutting them off would be apocalyptic. And everybody knows it. I just wonder what will happen when the welfare state finally collapses and this situation is forced upon us. Violent crime, as bad as it is will SOAR! Whitey will be the target to the nth power then. All of the pandering has told them so. All of the tolerated race hustling has told them so. Its telling that the two greatest cities of our nations founding, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. are inner city (black) hell holes. Welcome to the future.

Posted by: BTM on March 24, 2006 3:56 PM

Everybody here knows that blacks as a group are simply not as intelligent as whites.

Oh horseshit. Which blacks? Which whites? Which educational backgrounds? Which tests? I suppose things are simpler when everything is black and white.

Most of the generalizations that are made now about the intelligence of blacks were once made about eastern European Jewish immigrants, who also scored poorly on "intelligence" tests.

Sowell deals well with some of these issues, but you probably don't know that since you decided to ignore him.

Washington, DC is a hell hole? Where have you been the past thirty years?

BTW, MB: Sowell's Knowledge and Decisions is a wonderful book. Definitely check it out if you have a chance.

Posted by: Jonathan on March 24, 2006 4:51 PM

Standards aren't applied the way they are - to maximize 'diversity' - because of white guilt over slavery. Otherwise, why extend 'diversity' admissions to Hispanics? Admission standards are applied the way they are in response to the threat of litigation from groups of interest, primarily blacks, Hispanics and women. Groups of interest are simply those most likely to sue or on whose behalf lawsuits are most likely to be launched.

The 'diversity' way of setting admission standards will break down when other groups, especially men and 'Asians', start threatening lawsuits too. Once men and Asians become groups of interest, the whole rotten 'diversity' edifice will come tumbling down, consigned at last to the ash-heap of history.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 24, 2006 6:16 PM

Michael: "But reading Steele, McWhorter, and Sowell, I sometimes think I wouldn't mind being labeled a 'black conservative.'"

I've noticed two defining traits of black conservatives. One is skepticism of state power. Clarence Thomas, for instance, rules much more libertarian than Scalia does. While white conservatives are sometimes rash about applying power to social problems, black conservatives rarely advocate it. This skepticism makes sense given blacks' history on the recieving end of such things.

The other is skepticism of theory. Except for Walter Williams (on occasion), you never see black conservatives getting the theoretical bit between their teeth - the way a Murray Rothbard or a Russell Kirk or a Pat Buchanan might - and charging headlong into the land of rationalistic absurdity.

To borrow a line from New Jersey's former governor, my reality is I am a black conservative.

Not long ago someone on National Review's Corner mentioned that all the important conservatives are blacks, Catholics, and Jews. It was one of those stop, scratch your head, and say "Well I'll be!" moments.

Posted by: Brian on March 24, 2006 6:56 PM

Tom Sowell interviewed by Brian Lamb on Booknotes here. I love the bit about Irish piano makers.

Posted by: Brian on March 24, 2006 7:04 PM

BTM -- You don't think I'm defending affirmative action, I hope! I do think you're being a little naive if you think that college admissions were ever (except maybe at CalTech and MIT) all about being SAT-style smart, even prior to affirmative action. Admissions offices at selective colleges have always done a lot of mixing, balancing, and general messing-around. I don't see anything wrong with this -- it's their damn business -- as long as it isn't mandated by D.C.

Jonathan -- Thanks for the rec. I gave it a try once and pooped out -- not smart enough, I fear. But I should have another go at it.

PatrickH -- Affirmative action is such a textbook case of a program that's gotten completely out of control, isn't it? Fascinating. I remember seeing an entire magazine devoted to what it unashamedly called "the Diversity business." I guess it's a career path in more than one way!

Brian -- One of the big puzzles about black people is that many of them are very, very socially conservative, yet most of them still cleave to the Democrats. (I'm not saying this to endorse Republicans, btw.) Well, it puzzles me anyway. Funny line about important conservatives. I wonder if there's a lot to it. There sure are a lot of Catholic among the paleocons, and a lot of Jews among the neocons. I wonder if the WASPs content themselves with martinis and the Scotch-Irish go to NASCAR races instead ... Tks for the Sowell interview too.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 24, 2006 7:25 PM

Michael: "One of the big puzzles about black people is that many of them are very, very socially conservative, yet most of them still cleave to the Democrats."

The Civil Rights Act? A union thing maybe? The really weird part is the tenacity of it; hawkish union members and pro-life white ethnics and so forth have all jumped ship over social issues, yet blacks vote 90% Dem every round, without the slightest varience.

Anyway, here's the part of the Sowell interview I mentioned, transcribed for posterity:

Q: Why, then, do different parts of the society do better than the others?

A: I would look at it differently. I would - especially in the United States - I would say: Why would we expect different groups to do the same? I say especially in the United States because there are very few indigenous Americans. Americans have come here from all over the world. And why would you ever expect that countries that had entirely different histories, located in entirely different climates, different geography, why would you expect those countries to develop exactly the same mix of skills to exactly the same degree, so that their people would arrive on these shores in such a way that they would be represented evenly across the board? Especially since, even in countries where most of the population is indigenous, you don’t find it there?

The Germans arrived here with piano-making skills, and therefore you shouldn't expect to find the Irish equally represented with Germans in the piano industry. So when you find Steinways and other German-named pianos, you shouldn't expect to find O'Houlihan pianos to the same extent, and so on.

Nowhere in the world do you find this evenness that people use as a norm. And I find it fascinating that they will hold up as a norm something that has never been seen on this planet, and regard as an anomaly something that is seen in country after country.

Posted by: Brian on March 24, 2006 9:02 PM


Every single test of intellectual aptitude ever devised, from IQ tests, standardized academic achievement tests, Armed Services Fitness tests, Wonderlic IQ tests for athletes, GED. etc., etc., etc, EVERY SINGLE ONE shows blacks do worse than whites, or are less intelligent. Same with the everyday experiences many of us have had in the workplace. Show me one, ONE SINGLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION where this is not so. Just one. Everybody knows. All you have to offer up in defense is a mantra, a dogma, a slogan that we're all pretty much alike. Like I said, we all know that there are variations in any group. I've met some intelligent black people too. But those few blacks are isolated examples. We don't live with the few smart blacks you and I and others know. We live with the other 35 million of them. They're characteristics as a group matter. And they in no way will ever integrate into white society. They show less desire to do so now than ever, despite mixed marriages, despite Affirmative Action (quota hiring, illegal by Supreme Court ruling, yet, like our immigration law, not enforced).

Where are the great black scientists, Nobel science laureates, etc. like the Jews? Nowhere. Blacks are not like Jews. Drive into their side of town. Anywhere in America. Look around. Put down your copy of Utopia and observe. These poeple are not the same as you are. I know, I used to go into those areas to try to help them get GED's. I've worked with many, privately, at work, in government and out. We all know the truth. That doesn't mean some, even many, are nice. But nice ain't smart. Smart matters.

As far as Thomas Sowell goes, you never addressed my point about how black conservatives blame black problems on liberal whites, and black liberals blame all black problems on conservative whites. Its just a different side of the same coin. Balcks will never, ever admit the intellectual inferiority of their own group. Ever. Even with MOUNTAINS of evidence to show its true. Show me one black anywhere who will. I can freely admit that blacks run faster and jump higher than whites. No big deal. Why can't blacks give up the charade about intelligence? Why can't you?

Show me one test of mental ability where blacks come out on top. Show me one black, conservative or liberal, who will freely admit the failures of blacks are mostly due to low intelligence, not racism. Maybe then I'll listen.

You know, its funny. Albert Schweitzer, the great humanitarian, scholar, and musician, who devoted a lifetime to serving the black african poor, said that you cannot treat these people as equals. If you do, they will try to destroy you. You must demand that they view you as a superior. Only then will they respect you. We have been trying to treat these people as equals for 40 years now. And they are trying to destroy us. Albert Schweitzer was right. You aren't. I know the Civil Rights movement was to the 60's generation what defeating the Nazis was to the Greatest Generation. But defeating the Nazis saved the Jewish people, ended facism in Europe and Asia, and liberated hundreds of millions of people for the last 60 years. The Civil Rights movement has destroyed our cities, our schools, has eroded and violated our constitutional rights, and led to the precipitous decline in our intellectual and moral life, as we rationalize and glorify black ghetto culture, hedonism, and impulsivity. I'm just glad I still have the right to say the truth here. In Europe, I could go to prison for stating the obvious. Such are the extremes to which the totalitarian liberals will go to replace the Great Truth with the Great Lie.

Posted by: BTM on March 24, 2006 10:02 PM

BTW Michael, I'm sure the Ivys (which I never went to, as 99% of all other college graduates didn't) had other criteria for admissions in the past not strictly based on merit. But with the passage of all the equal rights laws, all that is illegal now. Dad was an alum? Seems that violates discrimination based on "family status". Don't like blacks? Jews? Women? Sorry, but discrimination, for or against anyone who applies for admission based on these criteria is illegal too. All the idealists wanted admissions based on merit, to fight that terrible scourge of "discrimination". So they got what they wanted. Yes it is illegal for these colleges and universities to do this, whether they get money from the government or not. They are all citizens, and the law applies to them the same as it does for me or you. Of course this violates all our rights of free association, but what the hell, it makes all the do-gooders feel good. Do you think they deserve a pass just because they are all do-gooders? Is it okay to break the law if you are "helping" the poor? When can I start violating the law whenever I want? I guess when I can get away with it. Maybe I"ll start with my taxes. I've got to get my do-gooder rationalizations ready, though. Gotta have those.

The really scary thing is, if these non-discriminations laws were truly enforced, blacks would be far worse off than before the Civil Rights Act. Black businesses would be prosecuted for hiring mainly blacks. Black collegees and other organizations disbanded. Can you imagine BET having to hire 95% non-black employess to comply with the law? With global competition and the great hordes of illegal mexican labor, how many blacks would have a job? Fifteen or 20%? Wow! If these folks want a true meritiocracy, I say give it to them. They would curse the name of Martin Luther King if this were so. I just want my rights back. Everybody should play by the same set of rules. Or you can expect resentment and mass criminal activity. I fail to see how this benefits any but the few, while the majority suffer.

Posted by: BTM on March 24, 2006 10:32 PM

or are we talking about performance standards once they are in

The distinction is moot as they receive preferences after graduation during the job search, and at every stage of the game thereafter (promotion, graduate school admissions, small business loans, etcetera etcetera).

Washington, DC is a hell hole? Where have you been the past thirty years?

Perhaps he was there when it had the highest murder rate in the United States?

Nahh, must have been his imagination. Everyone murders at the same exact rate.
Men and women are equally violent *on average* don't ya know...

Posted by: asdf on March 25, 2006 1:43 AM

"Admitting unqualified minorities has led to the massive grade inflation we now have..."

But my point is...what does "qualified" mean? I agree that the playing field should not be altered once everybody's "in"...but I question whether the LSAT is the be-all and end-all of determining who is "qualified" to do the work of the law school. It might simply be a sorting mechanism which favors Harvard grads---mostly white and moneyed in the first place.

Posted by: annette on March 27, 2006 10:12 AM


"Qualified" in a competitive environment means that the prospective student is able to intellectualy compete with other students. In a less competitive environment, it may also mean that the prospective student is able to learn and demonstrate mastery of the proposed curriclulum at all.

Standardized tests have to be used because you need the same yardstick to compare different students. There is no other way to choose the best in a competitive environment but to make them compete with each other. Same game, same rules, same yardstick. That's what a standardized test is.

Why should we wait to level the playing field AFTER everybody is in? Why the charity for obviously unqualified black students? Just let them go to less competitive schools. There are plenty of them out there. I guess the Potemkin Raical Village would suffer if a preponderance of black degrees came from second (or third) tier schools. A pity.

What's wrong with white people who have money? Aren't they citizens who have rights too? I guess its okay to take away other people's opportunities and violate their rights, as long as they aren't your opportunities or your rights, huh? Be a do-gooder with your own money and opportunities. Keep giving up your current job to unqualified blacks or other minorities. Soon you'll be lucky to be to get a job cleaning out toilets for the park district. There are always less qualified and darker skinned people than you are. The world is chock full of them. Put your money where your mouth is. Then write us back so we can tell you how morally superior you were. Then we'll move on to other topics, while you are still out a lot of cash and a job. Sweet deal, huh?

The LSAT isn't designed to favor whites. If it were, asians wouldn't do so well, would they? It is designed to favor the intelligent. It just so happens that most blacks aren't too intelligent, certainly not enough to compete with whites. Or asians.

By the way, smart people tend to have smart kids. And smart people tend to acquire skills which demand higher pay. The inverse of this is also true. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise you that whites with money tend to be intelligent and do well academically. What we are really waiting for from the marxist "its because of racism" crowd is the discovery of a highly wealthy area filled with morons, and an inner-city ghetto filled with geniuses. Today, in 2006. We'll be waiting for your reply.

Posted by: BTM on March 28, 2006 2:39 AM

"What's wrong with white people who have money? Aren't they citizens who have rights too? I guess its okay to take away other people's opportunities and violate their rights, as long as they aren't your opportunities or your rights, huh? Be a do-gooder with your own money and opportunities."

Being white and moneyed and very good at standardized tests, I guess I am.

But I was just asking a question, and my comment didn't favor race as a sorting mechanism at all, if you read it---why all the defensiveness? And I will just point out, the "go someplace else" argument can certainly be used for everyone---nobody HAS to go to the University of Michigan law school, and those who are "good enough" but got bumped due to affirmative action can probably muddle through Penn or Stanford or Vanderbilt, etc. I still don't see white males with money as struggling so terribly in our society. As someone once said, "White men tend to talk about how scared they are while holding a gun to someone else's head."

Posted by: annette on March 28, 2006 11:46 AM

Wow! Those are some articles above. It sure is a pleasure to read what people think. Here's what I think. The wealthy have decided there are no more borders--no states, no countries etc. Money and making money doesn't require any borders only agreements. The rich want increased population to sell more Coke, Pampers and Crest toothpaste. What ever happened to the Book: Zero Population Control? All the world problems are a direct result of overpopulation. It doesn't matter if your brown, black, white or purple-the more people there are to buy stuff the more the rich get richer. The only borders that will exist will be the ability to travel in Lear Jets that wisk wealthy people from civil unrest to high dollar luxury retreats, and steel gaited wealthy communities. Don't forget the military gate that is owned by the rich to quell unrest-pending who the wealthy want to win any unrest. Do you live in a gaited community? Better get in one because sooner or later you'll either be on the inside or outside of a gait. The financial gate is closing fast for those of us who thought it would never come to us. Just go buy a $750,000 3 bedroom 1 bath starter home inside the beltway if you think the financial gate is not closing quickly. How will your 2 kids afford that kind of housing? In 10 years there'll be fire in the streets of America and it will not be from terriorists, it will be from American's fighting those who want to be Americans. The rich will watch from behind the gate and say: "So silly they fight over race, overpopulation, rights etc." For those of us who aren't wealthy will say: "So silly we did not go after the wealthy as they are the ones that let this happen." Walmart is happening. Our government is not really a government, that has already happened. Too late now--the rich cats are at 42,000 feet sipping cocktails waiting to hit the beach in front of their mansions. Hit them where it hurts--stop reproducing for a couple of decades. Get sick and die in hundreds of millions--Oh we can only hope for bird flu--- please save us flights of fancy-- the rich don't want to see any bird flu any time soon yet it's needed so badly for the world to survive. You have to look at the broad picture. There would not be a world hunger problem if there were not the people to be hungry. People are being born that should have never been born into hunger. Blaim the do gooders for feeding the hungry just enough so that they can procreate more into hunger. No it's not right to have a lot of kids nor prechers who say have more kids. It so vicious--the cycle will never end unless there is mass death, more than what any terriorist could muster. (Don't they know all they need to do is have more kids--they should have been home screwing instead of flying Airplanes into buildings--a lot of good that did. After all they are the fastest growing religion of the world and consider us the enemy.) And a change of heart by the rich--that will never come. Nature will take care of itself. We can only hope for nature as we can't rely on the rich who will sacrific the world for the almighty dollar. Maybe I'll be back... this 2blowhards site is really good that I'm sure I won't be able to stay away. ... DM

Posted by: DadaM on March 28, 2006 6:35 PM


What do you mean you're good at standardized tests? I guess that must mean that you actually know some english and math, know how to comprehend what you read and make a few logical conclusions. And do it quickly. This probably sets you apart from the vast majority of dull-witted minorities who fail miserably at these tasks. So I guess the tests do a pretty good job at what they're designed for, no?

Being moneyed is great. I guess that's where you get the idea of "giving others a piece of the pie". If I hadn't been made to earn everything I have, I might have the same attitude you do, because I would know that I didn't really deserve what I have. If that is such a burden for you, give it all away. Your mind should be clear then, as well as your wallet. Show us all how moral you are by setting a good example. Once you give it all away, then you can begin to ask others for their dough.

Who cares if opportunities are stolen from the deserving and given to the undeserving over race, sex, sexual orientation, etc., etc., etc.? I doubt they could muddle through at some other top rate school. You see, all the schools discriminate now against the deserving for the undeserving. Why should these excellent students have to go through the trouble anyway? Oh, I remember now--the Annettes of the world deem it so. Forget about their constitutional right not to be punished if they are innocent of any crime. We must sacrifice that so that Annette can FEEEEELLLLLL good!

As for white males with money, they probably aren't struggling. Its the white males without money, who don't have a "piece of the pie" handed to them--who have to make their bit of the pie every day--they are struggling mightily. I'm not in that group, but I'm not far above it either.

Please stop it with the dramatic language. White men aren't holding any guns to anybody's head. More often that not, its probably a minority committing some violent crime. They're only responsible for the modest number of 90% of all the crime committed in this country. And that's just the ones who got caught.

You know, I just had a little insight. People like you who think its okay to break the law when you get what you want are kind of funny in a way. Because, for your law breaking to be effective, you depend on everybody ELSE to follow the law. Take your example of letting Paco Suarez into Harvard even though he has a 1000 SAT and no extracurricular activities he enjoys except playing video games. For his degree to mean anything, all the OTHER Harvard kids must be the top of the heap, study hard, etc. If they all were all sub-par, the great Harvard degree would mean a LOT less. You can go through the entire moral universe using this insight. What if you're hungry, drop by the market, and steal a box of crackers, and head outside, but...Oops! Its full of wood chips and sand! You got cheated! Hahahahaha! What happens when everybody cheats, steals, and lies back to you Annette? How will your cheating work then?

I can't wait until AA gets a great, giant stake through its heart. And it will end when white males are outsourced, illegal immigrationed, and downsized enough to band together and kill it. Lots of different color people will have guns in their hands when that happens. But I'll bet by then the Annettes of the world will be praying for a white man to be holding one.

Posted by: BTM on March 28, 2006 9:09 PM

BTM---I knew my comments would getcha! So predictable. And BTW---I've earned everything I've got, too. Saying one is "moneyed" does not mean someone else made the money. Careful the conclusions you jump to!

Posted by: annette on March 29, 2006 9:49 AM

Annette--You got me! That was the whole crux of the thread--how you got your money (LOL!). No other issue is important. I'm glad you cut through all the political and social stuff and brought the issue back to yourself, where it belongs.

Although, how can I tell you're not making it up?

You know...just to look good!

Nice chatting with you.

Posted by: btM on March 29, 2006 7:48 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?