Monday (Memorial Day) Links

Good morning, post nighttime thunderstorm in which some car windows of our were left ajar … oops.

non-Memorial day links.

  • Zizek on pattern of thought in cultures.
  • Not impressed with the Evangelical manifesto.
  • “If you aren’t for Obama then you’re a racist.” A theme I’m guessing will repeat somewhat tirelessly until November. The actual truth is somewhat stickier, if you’re for or against Obama on account of race then you’re a racist, would be my take.
  • Speed.
  • A thing that went bump in the night.
  • Not really very sorry.
  • A death of a beloved one.
  • Hebrew theology … is anti-Semitic?
  • A prayer.
  • How to miss the point, or more technically, to facilely present a logically flawed argument. Mr Schraub in arguing that lowered aggregate standards do not result in lowered aggregate performance by pointing that lowered standards for a small subset of a group does not result in the expectation of lowered standards for the entire group, which is not the same thing. This of course ignores the fact that lowering aggregate standards generically does in fact lower aggregate performance.
  • The dwarf song and going off to work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Actually, though I don’t think affirmative action lowers aggregate performance in groups (and there studies backing me up here), I’m making no claim on that point in this post. Not every post does everything — I honestly have no idea why you thought I was making an argument about “actual” performance, as oppose to the perception thereof.

    I’m only arguing an inconsistency: we only question the merit of those admitted under a preferential regime when the beneficiaries are Black — even when we admit White folks received non-meritocratic preference, it hasn’t led us to question their qualification or merits as individuals. A facially neutral (or “true”) argument can still be racist if it is applied selectively only or disproportionately against Black people (something that also describes basically the entire drug war).

  2. Mark says:

    Actually you’re wrong on multiple counts.

    First off, we do question the performance of whites who have preferential treatment, hence the notion that being born with a silver spoon in the mouth is also seen as a dint against their performance and abilities (He’s not qualified he was “born to privilege”). That final claim, oddly enough, is one likely to be placed against Mr Obama’s children in addition to lowered standards from affirmative action.

    And on the second objection (why your argument touches on actual performance), you questioned the justice of making a particular judgement. The truth behind a claim it seems to me obviously implicated in any reasonable notion of justice.

    I didn’t say “affirmative action lowers aggregate performance” I said lowering performance standards leads to lower aggregate performance, which is not (necessarily) the same thing.