November 20, 2012

Susan Rice's children and the future of Affirmative Action

Commenter Noggin writes about UN ambassador and potential Secretary of State Rice (Susan, not Condi) and her quite white-looking children:
You know, sad to say it, but these kids are the guys making out like bandits from AA. They're probably around 7/8ths white, so the drop in IQ from their African ancestry is likely minimal to none, and they obviously will grow up in a well-to-do neighborhood/school so they have every advantage, but they get to check off black on their college admissions entrance, on every job application, scholarship, etc for their whole life, so get all the perks from that. That's the near-future of the US. And how AA will eventually die.

I often see commentary, including from white liberals, saying that racial preferences are on their way out, that affirmative action is obviously doomed, etc. After all, isn't it ridiculous that the Secretary of State's relatives get affirmative action? How many people in the world are more powerful than the Secretary of State? (Besides the President, of course.) So, obviously, real soon now somebody or other is going to take this privilege away from the Secretary of State's relatives. 

Well, sure ... but I have to think that there's an alternative way to look at it. Are you, personally, going to volunteer to peeve the Secretary of State by harming her children's prospects because of their race? How did annoying Susan Rice work out for Col. Qaphoffee? She's got drones, man!

Think of it from the point of view of a college admissions office or an HR Department. They have rules and guidelines about who they can take, but they also know perfectly well that even if Susan Rice's kids are lazy nimrods, they still want them because they are plugged into the highest levels of the Global Power Elite. They're connected. Affirmative action gives admissions offices and HR departments an excuse to favor Susan Rice's children -- in the name of Diversity and Fighting Racism -- over the children of random unconnected losers.

Lots of people assume that just because it's absurd and unfair for Susan Rice's children to get special racial privileges, somebody will organize to take those privileges away. But, the more power quasi-non-whites like Susan Rice get, the harder it will be to take their racial privileges away from them and their descendants unto the seventh generation.

Such is the way of the world.

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

Even if her kids weren't the children of someone famous, companies and colleges would LOVE to have kids like that that also fulfilled their "black" quota. Sure, kids that look like that will exploit the system and hurt "real" black kids, but from an institutional viewpoint, these kids are golden.

DaveinHackensack said...

No doubt Rice's kids will receive preferences, but how can you tell they will be bast on race and not elite status? Obama's daughters will go to any college they want to, just like Clinton's daughter did.

LOL @ "Qaphoffee".

Anonymous said...

Lots of Brazilian "whites" look like her children. It's a certain peculiar phenotype you get with people who have non-trivial sub-Saharan African admixture, but not more than a quarter or so.

Anonymous said...

Isn't this basically the story of rich, mostly white, wealthy Latinos? The Dems and the GOP for the past 60 years or so have been competing to see who could be the best friend to the hildagos and haciendados. The GOP benefited them by propping up their corrupt regimes in L. America, and when they do come to the US after the lower class indios and mestizos throw 'em out, the Dems roll out the AA red carpet. Having arrived here, they then seek to recreate the homeplace with help from the Chamber of Commerce and the SWPL brigades.

These guys are our real enemies, not Chavez or Castro.

anony-mouse said...

Er, that supposedly low-IQ African ancestry comes via a Cornell prof of Econ (PhD Berkeley, just after WWII when AA didn't exist-he had been a Tuskegee airman, too)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_J._Rice

Anonymous said...

I came across this rather exasperated presentation (PowerPoint file) on disparate impact by an expert on industrial/organizational psychology. He presents seven "iron laws" of adverse impact, one of which is that "As The Number Of Black and Hispanic Students Increase There Is A Corresponding Drop In The Academic Achievement and Cognitive Skills Of Working Age Adults and Higher Probability Of Adverse Impact", with the corollary that "The Human Capital Available To Organizations Will Continue To Drop For The Foreseeable Future." No mincing of words there!

He also points out that "We Have Already Measured The Cognitive Skills Of Children Who Will Be In The Workforce For The Next 70 Years. There Are Increasing Numbers And Proportion Of Black And Hispanic Students. Human Capital In The United Stated Will Decline." Regardless of what the likes of Sandra Day O'Connor think, the disparate impact doctrine and affirmative action will be needed far into the future if the fetish for diversity and racial balance continues to hold sway.

Anonymous said...

AA has nothing to do with the educational or professional prospects of Susan Rice's children. Bill Clinton's daughter went to Stanford and LSE, at least two of Al Gore's four children went to Harvard, one of George W. Bush's daughters went to Yale, and Barack Obama's daughters will go wherever the hell they want.

Big name unis each get hundreds of millions annually from the federal gubmint, and some political children count as at least minor celebrities. I'd like to see a comparison of the share of US senator's children who go to Harvard/Stanford/Yale versus those of governors. Probably higher for the senators' kids, as they have the power of the federal purse at their disposal.

Sylia Stringray said...

Affirmocracy.

18 + 9 + 5 + 3 + 4 + 1 - 12 = 38? said...

The real trick is going to be in the Elizabeth Warren-style slicing & dicing. The system will get more and more absurd like some antique accounting software used by the IRS since the 1960s. Victor Hanson made a nice catch with noting this op-ed last week (2nd paragaph) by one Harold Meyerson, AKA Scourge Of The White Man

memories said...

The old GOP version of this used to be Vernon Jordan, e.g. on Capitol Gang Kate O'Beirne would defy Mark Shields (or whomever) to explain why a poor white should lose out to Jordan's kid. I forget who was used before Jordan, though... (Michael Jackson? Michael Jordan?)

2Degrees said...

In Australia, Andrew Bolt pointed out that all the aboriginal set-asides were going to people who looked white. He was prosecuted and has been forbidden from writing on the subject ever again. The white aboriginals have no written their privileges into law. Free speech died in Australia that day.

Silver said...

You've got to be kidding me. Those kids can claim blackness? Is there anything more laughable on earth than Americans?

I mean, even this portion of noggin's comment: You know, sad to say it, but these kids are the guys making out like bandits from AA.

Sad to say it, he says! Sad not to say it, I would think! Absolutely insane not to say it, even.

What's really sad is that I have more respect for the average Stormfrontnik or VNNer than I do the average American -- and if you knew how much I despise that crowd you'd know this is really saying something. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that the only reason to pay attention to what Americans say or think anymore is to see how more ridiculous a once proud people can get. So don't let me down now! You can be more even more self-abnegating, I'm sure of it. So go on, show me some of that American can-do and really rip into yourselves. I mean, why 2042? Why not 2022! Make it a national mission, just like the moon landing! USA, USA, USA!

Whiskey said...

The more AA chokes out ordinary people from the advancement needed without crushing loans, the more resentment builds up. It won't be the elite who turn racist.

Anonymous said...

Many of the "whites" in Brazil have a similar phenotype to Rice's children. It seems to be a phenotype common among people who have less than a quarter or so black ancestry, but a non-trivial amount of black ancestry.

Anonymous said...

Agree with you Steve.

Recently as I have seen abusurdity upon absurdity pile up I came to conclusion that the reason these things do not stop is because most people (and in particular non-Whites who are very tribal in their orientation and not universalistic despite their rhetoric) will never give up any benefits which have accrued to them voluntarily no matter how obviously unfair it is to others. Ergo ... AA, open borders, Cultural Marxism and Anti-Whitism is here to stay until the costs to non-Whites such as Jews (who are its most powerful supporters), Blacks, and Hispanics and others outweigh the benefits which accrue to these groups (n.b.the Jews benefit by empowering a coalition now known as the Democrtic party which uses the racial spoils system to empower themselves at the expense of Whites).

I don't think I have to draw you a road map to tell you how the costs might eventually outweigh the benefits to these groups....

The amount of rage I see, hear, and witness festering amongst Whites is scary to me.

I suspect it is only a matter of a short time before Whites decide to "retribalize"... this election was a wake up call to many of them.

Glad I am relocating out of the country this coming year because the next 15 years, my guess, should be really interesting (yup I am a coward but per the old Chinese proverb I am not the type that wants to live in "interesting times" ... give me the uninteresting, peaceful, and bucolic times).

Not only will it be "interesting" ...but I beleive it will be butt ugly.

Unfortunately, one of my hobbies is trend analysis and I have a stellar track record in spoting the tops of the tech and housing bubbles and the bottom of the gold
market to name a few recent trends.

Usually my calls are a little early so I know I am getting out before it gets really interesting...

Hope I am wrong for everybody's sake who visits your blog regularly... but if I was a betting man I wouldn't bet against me.

Anonymous said...

The Qaddafi jokes are lame, Steve. Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

I think that's not a new observation--that AA is merely another tool with its own intricacies now available to elites to fulfill the same agenda they would've otherwise pursued. That is why the old-school leftist sociologists (Michael Young types, except more common in U.S.) just want to abolish the preferences regime and replace it with "open source" metrics of family income and academic achievement; I think they overlook that the Rubicon's been crossed. People who have adapted to this Byzantine regime, and got where they are even partially by arbitrary preference-wielding, would never relinquish even smaller advantages without a media donnybrook. I'm thinking of such high-ranking folks as, say, Cecilia Muñoz who seems to be the in-house token Hispanic with the Axelrodians (not so much the mediocre tribal figureheads like Salazar, Solis, or Sotomayor).

AA spirit is as embedded into our decrepit system as all those little budget line-items that John Stossel used to document in "20/20" specials (e.g. an ex-pro wrestler in Pennsylvania drawing a federal check for something or another). I never took Steve seriously when he intermittently speculated that Obama might "go to China" and call a truce on disparate-impact prosecutions. That would be suicidal, 1789-France-suicidal. He'll have to keep the plates spinning.

Anonymous said...

How absurd, the Federal courts have just struck down anti AA laws in Michigan. And the Republicans have refused to attack AA on a national level. So how is AA going to die?

Answer - never. Its actually getting stronger and its advocates turn every new Non-white Immigrant into an AA beneficiary.

Anonymous said...

Anyone too black to be your son-in-law is black enough to benefit from AA.
Anyone too black to be the treasurer of your local KKK chapter is black enough to benefit from AA.
Anyone too black to be called white unequivocally by you is black enough to benefit from AA.

Anonymous said...

Power begets power, is the lesson.

I remember hearing that sainted old liberal Hubert Humphrey once say that success in politics is wrongly thought of as give, give, give, to build up chits. He said it was instead a game of take, take, take, since the more you have the stronger you get.

Andrew said...

If the Republicans wanted to win Asian-American votes, how about banning both affirmative-action and legacy admissions? For Asians, hitting them over college admissions is hitting them where it hurts.

Banning legacy admissions would help solve two problems for the Republicans: the "let's not appear racist" problem, and the too many Bushes problem.

Anonymous said...

anonymous:"costs to non-Whites such as Jews (who are its most powerful supporters), Blacks, and Hispanics"

Jews are White, dear boy/girl; the people who run subaltern studies departments all agree on that one.As a matter of fact, I once attended a conference where Israel was described as the White world's penis, the phallus by which the White man raped the People of Color in the Middle East.

Castilian said...

At both campuses at which I've worked, AA is rarely doled out to anyone not middle class or above. Look at the kinds of SAT scores black are getting whenever said scores get pulled up for debates about AA: the scores are usually around 1000-1100, compared to ~1300 for their white and Asian counterparts. Now, 1000-1100 isn't Harvad material . . . but it's around average. It's the same score earned by plenty of white slackers. And I'll tell you one thing for sure: most blacks from Compton or Southgate or Baltimore or certainly NOT scoring that high, i.e., they aren't scoring high enough even to be considered for AA! (Of course, most aren't taking the SAT at all.)

So, it's not just these extreme cases that make AA absurd. Even when its benefactors are quite black (or very Amerind, in the Latino case), the reality is that most benefactors come from a comfortable middle or upper-middle class background, and that's why they score at least average on the SAT and make an average GPA. I've never had an obvious AA admit in my class who came from the hood.

Chicago said...

Wikipedia state that some members of the Congressional Black Caucus considered her to be too much of an "assimilationist". Interesting peek into the dynamics of the relationship between the pure-bloods and the more favored mixed-breeds. Wonder how her children will identify themselves later in life; who they might procreate with. It seems these mixed marriages do the children no good as they always seem to have identity problems that they have to talk about throughout their lives. Apparently a black man for a spouse wasn't good enough for the little princess.

Anonymous said...

Susan Rice's daughter is the black equivalent of Native American Elizabeth Warren.

Interesting how so many of the elite of the "minorities" have only a minority of their ancestors who are members of a minority.

Obama is unusual in that he is a full half African.

Alfa158 said...

Years ago I saw an extreme example of white looking black. My wife and I attended the wedding of her friend, a mixed race Jamaica who was marrying a white American guy. Most of the guests were Jamaican and they included a couple who had brought their two year old boy. The couple were mixed race like many of the guests, the husband looked kind of like Eric Holder or Richard Steadman, the wife like Vanessa Williams, but they would definitely be classified as African-American. Due to the magic of recessive genes, their little boy looked like he had been adopted from an orphanage in Reykjavik; white skin, thin lips and nose, straight ash blond hair, and ice blue eyes. I can imagine the hilarity that will ensue when he shows up for a college admission interview looking whiter than Elizabeth Warren, and having checked off African-American in the ethnicity box. Will he have to bring in his parents and have them vouch that he is their biological child?

Truth said...

"You've got to be kidding me. Those kids can claim blackness? Is there anything more laughable on earth than Americans?"

So you'd be fine with her son growing up and porking your daughter?

Anonymous said...

Truth:"So you'd be fine with her son growing up and porking your daughter?"


Crudeness of the verb aside, I wouldn't; race realism is not race essentialism. Rice is well under 50% Negroid. Her son, therefore, is less than 25% Negroid.Any children that he might have with my daughter would be less than 12% Negroid. To a race realist, someone who is 12% Negroid and 88% Caucasoid is Caucasoid.Only STORMFRONT idiots think otherwise.

Anonymous said...

"Anyone too black to be your son-in-law is black enough to benefit from AA."

Then Rice's son is not Black.

socks said...

I tried that "seventh generation" line in a facebook argument. I think the other guys head nearly exploded. What does that have to do with anything? Couldn't I see the obvious racism everywhere?

Anonymous said...

"So you'd be fine with her son growing up and porking your daughter?"

A really interesting question actually. Honestly, I'd have a problem.

ben tillman said...

So how is AA going to die?


1. It dies when the society collapses (a la Tainter). But that will be 10-20 years in the future.

2. It dies when Whites stop legitimizing it by checking the box that says "White". Check "Hispanic" or, if you're paarticularly ballsy, "Black". This is something we can do now.

dodo said...

But, the more power quasi-non-whites like Susan Rice get, the harder it will be to take their racial privileges away from them and their descendants unto the seventh generation.

funny how that never works for whites.

Anonymous said...

I suspect it is only a matter of a short time before Whites decide to "retribalize"... this election was a wake up call to many of them.


Yea, that love-fest with the Scotch-Irish will also go out the window.

Geoff Matthews said...

Hey, if Elizabeth Warren can claim to be 1/64th Indian and leverage that into a Harvard faculty position, why not?
What about Obama's kids? Black, and obviously black, but the notion that they've suffered from being black is ludicrous.
In fact, the Obama children give more credence to the ludicrous notion that race is THE factor that should be taken into consideration.

NOTA said...

Truth:

Short of demanding a DNA test or pictures of their grandparents, how would he even know those kids had any black ancestry at all?

Chicago:

The little princess has apparently managed to do pretty well for herself, right? I mean, she got a doctorate from Oxford, married a smart, successful man and had a couple kids with him, she's currently the US ambassador to the UN and a likely candidate for the next secretary of state. I'm not really seeing where the mixed race background has kept her back.

MaMu1977 said...

@Alfa158

http://www.youtube.com/user/madwhitejamaican
I actually attended school with a white Puerto Rican family (2 boys, 1 girl). Their father was a Spaniard who studied genealogy, their mother was the multiple-great granddaughter of the "black sheep" of their father's family. The only way to tell that their mother was Puerto Rican was to hear her talk; her sandy blond hair and green eyes would have thrown anyone off.
Anyway, Rice's children will probably follow the same timeline as my former classmates:

Age 13- rebel and embrace their ethnicity
Age 16- get in minor trouble, use Daddy's connections to avoid trouble
Age 19 to 21- boy makes a more "visibly" ethnic child, girl has abortion
Age 33- one of them runs into a former classmate, invites him home. Now assimilated, he or she stares daggers at the former classmate when he (screw it, when *I*) make jokes about how they went from reading X-Men comics to telling people to call them "Guapo Gee".

Anonymous said...

And her mother was Radcliffe class Of 1954. AlsO quite remarkable. Susan rice may have married down!

Anonymous said...

"So you'd be fine with her son growing up and porking your daughter?"

"A really interesting question actually. Honestly, I'd have a problem."

The only problem that a race realist would have with her son involves culture, not hypodescent. In other words, has he been properly insulated from Black culture? If he has been raised White, he poses no problems.

Anonymous said...

Steve's recent years' work have been quite insistent on pointing out that people the most to the fringe of some oppositional "identity" will cleave to it most strenuously (Jared Taylor has said the same more succinctly). The trick here is that the 8 parts lily-white/1 part fashionably-dark preppie media workers, even though quite cognizant of distinctions within their own class, are flying blind in respect to the operative sub-categories and distinctions that surface in plebeian ethnic interaction; it's not even clear whether they understand heterosexual norms any more. But to the commenter above mentioning CBC resentment of Susan Rice's complexion, I'd counter with the palpable backlash after their attempting to brand George Zimmerman white. Of course it's no newsflash that the insulated overclass, white, black, pardo or otherwise, are at a unique disadvantage in detecting these subtleties; see the "Patricia Roberts Harris" reference in this Sowell interview, or you could try any WWI-era British fiction I suppose.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"Yea, that love-fest with the Scotch-Irish will also go out the window."

That "Scotch-Irish" line is about as tedious as a knock-knock joke. Just say "Jews."

Noggin said...

The article and its points seem correct- If you limit the discussion specifically to Rice's kids, as was done in the article.

Sure, no one wants to step on the toes of Ms. Rice's kids. But is that really that relevant to discussions of AA? How common are kids of parents of Heads of State?

The original post refers more towards one-drop kids in general. So actually the points fall apart when you consider that, because these are a few million times more abundant in the US so far more relevant for discussions about AA.

Truth said...

" To a race realist, someone who is 12% Negroid and 88% Caucasoid is Caucasoid.Only STORMFRONT idiots think otherwise"

What about someone 51% caucasoid, 49% Negroid?

Anonymous said...

Why not get rid of this "A.A" nonsnese altogether? Hire people on ability, admit students by their grades and intelligence.

Truth said...

"A really interesting question actually. Honestly, I'd have a problem."

So I guess he's black.

Truth said...

"Short of demanding a DNA test or pictures of their grandparents, how would he even know those kids had any black ancestry at all?"

By meeting their mother.

Steve Sailer said...

Yeah, but Noggin, you are thinking in obsolete categories like the greatest good for the greatest number, not 21st century who whom categories.

The future belongs to people who think like Don Corleone, not John Stuart Mill.

Truth said...

"The only problem that a race realist would have with her son involves culture, not hypodescent. In other words, has he been properly insulated from Black culture? If he has been raised White, he poses no problems."

So you'd have a problem with Justin Timberlake porking your daughter?

Anonymous said...

Truth:"So you'd have a problem with Justin Timberlake porking your daughter?"

Do people still say "porking?"

Yes, I would have a real problem with Timberlake dating my daughter.

Anonymous said...

Truth:"So I guess he's black."

Only to race essentialists. Not to race realists.

Anonymous said...

Truth:"What about someone 51% caucasoid, 49% Negroid?"

They are mixed-race....and, no, I will not engage in a fractions contest ("what about someone who is 48%? 47%? 46 and a half percent? etc).

NOTA said...

Steve said:

The future belongs to people who think like Don Corleone, not John Stuart Mill.

The fundamental problem with racial identity politics is that this is true for within-the-country competition, but that the nation whose leaders and decisionmakers think like John Stuart Mill will be a lot more successful than one whose leaders and decisionmakers think like Don Corleone.

Drawbacks said...

The "one drop" rule bites back, suckahs! Armed with this precedent, I'm sure to persuade Rachel Hall to bear me a couple members of the new master race.

Anonymous said...

Truth:"By meeting their mother."

Which would tell you that the kids are well under 25% Negroid, making them excellent dating material, unless you are a STORMFRONT guy.

helene edwards said...

@castillian:

you meant "beneficiary," right? Introduce yourself to Giants announcer Mike Krukow, who also doesn't know the difference.

eh said...

So you'd have a problem with Justin Timberlake porking your daughter?

Absolutely, he's ugly as hell. But let's not single him out. These days 95% of young white males are pathetic in their desperation to be cool. Since hardly anyone knows who George Will is, I have to blame Kelsey Grammar.

Silver said...

So you'd be fine with her son growing up and porking your daughter?

I'm no one-dropper, if that's what you're asking. In all likelihood I'll marry someone from a similar ethno-cultural background to me, which in racial terms ranges from 'off-white' to non-germanic white. If I was in America this would include a substantial proportion of hispanics too (the assimilated, english-speaking type, not some mariachi singer). Just how much admixture is acceptable is always going to be a judgment call though. I would not want to have black-looking kids at all, and even a small proportion of black genes can, by sheer fluke, make your kids come out black-looking, so this alone would put me off a woman I knew was 'recently' part black (like a parent or a grandparent or something). It's unlikely to happen anyway. I am pretty open with my views about blacks and part-black people tend to be rather defensive of blacks. This clash would be almost sure to kill any budding romance.



Anyone too black to be your son-in-law is black enough to benefit from AA.
Anyone too black to be the treasurer of your local KKK chapter is black enough to benefit from AA.
Anyone too black to be called white unequivocally by you is black enough to benefit from AA.


Lol, talk about black-and-white thinking! You libtards say the damndest things.

Svigor said...

"You've got to be kidding me. Those kids can claim blackness? Is there anything more laughable on earth than Americans?"

So you'd be fine with her son growing up and porking your daughter?


T-Dog's got a new definition of black for ya: not white. Chinese, Indians, Amerinds, Mestizos, etc.; all black.

In fact, if you're a bit too particular (like Nordicists), you're can even be black if you're Italian! Hell, according to T-Dog's new definition, a lot of Nordics are black - Jews don't want Norwegians porking their daughters. Wait, wait, we're all black; no matter who you are, there's some guy out there who doesn't want you porking his daughter.

Don't phear the nu black planet!

Truth said...

"Which would tell you that the kids are well under 25% Negroid, making them excellent dating material,"

So 25% is the magic "acceptance line?" Great. That reminds me of a story:

A man is walking down the street with an attache case handcuffed to his arm. He sees the most beautiful woman he has seen in his life. He catches up to the woman and says "Pardon me madam, I must say you are the most beautiful woman I have seen in my life and I would do anything to spend one night with you.

I have in this briefcase 1 million dollars and I will give it to you for 8 hours of your carnal pleasure."

The woman is shocked and takes a moment to responds, she says "re-really...one million dollars to make love to me? If this is a legitimate offer and I can see the money in advance, I accept!"

The man then says to her' "OK ma'am, would you sleep with me for $50?"

The woman is obviously taken aback, with all of the indignation she can muster, she says to the man; "Sir, what exactly do you think I am?!"

He replies, "madam, we've already established what you are*, now we're just negotiating a price."





*Fair extrapolation skills needed here, to understand the point of the story.

Truth said...

"T-Dog's got a new definition of black for ya: not white. Chinese, Indians, Amerinds, Mestizos, etc.; all black."

What, exactly do Chinese, Indians, Amerinds and Mestizos have to do with Susan Rice's kids?

Truth said...

"Do people still say "porking?"

Every now and then I lapse into Midwestern, Top-Gun-Era-Whiteboyonics just so you gentleman will experience translation envy.

Silver said...

"What about someone 51% caucasoid, 49% Negroid?"

They can take the "latino" escape hatch. :)

Realistically, it's tough on those kids. People long for identity. And acceptance based on identity is one of the most satisfying of all forms of acceptance. Race-realists have cautioned against mixing for this reason (among others) for years and years only to have blacks and libtards throw fits. As usual, it's innocent people who have to pay the price for libtards' high-mindedness.

Anyway, back to the original question, those cases of true ambiguity are rare. The simple rule of thumb that if you look white you're white and if you look black you're black covers 95% of cases amply. If it ever comes to pass that more stringent definitions become politically necessary (if only!) producing them would not be an insurmountable obstacle. From what I've been able to observe on various race boards and blogs on the net, however, there is definitely a mulatto movement arising which is attempting to steer ambiguous blacks into forsaking their black identities in favor of a mulatto identity. Contrary to the remark about the one-drop rule biting back, it's actually blacks' enthusiasm for race-mixing that is going to bite blacks back, as the more mulattoes are created the less they are going to need or want the black label.

Silver said...

That "Scotch-Irish" line is about as tedious as a knock-knock joke. Just say "Jews."

Yes, you'd love him to rant about "the Jews!" wouldn't you. Scots-Irish is pure artistry. McFoxman, McWise et al is also a nice touch.

world stage said...

Kind of interesting, not really remarked upon that Obama has only the thinnest post-adolescent connection to the generic military culture or war veterans up to the last 3 years (not counting screwy anti-examples like Rahm). His D-Day grandfather was maybe an oddball but being as Hawaii culture of the time was still influenced by the Navy presence, I wonder why Obama seemingly has no opinion on any of it. It may dovetail with Steve's "Muslimist" theory as a strategically helpful lack of association--I'd think to many of his New Left/Third Worlder backers it's a tacit bonus. Except for USAF septuagenarian Clapper and army brat Rob Nabors, who in his political circle is even indirectly tethered to that world? Yes, the previous two administrations weren't exactly full of old war buddies either, but it surprised me he didn't take the chance to replace Robert Gates after inauguration, as if the subject doesn't interest him aside from picking out the drone baseball cards in the White House by himself at 11:00pm.

D. Parker said...

Silver said...
Scots-Irish is pure artistry.
11/21/12 11:39 PM


"Wit has truth in it; wise-cracking is simply calisthenics with words."

Anonymous said...

I always thought "porking" meant overeating.

heyjames4 said...

I've had this thought for awhile, and I have no other idea where to share it.

Has anyone ever considered attacking the "diversity" industry (academic/government racial preferences, hate crimes, jesse jackson shakedowns) under the emoluments clause?

Silver said...

"Wit has truth in it; wise-cracking is simply calisthenics with words."

There's ample truth in it, and even more political effectiveness. (Come on, who would you nominate as the most influential group in entertainment, media and American politics? If you ask me, the Scots-Irish are the obvious candidate.) That's the real reason it bugs some people, not that it's a played out wise-crack.



Naked Pajamas said...

" heyjames4 said...

I've had this thought for awhile, and I have no other idea where to share it.

Has anyone ever considered attacking the "diversity" industry (academic/government racial preferences, hate crimes, jesse jackson shakedowns) under the emoluments clause?"


-Isn't this to prevent members of govt from holding multiple positions? How does this apply? Jesse Jackson et al. are not gov't officials.

Fred of the Nine Kites said...

""He replies, "madam, we've already established what you are*, now we're just negotiating a price.""


This from the guy who supports Obama?