Randoms

– Basically everyone linked to this “White in Philadelphia” article.  It’s worth reading if you haven’t.  Also, here’s Nick Land, Rod Dreher, Chuck, Heartiste,

– Marion Barry doesn’t want to be out-done by Obama’s call for universal pre-school.  Barry wants to make it mandatory.

– Sailer is having fun with Oberlin.

– I, for one, am completely shocked by this.

This story seems under-reported around these parts.

– The Carlyle Club tackles manliness.

– I often read my Google Reader feed in chronological order.  This one was immediately followed by this one.

– It’s apparently cool to admit this and to support massive un-skilled immigration.  Go figure.  Just to complete the stupid, Megan McArdle asks: “Why not institute a special [government hiring] preference for people who experienced long-term unemployment between 2009 and 2013?” Because the jobs are already being given to veterans?  Or is this some kind of trick question?

Rand Paul’s filibuster made it clear that a surprisingly large number of mainstream Republicans think that the Constitution doesn’t prevent a President from assassinating a US citizen without any sort of trial.  One can’t help but wonder what these people think the Constitution actually does.

– Female writer thinks that it makes no sense that women would want to share their last names with their children and with the family that they live most of their lives’ with.  What does make sense then?

– What won’t porn stars do?

Advertisements

23 Responses to Randoms

  1. VXXC says:

    The Republicans think the Constitution is there to give them a job.

  2. It’s good to know that feminists can be stripped of their identity just by calling them something besides their names. I’ll have to use that sometime.

    How’s being strong and independent working out for you, ladies?

  3. Jim says:

    I actually know her (we went to UBC and our social circles overlapped somewhat). I can assure you that she’s much less strident than she used to be. For example, she is apparently no longer a lesbian. Although that might be because she needed a green card and the Feds won’t recognize gay marriages…

    • Jim says:

      Gragh, reading comprehension, I mistook her for a different columnist at the huffington post who writes about very similar topics. Damn this bourbon

  4. […] Foseti, this broader article on Being White in Philly contains, in passing, this […]

  5. Fake Herzog says:

    As the resident neocon around here who nevertheless loves my reactionary friends (and unlike Bill Kristol, who I also love, I don’t get the vapors when someone on the right might actually disagree with me!), I think it is my duty to send along this excellent Andy McCarthy piece on the Rand filibuster:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342568/what-rand-paul-misses-andrew-c-mccarthy

  6. SOBL1 says:

    The Philly mag article has struck a nerve because it is true. It strikes right at the core lie of the left that diversity is our strength and all sides can live in harmony in our liberal society. It is interesting to read this coupled with the MSM’s recent ‘have babies’ articles as well as the NY Times ‘marriage is the new class divide’ article from the summer. The left might be catching on that unbridled sexuality + nonexistent standards do not makes for an insecure and dark society.

    “After Porn Ends” was an interesting documentary that revealed a tiny little thing that is applicable to your last link. One female porn performer mentioned wha she could do at each older age to make sure sh could do a ‘first’ and still make money. She listed several ages and each older age meant a worse act. The last age she said was 35 and ‘do a black guy’. The entire documentary was interesting to my wife and I as it seemed like the guys who got invovled had some sad stories but positives, while the females, with maybe Nina Hartley as an exception, had horrific stories before, during and after their time in that industry.

    • rightsaidfred says:

      Re: Philly article. I slogged through most of Chuck’s message board, and there were a couple on the other side saying, in essence, “violence in Philly is overstated here, but if you don’t go along with the narrative, we’re going to kick your ass.”

      • SOBL1 says:

        You nailed it. I stayed away from commenting on that article but enjoyed the mental gymnastics of the Philadelphians. The progs will need a firm police state to enforce the caste system that is forming with each year while maintaining their security.

      • Ariston says:

        They already have one. Get past the city limits and you immediately encounter ‘pro–active’ policing. UPenn is protected by a bubble of private policing— kind of like Obama’s old neighborhood near the University of Chicago.

        One Sunday afternoon, my wife & I went downtown to meet some people after church; the closest, quickest way to go was to go right through Northwest Philly. Mind you, this was the middle of the afternoon on a bright Sunday… but the people we went to meet were shocked that we went that way. Now, no one will actually be frank about why they are so afraid they want to avoid a main road in NW Philly even during the daytime, so I—who has no illusions about the area—am crazy on both ends— I’ll both go there and will say what they won’t. They are afraid because the area is criminal, and they associate said criminality with black people to the extent that they are terrified to be in their cars on a busy street in the middle of the afternoon. But you can’t say that.

  7. VXXC says:

    Weasel in Phile isn’t white, she’s a lily. I’m white. I ain’t [yeah…AIN’T] racist…except about her kind.

    Which really must be stripped of power. Because that’s who has it.

  8. Handle says:

    Knowing a few conservative legal types with informed opinions on issues like this – and who believe that their opinions conform to the Constitution and, furthermore, that such conformance is important – perhaps I can represent their perspective. Which, I might add as an interesting aside, is curiously close to Auster’s position.

    Basically, the idea is to try intellectually to split the world, people, events, etc. into the “war” and “crime” categories. Where non-state actor terrorists fit is hard to pin down, and what people say is more correlated to ulterior political motives and agendas for policy than any kind of principled coherent doctrine or jurisprudence (no surprise, ‘natch). This is especially hard since we no longer really “declare war” anymore.

    Constitutional Conservatives tend to favor describing all activity that is not strictly simple crime as “war”. Once a person is in the war category, they are, basically, an enemy and fair game for “kinetic targeting,” by the executive, whomever, wherever, whenever. Some conservatives mitigate this absolutist positions and think there should be an “imminence” requirement, or other terms that draw from the legal theories that are deployed to justify the use of deadly force by law enforcement in criminal situations. Others point to similar doctrines from the laws of warfare used to fashion Rules of Engagement, such as “Minimal Escalation of Force,” and “Proportionality.”

    You can have judicial review or other lawyers oversee this if you want, but a lot of people have a kind of irrational magical feeling about what this is supposed to accomplish (and that’s if they’re not active out of raw bad faith, hoping their political allies in the judiciary will, from ideological motives, simply try to gum up the works – like what used to be common in the criminal system). In practice, it’s almost always a rubber stamp.

    There is a separate question of “to whom” Constitutional protections apply, and sometimes also, “where”. US citizens on US Soil? Foreigners in Foreign Lands? Conservatives are divided on the importance of these status categories and how they apply to these questions.

    • Handle says:

      Furthermore, and speaking of irrational magicalism, I find it interesting that a lot of the questions and issues have only become active with the emergence of drones. Isn’t that strange? These things aren’t even autonomous (yet) and have human pilots who pull the triggers.

      Has the law really been in a state of hibernation waiting for the emergence of particular ways of launching explosives at people?

      Theoretically, the legal questions are technologically independent and should have been judiciable since 1789. Could Abraham Lincoln have ordered the assassination of a US citizen on US soil without trial? Or George Washington? Does it make a difference if GW has a minuteman do it with a musket or BHO has the MQ-1 Officer do it with a hellfire?

      But there’s just something about drones. I blame the media.

      • Foseti says:

        I’ve wondered about this too. Why is it so much worse to be attacked by an un-manned aircraft?

      • Alrenous says:

        The emotions often do not follow chains of logic, especially in the layhuman.

        In Handle’s situations 1 – 3, the imagination conjures a person performing an act upon another human with the help of technology. In situation 4, the imagination defaults to a robot murdering a person and neglects the person behind the robot.

      • Piglet says:

        It is scary because many of us believe that, when push comes to shove, the grunt soldiers in the U.S. military will not turn their guns upon their own communities. This may or may not really be true, but it seems to be a reasonable belief. I, for one, am not so sanguine about the conscience of the people that could be recruited as drone operators or the directors of autonomous combat systems.

    • federicoiiidamontefeltro says:

      Drones are expendable, unlike human soldiers, yet vicariously intelligent.

      This means that USG can spot and immediately attack hostile foreign nationals, without having to establish a permanent military presence in the country. If every other drone is shot down, because the area isn’t under control, it doesn’t matter.

      Drones therefore alter the rational game theory of international law. Pak-gov can forbid USG to establish full military control within Pakistan (trespass of sovereignty—invasion or colonisation), but has less ability to block drone strikes. Pak-gov wishes to appear to be fighting terrorists, and that’s what drones do.

    • Drones are also relatively harmless. Pak-gov cannot complain that they compromise its airspace, in the event of legitimate conflict with USG.

      If it were to let in all kinds of more dangerous manned aircraft, which are a match for its best fighters and carry hefty payloads, it would be a sitting duck in the event of war.

  9. Handle says:

    The mine-strike story is fascinating in many ways though hardly surprising. I particularly focused on the nature of the elite (ethnic) Africans, and it gave me an idea which I’m not sure has any merit, so I’d like to see what you all think about it.

    I have worked in environments which employ a good number of American Blacks, both because of the local labor market and for diversity reasons. However, because the work requires both a decent degree of education and competence, as well as a squeaky clean record, the blacks that work there are almost all well-mannered, middle class, SWPL blacks. The above requirements also mean that the black employee skews almost entirely female, but that’s a diversity two-fer, and therefore helps white males. Anyway….

    My dubious idea has to do about the “impressions” that elites get about certain ethnic groups. How they draw from their own anecdotal and non-representative experiences to make judgments about immigration, crime, and education. Put yourselves in the shows of a somewhat naive liberal member of the elite.

    Let’s say the blacks (or whatever, fill in the blank) you work with are of the type I’ve described above. These may be the only blacks you actually deal with intimately, converse with, etc. on a regular basis. They are, compared to the mean of their sub-population, extraordinary, actually, but they seem “normal” to you, because everyone you work with is very smart and well-mannered, and your idea of “extraordinary” is truly coruscatingly bright.

    You know there is a lot of black social pathology and dysfunction out there. You don’t like to live in those neighborhoods (without sufficient insulation, anyway), and you certainly would never, ever, send your kids to schools with too many blacks. But then again, there’s Stacy and Martha at work, and they’re perfectly good people. Look at Stacy. She’s got a degree; she’s diligent, discrete, trustworthy, speaks grammatically and without urban dialect, accent or patois, is married to another normal (extraordinary) black man with two polite, bright kids…

    And since she’s normal, well, why can’t they all be like that? Why aren’t they all like that already. Well, of course there are the eternal dark forces of racism and oppression lurking everywhere looking to commit patriarchal microaggressions. But maybe they can all be like that! Maybe it’s just bad luck, evil racism, and finding the right educational techniques and social policies! In a generation, they’ll all be like Stacy!

    Ok, just talking out of my ass on a liberal (ha!) amount of some Aberlour 16 (just fantastic, by the way), but I’m curious to see your impression of this non-representative impression theory.

    • rightsaidfred says:

      You are on to something. There is an anxiousness to present our burgeoning minorities as paragons of ability, pace commercials and Hollywood roles as prime movers. Libs are quick with a story of an oppressed minority who soared to great heights when the chains were removed.

  10. 6gbiu says:

    I’m thinking that non-white male on white female is taboo, alongside other types.

    Because I’m pretty sure that White male on Asian woman or White male on Latina woman or White male in caramel brown skinned woman isn’t taboo.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: