Occasional Reader 1/13/2020 5:42:10 AM

1

buzzsawmonkey 1/13/2020 6:48:59 AM

2

In #1 Occasional Reader said: Good morning.  NPR is currently banging the “Ukraine airliner shootdown is Trump’s fault” drum.

Nathan Phillips is a guest anchor on NPR?

vxbush 1/13/2020 7:05:55 AM

3

Morning, campers. Ran across this this morning when I should be working: 

Foiled in U.S. Courts, Anti-Trump Lawyer Got Results Taking Ukraine Cases to Mueller and FBI

It's about a lawyer who has been after Manafort for years and has been unsuccessful--until he turned his material over to the Mueller special investigation.

buzzsawmonkey 1/13/2020 8:58:39 AM

4

It's getting to be time to revive this old chestnut:

A Modern Liberal Democrat

--with apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan

I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat

I've spread out 'cross the nation from my native campus habitat

I know our shabby history of policies discriminate

And think we should apologize from now until the infinite

I look upon myself as a citizen international 

I think restricting entry of illegals is irrational

I take care always to show elevated moral attitude

And speak with unimpeachable political correctitude

And speak with unimpeachable political correctitude

And speak with unimpeachable political correctitude

And speak with unimpeachable political correcti-rectitude

Though not myself religious I will talk of spirituality

I worship at the shrine of income and gender equality

I support racial set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats

I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat

He supports racial set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats

He is the very model of a modern liberal Democrat

I reject the notion that jihadists want to form a Caliphate

We'd rapidly end differences if we would just negotiate

I think we should do more to prevent other nations' genocide

But if we use our military I'll support the other side

I second-guess every decision strategic and tactical

I support our troops in every way, as long as it's not practical

Our army should not enter into any foreign adventure

So I oppose on principle each new defense expenditure

So I oppose on principle each new defense expenditure

So I oppose on principle each new defense expenditure

So I oppose on principle each new defense expend-expenditure

I think that women should have choices when they're faced with pregnancy

But there is one choice over others I view preferentially

In short, supporting set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats

I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat

In short, supporting set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats

I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat

In fact, when I have shed my nostalgic dreams of a revolution

When I know government's the problem more than the solution

When I realize there's no way that we can fund Social Security

With so much of our population having reached maturity

When I have learnt taxation doesn't create private sector jobs

When I stop using tax grants as a way to buy votes from the mob

In short, when I have shorn some of my more blatant hypocrisies

You might actually see me begin to support democracy

You might actually see me begin to support democracy

You might actually see me begin to support democracy

You might actually see me begin to support democra-mocracy

For the economic knowledge which I've clung to from my early teens

Says, "To each who wants it must come from each person who has got the means"

And so, supporting set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats

I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat

And so, supporting set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats

I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat

Occasional Reader 1/13/2020 9:25:39 AM

5

buzz, I didn't get a chance yesterday to get back to regarding this response: 

"The problem I have with the types who use it on places like PJM is that they are basically the bleach-baby version of the "black nationalists"; they ascribe some (undefined) virtue to "whiteness" that they somehow share---and, worse, cannot define what they mean by "white." As I noted above, there are all kinds of "white people" whom other "white people" did not accept as "white"---many, not that long ago. 

As to the self-declared "white nationalists" at PJM (or Insty, specifically, which is where I see them), I have no use for them, either.  And leaving aside your "okay, so define 'white'" challenge to them, I'd add, "okay, so define 'nationalist' - what is it, exactly, you are proposing?".

But I think your observation regarding "a century or so ago, Scandinavians (etc.) were not considered 'white' by many in the US" is somewhat beside the point.  That may have been the case in 1900; it's no longer the case today. I'd argue there's a broad, if ragged-around-the-edges, consensus about who "white people" are; and even the "white nationalist" Morlocks at PJM have something of a point when they declaim that "white people", per se, are routinely excoriated by those who control the commanding heights of the culture.  E.g., when Obama sneered that his grandmother was being a "typical white person" (in supposedly changing seats on the bus to avoid a black man, or some such thing), this earned him no opprobrium at all outside of specifically-conservative circles.  That is quite astonishing, when one really thinks about it.  Imagine Bush or Trump making a parallel "typical black person" remark.  

As far as "race is pseudoscience", I'd say yes and no.  From a strictly biological point of view, sure, the division of humanity into "races" (as currently defined) is arbitrary; but from a historical perspective, it's not.  It relates to shared heritage - literally - and therefore shared cultural attributes as well as, yes, real genetic differences.  Sure, one could, in theory, divide humanity into "races" in accordance strictly with, say, blood type.  But I doubt that would yield any historically-relevant patterns.  There was no time in history when the A-negatives enslaved the O-positives, for instance.  So, the the now-classic question of "is race biologically real, or a social construct?", my answer is: Yes.  That is, it's a social construct made up - in part, at least - of biological realities.  Now, taking those genetically-constructed markers of skin color, hair texture, etc. and declaring that they make one "race" superior to another - THATS racism. 

buzzsawmonkey 1/13/2020 9:40:30 AM

6

Reply to Occasional Reader in 5:

You raise some good points; I'll address them a little later.

Occasional Reader 1/13/2020 10:20:59 AM

7

In #6 buzzsawmonkey said: I'll address them a little later.

Procrastination!  So typical of the Jewish Race...

/

buzzsawmonkey 1/13/2020 10:34:47 AM

8

In #7 Occasional Reader said: Procrastination!

I'm just an amateur crastinator.  I expect to turn pro soon.

lucius septimius 1/13/2020 11:00:49 AM

9

In #5 Occasional Reader said: As far as "race is pseudoscience", I'd say yes and no. 

I would add that DNA research over the past two decades has yielded some rather interesting results, most notably a remarkably close correlation between DNA profiles and language.  On the surface that would seem to make sense -- people who speak the same language are more likely to marry one another and have children.  On the other hand, the correlation is strong enough to say that connection between race, language, and culture -- a given under 19th-century "science" -- is much stronger than we had thought.  Ethno-linguistic groups turn out to be genetic groups as well and the relationships between language families break down along the same lines as the relationships between genetic groups.

vxbush 1/13/2020 11:06:32 AM

10

Reply to Occasional Reader in 5:

Hasn't it been pretty clear for a while that "race" is really a euphemism (a very poor one) for "culture"? It is a set of cultural norms and behaviors for a group that are being considered, as opposed to actual biological DNA markers. 

JCM 1/13/2020 1:02:16 PM

11

Reply to lucius septimius in 9:

I find the ads for some of those DNA tests rather annoying and ignorant.

The one that link DNA to culture. As if finding out you have some long forgotten link to some group suddenly changes your culture.

lucius septimius 1/13/2020 1:06:48 PM

12

In #11 JCM said: As if finding out you have some long forgotten link to some group suddenly changes your culture.

Though the German side of me wants to march and drink beer, the Irish part of me wants to sit and drink beer.  Either way, beer.

Occasional Reader 1/13/2020 1:32:16 PM

13

In #9 lucius septimius said: Ethno-linguistic groups turn out to be genetic groups as well

I have to say, mustering my best Oxford-Cambridge accent:  Like, duh.    Am I missing something here?  This seems entirely, intuitively obvious. Of course, it's a generalization; but based on historic patterns of settlement and migration, would we expect anything different? 

Occasional Reader 1/13/2020 1:41:42 PM

14

In #10 vxbush said: Hasn't it been pretty clear for a while that "race" is really a euphemism (a very poor one) for "culture"?

Hmm.  I suppose you could say that regarding the sorts of examples buzz was mentioning, from a century-plus ago, e.g. considering Scandinavians or Irish as a different "race".  In current terms, I'd say the taxonomy does correspond to genetic markers (in a way, it did then, too, but just more weakly), with the attendant caveats I mentioned above. 

Occasional Reader 1/13/2020 1:42:39 PM

15

In #12 lucius septimius said: Though the German side of me wants to march and drink beer, the Irish part of me wants to sit and drink beer.  E

Me, I like to think I combine Irish sobriety with a German sense of humor. 

Kosh's Shadow 1/13/2020 1:58:38 PM

16

In #8 buzzsawmonkey said: I'm just an amateur crastinator.  I expect to turn pro soon.

You'll just keep putting it off for later.

lucius septimius 1/13/2020 2:35:46 PM

17

In #13 Occasional Reader said: based on historic patterns of settlement and migration, would we expect anything different? 

It is a sort of "duh" issue, yes, but what was remarkable was how high the correlation was.  For some time, there were attempts to insist that there was no necessary genetic component to linguistic groups (Latin America, for example, being one of the major counter examples).  What was particularly fascinating - and ran contrary to some schools of comparative linguistics -- had to do with ethno-linguistic groups that were widely separated.  Turkic languages and Indo_European languages are agreed to have had a probable common ancestor long ago, and the degree to which the languages were similar corresponded to genetic differences.  Languages within Eurasia are more similar to one another than to non-Semitic African languages to the same degree that Eurasians share genetic markers that distinguish them from sub-Saharan Africans.  In fact, the most significant divide between both linguistic and genetic groups was between Africans and everyone else.

buzzsawmonkey 1/13/2020 2:47:03 PM

18

doppelganglander 1/13/2020 3:10:46 PM

19

I hope y'all are sitting down. Greta Thunberg's father writes her Facebook posts.

Grief counselors will be available in the cafeteria.

buzzsawmonkey 1/13/2020 3:19:01 PM

20

In #5 Occasional Reader said: But I think your observation regarding "a century or so ago, Scandinavians (etc.) were not considered 'white' by many in the US" is somewhat beside the point.  That may have been the case in 1900; it's no longer the case today. I'd argue there's a broad, if ragged-around-the-edges, consensus about who "white people" are; and even the "white nationalist" Morlocks at PJM have something of a point when they declaim that "white people", per se, are routinely excoriated by those who control the commanding heights of the culture. 

Attempt to re-create my lost comment:

It is not "beside the point" to remind people that the classification of "white" is something that has been highly mutable and malleable over time.  That people who were visually as "white" as "white" could be---the Irish, the Scandinavians, and the Slavs---were not considered "white" for quite some time is highly relevant when people expressing some sort of "white patriotism" start phoompheting. 

The Irish were considered "white Enwords" from the early 19th century to well into the 20th; I've seen at least one cartoon in a collection of early New Yorker drawings which plays on the stereotype of the Irish laborer as a very-strong but utterly stupid slob.  People of Scandinavian descent may no longer be the half-witted "Scandihoovians" of the late-19th/early-20th century, but I can remember people of Slavic background being dismissed as Polacks, bohunks and hunkies.   Spaniards, Italians, and Greeks may be "white" now, but they were spics, wops, guineas, and wallios until well into the 20th century.  Jews may be "white" to Louis Farrakhan and the Black Hebrew Israelites, but they are khazars and wily Levantines to the "white nationalists."

So, who are these "white nationalists" including in their "it's OK to be white" umbrella?  What are their criteria?  Do even they know? I don't think so.  They are merely the funhouse-mirror image of the black racists who hate people less swarthy than they.  Not only can they not articulate who or what they consider "white," they cannot articulate what the descendant of a Sicilian tomato-grower or a Polish potato-farmer has with the descendant of a Sorbonne professor.  They themselves have constructed no cathedrals, have done nothing to advance human knowledge or freedom; they merely claim kinship to those who have on the basis of their [lack of] melanin content, precisely as the black nationalists claim kinship to the Pharaohs on the basis of their melanin content.  Both are equally loathesome idiots.

"Race" may be a shorthand for "culture," but I'd take Thomas Sowell over some knuckle-dragging white meth-head as a neighbor any day of the week.  Do I believe the excoriation of "white people" by black racists to be appalling?  Yes---but no less, or more, appalling than the pathetic spectacle of people whose only distinction is pallid skin claiming that their skin color endows them with some unspecified unique virtue.

Kosh's Shadow 1/13/2020 3:39:56 PM

21

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 18:
And something very hard to fix. I will look for a way to warn about it.

Note Disqus does the same thing. Very annoying on Jpost, which automatically refreshes the page while you are writing a comment

buzzsawmonkey 1/13/2020 3:57:25 PM

22

Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 21:

I'm not complaining, mind you---I just didn't know, and it was an unwelcome surprise to see such stunning elegance of prose disappear into the ether.

Well, I did what I could to reconstruct it.

Kosh's Shadow 1/13/2020 4:15:36 PM

23

In #19 doppelganglander said: I hope y'all are sitting down. Greta Thunberg's father writes her Facebook posts.

She doesn't have professional ghostwriters doing it?

Kosh's Shadow 1/13/2020 4:17:28 PM

24

In #22 buzzsawmonkey said: I'm not complaining, mind you---I just didn't know, and it was an unwelcome surprise to see such stunning elegance of prose disappear into the ether. Well, I did what I could to reconstruct it.

I know. I also was thinking about how to fix it correctly, but I have a few other things in the queue first. Warning should be easy - I think I can easily find out what is i the editor buffer and if it is not empty, warn about it.

Kosh's Shadow 1/13/2020 4:40:31 PM

25

I like it when I figure out the problem before tech support. Admittedly, this was a difficult one for them since I cannot send them the file.

I usually take the police interview DVDs and make them into easily played files on the computer, but the last 2 or 3 DVDs have not worked. One part of the video will not load in the software I have (CyberLink PowerDirector).

They did ask for a lot of information, and linked to software that would give the media info. Their link gave me an old version, but I found the latest, found what I think was the problem, and found software to correct it.

Viola! I could load the files.