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. Q&A With Mark Sisson, Part Two
  2. Q&A With Mark Sisson, Part One
  3. Introducing Mark Sisson
  4. Terence Cuneo, Literal Artistic Icon
  5. Health Care Reform and the Golden Rule
  6. Jazz Goes Geriatric
  7. Budd Schulberg R.I.P.
  8. Crime Fiction Linkage
  9. Panoramic Windshields
  10. Anybody Complaining?

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

« The Fantasies That Women's Magazines Sell | Main | My Beemer's Bewildering Cockpit »

August 02, 2009

Political Linkage

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Jewcy's David Kelsey thinks that Jews ought to oppose hate crime laws. He writes a good blogposting about Jews and mass immigration here.

* Steve Sailer wonders what we're up to in Puerto Rico. Re the Skip Gates case, Steve coins a good term I look forward to using: "Affirmative Actionocracy."

* The Republicans suck. Oh, and the Democrats suck too.

* Matt Taibbi traces some of the ways that Goldman Sachs has screwed you and me. James Kunstler thinks that the time has come for Obama to fire the Goldman Sachs alumni that he has on staff.

* Chris Dillow thinks that economists will never be able to predict the future -- and that that's OK.

* Time to end the mortgage-interest deduction? Learn more here.

* Randall Parker asks some good questions about Europe and its immigration policies.

* MBlowhard Rewind: I shared a few thoughts about inequality and the rich, and pointed out that one easy way to mitigate inequality would be to get strict about immigration.



posted by Michael at August 2, 2009


From the linked article (by a Jew) on Jews and mass immigration:

But back to the “diversity” issue. What do Jews really mean when we tout the supposed greatness of ever-greater ethnic diversity?

What it really means is, “We’re still resentful and fearful of even the faintest whiff of nationalism emanating from whites because we have post-traumatic Holocaust syndrome.”

What we also really mean is, “We think increased diversity will make Jews safer.”
If we Jews want to stop Muslim immigration, we are going to have to cut a deal with those who want to change immigration levels generally. We have to seek and set policy according to realpolitik, not irrational fears fronted by fanciful, universalistic ideals we ourselves helped construct in large part to effectively advocate for our particularist, ethnocentric concerns.

I’ve been pointing to the huge Jewish influence in the media and academia on this topic, due to their nearly universal stance against any measure to stem mass illegal immigration much less deport illegals, their large if not necessarily majority presence in such institutions, and the quickness with which they’ll used “xenophobic” or “racist” to attack the restrictionist sentiment even against illegals, which a large majority of the nation has.

In this and many areas Jews lead the left in this country, especially when they are solidly united about the subject and care passionately about it. In those cases they have virtual de facto veto power in how the media slants stories. Almost.

Posted by: doug1 on August 2, 2009 2:48 PM

I've said this before: Jews have a 2,000-year history of being unwanted foreigners everywhere they lived. Jewish fear of nativism is deeply rooted and largely unconscious. American Jews also have the nation's strongest case of "Ellis Island nostalgia". For them, coming to America was a supremely liberating transition, and the vast majority embraced America. (Was there ever a more patriotic American than Irving Berlin?)

Jews are and have been ubiquitous in culture, scholarship, and mass media - so this Jewish sensibility has soaked in everywhere.

This is not the dominant influence on immigration debate. But it is an immensely powerful one, and one that is mostly "below the radar". It's not a Sinister Plot; it just happened.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on August 3, 2009 2:13 AM

I wonder why no one seems to be using unemployment figures as an argument to deport illegals? The other side was using the employment argument (we need workers) during the "good times."

Mr. President, if you won't deport illegals or even prevent the entrance of more illegals into this country now, what point would the unemployment figures have to reach before you would put the interests of the American people ahead of foreigners?

Why should the good guys let a crisis go to waste?

Posted by: sN on August 3, 2009 5:32 AM

Yes about economics never being able to predict the future. Economics is better, as Dillow points out, teasing apart what went on in past events, i.e. doing history. But as Popper (and many others) have demonstrated, IMO conclusively, you cannot get law-like generalizations in history that have predictive power, since we humans can change our behaviour precisely because we are aware of the "predictions" made (think of Chesterton's game of Cheat the Prophet, except not as funny).

Science has gotten its rep for power because it focuses on those parts of the universe that go about their business as if we're not there. You can't do that with people. The materialist postulate that we can understand the universe best by looking at it as if it's dead and unconscious just can't be applied to people. At least not in any sane philosophy of which I'm aware.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 3, 2009 9:34 AM

Granting independence to Puerto Rico would be greatly complicated by the fact that its residents have full U.S. citizenship. The Constitution prohibits revocation of citizenship without very good reason, so an independent Puerto Rico would have millions of dual citizens with full eligibility for U.S. government benefits - clearly, a complicated and perhaps unworkable situation.

Posted by: Peter on August 3, 2009 10:46 AM

Richard Cohen, who is Jewish, also came out against hate crime laws today in the Washington Post:

Posted by: Tony S on August 4, 2009 10:51 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?