Today is the 40th anniversary of my first published piece of prose, a short letter to the editor that appeared in National Review on March 16, 1973 when I was a 9th grader. I made a joke about Ernst van den Haag's book review of sociologist Christopher Jencks' meta-analysis of the Coleman Report, Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America.
Some things never change ...
To summarize and extend what I wrote in VDARE.com in 2008:
Some things never change ...
To summarize and extend what I wrote in VDARE.com in 2008:
A review by Leon Todd on Amazon.com summarizes some of Jencks' 1972 findings:
"… it is probably wiser to define a "good" school in terms of student body characteristics than in terms of its budget or school resources. According to Jencks, once a good school starts taking in "undesirable" students (the definition of desirable sometimes pertains to academic, social, or economic attributes), its academic standing automatically declines. He concluded that while an elementary schools' social composition had only a moderate effect on student's cognitive achievement, secondary or high school social composition had a significant effect on achievement. … The type of friends students are likely to make, the values they are exposed to, and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the school, are all dependent upon the character of the student body."
Professor Jencks noted that the data showed that liberalism's key assumption—that equal opportunity would lead to equal results—was wrong. Therefore, Jencks argued, we must have socialism.
The late Ernest Van Den Haag responded in National Review that:
"Unlike his fellow socialists, Jencks no longer believes that inequality of results is the product of unequal social opportunity. He realizes that equal opportunity and advancement according to merit produce unequal incomes. Wherefore he urges that this most American (and constitutional) of ideas be abandoned, for he wants equality of results, even if it can be achieved only by making opportunity unequal. After all, it is luck rather than merit that determines results, and luck has no moral weight. Beyond this assertion (which has already been questioned), Jencks makes no serious attempt to justify morally his brand of equality. He simply assumes that we are all agreed…
"As P. T. Bauer has pointed out, 'income distribution' suggests a fixed stock of income which the government is to distribute and which (discovered by luck?) is independent of the continuous work of those who earn it. Indeed Jencks feels that, since chance distributes income unequally, the government should be '…responsible…for its [more equal] distribution.'
I wrote in:
Having read Ernest van den Haag's article on Christopher Jencks, I am reminded of an old psychiatry joke: A psychotic (egalitarian, in this little morality story) says. "All people are equal, and I'll fight anyone who says I'm wrong." A neurotic (Jencks) says, "People aren't equal, and I just can't stand it."
STEVEN SAILER
And that's pretty much been my shtick ever since.
That raises the question of who is stuck in the past in writing about race: me or everybody else?
In March of 2013, the national media has been obsessed with the Ku Klux Klan. Are they storming Oberlin College? Are they murdering black civil rights leaders in Mississippi?
In contrast, I've long figured that I was going to have to live not in the past, but in the future. A half decade later when I heard the opening line of Patti Smith's crazed rant Babelogue (NSFW), I thought she had her priorities about right.
Back then, my picture of what America was going to be like in the future was a lot like what Los Angeles was like in 1973: the Ku Klux Klan wasn't really relevant. Instead, we were going to have a multiracial society of whites, blacks, Mexicans, and Asians, and the KKK would matter less than things like IQ and work ethic.
How was I to know 40 years ago that in 2013 the KKK would be vastly more interesting than nature and nurture?
Posts
46 comments:
A psychotic (egalitarian, in this little morality story) says.
The full stop should be a colon.
What you didn't foresee was that 40 years on, the neurotic and the psychotic would be in charge of the country's institutions. Now the citizen/taxpayer is caught up funding and living this conflict, as our hypocritical social generals play out their existential battles in real life.
What is it you do again? You seem like one of those people that pretends to be an expert in everything.
"I was a 9th grader. I made a joke about Ernst van den Haag's book review of sociologist Christopher Jencks' meta-analysis of the Coleman Report, Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America."
Man, you must've been swimmin' in poontang back in high school, eh Steve?
KKKrazy glue keeps diverse Democratic coalition together. So, the enemy is essential in keeping very different groups together. It was anti-Americanism that kept Vietnamese Cambodians, and China together. Once US left, they fought one another.
GOP is divided among libertarians, Evangelicals, white rightists, Wall Street, neocons, social conservatives, etc.
Racially, the GOP is mostly white but ideologically very diverse. Only a powerful enemy-bogeyman can bring it together and attract other whites.
Since Jews dominate American liberalism, the Jewish globalism/Zionism should be the main enemy, but neocons rule the roost, are favored by MSM as the voice of conservatism, and are supported by Evangelicals who worship Israel and laugh at the suffering of Palestinians. And libertarians worship Ayn Rand and globalism over nationalism--and gays.
The other great bogeyman could be black thuggery, but every Republican gets all boo boo teary-eyed over MLK and is afraid of being called a 'racist'.
Jewish, black, brown, yellow, feminist, and gay Dems LOVE TO HATE white males, but white Republicans FEAR TO HATE their Dem enemies.
Dems brag and boast that their policies will hurt privileged white males, whereas Repubs plead and propose that their policies will help blacks, Jews, and even illegals.
Dems are openly out to attack the evil right, whereas Repubs couch all their arguments in terms of being for Democratic constituents.
If Jews hate us so much, why should we give a crap about Israel?
Were you aware of racial and individual differences in cognitive ability back then?What was the first piece on i.q. you ever read?
Happy Anniversary!
http://uncensoredsimon.blogspot.com/2013/03/feminine-beauty-or-70-girls-70.html#comment-form
Comments are hilarious.
Steve,
First let me congratulate you on your 40th anniversary, and I wish that your incisive writing will appear for many, many more years
-----
Recently I have been viewing a documentary series on youtube called the UP series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series
It is essentially a longitudinal documentary of children from various social classes in Britain, starting in 1964 and revisiting the children every 7 years.
I have so far reached the 21up film and the most striking aspect that has affected me is that articulation of the children. Granted, Brits have always had a superior grasp of the English language compared to Americans, but in this case it is amazing how 7 year old children were able to take a thought/meaning in their minds and composed sentences with quite sophisticated vocabulary for a 7 year old and convey that meaning. I would argue that a good portion of these children regardless of socio economic background have a better grasp of English than most adults in the year 2013.
When you wrote that you were in 9th grade (13-15 years old) when you first wrote to the national review, I could not possibly imagine any 9th grade adolescent in 2013 reading articles/reports/books about politics and policy, then writing in to magazines, and responding with witty remarks. Obviously, you are on the upper end of the bell curve, but the level of youth education in 2013 is so inferior that kids from the east end of London in the 1960-1970's seem smarter than most adults today.
Schopenhauer said the young can live in the future; the old can live in the past; but the rest of us are stuck living in the present.
Strangely the young folks at Oberlin have chosen to live in the past rather than the future or even the present, but if you're a leftist the past is much more fun.
The KKK fulfill the same role in 'diverse, liberal' America as demons and devils did in medieval Europe.
Basically 'comedy' bogeymen with comedy costumes, but paradoxically taken deeply seriously by defenders of the true faith. The fact that neither actually exist is neither here or there.
I've a friend who is a school district superintendent here in the SF Bay Area.
Her predictive metric, based on years of professional experience, as to school achievement?
The ratio of kids who like in single family homes to those kids living in apartments.
How social networking and internet and cellphones are changing social behavior among young folks...
A kind of perkism and sparklism seems to be taking over behavior. Even up to the early 90s, a lot of people didn't have cellphones(especially with cams) and internet. And early internet was just chatrooms and newsgroups.
But with all these smart phones with cams/videos and social networking and constant uploading, it seems like people even behave differently.
Back in the days, we had old cameras. We took pictures once in awhile and it's wasn't cheap to have them processed. So, we were far less conscious of our image. And we hung around small circles of friends and relaxed in the way we talked. We tended to be more natural. We weren't constantly aware or conscious of how we looked, sounded, and came across.
Now, kids have these cellphones with phones/videos. They can take 1000s of pics a day and camcord themselves 24/7, much of which gets uploaded into social networking sites. Many kids even have their own vlogs on youtube. So, people are far less natural in how they talk and act. They are always conscious of how they might or should look to others. They talk like they're trying to 'present' themselves. Girls act more perkier, guys act more sparklier--and Obama may have been more savvy about this new culture.
It's like everyone's starring in some kind of infomercial. It's like every girl is trying to be a celebrity of some kind. It's like all the guys are trying to come across as so hip and cool and etc.
To be sure, this sort of thing is nothing new, at least since the advent of mass culture, but it seems to have permeated into every second of the lives of young people with the rise of video cellphones and social netoworking. Young ones today are always in posing for cellphone camera or video mode.
For a good example, just look at these sino-americans in this video. They never seem natural. They always seem like they're acting, posing, or some shit. If lame Asians are acting like this, imagine how it must be among other races?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45Llkj58ujY
Whats in a name? A bit OT but a Chicago man has been arrested today and charged with allowing his eldely mother to lay on the floor of her home for 2 weeks,neglected,until she finally died. The mans name:John Gault.
Steve's letter pleasantly reminded me of the back page in old comic books where someone's writing in with a quibble for Stan Lee on some point of continuity. Sorry, undoubtedly there was still a great point there that just went over my philistine head.
Anonymous 9:40-- if you find those trends unsettling, I just hope you're prepared in case you ever stumble upon "Rookie Magazine"
I reflexively nodded in hale solidarity upon seeing Simon's first name on the list was Isabelle Adjani, then panicked after remembering the nip-tuck fiasco who's been walking around under that name for the past decade, which he may not have witnessed yet; hopefully he does not accidentally follow a link from Michael Barone here, to be exposed to the ghastly truth.
He's been going in & out of style, but he's guaranteed to raise a smile.
Congratulations!
"It's like everyone's starring in some kind of infomercial. It's like every girl is trying to be a celebrity of some kind. It's like all the guys are trying to come across as so hip and cool and etc."
Check out these Jersey Shore characters before there was the MTV show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eqCBCUawKY
It so does not look like '94 to me, but that's when the documentary's webpage says it was filmed. Looks more like '91 or '92, the girls with big / perm-y hair and the dude with no shirt on under the jean jacket. Girls probably still listening to Paula Abdul and the guys still into Bon Jovi.
The spacey, informal way of being must have held out for a few more years longer there than in the country overall, which was getting thicker with self-aware speech and dress, irony, sarcasm, and meta-etc.
While we're not fucking with the past, I always preferred the other Patty Smyth. Cute, even when upset.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_50-gOeBilc
Anon 9:14:
Actually, the imaginary enemies are much more fun to march and campaign against than real enemies. There have been times and places in the US where taking a public stand against the KKK was a costly activity--you could lose friends, have your job prospects hurt, maybe even get beaten up or killed. Taking such a public stand was a whole lot less popular and common back then. The same observation applies to all kinds of things. Way more people today are willing to slag on Communism, or Christianity, or the McCarthy and the HUAC, than when those groups had more power to impose consequences.
A great deal of posturing of this kind involves pretending to be bravely standing up against the howling mob when you're really bravely standing in the middle of the mob yelling for some skapegoat's blood.
Stop picking on the Obies, the U S of A has been bombing imaginary terrorists for a decade.
"I have so far reached the 21up film"
Don't watch the rest of the series, it will depress you.
"Recently I have been viewing a documentary series on youtube called the UP series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series
It is essentially a longitudinal documentary of children from various social classes in Britain, starting in 1964 and revisiting the children every 7 years."
In Soviet Russia, 7 UPs you.
age 7 in the USSR
age 14
Born in the USSR - 28 Up (28th May 2012)
On Unz's ideas about 'meritocratic' China.
Was China's exam system 'meritocratic'? Not really of course because there was no public education that gave everyone an equal chance at studies. Only a relatively tiny sliver of the populace received anything like real studies. Also, what did Chinese mean by 'merit'? Did they mean Talent for something of value or the skill in writing the so-called useless eight legged essay in which not only the idea but the form of expression had stick to orthodoxy. So, it was more a form of 'intellectual' etiquette or intelletiquette than real thought. It was a kind of formal correctness. Today in the West, many students in humanities and social sciences have to say the 'correct things' to be promoted. In old China, one had to have the 'correct' form of expression and values to make the grade. Hardly a case of rewarding genuine talent or thought or ability. While those who passed the 28 legged essay needed good memory and mental discipline, they passed at something of no intellectual or even moral value, at something that hardly tested their skills for real thought and problem solving.
Also, given the nature of the Chinese language with its 10,000s of characters and the literat-centrism of Chinese culture, much of learning was about esoteric knowledge. And one needed lots of time and privilege to spend lots of hours memorizing all those characters and their useless nuances. So, even if Chinese system was meritocratic, it was about assessing ability in something of no value in the real world of man or ideas. It was like choosing the elites by seeing who can best play crossword puzzles or scrabble. Such require skills but very narrow ones.
Did and does China have an intellectual culture? Paradoxically, China's--and Korea and maybe Japan's--emphasis on exams may have made them less intellectual. What examocentrism might have done is turn intellectualism into nothing more than conformism and class striving.
True intellectualism and thinkism are about search for truth regardless of its political or social rewards. So, Jesus broke from the Jewish tribe and thought His own thoughts. Socrates risked his life to speak the truth. And there were many such examples in the West. While higher position in life was surely coveted, there was the ideal of the thinker in search of truth apart from family, kin, and society. And this attainment of truth had nothing to do with one's wealth, station, or whatever. Marx was wrong, but one must admit he did devote his life to finding a kind of truth. He didn't do it for position or money or status. He did it because he felt a need to. If he had to choose between a comfy position in college by conforming to prevailing truisms AND a not-so-easy life in search of truth, he would have opted for the latter, and he did. So, for men like Marx, truth mattered more than status when it came to ideas and thought.
But in Asia, intellectualism came to be associated with examocentrism and officialism. If the weakness of the Muslim world was the lack of division between theological realm and secular realm in society--thus making a Renaissance unlikely--, the weakness of the Confucian order may have been the lack of division between intellectualism and officialism. While plenty of Western thinkers did hold official positions and such, the best kind of Western intellectual believed that his main objective in life was to find the truth than to serve the existing order. In contrast, the Chinese intellectual system made intellectualism almost synonymous with officialism. Smart people were supposed to study for the 8 legged essay. And if they passed, they were made into officials and bureaucrats. Thus, the notion of the world of ideas independent of officialdom was far weaker in the East.
Also, there was another ideal in the West, that of individualism. Socrates sought truth outside his family. Jesus left His clan to search His own truth. But Confucius, the main philosopher of Asia, was all about the family. Even the nation was like a family. So, one didn't study and learn to think as a truth-seeking individual but instead studied to bring honor to the family. So, truth mattered less than status. Thus, Chinese intellectualism was more about class than about ideas. Even though it had the veneer of intellectualism, it wasn't really intellectual but vain, crass, and conformist. It was not about venturing outside the comfort zone to find the truth but sacrificing current comfort for bigger future comforts. A young student was supposed to study very very very hard and suffer, but the end goal was not truth but 'making it' so that he can put on fancy clothes, refined manners, and show off as a official.
This being the case, it's no wonder that Asians are so crass. Whether it's HK's nouveau riche, Japan's kawaii pigsters, Korea's gangnam clowns, or China's princelings, it's really all about status. They are willing to suffer a lot and eat 'bitter rice' to win in life, but that's all they really care about. They wanna go to best schools not to find the truth but just to show off that they 'made it'.
While East Asians, for 100s or even 1000s of years, put on airs of scholarly-ness and philosophical seriousness, they were only in it for the status and honor(to family). It was never about the individual's courageous search for truth. It's no wonder that the orthodoxy of Confucianism lasted for so long. Generation after generation, everyone was so into 'making it' as a scholar-official(the jackpot of life) that he didn't dare think any thought that might deviate him from studying to pass the ridiculous eight legged essay.
This is why I think China will never catch up. And intellectually, neither have Japan and Korea. They have done pretty well, but they lag way behind US when it comes to independent thinking(at least in hard sciences and technological innovation). No matter how much Asians embrace the idea of science and technology, their devotion to education is still status-istic than truth-istic. It's hard cultural habit to break. And as long as China is run by the communist party, things will likely stay this way since the government doesn't want people to think too independently.
As for Chinese agriculture, it seems to have been more a case of brutocratism than meritocratism. The latter can only work in a world of rule of law. Lacking such, the most brutally ruthless, deceptive, cunning, and no good sonsabitches win. Meritocratism or even social darwinism is not about dog-eat-dog but 'may the best dog win'.
Though social darwinists in the 19th century could be pompous and use their theory to justify the powers-that-be and seem greedy, the theory in essence was as 'selfless' as well as 'selfish'. The rules of social darwinism says that no matter how rich and powerful a family may be, if the kids are dumb and stupid, they should lose in life and make way for the rise of better people from the bottom. It was really a more scientistic version of Jefferson's notion of 'natural aristocracy'. It didn't simply mean that those at the top in a democracy deserved to be there and feel superior; it meant the worthless at the top should fall and make way for the rise of the smart and talented.
And in a way, Jews have been using just this argument vis-a-vis the wasps: 'wasps weren't so bright but overly privileged by class, and so the dummy Dan Quayles of the world should slide down the social scale and make way for the smarter and more hardworking Jews.' At least when it came to decline of wasps and rise of Jews, Jewish line has been totally social darwinist.
Steve,
At VDare you wrote two passages about Jencks that seem incongruent
(Jencks is now at Harvard, and has become perhaps the leading critic of illegal immigration on the academic left.)
...
Professor Jencks noted that the data showed that liberalism's key assumption—that equal opportunity would lead to equal results—was wrong. Therefore, Jencks argued, we must have socialism.
I've come to expect that current socialists support demographic change in much the same manner as that Middlebury professor who thinks Mexicans would make a more compliant electorate.
So is Jencks really on "our" side, or is he just another run-of-the-mill leftist?
The intellectual arteries weren't as sclerotic in the 20th Century. It was perfectly reasonable for Jencks to follow his traditional American man of the left egalitarian principles to oppose illegal immigration.
"Some things never change.."
You can bet a 100 years from now, the KKK will still be the boogyman and blacks will still be suffering from the effects of slavery.
And intellectually, neither have Japan and Korea. They have done pretty well, but they lag way behind US when it comes to independent thinking(at least in hard sciences and technological innovation).
Who's behind and who's ahead in automobile technology?
This is true, now there are all these incidents against blacks in Orange County where they are only 2 percent and about 10,000 live in Anaheim in the Hispanic sized of Town. There is a complain that white Rabbit would not shake hands with a black kid.. The Yorba Linda incident which sounds true but a small case. There is a small white surpremist group in OC but I bet that liberal whites in La or the Bay area probably dislike minorites more but are not showing it. Blacks as mention live the most in Anaheim on the Hispanic sized and Hispanics are known to beat up blacks but on the OC Commission not one anti-black Hispanic incidents.
KKKrazy glue keeps diverse Democratic coalition together. So, the enemy is essential in keeping very different groups together. It was anti-Americanism that kept Vietnamese Cambodians, and China together. Once US left, they fought one another.
GOP is divided among libertarians, Evangelicals, white rightists, Wall Street, neocons, social conservatives, etc.
Racially, the GOP is mostly white but ideologically very diverse. Only a powerful enemy-bogeyman can bring it together and attract other whites.
Since Jews dominate American liberalism, the Jewish globalism/Zionism should be the main enemy, but neocons rule the roost, are favored by MSM as the voice of conservatism, and are supported by Evangelicals who worship Israel and laugh at the suffering of Palestinians. And libertarians worship Ayn Rand and globalism over nationalism--and gays.
The other great bogeyman could be black thuggery, but every Republican gets all boo boo teary-eyed over MLK and is afraid of being called a 'racist'.
Blacks you can't do much against them since they were force almost two centuries to the US. They are not growing much as a group unlike Hispanics and Asians which you can do something about expelling illegal Hispanics and Asians and the small white illegal-Irish out by hitting employres and changing legal immirgation. Some places like Ca and Texas are going to have more Hispanics but getting rid of a million here and there would change their demographics. Asians as mention before are in LA, New York, the Bay area, Seattle, Hawaii, Orange County. Changing legal immirgation limits there growth.
The intellectual arteries weren't as sclerotic in the 20th Century. It was perfectly reasonable for Jencks to follow his traditional American man of the left egalitarian principles to oppose illegal immigration.
3/16/13, 6:46 PM
Well, even by 1994 when Prop 187 passed liberal politicans were opposed to it. Barbara Jordan commission was the last big political oppostion on the left. There were some others mainly against guestworker programs. I think the guesworker program might still undue the left and right on the issue.
"Who's behind and who's ahead in automobile technology?"
gOOgle mobile or the gOObile will beat all.
gOOgle mobile or the gOObile will beat all.
That Google car-without-human-driver is sissy, nerdy junk. Real men have control over their own cars. They like the feel of powerful machines ... Better to have a manual transmission.
There's also the Orwellian angle to these driverless cars. They'll always be reporting your position and speed back to Human Control Central.
Since Jews dominate American liberalism, the Jewish globalism/Zionism should be the main enemy, but neocons rule the roost, are favored by MSM as the voice of conservatism, and are supported by Evangelicals who worship Israel and laugh at the suffering of Palestinians.
It's true that the Republicans' fealty to Israel is not rewarded by Jewish votes. The fact is, the average Jew cares much less about Israel than he does about liberalism. However, MOTUs like Sheldon Adelson care a great deal about Israel, and that is what the power-players in the Republican Party respond to.
I'm about the same age as Steve, and I remember with pleasure my small relatively isolated rural public high school, co-ed, which into the 1970s must have been one of the last "1950s" high-schools in the US.
I recall the same Debate Team contests (great training for future lawyers). Lots of practice in HS speech class. These things were organized like sports, you went to district, then state, in your school's category. There was also a science test competition, I recall it being pretty good (I got to the state competition). There was a slide rule competition. Pretty good but I didn't stick with it (wished I had), as there was a girl on the team who had uncomfortably fond feelings for the math teacher...
There was little pressure on kids to attend or do well in the non-sports competitions, so it was fun. I really enjoyed doing things for myself, not for adults. My friends and I had fun organizing the debate team and doing most of the leg work and planning ourselves (sound similar to what Steve was doing). The lack of close adult supervision was one of the most educational things about the whole thing.
There wasn't any real segregation by nerds and jocks, even though there were some serious nerds. Lot of the brighter guys (mostly the sons of the small town's merchants) were among the best football players and had often been friends with the hard-core nerds for life... (Sports, especially football, was very important, there was a red shirting scandal so I got to play a lot more than my fair share, heh, heh.)
I think it took a lot of the edge off high school that it was a small enough town that most people and families knew one another, it wasn't like you were an anonymous teenager in a sea of similar unknown teenagers...
Based on what I hear of the size of the reunions, lots of others must remember it fondly as well. I wish everyone could have a HS experience at least as good... it was a different world.
"The fact is, the average Jew cares much less about Israel than he does about liberalism."
No, liberal Jews care very much about Israel. The thing is they don't WORRY about it. They know the Democratic Party is run by liberal Zionist Jews. They know the media is run by Zionists. They know that foreign policy is run by Zionists. They know that even their biggest enemies, white Republicans, are falling all over themselves to show that they are the biggest friends of Israel.
If Israel was really in trouble, liberal Jews would worry. But they don't worry since American and EU support for Israel is so total and since Israel can kick Arab ass and Arab nations are in big trouble with Muslims fighting other Muslims(and Christian minorities).
Neocons also know that Israel is strong and safe. But they are more hysterical about it because they know that Jewish hold over the GOP is somewhat tenuous. While Jews control all levels of the Democratic party, neocons, as powerful as they are, are still seen as outsiders by many conservatives, and many conservatives secretly feel angry at the Jewish community over its social and political policies.
Since there is so much disagreement between most Jews and most conservatives on most issues, neocons try to keep conservatives from becoming anti-Jewish by hyping the Israel issue. Neocons want cons to think that if the latter just go the extra mile in supporting Israel, Jews will one day come over to the GOP.
Of course, most cons are dumb enough to fall for this.
Liberal Jews are in agreement with liberal non-Jews in the Dem party on many issues.
Neocon Jews are NOT in agreement on many issues with gentile conservatives in the GOP. So, Israelmania is the only thing that is holding them together, and so neocons play that card to the hilt.
"That Google car-without-human-driver is sissy, nerdy junk. Real men have control over their own cars. They like the feel of powerful machines ... Better to have a manual transmission."
You're such a dorkboy. What is so manly about a car? Even an old lady can drive it. Car is the great equalizer. All you gotta do is step on the gas, and anyone--man, woman, oldie, youngie, etc--can go at 75 mph. If you wanna be a MAN, get a bike. There, you gotta use muscle power, especially going uphill. But any fat slob can drive a car.
Btw, driverless car is a great idea because we waste so much of our time commuting. Why not just let it drive itself while you read a book or something.
Anonymous said... No, liberal Jews care very much about Israel.
Interesting response, but I base my view on what I have heard from the Jews in my circle. My wife is Jewish and she comes from a large family, and I have worked closely with Jews over the years. Not really much interest in Israel from any of them. However, obsessed with abortion, gay rights, open borders, etc.
"agnostic said...
While we're not fucking with the past, I always preferred the other Patty Smyth. Cute, even when upset.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_50-gOeBilc"
Indeed. Patty Smyth was a very pretty young woman, and is now an attractive middle-aged woman. Patti Smith, despite whatever talent she may have, has always been rather ugly.
Interesting response, but I base my view on what I have heard from the Jews in my circle. My wife is Jewish and she comes from a large family, and I have worked closely with Jews over the years. Not really much interest in Israel from any of them. However, obsessed with abortion, gay rights, open borders, etc.
Why don't you test your theory by telling them Israel is a criminal aggressor state? I promise you your theory that they don't care about Israel will be emphatically disproven. If you're unwilling to do this, it means you know I'm right.
Get with the times, Davenport. Your position and "speed" is already being reported to the mother computer. It's called a cell phone.
Your position and "speed"...
Are those quotation marks your way of letting us know that you know the distinction between speed and velocity? Very good.
When I'm driving, I usually turn the cell phone off and put it in the car's trunk. It would be a better world if other people would do the same.
You're such a dorkboy. What is so manly about a car? Even an old lady can drive it. Car is the great equalizer. All you gotta do is step on the gas, and anyone--man, woman, oldie, youngie, etc--can go at 75 mph.
But how many old ladies, Internet sissy youngies, etc., go over 100 m.ph. on uncrowded highways? Will your Distopian robo car exceed the speed limit? No, that won't be allowed.
buy xanax xanax side effects mayo - buy good xanax online
Post a Comment