My new VDARE column considers the Obama Administration's new guidelines on racial preferences in education, which the NYT's article considers to be a radical change from the anti-affirmative action Bush policy. The Times writes that in pursuit of diversity:
“Even in addressing the same principles, the framework is practically reversed.
“Bush guidelines: ‘Before using race, there must be a serious good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.’
“Obama guidelines: ‘Institutions are not required to implement race-neutral approaches if, in their judgment, the approaches would be unworkable.’”
Uh, I’m no logician, but I think those two statements mean basically the same thing in practice: Public educational institutions can use blatant racial quotas (excuse me, blatant racial goals) if more devious ways of hurting whites aren’t workable (or are unworkable).
Read the whole thing there.
In a perverted way, I see the Obama approach as being far more logical. Race-neutral measures will NEVER bring about the desired-for results, so affirmative action is and will remain a must.
ReplyDelete“Bush guidelines: ‘Before using race, there must be a serious good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.’
ReplyDelete“Obama guidelines: ‘Institutions are not required to implement race-neutral approaches if, in their judgment, the approaches would be unworkable.’”
Logically (ie, formally), it's quite different. Per Bush, you're supposed to make a 'good faith' effort to look at a workable race-neutral alternative FIRST. Per Obama, you're simply allowed to declare a race-neutral approach 'unworkable'.
In PRACTICE, I'm sure plenty of affirmative action was and is (for Obama) practiced by both administrations, but I'm also sure, given the ideological tenor of both administrations, the AMOUNT was different in each. As I recall, there was an attempt to repeal AA during the Bush administration when the Republicans had both houses, and it didn't work. You're still at the consciousness-raising state with whites.
I actually think the best strategy is using the Internet (as you are doing) to reach whites. Cross-promoting with the Game crowd probably isn't a bad idea; a lot of ideologically neutral guys just want to get laid and get exposed to paleocon ideas by reading Roissy.
Indeed, I'll be voting for Romney or Gingrich or whoever in the same spirit that I'd have defended Nicholas II against Lenin. This post is linked and commented on HERE by EX-ARMY.
ReplyDelete"Breaking News: The affirmative action President backs affirmative action"
ReplyDeleteSo has every president since 1960 and arguably with more fervor than this one.
Next.
A little bit off topic, but:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2453#comic
While you clowns were spending all your mental energy on N-s and Honkies, your Republican buddies passed this clusterfuck through the Senate. Now we get to see of Barry will veto...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nerve.com/news/politics/senate-votes-to-detain-american-citizens
"Race-neutral measures will NEVER bring about the desired-for results, so affirmative action is and will remain a must."
ReplyDeleteExactly, academic credentials are used to signal a candidates aptitude to used. It'd be much more efficient to create a system to signal cognitive abilities by standardized testing (the military's ASVAB is first-rate).
As a political necessity to become widely adopted (the military is over in its own galazy), the test scores would have to be race-normed for American Indians and descendants of slaves (mentioned in the Constitution so an exception for them could be permissibly carved out). So a candidate with an ASVAB subtest score of 95 percentile would mean either top 5% by general pool or top 5% of race-normed pool, depending.
An employer could figured out easily enough during a face to face interview if there was a race-norming "golf handicap" added and proceed accordingly (and for most jobs the difference wouldn't really matter).
Sad news for proponents of Affirmative Action everywhere, Cain dropped out.
ReplyDeleteAs James Edwards put it:
"I have to give Cain some credit for hanging in there like a rusty fish hook. It’s taken 57 allegations of sexual harassment, a total lack of qualifications, and very little knowledge about actual policy issues to even make him consider that he isn’t presidential material.
All the while, millions of white Republicans were still prepared to vote for him in order to prove to the people who hate them (and will always hate them) that they aren’t 'racists'..."
Yea, the affirmative action cases of the late 1990s and early 2000s were when I realized fully that the Constitution was no longer the law of the land and more of a loose guide to be used when convenient.
ReplyDeleteI mean, the court didn't even try to hide that all of this was unconstitutional. And the all-important compelling government interest amounted to - and I'm being serious here - it will help the WHITE kids in the school. Diversity will help the white kids think better and will help them better run the country later on.
You can't make this stuff up. Steve often jokes that NAMs are used as props for the SWPL crowd. Well, in the 2003 decision, NAMs were explicitly named as education props.
By the way, the overlord elitism shown by the justices in their opinions and during the oral arguments - I was in the room - was very much on display. By far, they seemed most interested in what all of this meant for only the extreme top schools - Ivies, Stanford, etc. - and not so much with higher ed in general. (Natually, they showed almost no interest in what this meant for the blue-collar white trying to get into Wisconsin.)
This was all about how AA would impact Master of the Universe types. How would Seth Weinstein, Chelsea Clinton and their crowd be impacted by a dramatic decrease in NAMs at Yale and other schools that churn out tomorrow's presidents, senators, cabinet heads, Ivy profs, NYT columnists and, of course, Supreme Court justices. We know that they don't see NAMs in their neighborhoods, prep schools or after college, so this is their only shot to get some exposure to those wonderful people of color that we love so much yet inexplicably seem to avoid with such skill.
We justices simply must give them this opportunity. F-ing over a few white and Asian kids seem to be a small price to pay.
Oh, and yea, it helps marginal NAMs, which makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. But my feelings aren't nearly as imporntant as helping those future very important people.
The AA decisions were blatant elitism on display.
They also are a shining example that our government truly - and I remember being pretty disturbed by this harsh reality - doesn't like the vast majority of the people in this country. Not doesn't care about most of us, but doesn't like us.
We are nothing to them. We as much props to these people as the NAMs.
I'm curious as to how long a country can survive when its leaders don't like its own people. Apparently, pretty damn long. It's been around 40 years already, and I don't see much changing other than the gov't attempting to import a new people. But our betters don't seem to like them either.
Re: “ ‘The administration is making strong policy statements on low-income children and students of color, outlining remedies,’ said Bob Wise, a former Democratic governor of West Virginia who heads an education nonprofit organization aimed at improving high school graduation rates. ‘They seem to be putting some markers down as the election begins,’ he said, adding that the new set of guidelines ‘tries to keep within the letter of the Supreme Court opinions, while probably pushing the spirit.’ ”
ReplyDeleteFor Bob Wise to comment in favor of this action shows how little he cares for the people he represents.
West Virginia is a poor state. I know I grew there.
West Virginia is WHITE. It's Edenic it's so freaking white.
Bob Wise represents poor WHITE voters, parents of poor White children.
Children who will never be offered a chance at a "top" education because because the educational institions will be too busy accepting and dealing with the "legacy" of blacks to be able to offer anything to a poor white student.
386,449 children live in West Virginia:
844 are American Indian/Alaska Native
2,829 are Asian/Pacific Islander
7,724 are Hispanic
8,813 are two or more races
19,283 are Black
347,750 are White, non-Hispanic
Child Poverty in West Virginia
Number of poor children (and percent poor) 88,610 (23.6%)
http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-repository/cits/2011/children-in-the-states-2011-west-virginia.pdf
Are Republicans ever going to start talking about AA again is this a permanently taboo topic?
ReplyDelete"While you clowns were spending all your mental energy on N-s and Honkies, your Republican buddies passed this clusterfuck through the Senate."
ReplyDeletebarack obama says it is ok to murder US citizens with no trial. seems like the senate is a bit less extreme than him, in merely allowing US citizens to be detained.
Yea, the affirmative action cases of the late 1990s and early 2000s were when I realized fully that the Constitution was no longer the law of the land and more of a loose guide to be used when convenient.
ReplyDeleteIt's been that way for 150 years. West Virginia is all te proof you need.
"West Virginia is WHITE. It's Edenic it's so freaking white."
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting since Henry Louis Gates' Colored People is set in West Virginia. His version is also Edenic..maybe being such a small minority was good for them, too.
"I am convinced that Barry Obama did not get more than a 1000 on the renormed SAT, so I'd estimate his IQ to be about 106. AA has to be destroyed; blacks need to accept the tyranny of the meritocracy."
ReplyDeleteFinally a realistic evaluation of Barry's IQ. I read such poppycock on the subject only a couple years ago on this blog, claiming all manner of one or two standard-deviations-to-the-right of Bell Curve for him. I just could never figure out where this evaluation came from. He'd done nothing, wrote nothing, said nothing not on a teleprompter, that indicated any above average intelligence. But then I never believed he wrote that autobiography. Now everyone knows it was ghost-written and his last shred of intellectual credential is gone.
The Senate is majority Dem, Troofy.
ReplyDeleteHere's a comment about the political reality behind AA.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1960's, Northeastern urban Democrats wanted to demonstrate their total control of their party, as well as gain support from blacks, and they crammed civil rights legislation, and subsequent enforcement, down the throats of Southern Democrats.
This was a net loss for the Democrats. It showed up in the Humphrey defeat in 1968 and the McGovern debacle in 1972.
Reeling from these losses, Democrats doubled down in their efforts to get votes from minority groups and women, whom they treated as a new minority group. AA is very much a part of that effort, as is open borders, as is PC policing of speech. Democrats have pursued this political strategy with manic fervor, and we now live in the world that they have made.
The weakness of this strategy is that the minority groups don't like each other, and the coalition is only held together with billions of Federal dollars. In the coming financial crisis, there won't be enough bribe money available to stop these groups from fighting each other. White women are already jumping off the Democrat ship, where they have constantly been sent to the back of the line.
Steve, if diversity is weakness and if immigration, Section 8, and demographic change make life so much worse, then why is white-dominated West Virginia such a craphole?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea why nobody will post the full roll call on the Feinstein Amendment to the NDAA (the "detain Americans" matter that is in question).
ReplyDeleteHere it is.
I'll count Ds and Rs when I get a sec.
I'm not 100% convinced Obama is brilliant, but given that he is the first black president ever, shouldn't that be the default hypothesis? He has accomplished something considered unimaginable. I think he deserves more credit than estimated IQ of 106. He should be considered brilliant until proven mediocre, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously missed his February 9, 2009 press conference. You can find it on youtube. The brilliant Dick Morris said:
"I do think that it was a refreshing change to see a president this articulate, this fluid, this well-informed, this obviously intellectually dexterous. I don't agree with much of what he said, but he was obviously very impressive" ("O'Reilly Factor," FNC, February 2, 2009).
This is high praise from a neocon like Morris whose politics are in great conflict with Obama's.
Catperson, please read this article and tell me what you estimate Barry's IQ to be. Judging from this article, I don't believe Barry is capable of doing un-dumbed down grad work, and I still maintain his IQ is about 106.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/early_obama_letter_confirms_inability_to_write.html
Among the 45 YEAs:
ReplyDelete41 Democrats
3 Republicans (Kirk, Lee, and Paul)
1 Independent (Sanders)
Among the 55 NAYs:
44 Republicans
10 Democrats
1 Independent Democrat (Lieberman)
SA 1126. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Udall of Colorado) submitted an amendment ...:
On page 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
(e) Applicability to Citizens.--The authority described in this section for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of the hostilities.
So Feinstein tried to dig American citizens out of this one, and the Republicans stopped her. And the Democrats had about a 20% defection rate. She and Udall and Leahy and Durbin deserve a pat on the back, even though they are almost certainly all monsters on gun control, immigration, AA, etc.
I assume Constitution Party spokesmen opposed this one. I'll probably right in Rand Paul in the general election if I don't like whoever the CP nominates. (And yes, I will vote for Rand's dad in the primary, but I still feel stupid being a Republican.)
The final tally of the 7 "nay" votes on the original measure:
ReplyDelete3 Democrats
3 Republicans
1 Independent
Tell me again why the two parties are different...
"In Other Breaking News: The Vast Majority of White Nationalists Back Affirmative Action For Whites Vis-a-Vis East Asians."
ReplyDeleteThey do?
Oh but forgive me. You're obviously an expert on the topic of white nationalists, so I suuppose we should trust you.
"In Other Breaking News: The Vast Majority of White Nationalists Back Affirmative Action For Whites Vis-a-Vis East Asians."
ReplyDeleteFilm at 11:00.
Contrapositing Obama: If an institution is required to implement a race-neutral approach, then that approach is workable. a paraphrase: Any required race-neutral approach must be workable.
ReplyDeleteBush: If using race, must consider race-neutral alternative. CP: If not consider r-n alternative then cannot use race.
It is difficult to evaluate which is stronger. One usually does this by considering the necessary conditions. Obama's is fairly innocuous "must be workable", but of course it depends on how workable is defined. Bush's is stronger, especially when looking at the contraposative: "cannot use race". Even in the contrapositive, Obama's rule is weak: "not required" = "one may".
What makes Bush's rule even stronger, though, is the word "before", which implies not merely possibility (compare "if") but inevitability (compare "when"). That is, the Bush rule expects that all institutions plan on using race, but seriously consider not doing it. It could have been softened by rephrasing: "Before considering race..."
Finally, Bush's rule contains the same slippery word "workable".
The real problem with them both is that they don't require that, if a workable race-neutral solution is found, that it be favored. Bush's simply says that it must be *considered* and Obama's only discusses what must happen if an approach is not workable. Well, what if it is? They both seem to assume that, by definition, no race-neutral approach can be workable.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSteve, if diversity is weakness and if immigration, Section 8, and demographic change make life so much worse, then why is white-dominated West Virginia such a craphole?"
It isn't one.
Craphead.
"I'm not 100% convinced Obama is brilliant, but given that he is the first black president ever, shouldn't that be the default hypothesis?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not 100% convinced that the American public is dumber than it used to be but given that it elected its first black president ever almost solely because he is black, shouldn't that be the default hypothesis?
In a perverted way, I see the Obama approach as being far more logical. Race-neutral measures will NEVER bring about the desired-for results, so affirmative action is and will remain a must.
ReplyDeleteI know how they feel. If someone tells me their God demands integration, diversity, and panmixia, I tell them He's not my God. Racial preservation comes before religion, for me. Similarly, equalitarianism comes before reality for Leftoids; is reality tells them the races aren't equal, they say it's not their reality, and start working on a new one.
Truth:
ReplyDeleteThere is an important difference: The Republicans want to pay for the growing police state via deficit spending, while making a few cosmetic cuts in government spending to pretend they're being responsible. The Democrats, by contrast, want to pay for it via deficit spending, while passing a few cosmetic tax increases to pretend they're being responsible. This is about the same as the differnce on immigration, foreign policy, foreign aid, affirmative action, bank bailouts, etc.
In Other Breaking News: The Vast Majority of White Nationalists Back Affirmative Action For Whites Vis-a-Vis East Asians.
ReplyDeleteFunny. I was going to ask at Mangan's where Kato got to, and here you just pop up out of the blue! We're simpatico, I tell ya. I've missed breaking nunchuks over the back of your head.
I think the lesson of West Virginia's Whiteness is clear: if you're White and you don't want to be swamped with NAMs, be poor.
ReplyDeleteI'm not 100% convinced Obama is brilliant (for a Black guy, but typical of Presidents), but given that he is the first black president ever, shouldn't that be the default hypothesis?
ReplyDeleteFTFY.
I've certainly never advocated or endorsed AA for Whites vis-a-vis Yellows. And I've never butted heads with any WNs over the issue. Every other point of contention, yes, but curiously, never this one.
ReplyDeleteI do advocate quotas as an improvement over AA. You know, proportional representation, after accurately identifying groups? I.e., we admit that Ashkenazis and Whites are separate ethnic groups, further hash out the groups to everyone's approval via compromise, then dole out the spots according to their percentage of the population. So Harvard would be 3-5% Ashkenazi (HORROR!!! ANTI-SEMITISM!!!), 65% White, 12% "Hispanic," 12% Black, etc.
I wouldn't like it, but it would be infinitely more fair than what we have now.