August 30, 2009

Obama eulogizes Sen. Kennedy as an economy-stimulating "shovel-ready project"

Even in death, this great American is helping the economy...

My published articles are archived at -- Steve Sailer


TexasYellowDog said...

Outrageously disrespectful. Comments like this stain your rational work and leave suspicions about your actual motivations.

l said...

Outrageously disrespectful. This is just what I needed after watching a half hour of maudlin memorial service highlights yesterday. Thanks, Steve.

Harry Baldwin said...

Why would a guy who--we now know-- used to get a good laugh out of Chappaquiddick jokes object to Steve's jest?

That reminds me--I wonder what the Senator's favorite Dead Kennedys' song was? My best guess is "Too Drunk to F---" (1981). Their best-selling single, it reached no. 31 on the U.K. charts.

Anonymous said...

What I find disrespectful is the orgy of media outlets glorifying this traitor, and the Democrats' attempt to use his death to push through more transformative statist legislation. It's disrespectful to America.

Anonymous said...

"The guy who shot Robert Kennedy, Sirhan Sirhan, goes up for parole every year. Once he even told the parole board that if Kennedy was alive today, he would speak in his favor and say let him go. What a tough break, you know? The one guy who would have supported him, and he shot him."

Paula Poundstone

Do you know how hard it is to find a Sirhan Sirhan joke? And it's not even that funny.

Svigor said...

Damn, I just remembered the stuff I heard on Rush, did anyone else hear that? When he dug up the Wellstone memorial tapes? Holy crap liberals have no warning system for when they sound like the Nuremberg rallies. Screaming and chanting and frothing at the mouth and other general Nazi-Cult-like, frenzied behavior. The media never calls them on their nuttiness (not until they need Deaning) so they lose all sense of propriety.

Svigor said...

"Do it for the childre-" (stops and turns as an aide brings a note toward the podium, quickly scans the note, then composes himself)>

"Do it for the Dead Kennedys!"

(Crowd roars)

l said...

Another disrepectful eulogy:

dearieme said...

Was Kennedy a greater disgrace to the USA or to the Roman Catholic Church?

Anonymous said...

During his memorial service everyone was talking about his lifelong love of sailing. Numerous stories about regattas, spinnakers, jibs, etc. Also, of "French wine, cheese and women". It seems that in his private life on Cape Cod he lived every WASP patrician stereotype there is except, of course, for sobriety and austere self-control. He sent his kids to private schools, while he fought for busing of ghetto kids into working class public schools. He fought for racial integration while living on Cape Cod. It all boggles the mind.

Most of those white and Asian nerds who are accused of answering SAT Verbal questions about regattas correctly had never even seen a regatta. I know I haven't. This guy had participated in a thousand of them and he would have failed most of those tests.

By the way, the family dynamics of IQ are fascinating here. Joe Sr. must have been awfully smart. He succeeded in two industries (Wall St. and Hollywood) in which his tribe was never prominent. This means that he had to swim against pretty powerful currents of other people's ethnic networks. And he outswam many of them anyway. Very impressive. Of his sons Bobby was kind of bright, Jack less so, Teddy an embarrassment. Regression to the mean. Both of Teddy's sons spoke at his service. Ted Jr. seemed average, but Rep. Patrick Kennedy was a complete mess. And that's not just grief - I've seen him orate on the floor of the House on C-SPAN. He really doesn't belong in that body. That twig of their family tree seems to have gone under water, below the mean, and out of their Cape Cod world.

Baloo said...

Yes, our biggest problem on the right is lack of sufficient respect for liberals.

Chaim said...

"Screaming and chanting and frothing at the mouth and other general Nazi-Cult-like, frenzied behavior."

Now you have a problem with the Nazis, Svigor? This is new.

Welmer said...

That's the funniest headline I've seen in a while.

If Ted Kennedy joked about Chappaquiddick, he is totally fair game now.

Anonymous said...


Chicago Public Schools

1 in 5 Chicago Public High School teachers say they felt pressure to change grades last school year

A SUN-TIMES WATCHDOG REPORT | A third of Chicago public high school teachers say they were pressured to change grades last school year

Ronduck said...

Dearieme, Ted was a greater disgrace to America. The Roman Church on the other hand is involved in so many scandals that a church should not be involved in that Ted only stands out as a minor embarrassment compared to the other problems.

Anonymous said...

Actually it was a great eulogy, don't know who wrote it but it wasn't TheOne because it didn't speak about him once. Of course the eulogy wasn't about Ted Kennedy The Man but for a fictional Kennedy Demi-God. The most gratifying bit was seeing the church scene with Barack-The-One, Biden, The Clintons, Carter, Bush The Younger, various members of Congress, and getting a warm fuzzy fleeting feeling of --wow, wouldn't it be karmic if "H1N1" (or something) could quite suddenly visit the gathering to maximum effect (complete with sickle) and so allow the USA to "start anew"...

Mr. Anon said...

"TexasYellowDog said...

Outrageously disrespectful. Comments like this stain your rational work and leave suspicions about your actual motivations."

Let those who respect Ted Kennedy pay him their respects.

To the rest of us, he was nothing other than a selfish, immoral, loathesome, traitorous drunken fool. He gets no respect from me.

I say bring on the tasteless jokes.

Anonymous said...

Hilarious Kennedy VW ad.

Anonymous said...

Here is the original VW ad which is being parodied.

Svigor said...

Outrageously disrespectful. Comments like this stain your rational work and leave suspicions about your actual motivations.

So what's a yellow dog? I figured being from Texas you were joking but G**gle tells me otherwise?

"Outrageous" and "disrespectful" don't belong together in this context, where they're practically antonyms. "Outrageously respectful," or "properly disrespectful" would be more appropriate.

Anonymous said...

Missed the eulogy. Don't get this.

Garland said...

What's the difference between Ronald Reagan and Ted Kenendy?

Garland said...

When Reagan was a young man, he *saved* girls from drowning.

Malak said...

"With the size of that girth, the multiplier effect should be awesome."
-Mathew Yglesias

tommy said...

Outrageously disrespectful.

That is how I would characterize the life and legislative work of one Edward M. Kennedy.

"Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage."

--Ted Kennedy on the 1965 immigration act.

tommy said...

"Do it for the Dead Kennedys!"

Ha! I guess the only good Kennedy is a Dead Kennedy.

David Davenport said...

Raw material for an iSteve column:

From The Sunday Times

August 30, 2009

White Europeans evolved only ‘5,500 years ago’

Jonathan Leake

White Europeans could have evolved as recently as 5,500 years ago, according to research which suggests that the early humans who populated Britain and Scandinavia had dark skins for millenniums.

It was only when early humans gave up hunter-gathering and switched to farming about 5,500 years ago that white skin began to be favoured, say the researchers.

This is because farmed food was deficient in vitamin D, a vital nutrient. Humans can make this in their skin when exposed to sunlight, but dark skin is much less efficient at it.

In places such as northern Europe, where sunlight levels are low, the ability to make vitamin D more efficiently could have been crucial to survival.
Related Links

* The truth dogs reveal about evolution

* Dawkins aims to convert Islam to evolution

Johan Moan, of the Institute of Physics at the University of Oslo, said in a research paper: “In England, from 5,500-5,200 years ago the food changed rapidly away from fish as an important food source. This led to a rapid development of ... light skin.”


Anonymous said...

"White Europeans evolved only ‘5,500 years ago’"

The article mentions no evidence. It sounds like pure speculation. It says that Europeans had dark skin until they switched from hunting to agriculture. The new diet is supposed to have caused the change. Well, the Eskimos never switched from hunting to agriculture and they're not all that dark. They're certainly closer to Europeans than to Africans in skin tone.

For what it's worth, there is an ancient Egyptian fresco of a blonde woman from about 2,500 BC. When we look much before that, representations of humans tend to be too crude and stylized for us to know such details as hair color.

Anonymous said...

For what it's worth, there is an ancient Egyptian fresco of a blonde woman from about 2,500 BC.

Probably a sex slave from Europe.

Svigor said...

Missed the eulogy. Don't get this.

I missed the eulogy too, but I think I got it anyway.

Svigor said...

He succeeded in two industries (Wall St. and Hollywood)

Bootlegging doesn't count? Never mind, you said industries where his tribe didn't dominate...

David said...

Does this mean Life Magazine is going to stop with Camelot covers?

Nah. There's still Patrick.

Baloo said...

Thanks, Garland! Your riddle is now a cartoon. You can see it on merchandise HERE

albertosaurus said...

Skin color is not much of a mystery. There is a formula (I leave it to you to google) that relates latitude with pigmentation. Basically you are lighter if you live nearer the poles.

The exceptions are interesting. If northerners conquer peoples in the south, the resultant population will be lighter than expected by the formula - at least for a while. Over time the insolation - pigmentation effect will darken the people up again.

Northern Europeans were invaders from the south so they would have been a bit darker. They were from the south because up until about 12,000 years ago all Ireland, all Scandanavia, and almost all of England were under ice sheets. The end of the last ice episode saw the oceans rise 400 feet very suddenly.

There was a paleolithic land rush. Southern Europeans went north. As soon as they reached those higher latitudes they started getting lighter skins.

This much is certain. Only the rates of change are debateable. I always presumed that those southern European invaders were about as dark as moderns from Naples or Athens. If Johnathan Leake has any reason to believe that they were darker than that he hasn't revealed it.

The exact shade of skin color in this context doesn't mean much. It's hardly important. This article seems to have been published so as to promote the wicked racial equality agenda.

David Davenport said...

This article seems to have been published so as to promote the wicked racial equality agenda.

I assume you mean that ironically.

The Lefty party line is that all human evolution stopped about 100,000 years ago, and that all changes between human groups since then are cultural.


I saw pix in an issue of National Geographic magazine some time ago about a museum in Germany.

This museum has or had dioramas in which the Neanderthals -- that is, the orginal Neandertal villagers, were fair-haired and blue-eyed -- and the anatomically modern humans invading from Africa were swarthy.

This is quite logical, although Neanderthal DNA evidence currently available doesn't indicate cross breeding of the two groups.

Old Man Winter said...

They were from the south because up until about 12,000 years ago all Ireland, all Scandanavia, and almost all of England were under ice sheets. The end of the last ice episode saw the oceans rise 400 feet very suddenly.

August Ends With Near-Record Cold
Temperatures Close To Record Overnight Low Of 47 Degrees, Set In 1872
August 31, 2009

...The record low for Aug. 31 is 47 degrees, set in 1872. Overnight Sunday into Monday, the nippy readings were close, and in some areas even lower.

CBS 2's Ed Curran reported that the overnight low at O'Hare International Airport was 49 degrees.

At 5 a.m., it was 49 at Midway International Airport, 48 in Waukegan, and a mere 41 degrees in Aurora...

Sunspots May Be Different During This Solar Minimum
August 23, 2009

The two respected solar astronomers have been measuring solar magnetism since 1992. Their technique is based on Zeeman splitting of infrared spectral lines in radiation emitted by iron atoms in the vicinity of sunspots. Extrapolating their data (PDF) into the future suggests that sunspots could completely disappear within decades."

Anonymous said...

Liberal orthodoxy has that we are all Africans - we all came from Africa. Read any internet thread on race or immigration and sooner or later a smug liberal will point this out.

However in cartoons, kids TV, comics et al pre-historic humans are always portrayed as white/Neanderthal.

What can it all mean?

David said...

> "White Europeans evolved only '5,500 years ago'"

The article mentions no evidence. It sounds like pure speculation. <

It ignores evidence. Look up Solutreans. White people may have populated the American continent prior to red people.

Ronduck said...

David, does that mean we may have lost this continent to red-people/Mestizos before?

LBK said...

The article goes on to say:

"Such findings need to be treated with caution. The history of the colonisation of Europe is highly complex because its climate has been dominated by a series of ice ages, punctuated by warm periods.
This means early humans ventured to Europe not just once but many times over the past 700,000 years, returning each time the ice melted only to be driven back again when it returned.
Furthermore, the ice ages coincided with, and may even have driven, the evolution of modern humans, with several species such as Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons appearing at various times."

So while they don't provide proof for their hypothesis, they don't claim it as established fact either. It's just a theory.

The central idea here is the rapid evolution of skin color in response to environment. This could mean that the population of Detroit will be white again in a few centuries.

LBK said...

The theory of Europeans being in America in the paleolithic is marginal. The evidence leans against it.

Now, there is some good evidence of people being in America before the Amerindians. Kennewick Man, for example. But there is nothing that indicates Kennewick Man came from Europe.

The more likely theory is that KM came over the Bering land bridge before the Amerindians did. Therefore KM would be Asian, but a different kind of Asian than the Amerindians. Some scientists think KM is related to the Ainu people of northeast Asia.

From Wikipedia:

"Anthropologist Joseph Powell of the University of New Mexico was finally allowed to examine the remains and his conclusions were contradictory. He said that Kennewick Man was not European but rather resembled South Asians and the Ainu people of northeast Asia.[5] The results of a graphic comparison, including size, of Kennewick Man to 18 modern populations conducted by Chatters et al. showed he was most closely related to the Ainu. However, when size was excluded as a factor, no association to any population was established.[5]"

5. Custred, Glynn (2000). "The Forbidden Discovery of Kennewick Man". Academic Questions 13 (3): 12–30