Tuesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Cats … or is a dig at the modern atheists?
  2. Death and the road.
  3. State visit, and suggestions.
  4. Ordinary or extra-ordinary?
  5. Unintended (or not?) consequences of affirmative action. It’s not sexism, is aff-action and consequence. If you lower standards for groups, people expect that standards were lowered. People are odd that way.
  6. Replacing the meditative staring into fire at night.
  7. A suggestion for marriage.
  8. Our President (with a little Presidential hypocrisy noted) and the courts.
  9. What I fail to understand is how/why the liberal/progressives manage to not get outraged by this sort of thing. Don’t they think a reliable media is important?
  10. Our budget watchdogs.
  11. Taking on the Volcker rule.
  12. A little maths to go with your morning coffee.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

One comment

  1. Boonton says:

    #5 or the right is just dishonest. Sotomayor graduated from Cardnell Spellman HS as valedictorian back in 1972 and graduated from Yale with a JD in ’79. Let’s take it as a given that there’s rampent affirmative action during that time period (which there wasn’t but let’s just say there is). At most affirmative action gets you into college or grad school, it doesn’t get you out. Even if it got you out, though, between 1979-2008 you have a span of nearly 30 years where subpar abilities would become blatently obvious. Even if you therefore assume every Latino or every woman or every Latino woman unfairly benefited from affirmative action, after graduation some will be better than others. Then this criticism makes no sense unless you also hold the following assumptions:

    1. No Latino woman could ever be in the nation’s top legal talent therefore no woman nominated to a top legal spot could ever merit such a thing.

    2. A President, who gets precious few opportunities to appoint SC Justices and such appointments have long range consquences for policies, would find the merits of affirmative action so important that he would waste an appointment on nominating a subpar woman rather than the best possible liberal legal mind!

    A more reasonable set of assumptions, though, is that such people simply don’t care about honesty. Since they are dishonest by choice and nature, it makes no sense to pin the blame on affirmative action. If affirmative action was abolished, well the claims would still be made by dishonest people so what’s the point? Today huge chunks of the population confidently believes that Obama raised taxes on them, or 20 years ago they believed the deficit increased under Bill Clinton. You can’t fight dishonest people by changing policy, you can only fight them by calling them out on their dishonesty.