I was at the speech. Unfortunately, she actually didn't say half the things she is accused of saying. No one there seemed particularly shocked.
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
16 comments:
The "friend" absolutely has to be Amy Wax, doesn't it?
I don't know Amy Wax.
Ann Althouse had someone send in a summary of the presentation. Don't know their position (student, faculty, staff?), but their description certainly sounds far less explosive than what was alleged.
Much like Trayvon Martin. I'm sure that there are other examples.
http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2013/06/frankly-whenever-i-see-complaint.html#more
"I don't know Amy Wax."
Darn, I figured between it being Penn Law and you being only one degree of separation away via Derbyshire:
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/upennlaw.html
Lefties lying?
I'm shocked!!! And now for this amazing late breaking story about fish swimming ...
their description certainly sounds far less explosive than what was alleged.
Really? What was alleged was as about as "explosive" as a fire-cracker that got left out in a thunder-storm. "She said blacks commit more crime than whites!!! OMG!!"
Like the Richwine witchhunt, what's striking is that what was said to provoke so much faux outrage was so banal.
I interviewed for a federal judicial clerkship with her and also Jerry Smith in Houston back in '98. I was throughly encouraged by a copy of the Bell Curve up on her bookshelf!
Steve:
You don't know Amy Wax? Really?
Get acquainted.
Steve:
You don't know Amy Wax? Really?
Get acquainted.
holy shit, the derb himself?
In re Amy Wax. She and Glenn Loury debate the black crime problem.
http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2752
I second Geoff Matthews recommendation of the attendee's summary over at the Althouse blog. Pretty much confirms what I suspected about the allegations of racism and religious nuttery. (The latter of which I noticed some iStevers, who should know better, were willing to accept on faith.)
It would be unfortunate if she didn't say the things of which she is "accused". Since they are true statements, her the finding that "she didn't actually say Those Things" as the basis of her "acquittal" carries with it the subtext that she should she have said "Those Things" she should have not been "acquitted".
I was at the speech. Unfortunately, she actually didn't say half the things she is accused of saying. No one there seemed particularly shocked.
Funny, I typed up a response to the first Judge Edith thread, but never posted it. The gist was that there's no point to this without a recording of some kind, because the Judge would manhandle her accusers in court without one, and eyewitness' recall of things with thought-warping taboo effect fields around them has roughly zero credibility.
Her comment that Hispanics are prone to commit more crimes is an example of stereotypes making your stupider.
Unz has proven Hispanics don't commit more crime than whites. They are just younger than whites so that's why there's more Hispanic crime not because they are prone to it.
Her comment that Hispanics are prone to commit more crimes is an example of stereotypes making your stupider.
Unz has proven Hispanics don't commit more crime than whites. They are just younger than whites so that's why there's more Hispanic crime not because they are prone to it.
Right. Blacks aren't more prone to crime. They're just more prone to poverty. It's poor people who are more prone to crime.
Post a Comment