October 1, 2012

The Supreme Court, Quotas, and Romney

Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor op-edize in the Washington Post on the upcoming Fisher affirmative action case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on October 10. They did an analysis of U. of Michigan admissions after Sandra Day O'Connor's 2003 ruling that, in effect, racial quotas were A-OK as long as you lie hard enough about what you are doing:
 But our analysis of its 2006 admissions patterns found that racial preferences were clearly much larger than before Grutter, and race was more often the “defining feature” of an application. If we compare Asian and black students with similar test scores and grades, for example, blacks had a 96 percent chance of admission in 2006, compared with 11 percent for Asians. The college used more racial categories in evaluating applicants after Grutter and paid less attention to socioeconomic background.

I sure don't notice Romney talking much about the Supreme Court, and especially not about Supreme Court nominations' relevance to race preference cases.

I'm sure he and his highly paid advisers know best.

Back to affirmative action in colleges: a big question is whether the rise of Asians might begin to drive whites toward favoring affirmative action as beneficial to themselves.

117 comments:

socks said...

96% vs 11%?!?!?! I'd like to see someone find one of these Asians to back for a reverse discrimination case.

Aaron in Israel said...

Actually, I think Romney and his highly paid advisers do know best in this case. In order to win, Romney needs the votes of people who consider the views expressed by Steve Sailer to be racist and reprehensible. It's hard to see how Romney can win without winning back some of the voters who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. It's especially hard to see because Sailer has never done the math to estimate how many moderate voters his pro-MAR strategy would alienate.

Strongly anti-affirmative action voters are not going to vote for Obama anyway. Romney needs to win voters who are turned off by racially divisive campaigns against affirmative action. If Romney plays to his conservative base, he will lose. If he plays to the MARs, he will lose spectacularly.

Anonymous said...

Romney doesn't need to say anything, and wouldn't influence public opinion one way or another(though fault for that does seem to lie with him).

Anonymous said...

I think - thanks to the media, academic, popular culture tail-wind benefiting Obama and the Dems, combined with shifting demographics, the Dems will win next Month.

Even if the Republicans win in 4 years, after Obama completes his 2 term limit, they wont change America's trajectory much.

That is a future as a sort of Über Brazil.

Nick - South Africa

Anonymous said...

That is a future as a sort of Über Brazil.

Nick - South Africa


How about Uber South Africa?

Anonymous said...

I'm not so sure that running against anti-white policies would hurt Romney. I am mostly on the left except on these issues. I will end up voting for Obama again because I know Romney favors open borders. I might vote for a republican that was mostly moderate but right on race issues.

As for the politics of such a combination, it got Giuliani elected twice in a very liberal city, and liberal California voted for props 187 and 209 by large margins. I think the reason you don't see anyone employ this winning strategy in general elections is you can't win a primary in the GOP if you go against corporate interests. So instead we get Romney with is Ayn Rand social security privilatizing VP pick.

Anonymous said...

I think the Supreme Court's message with Gratz and Grutter was to scale back affirmative action if you want to keep it. Instead academia completely ignored it other than making cosmetic changes like getting rid of numerical bonus points for being NAM in admission formulas.

That puts the SC in a pickle as it means its preferred outcome of toned down AA is unavailable. The solution is actually seen in California. In that state AA is against the law, and the NAM percentage at Berkeley before prop 209 was about 30%. Now it is 17%. That is a big drop, but NAMs are still getting preferences. In other words, if you want toned down racial preferences, ban AA completely and you'll still get some, but less than before. A school as good as Berkeley would be about 4% NAM with no racial preferences or athletic preferences.

Kiwiguy said...

The Root had an article wondering if Romney would play the race card. The article noted McCain could have, but chose not too & lost. This was viewed as a decent thing to do.

Kiwiguy said...

btw. some HBD research by Richard Lynn makes it into the Daily Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9577113/British-men-more-well-endowed-than-French...but-smaller-than-Germans.html

Lynn's full paper is here.

http://tinyurl.com/8s86x5e

eah said...

I sure don't notice Romney talking much about the Supreme Court,...

That's because he's a beta coward. Or hadn't you noticed?

eah said...

The Root had an article wondering if Romney would play the race card.

aka tell the literal truth

Anonymous said...

There are a lot of working class white people who don't like racial preferences or mass immigration, but oppose Romney because he seems like a heartless plutocrat who wants to destroy medicare and keep outsourcing jobs.

Anonymous said...

I don't trust Obama in a second term. I imagine that, like all liberals, he will make it one of his missions to stifle criticism. I anticipate that "hate speech" will be expanded to include sites like this one.
If you look to republicans for an alternative, what do you get? A party obsessed with the fact that Obama doesn't give Netanyahu enough respect. They are completely tone deaf. I bet a lot of people, including myself, begrudgingly, respected Obama for not playing lackey to a foreign leader.

Simon in London said...

>>I'm sure he and his highly paid advisers know best.<<

I would expect he and his advisers know not to invoke the ire of the powers that control America, sometimes called the 'Liberal Media'.

Anonymous said...

A school as good as Berkeley would be about 4% NAM with no racial preferences or athletic preferences.

I don't know how "good" Berkeley has been lately [a lot of people seem to think that it might not be even as "good" as UCLA anymore], but back in the day, maybe circa 1965-1975, Berkeley was REALLY good [like Harvard/Princeton "good"], and an admissions poloicy at that time, with neither racial preferences, nor athletic preferences, would have produced 0% NAMs.

If an honest admissions policy nowadays would produce 4% NAMs, then, oh, how the mighty have fallen.

JustAClown said...

any candidate that would be against affirmative action and mass immigration and yet for a strong welfare state and taxing the rich would crush the other side in the general election. But that candidate would never get mentioned much at all in the primary by the media, and so therefore would never make it to the general election. The media won't let candidates mix and match from GOP and Dem party platforms because that would hurt the rich folks.


Anonymous said...

The question about Asians is the question you asked about Nakoula: why are they here?

Let's! said...

Back to affirmative action in colleges: a big question is whether the rise of Asians might begin to drive whites toward favoring affirmative action as beneficial to themselves.

American whites' self-concept as "blessed" people who must be altruistic to "show how strong you are" runs extremely deep.

This ends the way Raspail predicted in "Camp of the Saints." Even working-class whites will be guilt-tripped into handing over their meager patrimony to newcomers.

JustAClown said...

Anonymous wrote:

If you look to republicans for an alternative, what do you get? A party obsessed with the fact that Obama doesn't give Netanyahu enough respect. They are completely tone deaf. I bet a lot of people, including myself, begrudgingly, respected Obama for not playing lackey to a foreign leader.


--------------

Yeah, but the GOP shills (like the paleocon GOP outreach bloggers) completely ignored that. Shows you just how deep in the pockets of the GOP they are. And right after Obama shunned Netanyahu, the media started pounding obama on his supposed lack of attention to the "dangers of Iran." And sure enough, they put enough pressure on Obama that within about a week he had to start saber rattling against Iran. But no one said a peep about this whole thing--the way obama gave Netanyahu the cold shoulder and then the media put pressure on him and then obama saber rattled against iran.

But nobody notices nothing! I sometimes feel like I am living in the land of blind, and yet I have one eye.

Am I crazy or did this happen? I know I am asking the wrong people here.....

JustAClown said...

Kiwiguy said...
The Root had an article wondering if Romney would play the race card. The article noted McCain could have, but chose not too & lost. This was viewed as a decent thing to do.

---------------
ah, but the media would have crushed McCain and Romney had they come out firmly against affirmative action. You have to understand that the media relies on advertising revenue for sustenance. Ads are purchased by advertisers by using the PROFITS from using LABOR to produce and then to SELL products to CONSUMERS. Workers and consumers. Workers and consumers.

More nonwhites and more nonwhite immigrants in the workplace means more cheap labor and more consumers. That means more profits for the corporations that buy ads from the media. More ads means more money for the media.

Remember, america is essentially a livestock operation. And the more cattle, the better for the media.

JustAClown said...

Anonymous said...
There are a lot of working class white people who don't like racial preferences or mass immigration, but oppose Romney because he seems like a heartless plutocrat who wants to destroy medicare and keep outsourcing jobs.

=================

That is certainly a great unmentioned truth. You will never ever hear those words from a talking head in the corporate media, though. Take for example my neighbors here in the trailer park beside the mountains in Golden, CO. They are a 60 year old trucker who is semi-retired and another guy about the same age who works occasionally at fairs and similar events. But they will both be voting for obama because they are afraid the GOP will destroy the welfare state (aka social security, medicare), but both hate affirmative action and mass immigration.


You will never hear this kind of viewpoint put forth by the media. It is forbidden by the unwritten rules of the corporate media. They only do what others above them in the media do. That is the way their subculture enforces the unwritten rules of the rich. The media is not permitted to allow mixing of elements of both the GOP and Dem platforms. But both GOP and Dem platforms have been evolved over decades to best suit the interests of the rich who own the majority of corporate shares.


Actually, though, obama has deported about 1.5 times as many illegals per year as Bush did. But the GOP shills online never mention that....and neither does the media. Doing so might cause a shift in the current nearly equally divided political equation.
And the corporate masters cannot have that!


Anonymous said...

Asians benefit from AA compared to whites:
The Affirmative Action Hoax
(...)
I must begin by qualifying the title of the section in my book in which I discuss this subject (Section D of Chapter 9): "Asians Are Beneficiaries of Affirmative Action." In that section, I document that Asians are the greatest beneficiaries of government programs that set-aside contacts for minority-owned businesses and that Asians are often beneficiaries of programs to increase the proportion of minorities in high-level positions. I also point out that 61 percent of Asians voted against the 1996 referendum in California that banned affirmative action. These facts are nearly always ignored in discussions of the effect of affirmative action on Asians. Nearly all discussions about Asians and affirmative action focus on university admissions, in which Asians are clearly not beneficiaries of affirmative action. In my analysis of university admissions, my argument is that Asians are not more victimized than Whites.
(...)

How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others
(...)
Distressing as many might consider this to be--since the same institutions that give no special consideration to poor white applicants boast about their commitment to "diversity" and give enormous admissions breaks to blacks, even to those from relatively affluent homes--Espenshade and Radford in their survey found the actual situation to be much more troubling. At the private institutions in their study whites from lower-class backgrounds incurred a huge admissions disadvantage not only in comparison to lower-class minority students, but compared to whites from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds as well. The lower-class whites proved to be all-around losers. When equally matched for background factors (including SAT scores and high school GPAs), the better-off whites were more than three times as likely to be accepted as the poorest whites (.28 vs. .08 admissions probability). Having money in the family greatly improved a white applicant's admissions chances, lack of money greatly reduced it. The opposite class trend was seen among non-whites, where the poorer the applicant the greater the probability of acceptance when all other factors are taken into account. Class-based affirmative action does exist within the three non-white ethno-racial groupings, but among the whites the groups advanced are those with money.

When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed.

(...)

ben tillman said...

Actually, I think Romney and his highly paid advisers do know best in this case. In order to win, Romney needs the votes of people who consider the views expressed by Steve Sailer to be racist and reprehensible.

And 90% of those voters still agree with Steve on this issue. So, no, they are not making a calculated decision to win votes. Even White Democrats hate anti-White discrimination in college admissions.

Anonymous said...

More strange stuff:
Asians are beneficiaries of affirmative action
(...)
In 1990-91, 1.55 more Asians were admitted to American law schools than would have been admitted on the basis of undergraduate grades and LSAT scores alone, and only .80 as many Whites (Wightman 1997: 16). As a result, when that class graduated from law school, 80.75 percent of the Asians, but 91.93 percent of the Whites, passed the bar exam on the first try (Wightman 1998: 27). Law schools have practiced that level of pro-Asian discrimination for decades. Only 60 percent of the Asians admitted to American law schools in 1976 would have been admitted if they were White (Welch and Gruhl 1998: 58). As with all affirmative action programs, the socioeconomic background of the recipients is not considered. For instance, Ron Chen got into Rutgers Law School through its Minority Student Program even though both his parents had PhDs and he attended one of the most elite private schools in the United States (Exeter) and Dartmouth. He told the Washington Post that he needed affirmative action to get into law school because “I goofed off in college” (Russakoff 1995).

Similarly, in 1994, 93.4 and 96.3 percent of White medical students passed Step I and II respectively, of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (which replaced Parts I and II of the NBME exam) on the first try. Only 86.8 percent and 87.6 percent of Asians passed them on the first try (Case, et al. 1996: S91).

(...)
In all spheres of American life besides university admissions, Asians are the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action. Many university faculties and corporations recruit Asians to increase their proportion of minorities. For instance, in 1995, when New Hampshire’s population was 97.4 percent White, the University of New Hampshire announced that it intended to increase its minority undergraduate enrollment to 7.5 percent by 2005 and the proportion of its minority tenure-track professors to 7.5 percent by 2000. Two-thirds of its minority professors are Asian. In 1995, only 0.84 percent of New Hampshire’s population was Asian (Gorov 1995). Similarly, heroic efforts by the University of Michigan raised the proportion of its faculty who are minorities to 14.1 percent in 1995, more than half of whom (7.3 percent) were Asian (4.9 percent were Black and 1.9 percent Hispanic). Blacks comprised 13.9 percent of Michigan’s population, Hispanics 2.2 percent, and Asians 1.1 percent (Lynch 1997: 277-8, 312).

Asians are also by far the greatest beneficiaries of government set-aside contracts for minority business enterprises (MBEs). In 1996, Asians were 12 percent of the minority population of the United States, but they received 28 percent of MBE contracts (Graham 2002: 164). The Asian proportion of America’s minority population has increased rapidly since 1996. Therefore, the proportion of minority set-aside contracts that Asians receive must now be considerably higher than 28 percent.

(...)

Anonymous said...

"I sure don't notice Romney talking much about the Supreme Court, and especially not about Supreme Court nominations' relevance to race preference cases."

You don't get it, Steve.

Romney is a dedicated Mormon right? So why is he such a social liberal?

The answer is that Mormonism is a Masonic copy-cat institution. The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, was a top-ranking Freemason, and he copied many Mormom ceremonies directly from Freemasonry.

This is not a crackpot conspiracy theory. You can look this up under the relevant articles in Wikipedia.

What does Freemasonry advocate? In essence, a society based on unlimited personal "freedom" in the liberal sense. Although they only indoctrinate a small minority of people on the upper levels. It's carefully compartmentalized.

This is why Romney's Dad was such a huge "civil rights" supporter at a time his own "church" discriminated against blacks. This is why Romney (along with Hunstman) are such tools of the Homosexual lobby even though his church openly forbids it.

And that's why Jews have such favorable views of Mormons and why Romney was considered the Chosen One. They knew by instinct he was their man, a Wall Street tool who was all on board with their ideology of social disintegration.

I don't know if Romney is personally aware of the way he's being manipulated but it doesn't matter. Something deeply sinister is going on.

Please do some research on this information yourself, Steve, if you think I'm off my rocker.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/nyregion/specialized-high-school-admissions-test-is-racially-discriminatory-complaint-says.html

Walter said...

As long hispanics are growing much faster than Asians, and the proportion of NAMs is much higher than Asians, there would be little incentive for whites to favor AA.

In addition, it remains to be seen whether any substantial AA would ever be given to whites, regardless of the circumstances.

Also, whites seem to be the group most in favor of treating everyone equally, and judging on merit.

Anonymous said...

Romney and Ryan are phony, smarmy, libertarian idealogues who think the solution to everything is to lower marginal tax rates for the wealthy. They favor increasing "legal" immigration. I'll vote for Obama simply because he is less odious than Romney/Ryan. I would vote for a Republican that campaigned against immigration, free trade, and racial spoils. Of course, I read iSteve, so probably not very representative of the average voter.

sunbeam said...

Does anyone know of any link or discussion of how the "elite" schools came to be the gateway to everything?

I mean all these preferences, in general it seems like we discuss them in regards to certain schools:

Michigan, Berkeley, Stanford, etc.

No one seems to much care about admissions to Miami-Dade CC, or Cal Poly-Pomona.

Just saying as short a time ago as the 60's you would see all kinds of people in Congress with degrees from a variety of institutions. Or no degree at all.

Now it seems like even the hinterland states have elected representatives that go to the same small cadre of schools.

I haven't done any googling to test my thesis, it's just an impression. Maybe I'm all wet.

Additionally in the era I refer to, it seems to me that graduates of elite schools controlled no where near the amount of the economy that they do now.

I think I remember reading at Enron you pretty much had to be Ivy to get hired for an executive level position.

Why did it all change? I kind of suspect a lot of it is due to the financialization of the US economy.

Feel free to savage this post, but those are my impressions.

Anonymous said...

"The solution is actually seen in California. In that state AA is against the law, and the NAM percentage at Berkeley before prop 209 was about 30%. Now it is 17%. That is a big drop, but NAMs are still getting preferences. In other words, if you want toned down racial preferences, ban AA completely and you'll still get some, but less than before. A school as good as Berkeley would be about 4% NAM with no racial preferences or athletic preferences."

Good point.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
There are a lot of working class white people who don't like racial preferences or mass immigration, but oppose Romney because he seems like a heartless plutocrat who wants to destroy medicare and keep outsourcing jobs."

That's why Whites need a third party to represent its interests against the Plutocrats and the Multiculturalists.

I hope a man (or woman) arises that can mobilize Whites.

If ever there was a need by American Whites for the arrival of a "great man (or woman)" who can change the course of history by galvanizing people, be it of the Napoleon type or the Ghandi type or the Joan of Arc type, it is now.

Suspect that Whties will have to put under more distress before it happens.

Sadly, heroes only seem to arise when the status quo is no longer acceptable ... I think we are a ways away but getting there rapidly.

Anonymous said...

Affirmative action can help only whites who lie about their ancestry, like Elizabeth Warren. Otherwise, they are stuck in the same boat with the East Asians.

It is unfortunate that a PC smoke screen prevents most from seeing what are now the real fruits of decades old affirmative action policies in hiring. Unqualified blacks and Hispanics are salted throughout the private economy and health care system for sure causing a certain amount of mischief, but it is within universities, public schools, and government bureaucracies at all levels where their incompetence is now having a heavy impact on public services and operations costs.

Any time a problem occurs whether it be a bridge collapsing, a levy system failing, or a veteran dying of neglect in a hospital, I can't help thinking the cause in some part is due to a black bureaucrat whose day begins at 10:30 after a 2 hour break at Starbucks and whose day ends when the phones get switched off at 3 pm.

The perpetual solution to the minority-heavy public services becoming less efficient and bollixed up (slower and dumber) is to hire yet more minorities at higher pay, or perhaps a highly compensated white female executive rajah with an MBA to come along with a new operating plan inevitably doomed to fail. This in itself explains the runaway cost of government.

Moreover, it's not just blacks who cause the inefficiencies. Whites and Hispanics see their black co-worker's take-it-easy policy and emulate it: after all, if there are no consequences to shoddy performance, why pick up the slack when you can be a slacker, too. It's fun to sit around the office and chat with friendly black colleagues about your health, your weekend getaway, your kids, your new car, your home repair project, your neighbors-- whatever. Actually doing something for 45 minutes after the cappuccino filters into your brain is optional.

Anonymous said...

Here's a prediction of what will happen if AA is overturned. The ivy league will fill up with Asians, showing how discriminated against they were the whole time. Smart whites will not want to go to schools where they are a minority in a sea of Asians, so will opt for second tier schools, which will then become much better schools since they are attracting so much talent. Will asians then try to get into these schools as their reputation rises and the ivys stagnate in an endless game of musical chairs? Third tier and community colleges will be the center for NAMS. Despite the obvious truth of intelligence having a racial component, still no one will admit it.

Anonymous said...

white men have had a 10000 years of affirmative action

Anonymous said...

Speaking of "heartless plutocrat"s from a comment above, he's Bloomberg on that NAACP elite school discrimination suit.


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/life-fair-mayor-bloomberg-naacp-suit-claims-blacks-latinos-shut-top-city-high-schools-article-1.1170106

Bob Arctor said...

"Actually, I think Romney and his highly paid advisers do know best in this case. In order to win, Romney needs the votes of people who consider the views expressed by Steve Sailer to be racist and reprehensible. It's hard to see how Romney can win without winning back some of the voters who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. It's especially hard to see because Sailer has never done the math to estimate how many moderate voters his pro-MAR strategy would alienate.

Strongly anti-affirmative action voters are not going to vote for Obama anyway. Romney needs to win voters who are turned off by racially divisive campaigns against affirmative action. If Romney plays to his conservative base, he will lose. If he plays to the MARs, he will lose spectacularly."

Why didn't you bother to look at the actual data instead of just making up a nonsense argument out of thin air? According to the Gallup and Rasmussen polls only about 25-30% of Americans support racial preferences in college admissions, and almost all of that 25-30% is Democrats. Republicans and Independents opposed preferences by more or less the same margin.

As far as your fantasy of Romney "losing spectacularly" by opposing racial preferences is concerned, why don't you bother yourself to look up the huge margins that referendums banning racial preferences have received even in the most liberal states. You need a reality check.

Tenneby said...

but oppose Romney because he seems like a heartless plutocrat who wants to destroy medicare and keep outsourcing jobs

Instead of typing "seems like" you should have typed "is". Also, you forgot to mention his religious devotion to 3rd world immigration and welfare provisions for those 3rd world immigrants.

Enoch Powell said...

At some point the politically-correct, multicultural tyranny we are living under must be openly insulted and demonized using extremely blunt language. We must very soon do and say EVERYTHING that the lively, vibrant, diverse enemies of civilization consider to be ideological crimes and racism. We must NO LONGER CARE that cowards and traitors call us racists.

And Romney isn't just acting like a coward in order to win. His past actions prove that he is just another politically-correct drone who goes along to get along. Romney has embraced a self-destructive ideology of multiculturalist tyranny.

DCThrowback said...

Simon,

If anyone "controls" America, it's probably the large banks that engineer the FED and the TBTF banks. If Romney or Obama gets elected - does anything change for them? That's the definition of bought and paid for. The media has its own issues. What I see is a media that values access over independence.

Romney's consultants seem to be the same way; keep the $$ flowing in, lose gracefully, wash, rinse repeat w/ same milquetoast GOP candidates every 4 years while getting rich off of Sheldon Adelson's ill-gotten casino wealth.

DaveinHackensack said...

"There are a lot of working class white people who don't like racial preferences or mass immigration, but oppose Romney because he seems like a heartless plutocrat"

Then they should read this: 7 Personal Stories about Romney You May Not Know.

Whiskey said...

Rasmussen and National Journal have Obama leading by ten among Women. Ann Althouse said she'll vote Obama because ... calling free phones "Obama Phones" is ... racist.

Like it or not, most women run hard left. Derbyshire noted that was true even for young women in China, much more multicultural, diversity obsessed, than Chinese men.

For Romney to win, he needs 51%+ of the six million who voted for Obama over McCain in 2008 to switch to him. The Base turnout for Republicans was high in 2008, because of detestation of Obama. But White Women are creatures of status wars, and AA or really ANY criticism of wealth transfer from Whites to Blacks is seen as a moral affront and the mark of low-status Whites who should not exist.

Once you get the idea that Christianity was replaced by Diversity/PC/Multiculturalism, as Derbyshire argued recently in TakiMag, and that the old enforcement of Christian morals by middle aged White ladies mutated into PC/Diversity enforcement, it makes sense.

Romney's only chance, he does have one, is to make a pocketbook argument to these women, and get about 3 million plus to switch to him. White guys are already locked in.

That's the reality of why no one tries the Sailer Strategy -- it does NOT WORK because the nation changed too much. Lee Atwater's Willie Horton Ads would fail SPECTACULARLY because far too many White women are like Althouse: professional, well educated, very immersed in PC/Diversity idiocy.

My guess is the pocketbook effect fails, anyone who knows women will observe that women will give up almost anything to feel, and get their emotions stimulated.

As for Netanyahu, his interests (Israel not nuked) and ours (oil lower than $200 a barrel) are linked: not allowing Iran to get nukes. Recently Iran mused that the floor price of oil should be at $150 a barrel. How does gas at $8 a gallon sound? How'd you like THAT economy?

Whiskey said...

Let me add, the chief proponents of the Sailer Strategy, seem to think that not just Romney but all other GOP candidates are too stupid to read internal polls, projections, and view there is a huge mass of White voters just yearning for pushing for White interests.

Where? Where's the data? I've never seen it. Indeed if you look at actual campaigns, guys who push that line end up out of politics. Because they LOSE. Tancredo, the guy who challenged McCain in the Primary, all LOSERS.

Call it reverse SABREmetrics. Despite data showing that pushing White interests to be a loser, because Whites are deeply divided, with educated White women leading the Diversity Way (and to be fair they benefit as junior members of the coalition). That's the Gender Gap, again nationally at ten points plus Obama.

As for the future of America, Brazil will not happen. The Black and Hispanic populations need massive and ever greater wealth transfers just to maintain their standards. Guys who riot over $180 Lebron X sneakers are not going to be happy living in favelas. South Africa meets Yugoslavia seems a more depressingly accurate model.

Anonymous said...

The really big question is how long Asians will put up with being blatantly discriminated against by colleges. Imagine that the stats cited in the article were reversed - Jesse Jackson would burn down the campuses. At some point Asian-Americans will figure out that in America the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

K

Anonymous said...

"I will end up voting for Obama again..."

A pity. The 2700+ pages of ObamaCare will kill the country before any war will.

Anonymous said...


You're wrong about Romney not talking about the Supreme Court. I'ts been in many of his standard stump speeches, but unless you live in a toss-up state and see LOCAL media, you'll not see/hear that stump speech.

Mr. Anon said...

"I sure don't notice Romney talking much about the Supreme Court, and especially not about Supreme Court nominations' relevance to race preference cases."

What would he say? I will continue the Bush administration policy of nominating sound conservative justices like John Roberts, who volunteered his time to support gay marriage, and gave you Obama-care - an un-american and revolutionary new imposition on your liberty that I (Romney) and my administration will do nothing to overturn?

Better to run on the economy, the only thing that Romney is competent to speak on, given that he does not view America as a nation (and indeed it is one no longer), but only as some kind of free-enterprise zone - a region defined only by a particular regulatory and tax regime, rather like the Cayman Islands, where he keeps his money.

All that patriotism crap - "supporting the troops", "standing behind the warfighter", etc. - that only exists in so far as it is useful to Israel and Saudi Arabia and various defence contractors. Romney himself preferred to go on a mission to France to convert wine-drinking, Galoise-smoking frenchmen to Mormonism (how valuable did that end of being to the church, I wonder), rather than go fight in Vietnam in the kind of wars he thinks your sons should fight.

Anonymous said...

I think Steve is right. Just as Scott Brown is winning by shooting down Elizabeth Warren's affirmative action history, I think Romney would could only be helped by having White/Asian Americans come to their senses. Or we are both wrong and he would be Stephanie Graced/James Watsoned/Charles Murrayed/Jimmy the Greeked/etc. and pilloried/vilified/marginalized into irrelevance.

Sideways said...

Ffs, never write "reverse discrimination" again. It's a stupid concept when applied as it usually is, but when you're talking about Asians, it's particularly incoherent.

Carol said...

I don't trust Obama in a second term.

The bigger the vote spread the more likely he'll proclaim a mandate. Vote for Romney even if or especially if you think Obama is going to win.

peterike said...

"Heartless plutocrat" = "making hard but necessary decisions"

We desperately need a heartless plutocrat to make heartless decisions about Social Security (a ponzi scheme, change it), Medicare/Caid (unworkable and bankrupting, fix it), immigration (insane, stop it) and a thousand other things.

I can only hope and pray that, if elected, Romney is as heartless as possible.

Anonymous said...

Stockmarket rebound thanks to Berbanke is what is saving Obama.

Anonymous said...

"The really big question is how long Asians will put up with being blatantly discriminated against by colleges."

Forever. Because even with discrimination, they are vastly overrepresented. Also, Asians know that white power is finished and black/brown power is rising. So, they wanna be on good terms with blacks/browns. Also, Asians are drones who've sucked up Jewish PC.
Asians are also an apologetic race. Their culture is about bowing and feeling small. And so they won't stand up.

Anonymous said...

Asians are too afraid of blacks. So, they'll try to gain more at the expense of whites.

Indeed, all groups take their frustrations on whites because whites are the only people nice enough to hear the complaints of others.
Paradoxically, all groups blame whites(especially white males)because whites are the nicest.
It's like students pick on the nice teacher, and kids pick on the nice parent.

Anonymous said...

The really big question is how long Asians will put up with being blatantly discriminated against by colleges. Imagine that the stats cited in the article were reversed - Jesse Jackson would burn down the campuses. At some point Asian-Americans will figure out that in America the squeaky wheel gets the grease.


Maybe that is why this case is being allowed to come up now. Maybe there are enough Asians compared to whites that it is now in the interest of the elites to abolish AA. Asians are preferred over whites because mostly only higher performing Asians can even get here. Asians tend to do work elites don't want to do like STEM instead of the arts, media and entertainment. Asians are more compliant than whites. Asians have a higher threshold for abuse than whites and are less willing to revolt as well as less likely to form alliances with whites or Asians who are not their same exact ethnicity. Asians won't vote against immigration. etc. Asians won't vote for trade restrictions against Asia.

Anonymous said...

Romney himself preferred to go on a mission to France to convert wine-drinking, Galoise-smoking frenchmen to Mormonism (how valuable did that end of being to the church, I wonder), rather than go fight in Vietnam in the kind of wars he thinks your sons should fight.

So, would leaning a little more anti-war, going slightly left of Obama get him a few more voters? If so, how many percentage points? I am an anti war type but I am voting against Obama anyway.

saudi tugboats said...

I might vote for a republican that was mostly moderate but right on race issues.

Kind sir, if you could please tell me what positions one espouses to be "immoderate" once one is "right" on race issues.

NOTA said...

Anon 8:48:

The squeaky wheel's appointed ethnic spokesmen can live very well on the threat of riots for insufficient spreading around of the goodies, but it doesn't seem to work too well for the people doing the rioting. Urban blacks rioting may shake loose a couple new patronage jobs for ambitious blacks in the "police community relations board" or something, but they also tend to burn down their own neighborhoods, convince stores and employers to stay away, etc.

I suspect this is a common pattern. An individual ethnic spokesman, even if he cares a great deal about his ethnic group's well-being, cares even more about finding a job for his perpetually unemployed son in law, or having a seat reserved for him in the legislature thanks to DOJ-mandated racial gerrymandering, or donations to the foundation that pays his salary and employs his mistress. He cares a great deal about raising money, and being seen to win some victories, because those things determine what his future career will look like.

I wonder if, on net, ethnic activists/spokesmen even have a net positive effect on their group, and how you'd tell. For example, my understanding is that the disproportionate sentences for crack vs cocaine, now decried as racism in the legal system, were partly the result of pressure by black activists who wanted something done about the crack epidemic that was killing so many black kids. I

Zulf Masters said...

only about 25-30% of Americans support racial preferences in college admissions, and almost all of that 25-30% is Democrats

Bob, I think you're wrong to climb all over Aaron Israel here. That all AA "supporters" identify as Dems doesn't tell the whole story. Take my sister as an example. She's a boomer Deadhead who says of AA, "it was a good idea but it went too far." So she's not a supporter. But that doesn't mean she doesn't worry she might be a 'racist' if she votes for someone who makes opposition to AA one of his main planks. I think most of the voters Romney needs fall into that category.

pat said...

When I was teaching computer communications my best student, by far, was another teaching colleague. He was Chinese. Very smart but unpopular because his English was so poor. He took my class. I told him he should have been teaching it, not taking it.

I also mentioned to him that the Chinese were the victims of affirmative action. He defended discrimination against his race. He said if they didn't systematically exclude Asians then all the computer science students at Cal Berkeley would be Chinese. He seemed to think that that would have been a bad thing.

The funny thing is that if you've ever been on campus at Berkeley, you know that those students already are almost all Chinese.

In the real world I, like any sensible computer system hiring authority, lusted to acquire some of those Chinese Cal computer science graduates, while I worked at getting rid of my under performing black programmers. Programming talent is indeed color coded.

Albertosaurus

NOTA said...

Isn't the main focus of references to supreme court appointments all about abortion? Compared to that, concerns about affirmative action are probably lost in the noise.

My guess is that the actual effect of affirmative action is relatively small, a kind of efficiency tax on education and federal contracting and hiring and such. But there are probably places where the cost is higher, because of added administrative and legal overhead of pretending it's something more than just racial spoils. Giving everyone a hard test on firefighting, ranking the scores within each racial group, and then hiring the required number of black, hispanic, Asian, and left-handed red-haired lesbian firefighters is worse than hiring the best people, but it's simple, and it preserves as much meritocracy as possible. Making up an unfailable test so everyone passes and you can pretend to be hiring based on intangibles instead of getting a politically-acceptable racial mix of new firefighters or officers or whatever obscures the precise nature of what's being done, at the cost of also breaking the meritocratic hiring process.

Mike Steinberg said...

@ Aaron,

I think you might be surprised if you looked at peoples attitudes to things like immigration and quotas. For example, even the majority jewish voters supported Arizona's "tough" immigration laws.

I think you find a similar thing for disparate impact or quotas/affirmative action.

People understand and appreciate equality and Romney should be pushing these things in terms of equality under the law.

Aaron in Israel said...

Anonymous and Anonymous both made good points about working-class whites voting for Obama on economics, not on social issues. I don't know how many people like that there are.

I don't think the Giuliani example applies. I'm not a New Yorker, but didn't he get elected mostly on a law-and-order platform? I think New Yorkers back then cared a lot more about law and order than Americans today care about affirmative action. Also, law and order was only implicitly racial, so it was easier for nice liberals to vote for Giuliani with a slightly clearer conscience.

Bob Arctor's comment was pretty stupid. Of course the vast majority of whites oppose affirmative action; that's been the case forever. But most of that majority doesn't oppose it very strongly: if they did, there wouldn't be any affirmative action.

What many white moderates oppose more strongly than affirmative action is racial divisiveness. That's one reason many voted for Obama in 2008. Those for whom affirmative action is important aren't going to vote for Obama this year anyway.

Racial divisiveness is exactly what Romney would get if he took Sailer's advice. The question would become, "Is Romney a racist?" The Obama campaign would love to change the subject from the economy to race.

Anonymous said...

White people are NAMs now.

Anonymous said...

"Stock market rebounding"

Gold is about to hit its 2011 high again of $1800+/oz. The stock market is being kept afloat by APPL trading and algo manipulation. The actual economy most people live and breathe in is going over a cliff.

"Asians scared of blacks"

Yeah cause those rioters walked right into Koreatown, didn't they? Black/brown 'power' only exists as long as the welfare dollars keep flowing. Remove those from the equation and you have a bunch of poor minorities with SNAP cards that don't work. Where do the welfare dollars come from? White people.

Again, the welfare gravy train cannot continue. When the hordes lose their shit because their gimmedats have run out, you're not going to see many Asians in the horde.

eah said...

...good points about working-class whites voting for Obama on economics, not on social issues.

Which I guess goes to show how depressingly stupid and completely lacking in racial consciousness they are:

Immigrant Displacement Of American Workers Near All-Time High

Obama is amnestying the illegal ones as fast as he can.

And to show that Blacks really are even dumber:

Obamanomics Bad For Blacks—But They’re Voting For Him Anyway

But at least they have racial consciousness.

Bob Arctor said...

Had Zulf or Aaron's theory been correct then the last twenty years of referenda banning racial set asides would have failed with overwhelming margins, when in reality of course they all passed with huge margins. Strangely enough, this supposed crippling fear of "seeming racist" didn't matter once voters actually got into the booths, even in dark blue states. Why this dynamic would be magically different for a presidential candidate Instead of a voter initiative is, to be charitable, unclear.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to bet we hear a lot of "poor Asians" and "Asians are being discriminated" from white and East Asian posters on this thread. Some white people dislike black people more than they like white people. Their dislike of black people drives their opinions and actions. The reality is black students only make up very small percentages of top college admissions and many of those got in because of sports scholarships. Many black students don't graduate from these top colleges. Only with the help of white or Jewish people can black people succeed. There are so many examples of black people being given pre-made templates to work with only to fail when they get control whether it's Haiti, Detroit etc. White or Jewish people are key to black people's success. So if you are upset with affirmative action you really should point your fingers to the white or Jewish gatekeepers that let it happen.

White people rather fight over that small, largely sports scholarship-given black student population than the ever-growing East and South Asian population at American institutions. We are told East Asians have these great IQs and work hard yet they increasingly flood American and other Western institutions. Somehow they are unable to create quality education systems in East Asia that they are content with. The reality is this is another information transfer from the West to the East, both on a personal and nationwide scale. Ever since Marco Polo traveled to China, East Asians have sought, in various manners, knowledge from white people from asking for it to entering Western institutions to buying it to spying. East Asian success depends on gaining information from white or Jewish people. Without access to the creativity and knowledge white and Jewish people produce East Asians could never have the success they enjoy today. So having East Asians take over Western institution suffocates innovation. It’s like putting a lid on the entire white population. East Asians are not discriminated in admissions. In fact, they don't even deserve the incredibly large admissions they have already. First, East Asians over-perform their abilities on standardized tests. Second, East Asians didn’t even build these institutions. They are just here to bandwagon. Third, East Asians don’t pay enough taxes to support these institutions. Tax evasion is pervasive among East Asians. Just like a neighborhood or area white people worked on and created a great reputation with and now non-white people want to move in to, East Asians want to bandwagon on these white-created institutions. In 2004, the University of California, Berkeley was ranked second on The QS World University Rankings. In 2012, it’s not even in the top 20. It’s the only university in 2004’s top 10 to fall out of the top 20 in 2012. The two other California universities, Stanford and California Institute of Technology (Pasadena), have also fallen in the ranking. All three universities have seen a skyrocketing Asian population after Prop 209 passed. When black people move into a white neighborhood home values decline. When East Asians flood universities diploma values decline.

Anonymous said...

I'm not so sure that running against anti-white policies would hurt Romney. I am mostly on the left except on these issues. I will end up voting for Obama again because I know Romney favors open borders.



You're going to vote for Obama ... because you think that Romney favors open borders? You sound like a typical Obama supporter - utterly detached from reality.

Anonymous said...

What many white moderates oppose more strongly than affirmative action is racial divisiveness. That's one reason many voted for Obama in 2008.


Eh? So in the name of opposing "racial divisiveness", these people voted for somebody on the basis of his skin color?

All you're really saying is that white "moderates" are stupid people.

It's depressing to think that "Aaron in Israel" almost certainly will be voting in this US election.

Ex Submarine Officer said...

Guys who riot over $180 Lebron X sneakers are not going to be happy living in favelas.

I'm not sure that the guys who live in favelas are happy about living in favelas.

Usually, one's personal preferences don't have much effect in this sort of thing.

And at least until the 70's, many of the parents/forebears of the Lebron X wearers were living in circumstances in the Deep South that were every bit as primitive and makeshift as any favela.

They didn't like it either, but, well, what can you do?

Anonymous said...

Romney himself preferred to go on a mission to France to convert wine-drinking, Galoise-smoking frenchmen to Mormonism (how valuable did that end of being to the church, I wonder), rather than go fight in Vietnam in the kind of wars he thinks your sons should fight.


The comments section here increasingly resembles that of the Democratic Underground. Romney has never expressed a desire for my sons to fight in any kind of war.

Svigor said...

Obama supporter who capitalizes "Galoise" and "Vietnam" but not "French" said:

Romney himself preferred to go on a mission to France to convert wine-drinking, Galoise-smoking frenchmen to Mormonism (how valuable did that end of being to the church, I wonder), rather than go fight in Vietnam in the kind of wars he thinks your sons should fight.

The draft is as dead as your comparison. If "our sons" don't want to fight in foreign wars, they shouldn't enlist.

Svigor said...

The comments section here increasingly resembles that of the Democratic Underground. Romney has never expressed a desire for my sons to fight in any kind of war.

They're all Obamaton trolls with merit badges for concern trolling. They'll slink away after the election.

Truth said...

"96% vs 11%?!?!?! I'd like to see someone find one of these Asians to back for a reverse discrimination case...."

It's probably 75% Whites vs 20-25% Asians, would you still back the case?

Truth said...

"Romney has never expressed a desire for my sons to fight in any kind of war."

From what I've read, Romney was an unabashed supporter of Vietnam, before who went on Sabbatical, and an unabashed critic after it ended. He also seems to me to be quite the chickenhawk in his comments on Iran.

Truth said...

"White people are NAMs now."

No, not for another 15 years or so.

Average Joe said...

a big question is whether the rise of Asians might begin to drive whites toward favoring affirmative action as beneficial to themselves

The problem is that neither political party is in favor of affirmative action for whites. The current political view seems to be that it is alright to discriminate against whites but wrong to discriminate in their favor under any circumstances.

Average Joe said...

In order to win, Romney needs the votes of people who consider the views expressed by Steve Sailer to be racist and reprehensible

You would think that Obama's disastrous economic policies would be enough to win the election for Romney. Apparently it is morally better to allow Obama to turn the United States into a poverty-stricken Third World country than to admit that the "racists" were right.

Average Joe said...

I will end up voting for Obama again because I know Romney favors open borders.

Even though Obama also supports open borders? Are you on drugs?

Average Joe said...

There are a lot of working class white people who don't like racial preferences or mass immigration, but oppose Romney because he seems like a heartless plutocrat who wants to destroy medicare and keep outsourcing jobs

How have Obama's policies been any better for the working class? The unemployment rate is higher now than when he came into office.

Matthew said...

"Romney needs the votes of people who consider the views expressed by Steve Sailer to be racist and reprehensible"

Indeed.

Romney can't win by playing up affirmative action...but if he wants to turn the tide against the race-obsessed Left and secure the trust of the white middle class, he needs to do something once he's elected. The problem being that so many Republicans have been elected without doing shit on the matter - Regan, and both Bush's - that no conservative thinks Romney will do anything, especially since Romney sounds and acts so much like George H.W. Bush's love child.

With today's GOP it's wars for Israel and tax cuts and cheap labor for the rich pretty much 24/7.

IIRC, back in the early 90s the GOP easily outstripped Democrats in contributions from small donors. Toay the Democrats beat them hanily there.

Average Joe said...

I'll vote for Obama simply because he is less odious than Romney/Ryan

If you are this suicidal wouldn't it be easier to just jump off a bridge or take cyanide?

Average Joe said...

white men have had a 10000 years of affirmative action

How so?

JustAClown said...

Average Joe said...

The problem is that neither political party is in favor of affirmative action for whites. The current political view seems to be that it is alright to discriminate against whites but wrong to discriminate in their favor under any circumstances.
--------------

and the fact that racial preferences for nonwhites, civil rights laws, mass immigration etc allows Capital to 1) get more cheap labor and thereby increase profits and 2) fragment the unity of the populace through racial integration, thus enabling Capital to better control the government and thereby increase profits, that has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all. Complete coincidence. And anyone who says otherwise is a conspriracy theorist with a tinfoil hat.

JustAClown said...

Average Joe said...
I will end up voting for Obama again because I know Romney favors open borders.

Even though Obama also supports open borders? Are you on drugs?
--------------


obama has deported 1.5 times as many illegals as bush ever did. Fact!

JustAClown said...

Truth said...
"Romney has never expressed a desire for my sons to fight in any kind of war."

From what I've read, Romney was an unabashed supporter of Vietnam, before who went on Sabbatical, and an unabashed critic after it ended. He also seems to me to be quite the chickenhawk in his comments on Iran.

---------------

yup, another silver spoon hypocrite who got special favors from the mormon church and got an extra long religious mission so he could avoid the war. Look it up. Same as Bush, just another hypocrite rich boy. Obama is probably some sort of sociopath, but Romney and Bush are far worse.

JustAClown said...

Whiskey said...
Let me add, the chief proponents of the Sailer Strategy, seem to think that not just Romney but all other GOP candidates are too stupid to read internal polls, projections, and view there is a huge mass of White voters just yearning for pushing for White interests.

Where? Where's the data? I've never seen it. Indeed if you look at actual campaigns, guys who push that line end up out of politics. Because they LOSE. Tancredo, the guy who challenged McCain in the Primary, all LOSERS.


==================

they lose in part because the media demonizes them because 1) highly positioned mass media people are products of elite schools and therefore have been thoroughly indoctrinated in anti-white, pro-nonwhite, white guilt subculture that dominates academia.

and also there is a lot of white guilt over slavery and Hitler. Even though it was the rich who owned slaves (1.5% of americans owned slaves in 1860) and even though hitler was a rightwing plant sent in by a group of Old Money military officers to infiltrate and subvert the true-leftist-populist workers parties of germany, which is exactly what he did.

Anonymous said...

"Even working-class whites will be guilt-tripped into handing over their meager patrimony to newcomers."

Once upon a time the working-class whites were happy to take this continent from its original owners and keep out "undesireables," like the Chinese. If times get tougher, so will working-class whites.

"Now it seems like even the hinterland states have elected representatives that go to the same small cadre of schools."

Dynasticism, or somehting similar. 30 years ago older congressmen were bootstrappers from an era when most white Americans didn't go to college and many white Americans didn't even finish high school. Today most anyone with a brain has finished college, and the ones with connections go to the Ivy Leauge.

Take my congressman, Jim Matheson (please): his dad, Scott Matheson, Sr., was governor of Utah. Governor Matheson had an undergrad degree from the University of Utah. His son Jim got his undergrad from Harvard. His other son, Scott, Jr., who ran for governor against Jon Hunstman, Jr., recieved his undergrad degree from Stanford.

Anonymous said...

"He also seems to me to be quite the chickenhawk in his comments on Iran."

If America gets involved with Iran it will involve a few dozen sorties launched from a carrier group and little more. That won't involve many people's sons.

Romney never sevred in the military, but neither did Obama. For that matter, the last 5 presidential elections have been won by the candidate with the least amount of military sevrice of the two parties nominees: Clinton beat Bush and Dole, Bush beat Gore and Kerry, and Obama beat McCain. Nowadays military service don't count for jack.

JustAClown said...

sunbeam said...
Does anyone know of any link or discussion of how the "elite" schools came to be the gateway to everything?

-------------

a very very important question. Remember how Bush SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers was demonized by the media and the punditocracy because she graduated from 'lowly' SMU law school instead of an elite law school? This is emblematic of the grip that elite school products have on the country. The elite school grads are those who really really immersed themselves in the dominant ideology given to them. Hence they are truly in a way puppets for the interests of Capital.

The fakeLeft anti-white, pro-nonwhite subculture that destroyed populist, economics-oriented trueLeftism started in the elite schools almost 100 years. The plutocrats funded the 'right kind' of leftists via grants from their nonprofit foundations (ford getty rockefeller etc etc etc). Over the ensuing decades, these monies had the effect of building a false-left oriented about race, gender, gay rights, etc., instead of workers' rights, progressive taxation etc.

For more on this, see Dr Roelofs' book SOCIAL POLICY AND FOUNDATIONS: THE MASK OF PLURALISM; also see the writings of Frances Stonor Saunders and James Petra.

Average Joe said...

obama has deported 1.5 times as many illegals as bush ever did. Fact!

What is the source of this fact? Also since Bush deported as few Hispanics as possible it would not be much of a challenge to beat his record. I don't know how any white gentile could vote for Obama when it is quite clear that he hates us.

JustAClown said...

some anon person wrote:
Nowadays military service don't count for jack.

=============

Got me my gov't job after I got sucked into the law school scam and lost my life savings trying to be a lawyer. Life is long. Remember that!


Nowadays, if you aint a minority and you want (or need) a gov't job, you had better be a veteran....

JustAClown said...

just google it--gov't stats. And I aint surprised, either. Most americans want the illegals gone. And Dems are more democratic than the GOP. Period. They aint great, but they are better than the GOP

Hacienda said...

Whites benefit from selection preferences in the US at colleges which could be labeled affirmative action. See Espanshade.

Asian academics is competitive as all get out right now. At least the NE Asian variety. Particularly STEM. Blacks are non-competitive in these fields. White only semi-competitive. If there are to any blacks in IT, the kinds of gross selection bias now occurring are necessary.

I believe math education in NE Asian countries is actually better than what is signaled by PISA.

The liberal arts is a fun ghetto, but seems to account for most of the admissions criteria to many liberal arts schools- the Ivies for example.

There's something deeply, deeply flawed about liberal arts education today. The training of both useful and useless idiots, for one.

Asians have very good universities in Asia. In terms of doing what is best for their populations, they may be the best in the world.

The US has thousands of useless and scam "universities", but a handful that are the best at research. Overall US universities are very good at creating a synthetic language of toleration and feel-goodness.

If Asians ruin US universities, why is MIT no. 1? And maybe that's a good thing?
Whatever. BS posts deserve BS answers.

















Na-Honda Cape said...

"... I mean all these preferences, in general it seems like we discuss them in regards to certain schools:

Michigan, Berkeley, Stanford, etc.

No one seems to much care about admissions to Miami-Dade CC, or Cal Poly-Pomona.

Just saying as short a time ago as the 60's you would see all kinds of people in Congress with degrees from a variety of institutions. Or no degree at all."


- Easier for the elites to control the country this way...

Mac said...

"
You're wrong about Romney not talking about the Supreme Court. I'ts been in many of his standard stump speeches, but unless you live in a toss-up state and see LOCAL media, you'll not see/hear that stump speech."

The Supreme Court is ultimately why I'm holding my nose and voting for Romney.
If Barry appoints anymore Justices, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye and I hate to see what will happen to the 1st Amendment in the name of "public order", "hate speech/crimes" etc.

Bal said...

"...a black bureaucrat whose day begins at 10:30 after a 2 hour break at Starbucks and whose day ends when the phones get switched off at 3 pm..."


You guys joke about shiftlessness but black people actually do have differing concepts of time called 'white people time' and 'black people time'. I've heard black co-workers and acquaintances in several different jobs reference it.

For example,"Chris wants to meet up at 10". "White people 10?"

Actually explains a lot....

Severn said...

There are a lot of working class white people who don't like racial preferences or mass immigration, but oppose Romney because he seems like a heartless plutocrat who wants to destroy medicare and keep outsourcing jobs


What you mean is "... who oppose Romney because they believe the media's portrayal of him as a heartless plutocrat who wants to destroy medicare and keep outsourcing jobs".

Anonymous said...

If Asians ruin US universities, why is MIT no. 1?

No. 1 what?

Anonymous said...

Mac said...
"The Supreme Court is ultimately why I'm holding my nose and voting for Romney.
If Barry appoints anymore Justices, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye and I hate to see what will happen to the 1st Amendment in the name of "public order", "hate speech/crimes" etc."

Good point, as a cultural conservative I am not thrilled with Romney and espescially Ryan (Libertarian... career politician LOL), but the idea of another Kagan or Sotomayer type nominee is downright scary.

Truth said...

"If America gets involved with Iran it will involve a few dozen sorties launched from a carrier group and little more. That won't involve many people's sons."

Wrong.

Iran is Iraq with double the population, tripple the GDP, possible nuclear weapons, no internecine Sunni-Shitie struggle, and Afghanistan's mountains; and we had to send land forces into Iraq.

Anonymous said...

I believe there is an Asian group who has filed an amicus brief in support of the students bringing the suit against UT.

Average Joe said...

Whites benefit from selection preferences in the US at colleges which could be labeled affirmative action

So whites getting better grades and test scores than blacks is "affirmative action"?

Anonymous said...

"Here's a prediction of what will happen if AA is overturned. The ivy league will fill up with Asians, showing how discriminated against they were the whole time. Smart whites will not want to go to schools where they are a minority in a sea of Asians, so will opt for second tier schools, which will then become much better schools since they are attracting so much talent. Will asians then try to get into these schools as their reputation rises and the ivys stagnate in an endless game of musical chairs? Third tier and community colleges will be the center for NAMS. Despite the obvious truth of intelligence having a racial component, still no one will admit it."

I don't believe striking down Affirmative Action through the SCOTUS will affect Ivy League, Stanford, MIT admissions as they are not public universities.

As I understand it, it'll only affect public/state schools. Otherwise Prop 209 in california would've already made Stanford mirror Cal-Berkeley in demographics and this is certainly not the case.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

The comments section here increasingly resembles that of the Democratic Underground. Romney has never expressed a desire for my sons to fight in any kind of war."

He supports the warfare-state. The warfare-state requires soldiers, who will be, if not yours, then somebody's sons. If you are unconcerned with the fact that other Americans are getting killed and maimed in wars that serve no american interest, then your opinion is of little value.

Mr. Anon said...

"Svigor said...

Obama supporter who capitalizes "Galoise" and "Vietnam" but not "French" said:"

An oversight. I certainly have nothing against the French.

"The draft is as dead as your comparison. If "our sons" don't want to fight in foreign wars, they shouldn't enlist."

Quite so, but that doesn't mean I should be indifferent to a politician who is happy to send them into harm's way for no good reason. Our nation does need soldiers, and those soldiers should have a reasonable expectation that they will only be sent to war to, you know, actually defend the nation.

""The comments section here increasingly resembles that of the Democratic Underground.""

They're all Obamaton trolls with merit badges for concern trolling. They'll slink away after the election."

You think I'm an Obama supporter? I've been posting here for years now, and will be doing so long after the election. I would have thought you would know me somewhat better than that by now.

Anonymous said...

White people trying to manipulate the law to favor them.

Sounds kinda like what the white people do on a world stage with the UN and the WTO.

They love to use nebulous reasoning like democracy and free trade to get what they want. Then when things don't work out for said white people they change the rules to favor themselves.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

If America gets involved with Iran it will involve a few dozen sorties launched from a carrier group and little more. That won't involve many people's sons."

And the people of Iraq will welcome us as liberators. And we'll only be in Afghanistan long enough to destroy the Taliban and kill Osama bin Laden. Not to mention the check is in the mail, and they WILL respect you in the morning.

Nobody knows what a war with Iran would entail. Certainly they will not destroy us - they are not an existential threat to us (which makes one wonder why we it is we ought to fight them?). But it could lead to a wider war. Perhaps involving Russia or China. Nobody thought the thirty years war would last very long either, even though it was concluded by completely different parties than those who were in it at the beginning. If you want to know how predictable the outcome of a war is, ask the Czar.

At the very least, it will mean more American lives lost and more American treasure squandered..............

..........to do what exactly?

What would be our war aims there?

ben tillman said...

Does anyone know of any link or discussion of how the "elite" schools came to be the gateway to everything?

I mean all these preferences, in general it seems like we discuss them in regards to certain schools:

Michigan, Berkeley, Stanford, etc.

No one seems to much care about admissions to Miami-Dade CC, or Cal Poly-Pomona.

Just saying as short a time ago as the 60's you would see all kinds of people in Congress with degrees from a variety of institutions. Or no degree at all.


It's just another example of centralization, which is always the goal of cohesive groups that know they can outcompete their disorganized competitors for control of those resource-rich niches.

Anonymous said...

"white men have had a 10000 years of affirmative action " - So thats how long it takes AA to work.

Anonymous said...

"Let me add, the chief proponents of the Sailer Strategy, seem to think that not just Romney but all other GOP candidates are too stupid to read internal polls, projections, and view there is a huge mass of White voters just yearning for pushing for White interests.

Where? Where's the data? I've never seen it. Indeed if you look at actual campaigns, guys who push that line end up out of politics. Because they LOSE. Tancredo, the guy who challenged McCain in the Primary, all LOSERS." - The point of the Sailer strategy isn't to promote policies to the people. it is to implement them so that those people go on to make more people that vote republican, as opposed to what republicans do which is the complete opposite. They could actually drag their heels, and even push back, as opposed to enthusiastically going along with their own extinction.

Anonymous said...

You think I'm an Obama supporter?


You are an Obama supporter. I'm open to the possibility that you're too dumb to be aware of that fact, but you are an Obama supporter. Your bizarre double-standard in which you slam Romney for what you think he might do but let Obama off the hook for what he has done makes that very clear.

Anonymous said...

He supports the warfare-state.

Than I repeat, the comments section here increasingly resembles that of the Democratic Underground.

DaveinHackensack said...

Ex-Sub Officer,

"I'm not sure that the guys who live in favelas are happy about living in favelas.

Usually, one's personal preferences don't have much effect in this sort of thing.

And at least until the 70's, many of the parents/forebears of the Lebron X wearers were living in circumstances in the Deep South that were every bit as primitive and makeshift as any favela.

They didn't like it either, but, well, what can you do?"


I think you're missing the point on this one. It doesn't take much, financially, for Brazil to placate its favela-dwellers, precisely because they have such poor living conditions. Lula was considered a hero in Brazil for his Bolsa Familia welfare program, which gives the equivalent of ~$100 per month to the poorest families.

They're still living in shanties, but they're more content, and, presumably, will continue to be placated as long as their standard of living is moving in the right direction (which Brazil can manage just by ratcheting up the pittance it offers in welfare).

On the other hand, the urban poor in the US get much more generous government assistance. When money for that becomes scares, there will be hell to pay.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

""He supports the warfare-state.""

Than I repeat, the comments section here increasingly resembles that of the Democratic Underground."

In terms of the obtuseness of commenters like you, I agree.

What would you call a government that spends more on it's military than EVERY other nation in the world combined, and uses that military in ways that are inimical to the interests of it's own people?

NOTA said...

Anon 706:

Okay, but are those comments right? I mean, we keep fighting these apparently pointless wars where we murder a bunch of third worlders and spend a big pile of money, and usually make a mess that then makes it necessary for us to go bomb some more third worlders and spend even more money. Obama is demonstrably on board with that; Romney gives every appearance of being on board with it. It looks like a spectacularly stupid and evil policy, one that motivates terrorist attacks against us and justifies all kinds of insane restrictions on our freedoms.

So I am not all that interested in whether noticing that this policy is idiotic might mean I end up agreeing with a bunch of liberal Democrats. Why would that matter?

Mr. Anon said...

"NOTA said...

Anon 706:

Okay, but are those comments right?................"

Well said.