Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
26 comments:
The best hope for reforming the counter-productive follies of affirmative action appears to lie with (some) courts. Politicians can't talk about these issues without being smeared as racists. But judges have to decide issues that are properly presented to them. And when issues surrounding racial preferences are presented, some judges seem inclined to question their constitutionality.
-- JP98
Allow me to reiterate that the one comparative political advantage that Obama personally would possess in improving the economy is his ability as a black President to set in motion -- so he should choose -- the reform of the huge number of distortions in economic life due to the Civil Rights Era of the last half century.
"so he should choose" = "so should he choose"?
I tempted to think that you know something about Obama that the rest of us have missed. You after all wrote a book and have looked into his life story more closely than most of us have.
But just what incident in his life has led you believe that he will reverse his field and start running in a different direction?
No one was very surprised when Clinton began to triangulate. He was known to have suffered deeply about his loss in popularity. For him any particular political stance was just a means of gaining or losing public approval. If Morris' polling had shown him that the public wanted Hillary gone, Bill would have cheerfully shot her in the Rose Garden. He was not a man to let convictions or principals stand in his way.
Obama has shown almost no evidence of considering triangulation. As far as I can tell from the media, he doesn't think he's done anything wrong. He still talks about his administration's "failure to communicate" or the failure of the public to understand his subtle nostrums.
I think his politics are even more race oriented than you do. It seems to me that the code word "redistribution" means taking away from whitey. His health care law will benefit blacks and browns disproportionately while the MediCare cuts used to finance it come mainly from the white elderly. I think he likes that and doesn't much care about all the intricacies that he doesn't understand very well.
Obama is quite glib but he has revealed often enough that his policy notions are pretty primitive. Clinton probably could explain to you how the re-discount rate worked. Obama can't. I'm pretty sure he doesn't understand the ideas of Friedman or Laffer either. But being a black he doesn't have to fear embarrassing questions from the press.
Right now there are probably reporters who have prepared special questions for Sarah Palin that they hope will reveal her to be a dummy. Who is the Prime Minister of Uzbekistan? But to plumb the shallows of Obama's understanding gains you no Pulitzers. A man who needs a teleprompter to talk to children should be an easy target.
Most of us have areas where we are not fully informed. What I do when I need to form an opinion and I don't fully understand all the issues is to look for clues about related matters.
For example, when I read that the author of some theory also believes that the moon landings were staged or that Darwin was wrong or that all our troubles are caused by nine Jews in a bank vault in Geneva - I make up my mind right away.
Similarly I think Obama who for all his academic achievements seems to know very little about history, economics, math and science. What he does know - in his bones - is that black people have been done dirt by white people. To Obama his one certainty - the Polaris on his map of the heavens - is white racism.
Albertosaurus
Dear Albertosaurus:
If I knew anything more about Obama, I'd let you all know!
My recent riffs on this theme are largely intended simply to put an elegant idea out there. I'm interested in seeing whether anybody else even notices its economic and political feasibility.
It's wildly unrealistic to expect anything worthwhile to come from Obama. He's on track towards becoming the most worthless president we've ever had.
It would be feasible for some other president, but not Obama. He has already dismissed out of hand any talk of reassessing affirmative action. He has openly talked about rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies, and has talked to NAM voters in those explicit terms. He's not going to do an about face on this. Race hustling is who he is; Obama is simply a "nice, respectable" version of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton who seems non-racial and who was able to fool enough naive white voters to get elected.
From the article:
New York City has long been afflicted with extortion outfits that show up at construction sites demanding payoff money to not sue for an affirmative-action violation.
That's hilarious, and sad.
nine Jews in a bank vault in Geneva
Don't look now, but the original Olof Aschberg article just appeared as #5 on a Google search for it.
The times they are a-changin'.
Albertosaurus is right. The sense of racial grievance among black Americans runs wide and deep, and no more so than in a black Red Diaper baby.
Obama will not change, and I think it would not even make political sense for him to do so. Even if a bare majority of Congress seeks to dismantle Obamacare (I'm not sure the RINOS have the belly for it), Obama can veto the bill.
As Peter Brimelow pointed out, the civil rights regulations and bueracracy exact a pretty high cost on our private economy. Trimming them down would be like a huge tax cut, but wouldn't inflate our national deficit.
Palin is a bufoon. Like Bush. No question about that. I don't know why conservatives want her as the nominee.
Obama doesn't know enough economic theory to understand why cutting regulations would help private industry. Or understand why cutting immigration would help lower the unemployment rate.
Anyway, Obama enjoys adulation from blacks. As you indicated, much of his life's meaning revolves around his desire to be authentically black. No way is he going to risk annoying them and incurring their wrath,
If the Obama Files website is correct in describing BHO, Steve's idea is way off base.
Obama has had the finest possible education. Nobody knows how it was financed or what his grades were. His academic records are all sealed and he has an army of lawyers making sure they remain sealed. At college, Obama's philosophy was "to avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." Everything about Obama's education is hidden from the American People.
My employer is minority-owned (Asian) and we bid (usually as a prime contractor) on govt jobs exclusively. In 20 years I think we got one contract due to being an MBE. The agencies either want our very specialized IT product line or they don't.
Set asides amount to just another layer of paperwork. The govt agencies always assume the prime is white and needs to bring in a minority sub. Usually there is an affidavit of good faith that says the bidder really, really tried to find a minority sub but couldn't. Featherbedding is assumed.
Worst states - Cali, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois. Cal cities are awful too...I'm sure their legislatures felt quite righteous when passing their set aside laws. The industry PC-speak for all this is "politics."
"Anonymous said...
The best hope for reforming the counter-productive follies of affirmative action appears to lie with (some) courts. Politicians can't talk about these issues without being smeared as racists."
What we really need are politicians who will run despite being called racists. I wouldn't expect the first such ones to actually win election. But just bringing up an issue establishes a precedent. When the first candidate gets smeared and loses the election, the second one who comes along, raising the same issues, could well get in. I call it the Gary Hart effect. Gary Hart's candidacy was sunk because he was proven to be an habitual adulterer. A mere four years later, Clinton won, despite the same baggage.
We just need someone to break that Glass Window - a sacrificial candidate.
The Washington Post has done a few stories over the past few months about "Alaska Native Corporations" or ANCs that get ridiculous government contracts. Of course, they're merely a fig leaf for the usual Beltway bandits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112503333.html
Alaska Native Status Gave Tiny, Inexperienced Firm a $250 million Army Contract
Steve Sailer said..."My recent riffs on this theme[what Obama, as a black POTUS could do to reverse AA] are largely intended simply to put an elegant idea out there. I'm interested in seeing whether anybody else even notices its economic and political feasibility."
I must be missing a huge chunk of something because as far as I can tell, it would be political suicide for any politician to do that. Furthermore, Obama is about little else besides the redistribution of wealth from whites to blacks because that's the best and biggest way of feeding his ego.
I can't help but suspect this is yet another example of your laid-back SoCal humor. If not, I'm at a complete loss as to how to interpret your suggestion that a race man should/could/would act post-racially.
Paper Pusher said ... My employer is minority-owned (Asian) and we bid (usually as a prime contractor) on govt jobs exclusively.
But Asians don't qualify for set-asides. Black, Hispanic, female, American Indian, even (as reported by Steve) orthodox Jewish -- but not Asian. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Well, after these recents posts in which Steve suggests that Obama invest his political capital in extirpating AA and every other official policy which American blacks like and support, why doesn't he slack off a little and propose some easier solutions to various ongoing world controversies?
For example, maybe the Pope could declare that homosexuality was mandatory under Catholicism, and that all non-gays would be expelled from the priesthood. Or maybe Bin Laden could announce he'd converted to Christianity, and proclaim the Tenth Crusade to regain Asia Minor for the Byzantine Church...
"the one comparative political advantage that Obama personally would possess in improving the economy is his ability as a black President to set in motion -- so should he choose -- the reform of the huge number of distortions in economic life due to the Civil Rights Era of the last half century."
Doing so would entirely negate the purpose of his being president. Many politicians (liberals especially) see political power as the right to redistribute the wealth of America to your friends and allies; also, especially for minority politicians, their racial or ethnic group.
Barack Obama is that kind of politician, but on steroids. For him, it's all about redistributing the wealth. He told us so. He told us he's punishing his enemies. Sometimes I think America is his enemy and his goal is to make us go broke.
Not only is he the most unprepared president ever, but he's also the most brazen (or careless) in revealing his ulterior motives.
For Obama, political power without using it to redistribute the wealth of America would be absolutely pointless. He may make a few feints in that direction (the federal pay freeze) but only so as to continue funneling tens of billions more to his people.
He'd rather lose in 2012 and get on with the business of giving $10 million speeches than stop the redistribution.
Wanting to make America better and stronger is the goal of a selfless individual. Selfless people do not make it far in politics.
Perhaps our society's most onerous political set aside is college admission to unqualified Blacks and Hispanics. The Ivy Leagues indifference to white and Asian result-oriented young applicants is frustrating.
For example, the College Board's 2010 SAT percentile ranks for college-bound Black seniors show a mean Critical Reading and Mathematics score of 429 and 428 and a standard deviation of 98 and 97 respectively. The Critical Reading and Mathematics scores of Blacks three standard deviations above the Black mean were 723 and 719. This shows that only a tiny fraction of Blacks (less than 200 and possibly less 100 of the 196,961 U.S. Blacks who took the SAT scored 800 in Critical Reading and Mathematics.
In fact, the 2010 freshman class of Columbia University is over 15 percent Black, a percentage higher than in the US population. Is it little wonder the Chinese rank Berkeley and UCLA much higher academically for the rigor of their education while downgrading our 'exclusive' race-based private colleges and universities that slouch toward mediocrity?
"But Asians don't qualify for set-asides."
Depends on what jurisdiction and agency. There are hundreds or even thousands of different governments out there. SE Asian-Pacific Islander still qualifies in many places, even federal still (I think). And it is ridiculous of course.
But the trend now is toward DBE disadvantaged businesses, truly impoverished outfits with low gross sales. Federal is definitely de-emphasizing straight MBE set asides, but they're ahead of the curve usually.
Normally, legislatures and city councils pass these laws and never look back. New forms are cranked out to put with every solicitation. So there is all sorts of stupid shit piling up - local preference, small business preference, woman-owned, etc. Stuff that makes the voters feel good, but just more affidavits for me to get notarized.
Captain Jack Aubrey: Sometimes I think America is his enemy and his goal is to make us go broke.
You need to think this more often - often enough that you are finally able to convince yourself of the truth of it.
America [or at least an ideal of America] is his enemy, and his goal is to destroy it.
Set asides are horrible policy, but great politics. I don't expect them to ever go away--the beneficiaries have a huge incentive to fight to keep them, and nobody else has all that much incentive to fight to get rid of then.
"Furthermore, Obama is about little else besides the redistribution of wealth from whites to blacks..."
Yes, and there's just SOOOOO much proof of that after TWO YEARS (half) of his administration.
"You need to think this more often - often enough that you are finally able to convince yourself of the truth of it. America [or at least an ideal of America] is his enemy, and his goal is to destroy it."
True or not - no matter. Whether I absolutely believe it, or only suspect it - no matter. The point is, he is driving America to insolvency. Whether that's the explicit purpose of his policies or merely a side effect is irrelevant.
Plus, a great many Americans are ready to accept that Obama is destroying the country. Most aren't ready to believe that it's actually his goal.
Cap'n Jack: The point is, he is driving America to insolvency. Whether that's the explicit purpose of his policies or merely a side effect is irrelevant.
I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree.
We've spent the last 50 years making excuses for The Left [that they're well-meaning but just a little hare-brained] in an attempt to stick our collective heads in the sand so as to avoid facing the horrible truth of the matter: That the Left are Nihilists, and that their goal is to destroy us [& themselves].
We simply don't have any time remaining to continue kidding ourselves about this - the clock has run out, the party is over, and we have got to get serious about the disaster we face.
Jack:
The ruling class in the us has been doing it's vest to wreck the country for some little time now. I'm missing what
Obama's doing that's more obviously nuts than what Bush did before him.
If it weren't so radical, I'd almost suggest we elect a new ruling class more to our liking. But that's crazy talk. Why, soon, incumbents wouldn't win 90 percent of their elections, and there wouldn't be lots of prominent politicians whose only qualification for office was their last name.
Post a Comment