I was disappointed to see this. But not surprised.
There won't be a single Republican in the white house from now on, at least not one who's actually conservative(not that Bush JR or SR were very conservative or good conservatives for that matter).
So the chance is slipping away. There's a possible ruling next term concerning Michigan but I think the court will continue to uphold it.
My interpretation is that the court is simply spineless, and by spineless I mean the 'conservative' judges.
I think the 'conservatives' on the court fear public backlash. It's funny, because that didn't stop the liberals in the 60's and 70s with forced bussing etc. But then again, they had the media blowing wind in their backs, and if the court now struck down affirmative action all hell would break loose.
Again, spinelessness. The best bet is probably to do things statewide for now, which has happened thus far.
The problem with a permanent liberal presidency is that at some point every judge will be a leftist and then we won't get a punt; we'll get an expansion. And this is the problem with the court system in America.
They rarely take brave steps(the steps taken in the 60s and 70s were not brave as they had establishment support). And now they're helping cover up for the NSA with secret rulings giving massive permission.
The court system isn't really a pillar that should have any power. It mostly obeys power anyway. The notion that the courts are a viable route for a powerless group without political representation is a fiction and a fantasy. It will never upset the power structure.
SCOTUS will punt forever until it no longer needs to. Then it will just expand.
Christopher Caldwell's quote on affirmative action holds true. It'll never, ever go away unless there's a sustained activism on behalf of white people. But that requires ethnic politics. Which white people are too lazy to do en masse. Scared of the backlash.
By the way, reading Volokh, I am reminded of the bullshit coming from conservative blogs about the 'biased polls'.
It's a lot of wishful thinking, from start to finish.
As long as the ruling is not explicit, then colleges will find a way. In fact, even if SCOTUS did strike it down, colleges will find a way. That's how the 10% rule in Texas got introduced in the first place.
And those who have done their homework on California know that affirmative action isn't completely eradicated, a lot of bias still targets whites in California and the numbers of blacks at Berkeley for instance is way, way higher than the SAT/GPA scores would indicate.
Mr Sailer makes the following observation and then asks an obvious question:
It's pretty darned hard to come up with "racially neutral" alternatives that achieve the same outcomes. For example, the Texas Top Ten Percent system brings in top students from impoverished all black schools who aren't prepared for the competition at UT, while excluding higher scoring blacks from tougher integrated middle class schools where they got lower GPAs because they had to compete with Asians and whites. Is that wise?
And here is the first answer:
Yes, it is,...
Blah blah blah. Go read it for yourself.
Of course it's manifestly unwise, not to mention egregiously unfair, to send a lot of unqualified Blacks to the best schools just because they finished in the top 10% of their uncompetitive school, when it's been more than amply demonstrated that they flunk out in large numbers. Rather than admitting more qualified Blacks from more competitive schools, who didn't quite manage to finish in the top 10%, but who do a lot better at university.
Stupidity like that, which is representative of majority opinion, is just one more reason why America will continue to fall down its very own rathole, until it reaches some kind of bottom.
There won't be a single Republican in the white house from now on, at least not one who's actually conservative(not that Bush JR or SR were very conservative or good conservatives for that matter).
There hasn't been a conservative in the White House since Reagan, and Reagan was hardly a deficit hawk.
"There won't be a single Republican in the white house from now on"
Nope. The game's already up. It's all a matter of how fast things spiral down the tubes.
By the way, I think there's more hope in Europe than there is here, simply because of the variety of national governments. Sometimes I think maybe a "Back to Europe" movement would be interesting.
At this point, the only option is to insist that Jews be counted differently. Reduce Jewish over-representation and privilege and make room for white gentiles.
To the anonymous poster who asked how to get their kids into a good college, not being well connected: I suggest you claim your kids are 1/8 Native American and talk about a great grandparent with high cheek bones. Your child may even get elected to the US Senate, like the blonde, blue eyed Elizabeth Warren.
What is the best long-term plan for getting my under-4 kids into good colleges? I'm white and not well-connected
I would start with "Teach Your Child To Read In 100 Easy Lessons" by Engelmann. The younger your kids are, the more you will need to simplify your technique, and go at their pace. Don't be afraid to go back a few lessons when it gets too hard.
If you can set your kids up with a 3rd or 4th grade reading level before they start school, they will have a big advantage over other kids academically as they will be able to read all the materials the teacher gives them. That may help them get scholarships later on.
Most white parents it seems are content to let nature do its thing, and let the TV and schools do a half-assed job of nurturing their children. Considering this lack of attention, it's low hanging fruit that should be seized by the forward thinking parent. Even Steve gives nature/nurture impact of 50/50. 50/50 beats 50/0.
The GOP has done NOTHING for you. Stop ignoring that fact.
Yeah, because the iSteve crowd and the Alt-Right in general are SUCH big fans of the Republicans!
Working Class American, the Left/Right Combo Horse you keep beating isn't news to anyone here. Gee, neither of the two major parties is going to fix things?
Noooooo kiddin? Huh. Whoda thunk? Thanks for letting us rubes know.
What is the best long-term plan for getting my under-4 kids into good colleges? I'm white and not well-connected.
Aside from the usual(grades and scores), encourage them to completely OWN an individual sport or competitive activity (ie. instrument) that's widely recognized. And as a bonus, something the Ivy league schools field. The more obscure and unpopular, yet accepted and recognized as a legitimate competitive pursuit, the better. Think Trombone, Harpist, Fencing, Kendo, Judo, etc. Team sports for social skills, individual sports for recognition.
If they can get national recognition in their obscure, less competitive sport or activity, that carries much more weight than multiple sport, well-rounded smart jocks that play at just below college level. They are a dime a dozen.
My guess is that affirmative action, voting rights laws and anything promoting minorities will be addressed and ended about the same time that whites become minorities.
(a) the Volokh crowd is, most of the time, second rate in their predictions and in their understanding of the constitution. In my humble opinion, anyway. Their main flaw is that they see the constitution as if it were something like the rules of major league baseball, sort of a perennial pyatiletka, rather than as the approximation and backup plan to natural law which it, in actuality, is supposed to be. (b) Reagan was not a conservative, he was a wonderful expression of American optimism, pro-life compassion, and fairness, but any real conservative (especially those who don't own expensive dude ranches) could name three areas - beginning with respect for natural law, running through Patton-level-conservative compassion for those who lose when victory is not achieved, and ending in conservative avoidance of uxoriousness - where Reagan was no more conservative than a random fictional Hollywood president would have been. A real conservative would have been extremely ashamed to have made at least two of his Supreme Court picks, for example.
How many of those 7 judges who voted to NOT end Affirmative action were appointed by a GOP president?
5.
Read the entire thing. It's only 41 pages. Both Scalia and Thomas wrote concurrences stating they'd do away with it all. Thomas's in particular is very forceful. For brevity, here's what Scalia wrote:
JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring. "I adhere to the view I expressed in Grutter v. Bollinger: 'The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception...' The petitioner in this case did not ask us to overrule Grutter’s holding that a 'compelling interest' in the educational benefits of diversity can justify racial preferences in university admissions. ...I therefore join the Court’s opinion in full."
Fisher's argument to the Supreme Court was not that affirmative action was unconstitutional and should be struck down entirely. Her argument was that as practiced by the University of Texas, it was not narrowly tailored and was therefore unconstitutional. It's not like it hasn't happened since Dred Scott, but the criticism directed towards the Taney court has done plenty to keep the court from coloring outside the lines.
It's now on remand to the 5th Circuit, who may decide Texas' program is sufficiently tailored. Should that occur, it would hardly be surprising to see the Supreme Court grant cert again, this time with everything on the line.
Yeah, because the iSteve crowd and the Alt-Right in general are SUCH big fans of the Republicans!
Actually, they/we *are*! We keep *voting* GOP just because it feels like the only alternative to voting for Dems. I wouldn't even be surprised if Steve voted for McCain back then... (Actually, I'd bet good money that he did.)
But I am through with this. No more. Will only vote for real paleocons. Else, will write-in Mickey Mouse as the only alternative to "against all".
My guess is that affirmative action, voting rights laws and anything promoting minorities will be addressed and ended about the same time that whites become minorities.
Indeed, right now the majority must respect minorities. Once whites are a majority we will be very quickly reminded that the majority will not be dictated to by the minority. After all, that just wouldnt be fair would it?
"The GOP has done NOTHING for you. Stop ignoring that fact."
Nobody does anything for anyone unless he feels the pressure. Just voting for the GOP wasn't gonna get you no candy.
I mean Jews and homos didn't just vote for Dems and expect Dems to do stuff for them. They took control of the party and demanded that things be done their way.
Cons are too laid back. They thought, "Gee, I voted for GOP, so Republicans will do stuff for me."
How many of those 7 judges who voted to NOT end Affirmative action were appointed by a GOP president?
5.
Fisher's argument to the Supreme Court was not that affirmative action was unconstitutional and should be struck down entirely. Her argument was that as practiced by the University of Texas, it was not narrowly tailored and was therefore unconstitutional.
====================
I see someone did not pay attention in law school. SCOTUS is not limited to the issues raised in the lower court.
"So why is it every time I go on this site and similar sites that everyone is talking smack about obama and them libruls and etc?
The GOP has done NOTHING for you.
Stop ignoring that fact."
Because these people are more affected by the conservative movement than they think they are.
I've long argued for a pan-political approach.
And by that I mean: no matter who is in power, our interests should be represented. Betting on the GOP has been a disaster. In fact, what matters is the media.
If you want to go ethnic, begin in the media. If you skip the media, dont even bother starting. Since if you dont have a large portion of the media, then nothing will get done.
Second of all, you should have institutions, political think tanks and such, that deal with these issues.
But yes, the lesson of this is that no matter what their nominal political stripe is, if the media climate is against it, the judges will be against it(like now). If the climate is for it, like it was for forced bussing in the 60s and 70s, then the judges will be for that too.
Yglesias can defend affirmative action because as both Jewish and hispanic, he gets all the goodies. So he has skin in the game.
Most people don't even know that Jews are perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action in the Ivy League, something that Ron Unz has documented.
Also, Yglesias logic is atrocious. He's not advocating democracy; he's advocating mob rule.
Following his logic, the civil rights movement could have been shut down because the will of the majority in the South was firmly against it.
Yglesias is just anti-white. Just say it. End the fantasy of "misunderstandings". The guy hates white ethnics, end of story. What works for blacks he wants to forbid for whites. You hold one race to an entirely different standard, where they're never allowed to end any discriminiation against themselves. That's the definition of racism.
This is also why I insist on media focus before political focus. Politicians are flickle and care for their re-election. They dont have 30, 40 or 50 year long horizons to worry about. You need institutions for that, of which we have none. And you need ways to destroy anti-white bigots like Yglesias when they rear their ugly heads and spew venom from their mouth of a sewer.
Moving along, however,
Some quotes from the comment section:
"By the way, I think there's more hope in Europe than there is here, simply because of the variety of national governments. Sometimes I think maybe a "Back to Europe" movement would be interesting."
Europe is not a hope because Europe is America's bitch. America is the crown jewel of the Western alliance. Lose America and you lose the West. America also has almost all of the military firepower in the West. So do you want to hand over the biggest nuke arsenal to our enemies? And who built this army? Who built the SR-71, the B-2, the USS George Washington? White people did. You're just gonna leave it all behind?
Because someone will find a way to use it, even if poorly, and if they mismanage it then the Chinese can just swoop in and take it. They'd love some American-made carriers and stealth bombers.
And who will defend Europe? France? De-populating Germany? (Although to be fair, whites in America are now also de-populating).
"My guess is that affirmative action, voting rights laws and anything promoting minorities will be addressed and ended about the same time that whites become minorities."
I wouldn't judge you harshly if I read that on a mainstream conservative blog.
But this is iSteve, where most of the readers are intelligent whites irrespective of party. (I'm personally leaning left on economic issues but I can't vote for leftist candidates that support anti-white policies so I don't vote).
You should know better than that. Are you that naive? The only people who play fair, even to a masochistic extent, are whites. Protip: being a minority doesn't make you stronger and often subjects you to attempts of genocide of ethnic cleansing. See the middle east or yugoslavia. This is why Jews of America wanted more minorities, they felt unsafe because they know damn well that it sucks being a minority in a homogenous country. This is a new thing for the vast majority of whites, since they're illiterate of history they're sleepwalking into disaster.
"A real conservative would have been extremely ashamed to have made at least two of his Supreme Court picks, for example."
Nonsencial. Pure gibberish.
" Read the entire thing. It's only 41 pages. Both Scalia and Thomas wrote concurrences stating they'd do away with it all. Thomas's in particular is very forceful. For brevity, here's what Scalia wrote"
They can write all day long about the evils of AA, but if they vote to uphold it that's all that matters. Also, you bending backwards to "prove" that this wasn't a case where AA could be struck down is amusing.
Striking down AA was very much an option and they didn't do it. The original complaint was forumulated in a diplomatic manner but there was much leeway to interpret it as a referendum on the way affirmative action was handled in Texas(which could then be set as a precedent for other states, which is how it always works).
The judges knew this and punted. But maybe you have insight that everyone else, who talked openly about ending the program, don't have? It's called self-comforting delusion.
The deliberate Hispanicization of America seems to accomplish many things for the current elite.
An all in one solution of complete White dispossession, Black displacement, and physically unifying with formerly cryptic members of the group. Also, transitioning to a thrive model that's worked well for 500 years would probably be viewed as a good thing.
The first few paragraphs are the only necessary ones, really. He confirms what we thought: that the Supreme Court shirked it's responsibilites and basically washes its hands off the entire debate.
And who is responsible for that? John Roberts, the 'conservative'. He basically doesn't want to upend anything radical when it comes to affirmative action.
When it comes to gay marriage, because the pendelum has swung in the other direction, look for the court to swing too.
If this is the best "conservative" judges can do - maintain the status quo - then we won't get anywhere.
I don't differ from you too much in my opinion of the GOP, so I'll keep the sarcasm to a minimum.
Two Things:
1. I see someone did not pay attention in law school. SCOTUS is not limited to the issues raised in the lower court.
Thanks for your comment. Please reread mine. Maybe you'll notice I said the exact same thing:
"It's not like it hasn't happened since Dred Scott, but the criticism directed towards the Taney court has done plenty to keep the court from coloring outside the lines."
2. I take it your failure to reply regarding the fact that at least two justices appointed by the GOP want to overturn AA completely and said so must mean we now agree, correct?
They can write all day long about the evils of AA, but if they vote to uphold it that's all that matters.
Amazing how in your interpretation the text of my comment and expand and grow to suit your needs. Sort of like the Living Constitution you (and I) despise.
All I pointed out was that at least two Justices want it gone and two of them, Scalia and Thomas, wrote concurrences saying as much. Because there was nothing in the majority opinion incompatible with that, they joined in full.
Also, you bending backwards to "prove" that this wasn't a case where AA could be struck down is amusing.
Striking down AA was very much an option and they didn't do it...
What is amusing is the fact that you consider citing the direct text of an opinion as contorting myself to make it say something it doesn't.
Also, be sure to read my comment to the end next time. If you had, you might have noticed that I specifically note that the Court could have struck it down, but public criticism was one possible explanation for why it defined the issue as narrowly as possible.
But maybe you have insight that everyone else, who talked openly about ending the program, don't have?
It's pretty clear who is claiming special insight here and it's definitely not me.
@Anonymous @12:10 am Those who look optimistically at Europe may not be so naive. Across the entire right wing spectrum, the European right is much more dynamic and young than the American right, and they aren't shy about making cultural and national heritage the forefront of their politics (as opposed to low tax apologetics like the Tea Party) (you see this in Japan as well). A shrinking population that is waking up about its problems can save itself better than a growing one who is willfully blind.
I don't want to wade too deep into long range defense planning scenarios, but in Europe, two EU countries are already nuclear states and Germany (and probably Italy) could easily become ones. If a bigger defense patron is needed, Russia is close by as well, and its right wing government doesn't to ask much of Europe other than to buy Russian raw materials, let its billionaires bank there, and not complain about protesters.
"SCOTUS is 77% non-Hispanic white to America’s 64%."
Sorry, but I have to call BS on the term "non-hispanic white" being used to replace WASP.
Non-hispanic whites, including Jews, southern European Catholics etc., are not the same as WASPs.
There are very significantly no WASPs on the court.
The USA is far more than 50% protestant.
I just want regular protestant dudes from the midwest or south who did not attend an Ivy league school. Real Americans should be on the court, not just new diverse "Americans".
Great word and really, sums up just about all the "troubles".
Endemic beta-maleness, I feel as a result of a century of industrial warfare culling the herd.
I'm wondering how many or how often all the dweebs out there look your wife/girlfriend/recent pickup square in the eye and casually but unflinchingly inform them on some issue or other (your guns, motorcycles, whatever) that it isn't "woman business" and just leave it at that for them to process. No argument, etc, just a presentation of fact.
This is so unthinkable in today's America, at least in the middle classes and higher, that on the occasions when it has come up for me, the recipient usually can only react w/stunned silence. So far, though, it has never had a bad outcome, and just reinforces my theory that women will go along with confident authority but will hector and nag weakness.
And, after all, if one can't even husband a woman, how can one expect to prevail against the well organized forces in whose sights one squarely sits?
I was disappointed to see this.
ReplyDeleteBut not surprised.
There won't be a single Republican in the white house from now on, at least not one who's actually conservative(not that Bush JR or SR were very conservative or good conservatives for that matter).
So the chance is slipping away. There's a possible ruling next term concerning Michigan but I think the court will continue to uphold it.
My interpretation is that the court is simply spineless, and by spineless I mean the 'conservative' judges.
I think the 'conservatives' on the court fear public backlash. It's funny, because that didn't stop the liberals in the 60's and 70s with forced bussing etc. But then again, they had the media blowing wind in their backs, and if the court now struck down affirmative action all hell would break loose.
Again, spinelessness.
The best bet is probably to do things statewide for now, which has happened thus far.
The problem with a permanent liberal presidency is that at some point every judge will be a leftist and then we won't get a punt; we'll get an expansion. And this is the problem with the court system in America.
They rarely take brave steps(the steps taken in the 60s and 70s were not brave as they had establishment support). And now they're helping cover up for the NSA with secret rulings giving massive permission.
The court system isn't really a pillar that should have any power. It mostly obeys power anyway. The notion that the courts are a viable route for a powerless group without political representation is a fiction and a fantasy. It will never upset the power structure.
SCOTUS will punt forever until it no longer needs to. Then it will just expand.
Christopher Caldwell's quote on affirmative action holds true. It'll never, ever go away unless there's a sustained activism on behalf of white people. But that requires ethnic politics. Which white people are too lazy to do en masse. Scared of the backlash.
By the way, reading Volokh, I am reminded of the bullshit coming from conservative blogs about the 'biased polls'.
ReplyDeleteIt's a lot of wishful thinking, from start to finish.
As long as the ruling is not explicit, then colleges will find a way. In fact, even if SCOTUS did strike it down, colleges will find a way. That's how the 10% rule in Texas got introduced in the first place.
And those who have done their homework on California know that affirmative action isn't completely eradicated, a lot of bias still targets whites in California and the numbers of blacks at Berkeley for instance is way, way higher than the SAT/GPA scores would indicate.
this won't change a thing for top 25 undergrad universities. I disagree with Volokh.
ReplyDeleteFrom the comment thread at the link...
ReplyDeleteMr Sailer makes the following observation and then asks an obvious question:
It's pretty darned hard to come up with "racially neutral" alternatives that achieve the same outcomes. For example, the Texas Top Ten Percent system brings in top students from impoverished all black schools who aren't prepared for the competition at UT, while excluding higher scoring blacks from tougher integrated middle class schools where they got lower GPAs because they had to compete with Asians and whites. Is that wise?
And here is the first answer:
Yes, it is,...
Blah blah blah. Go read it for yourself.
Of course it's manifestly unwise, not to mention egregiously unfair, to send a lot of unqualified Blacks to the best schools just because they finished in the top 10% of their uncompetitive school, when it's been more than amply demonstrated that they flunk out in large numbers. Rather than admitting more qualified Blacks from more competitive schools, who didn't quite manage to finish in the top 10%, but who do a lot better at university.
Stupidity like that, which is representative of majority opinion, is just one more reason why America will continue to fall down its very own rathole, until it reaches some kind of bottom.
I am glad and a little surprised that you noticed.
ReplyDelete7 to 1, they upheld affirmative action today. They COULD HAVE ended it today.
But they did not.
How many of those 7 judges who voted to NOT end Affirmative action were appointed by a GOP president?
5.
5 of the 7 were appointed by a GOP president.
Not ONE of the FIVE GOP appointed judges today voted to end affirmative action.
So why is it every time I go on this site and similar sites that everyone is talking smack about obama and them libruls and etc?
The GOP has done NOTHING for you.
Stop ignoring that fact.
I find George Will hit or miss lately, but I thought today's piece on this topic was pretty good.
ReplyDeleteAhoy, Steve, this might interest you.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rasmusen.org/papers/immigration-rasmusen.pdf
There won't be a single Republican in the white house from now on, at least not one who's actually conservative(not that Bush JR or SR were very conservative or good conservatives for that matter).
ReplyDeleteThere hasn't been a conservative in the White House since Reagan, and Reagan was hardly a deficit hawk.
"There won't be a single Republican in the white house from now on"
ReplyDeleteNope. The game's already up. It's all a matter of how fast things spiral down the tubes.
By the way, I think there's more hope in Europe than there is here, simply because of the variety of national governments. Sometimes I think maybe a "Back to Europe" movement would be interesting.
I'd rather see disparate impact gone after. Without disparate impact, if the universities want AA, it doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, the only option is to insist that Jews be counted differently. Reduce Jewish over-representation and privilege and make room for white gentiles.
ReplyDeleteStart with... why are there three Jews on the SC?
What is the best long-term plan for getting my under-4 kids into good colleges? I'm white and not well-connected.
ReplyDeleteSupreme Court decision
ReplyDeleteWhen they saw Kennedy, they saw what they wanted to be. When they saw Nixon, they saw what they are. When they see Ribio, they see what they don't wanna be.
ReplyDeleteTo the anonymous poster who asked how to get their kids into a good college, not being well connected: I suggest you claim your kids are 1/8 Native American and talk about a great grandparent with high cheek bones. Your child may even get elected to the US Senate, like the blonde, blue eyed Elizabeth Warren.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhat is the best long-term plan for getting my under-4 kids into good colleges? I'm white and not well-connected.
They aren't even four yet! There's no way they could handle the academics at a decent college. Hell, they probably couldn't even carry the books.
First Obamacare, then this. I want to know what kind of videotapes of Roberts Obama's people have.
ReplyDeleteSo why is it every time I go on this site and similar sites that everyone is talking smack about obama and them libruls and etc?
ReplyDeleteHave you ever actually read this site? You remind me of Whiskey in your detachment from reality.
What is the best long-term plan for getting my under-4 kids into good colleges? I'm white and not well-connected
ReplyDeleteI would start with "Teach Your Child To Read In 100 Easy Lessons" by Engelmann. The younger your kids are, the more you will need to simplify your technique, and go at their pace. Don't be afraid to go back a few lessons when it gets too hard.
If you can set your kids up with a 3rd or 4th grade reading level before they start school, they will have a big advantage over other kids academically as they will be able to read all the materials the teacher gives them. That may help them get scholarships later on.
Most white parents it seems are content to let nature do its thing, and let the TV and schools do a half-assed job of nurturing their children. Considering this lack of attention, it's low hanging fruit that should be seized by the forward thinking parent. Even Steve gives nature/nurture impact of 50/50. 50/50 beats 50/0.
The GOP has done NOTHING for you. Stop ignoring that fact.
ReplyDeleteYeah, because the iSteve crowd and the Alt-Right in general are SUCH big fans of the Republicans!
Working Class American, the Left/Right Combo Horse you keep beating isn't news to anyone here. Gee, neither of the two major parties is going to fix things?
Noooooo kiddin? Huh. Whoda thunk? Thanks for letting us rubes know.
Is that wise?
ReplyDeleteNo, it leads to even more Blacks feeling even more alienated.
Yes, it also likely opens up more slots for qualified low-income junior college transfers in a couple of years.
Every dark cloud has a silver lining.
A Working Class American makes an excellent point.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the best long-term plan for getting my under-4 kids into good colleges? I'm white and not well-connected.
ReplyDeleteAside from the usual(grades and scores), encourage them to completely OWN an individual sport or competitive activity (ie. instrument) that's widely recognized. And as a bonus, something the Ivy league schools field. The more obscure and unpopular, yet accepted and recognized as a legitimate competitive pursuit, the better. Think Trombone, Harpist, Fencing, Kendo, Judo, etc. Team sports for social skills, individual sports for recognition.
If they can get national recognition in their obscure, less competitive sport or activity, that carries much more weight than multiple sport, well-rounded smart jocks that play at just below college level. They are a dime a dozen.
Passion and achievement.
Good luck!
Eric:"There hasn't been a conservative in the White House since Reagan, and Reagan was hardly a deficit hawk."
ReplyDelete....And, of course, Reagan went along with illegal alien amnesty....
"The GOP has done NOTHING for you.
ReplyDeleteStop ignoring that fact."
It's a crazy hunch, I know, but you've been here long enough to know that the readers here do not slavishly follow the GOP.
My guess is that affirmative action, voting rights laws and anything promoting minorities will be addressed and ended about the same time that whites become minorities.
ReplyDelete(a) the Volokh crowd is, most of the time, second rate in their predictions and in their understanding of the constitution. In my humble opinion, anyway. Their main flaw is that they see the constitution as if it were something like the rules of major league baseball, sort of a perennial pyatiletka, rather than as the approximation and backup plan to natural law which it, in actuality, is supposed to be.
ReplyDelete(b) Reagan was not a conservative, he was a wonderful expression of American optimism, pro-life compassion, and fairness, but any real conservative (especially those who don't own expensive dude ranches) could name three areas - beginning with respect for natural law, running through Patton-level-conservative compassion for those who lose when victory is not achieved, and ending in conservative avoidance of uxoriousness - where Reagan was no more conservative than a random fictional Hollywood president would have been. A real conservative would have been extremely ashamed to have made at least two of his Supreme Court picks, for example.
@A Working Class American
ReplyDeleteHow many of those 7 judges who voted to NOT end Affirmative action were appointed by a GOP president?
5.
Read the entire thing. It's only 41 pages. Both Scalia and Thomas wrote concurrences stating they'd do away with it all. Thomas's in particular is very forceful. For brevity, here's what Scalia wrote:
JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring.
"I adhere to the view I expressed in Grutter v. Bollinger: 'The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception...' The petitioner in this case did not ask us to overrule Grutter’s holding that a 'compelling interest' in the educational benefits of diversity can justify racial preferences in university admissions. ...I therefore join the Court’s opinion in full."
Fisher's argument to the Supreme Court was not that affirmative action was unconstitutional and should be struck down entirely. Her argument was that as practiced by the University of Texas, it was not narrowly tailored and was therefore unconstitutional. It's not like it hasn't happened since Dred Scott, but the criticism directed towards the Taney court has done plenty to keep the court from coloring outside the lines.
It's now on remand to the 5th Circuit, who may decide Texas' program is sufficiently tailored. Should that occur, it would hardly be surprising to see the Supreme Court grant cert again, this time with everything on the line.
Yeah, because the iSteve crowd and the Alt-Right in general are SUCH big fans of the Republicans!
ReplyDeleteActually, they/we *are*! We keep *voting* GOP just because it feels like the only alternative to voting for Dems. I wouldn't even be surprised if Steve voted for McCain back then... (Actually, I'd bet good money that he did.)
But I am through with this. No more. Will only vote for real paleocons. Else, will write-in Mickey Mouse as the only alternative to "against all".
I didn't vote for McCain.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that affirmative action, voting rights laws and anything promoting minorities will be addressed and ended about the same time that whites become minorities.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, right now the majority must respect minorities. Once whites are a majority we will be very quickly reminded that the majority will not be dictated to by the minority. After all, that just wouldnt be fair would it?
"The GOP has done NOTHING for you.
ReplyDeleteStop ignoring that fact."
Nobody does anything for anyone unless he feels the pressure.
Just voting for the GOP wasn't gonna get you no candy.
I mean Jews and homos didn't just vote for Dems and expect Dems to do stuff for them. They took control of the party and demanded that things be done their way.
Cons are too laid back. They thought, "Gee, I voted for GOP, so Republicans will do stuff for me."
It don't work that way.
I didn't vote for McCain.
ReplyDeleteBuchanon?
Yglesias tweeted today re the Supreme Court decision:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/349178325715005441
"Disproportionately white, disproportionately male SCOTUS is perfectly situated to judge the legitimacy of promoting diversity."
It's pointed out to him by another tweeter that:
"SCOTUS is 11% black, much like America."
Yglesias responded:
"SCOTUS is 77% non-Hispanic white to America’s 64%."
and
"perhaps disproportionately white, disproportionately male decision-makers should show some humility."
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete@A Working Class American
How many of those 7 judges who voted to NOT end Affirmative action were appointed by a GOP president?
5.
Fisher's argument to the Supreme Court was not that affirmative action was unconstitutional and should be struck down entirely. Her argument was that as practiced by the University of Texas, it was not narrowly tailored and was therefore unconstitutional.
====================
I see someone did not pay attention in law school. SCOTUS is not limited to the issues raised in the lower court.
Yglesias is like Krugman, except he's "Hispanic" and even more clueless.
ReplyDeleteYglesias is "disproportionately white."
ReplyDelete"So why is it every time I go on this site and similar sites that everyone is talking smack about obama and them libruls and etc?
ReplyDeleteThe GOP has done NOTHING for you.
Stop ignoring that fact."
Because these people are more affected by the conservative movement than they think they are.
I've long argued for a pan-political approach.
And by that I mean: no matter who is in power, our interests should be represented. Betting on the GOP has been a disaster. In fact, what matters is the media.
If you want to go ethnic, begin in the media. If you skip the media, dont even bother starting. Since if you dont have a large portion of the media, then nothing will get done.
Second of all, you should have institutions, political think tanks and such, that deal with these issues.
But yes, the lesson of this is that no matter what their nominal political stripe is, if the media climate is against it, the judges will be against it(like now).
If the climate is for it, like it was for forced bussing in the 60s and 70s, then the judges will be for that too.
Yglesias can defend affirmative action because as both Jewish and hispanic, he gets all the goodies. So he has skin in the game.
ReplyDeleteMost people don't even know that Jews are perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action in the Ivy League, something that Ron Unz has documented.
Also, Yglesias logic is atrocious. He's not advocating democracy; he's advocating mob rule.
Following his logic, the civil rights movement could have been shut down because the will of the majority in the South was firmly against it.
Yglesias is just anti-white. Just say it. End the fantasy of "misunderstandings". The guy hates white ethnics, end of story. What works for blacks he wants to forbid for whites. You hold one race to an entirely different standard, where they're never allowed to end any discriminiation against themselves.
That's the definition of racism.
This is also why I insist on media focus before political focus. Politicians are flickle and care for their re-election. They dont have 30, 40 or 50 year long horizons to worry about. You need institutions for that, of which we have none.
And you need ways to destroy anti-white bigots like Yglesias when they rear their ugly heads and spew venom from their mouth of a sewer.
Moving along, however,
Some quotes from the comment section:
"By the way, I think there's more hope in Europe than there is here, simply because of the variety of national governments. Sometimes I think maybe a "Back to Europe" movement would be interesting."
Europe is not a hope because Europe is America's bitch. America is the crown jewel of the Western alliance. Lose America and you lose the West. America also has almost all of the military firepower in the West. So do you want to hand over the biggest nuke arsenal to our enemies? And who built this army? Who built the SR-71, the B-2, the USS George Washington? White people did. You're just gonna leave it all behind?
Because someone will find a way to use it, even if poorly, and if they mismanage it then the Chinese can just swoop in and take it. They'd love some American-made carriers and stealth bombers.
And who will defend Europe? France? De-populating Germany? (Although to be fair, whites in America are now also de-populating).
more from the comment section:
ReplyDelete"My guess is that affirmative action, voting rights laws and anything promoting minorities will be addressed and ended about the same time that whites become minorities."
I wouldn't judge you harshly if I read that on a mainstream conservative blog.
But this is iSteve, where most of the readers are intelligent whites irrespective of party. (I'm personally leaning left on economic issues but I can't vote for leftist candidates that support anti-white policies so I don't vote).
You should know better than that. Are you that naive? The only people who play fair, even to a masochistic extent, are whites. Protip: being a minority doesn't make you stronger and often subjects you to attempts of genocide of ethnic cleansing. See the middle east or yugoslavia.
This is why Jews of America wanted more minorities, they felt unsafe because they know damn well that it sucks being a minority in a homogenous country. This is a new thing for the vast majority of whites, since they're illiterate of history they're sleepwalking into disaster.
"A real conservative would have been extremely ashamed to have made at least two of his Supreme Court picks, for example."
Nonsencial. Pure gibberish.
"
Read the entire thing. It's only 41 pages. Both Scalia and Thomas wrote concurrences stating they'd do away with it all. Thomas's in particular is very forceful. For brevity, here's what Scalia wrote"
They can write all day long about the evils of AA, but if they vote to uphold it that's all that matters. Also, you bending backwards to "prove" that this wasn't a case where AA could be struck down is amusing.
Striking down AA was very much an option and they didn't do it. The original complaint was forumulated in a diplomatic manner but there was much leeway to interpret it as a referendum on the way affirmative action was handled in Texas(which could then be set as a precedent for other states, which is how it always works).
The judges knew this and punted. But maybe you have insight that everyone else, who talked openly about ending the program, don't have?
It's called self-comforting delusion.
The deliberate Hispanicization of America seems to accomplish many things for the current elite.
ReplyDeleteAn all in one solution of complete White dispossession, Black displacement, and physically unifying with formerly cryptic members of the group. Also, transitioning to a thrive model that's worked well for 500 years would probably be viewed as a good thing.
Too much?
Steve, Cass Sunstein, Obama's former regulations Czar and a Harvard law professor basically nails it in this opinion:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-24/judicial-minimalism-triumphs-in-affirmative-action-case.html
The first few paragraphs are the only necessary ones, really. He confirms what we thought: that the Supreme Court shirked it's responsibilites and basically washes its hands off the entire debate.
And who is responsible for that? John Roberts, the 'conservative'. He basically doesn't want to upend anything radical when it comes to affirmative action.
When it comes to gay marriage, because the pendelum has swung in the other direction, look for the court to swing too.
If this is the best "conservative" judges can do - maintain the status quo - then we won't get anywhere.
@A Working Class American
ReplyDeleteI don't differ from you too much in my opinion of the GOP, so I'll keep the sarcasm to a minimum.
Two Things:
1. I see someone did not pay attention in law school. SCOTUS is not limited to the issues raised in the lower court.
Thanks for your comment. Please reread mine. Maybe you'll notice I said the exact same thing:
"It's not like it hasn't happened since Dred Scott, but the criticism directed towards the Taney court has done plenty to keep the court from coloring outside the lines."
2. I take it your failure to reply regarding the fact that at least two justices appointed by the GOP want to overturn AA completely and said so must mean we now agree, correct?
They can write all day long about the evils of AA, but if they vote to uphold it that's all that matters.
ReplyDeleteAmazing how in your interpretation the text of my comment and expand and grow to suit your needs. Sort of like the Living Constitution you (and I) despise.
All I pointed out was that at least two Justices want it gone and two of them, Scalia and Thomas, wrote concurrences saying as much. Because there was nothing in the majority opinion incompatible with that, they joined in full.
Also, you bending backwards to "prove" that this wasn't a case where AA could be struck down is amusing.
Striking down AA was very much an option and they didn't do it...
What is amusing is the fact that you consider citing the direct text of an opinion as contorting myself to make it say something it doesn't.
Also, be sure to read my comment to the end next time. If you had, you might have noticed that I specifically note that the Court could have struck it down, but public criticism was one possible explanation for why it defined the issue as narrowly as possible.
But maybe you have insight that everyone else, who talked openly about ending the program, don't have?
It's pretty clear who is claiming special insight here and it's definitely not me.
@Anonymous @12:10 am
ReplyDeleteThose who look optimistically at Europe may not be so naive. Across the entire right wing spectrum, the European right is much more dynamic and young than the American right, and they aren't shy about making cultural and national heritage the forefront of their politics (as opposed to low tax apologetics like the Tea Party) (you see this in Japan as well). A shrinking population that is waking up about its problems can save itself better than a growing one who is willfully blind.
I don't want to wade too deep into long range defense planning scenarios, but in Europe, two EU countries are already nuclear states and Germany (and probably Italy) could easily become ones. If a bigger defense patron is needed, Russia is close by as well, and its right wing government doesn't to ask much of Europe other than to buy Russian raw materials, let its billionaires bank there, and not complain about protesters.
"SCOTUS is 77% non-Hispanic white to America’s 64%."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I have to call BS on the term "non-hispanic white" being used to replace WASP.
Non-hispanic whites, including Jews, southern European Catholics etc., are not the same as WASPs.
There are very significantly no WASPs on the court.
The USA is far more than 50% protestant.
I just want regular protestant dudes from the midwest or south who did not attend an Ivy league school. Real Americans should be on the court, not just new diverse "Americans".
"uxoriousness"
ReplyDeleteGreat word and really, sums up just about all the "troubles".
Endemic beta-maleness, I feel as a result of a century of industrial warfare culling the herd.
I'm wondering how many or how often all the dweebs out there look your wife/girlfriend/recent pickup square in the eye and casually but unflinchingly inform them on some issue or other (your guns, motorcycles, whatever) that it isn't "woman business" and just leave it at that for them to process. No argument, etc, just a presentation of fact.
This is so unthinkable in today's America, at least in the middle classes and higher, that on the occasions when it has come up for me, the recipient usually can only react w/stunned silence. So far, though, it has never had a bad outcome, and just reinforces my theory that women will go along with confident authority but will hector and nag weakness.
And, after all, if one can't even husband a woman, how can one expect to prevail against the well organized forces in whose sights one squarely sits?
Uxoriousness, yes, good word....