Class, Practicality, and Social Pandering

In Elena Kagan's hearing this week, the conservative opposition alluded to her presumed insular upbringing on "Manhattan's Upper West Side" (read: a New York liberal Jew educated at post-1960's Princeton and Harvard) and thus broached the ever-important subject of class. While the Tea Party movement seeks to win veneration for "hard-working Americans", there still exists a social pull for members of the middle and upper classes to advertise their status. To do so, one must discern amongst the various indicators of class and often offer caustic redress of those below oneself. Take this popular Internet meme from There I Fixed It - Redneck Repairs:


Obviously, the intention is to ridicule this individual for his "ghetto" air conditioning. Yet such impulsive belittling underscores the unpragmatic notion of class. Clearly, many of our purchases are motivated not by practical use or product quality, but rather by what the product says about our social status. There's a reason why Macs have a conspicuous symbol on each computer, iPod users wear the unique headphones, and Polo recently enlarged their logo. We likely care more about the social benefits of what we use than if they actually work.

And how do we react to those intrepid souls steadfastly eschewing the rat race? We disparage them because our own status depends on the wholesale subservience of others to this external system of worth. So the guy profiled above becomes a target of condemnation despite likely possessing astounding technical skill and ingenuity. Assuming this little air conditioning set up works, this man should be lauded for his workmanship and talent. But unfortunately, instead we fawn over the man with the classy Porsche as he weakly grovels for social approval.

[Note: Some interlopers accuse this blog and its peers of anti-prole bias. I assure you I harbor no such ill will to upstanding individuals of this class. The problem: Most people who have "prole" jobs exhibit lower class behavior and thus the latter, which is worthy of my detest, gets conflated with the former, which surely is not.]

The Joy of Diversity: Spouting Empty Rhetoric

Here's a NYT letter "To the Editor" iillustrating the wonderful vacuity of the diversity paradigm.

Recent articles about Arizona’s immigration laws have caused me to reflect on what America is all about [I have a feeling he isn't going to wax philosophical on the Bill of Rights.]. Anyone who has spent any time in New York City [NYC = America, I'm not surprised] must have seen what an incredible variety of races, religions and ethnic origins pass in review every day on its streets [And I'm sure he lives in a neighborhood filled with all sorts of "races, religions, and ethnic" groups]. You see all the elements that have made our country not only great in achievement but also a beacon and goal for so many people in so many other countries [Diversity equals achievement?].

The energy [crime, and racial strife] that this wonderful variety of human beings creates for New York is the same energy created by their brothers and sisters throughout the United States. It is a delight to behold and a splendid commentary on what has made our country something so special [So our country was nothing special prior to the 1970's? Wait, don't answer that].

Notice the author provides not one substantial point within his stream of empty banalities. He just regurgitates catchphrases without actually referencing anything specific. Fittingly, the race hustlers disseminate their tripe by promoting empty arguments obscured by overwrought rhetoric. (Sound familiar?) Further, note how the actual consequences of diversity, namely a net loss in civic trust, pride, and collective social health, are simply ignored. And of course, only a bitter racist would question the notion that diversity automatically leads to achievement. But in the liberal creationist world of the NYT, the mere statement of a romantic idea underpins its veracity.

And note the despondent formulation of America as somehow empty prior to the great diversity movement. It's as if the brazen wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the wonderfully simple but brilliant system they concocted have nothing to do with America's singular success and value as a nation. America's Founding class is lauded only for permitting diversity, not for setting up a unique meritocracy and protecting the rights of Man.

But fortunately, such delusion can only exist if maintained by an impermeable vacuum. To individuals like the author, preached atop his Ivory Tower, he does this to buttress his social value as he needn't actually confront the real consequences of "diversity". But slowly, that bubble is bursting for the rest of us.

Fatties and Feminists Get Angry

Last summer I wrote this about the fat rights movement which I deemed the "rock bottom of identity politics":

They can try to gain self-confidence all they want, but you can't force people to find you attractive. Further, it's not unreasonable to associate fatness with laziness, slothfulness, lack of willpower, and a slovenly appearance.

In general, feminism seeks to norm unattractive behavior and personality traits in order to garner social acceptance and self-esteem. While these blowhards might pay lip service to equality, most feminists want to undermine a value hierarchy with them at the bottom.

Contrary to my default cynicism, I do find their basic goal somewhat laudable. It does provide those wallowing in depression a forum to vent their frustration. But feminists and the incipient fat acceptance movement cross a line when trying to impose their perverse standards of beauty on the larger public. And in doing so, they express a palpable enmity towards "traditionally attractive" individuals while their indignation belies a seemingly uncaring demeanor.

Take the new ABC Family show Huge about a bunch of fatties at fat camp who aren't gonna take it anymore!

Huge, a new show about teens at fat camp, and that stars Hairspray's Nikki Blonsky, premieres next week on ABC Family. Judging by this interview with Blonsky, and by the promos, this show is going to do its best to break the mold. Seriously, how often do you hear lines like "everyone wants us to hate our bodies. Well, I refuse to" in the mainstream media? How often do you hear a fat person saying, proudly and without remorse, that they have no intention of losing any weight?

I agree: don't hate your body, but don't decry the general public for having a biologically motivated standard of beauty. Of course, Ms. Feministing can't help but glorify the chubby while denigrating the fit. So much for equality:

I saw a big billboard advertising Huge last week, and it made me smile. There was Nikki Blonsky, a big fat gorgeous woman in a bathing suit, five stories high on the side of a building, advertising the new show that she's starring in. But then, I turned the corner and staring back at me was an equally large billboard for H & M, featuring two women in bikinis who were anything but huge. And I was reminded that of all the ads I was going to see that day, Blonsky's was the exception.

I must ask if feminists actually consider anyone to be ugly. Does such a characterization even exist? In a parallel story, the feminist blogosphere is angry that their cherished political commentary show, The Daily Show, hired a hot girl for their open correspondence position:

One female comedian who has auditioned multiple times for the show says, "Looking back, it was ridiculous of me to even prepare! Should I have gone to the gym more? Done Playboy? It's such a joke."

Feminists would do well to squelch such open ire towards attractive girls. It reflects an underlying bitterness amongst their commentariat and undermines the purported intentions of their camp.

New Banner

Public thanks to Prime (he's not dead) for designing the new banner. Might be changed, but for now, that's it.

Glenn Beck and the Civil Rights Movement

Glenn Beck has blasphemed one of America's deified personalities. On August 28th, he plans to hold a rally at the Lincoln memorial, the site and anniversary of MLK's seminal "I have a Dream Speech". Guess who's quite peeved about this presumed cultural appropriation:

"Beck is hijacking the imagery and symbolism of August 28 and the Lincoln Memorial to promote an agenda of intolerance," said Marc H. Morial, the former New Orleans mayor who is now president and CEO of the National Urban League. "Beck is deliberately trying to poke a stick in our eye, or kick sand in our faces"

[Al Sharpton was quoted by Blackvoicenews.com] as saying, "I hope every black person in the country will help us to challenge this.Everybody’s got to be in Washington. We can’t let them hijack Dr. King’s dream.”

As I've written previously, MLK is a hallowed figure whose human faults have been withered by an almost divine narrative of his legacy. By holding this rally, Beck continues his somewhat odd quest to frame conservatives as the rightful heirs to the Civil Rights movement. Beck has recently been championing the notion that the Civil Rights movement was about individualism and free market ideals.

While this interpretation ignores a number of historical facts, Beck's rhetoric constitutes a rather curious strategy. As with any movement comprised primarily of whites and especially one that opposes the clandestine reparation schemes of big government, the left continues to hurl racist invectives at this conservative renaissance. But is Beck, who uttered the now ignominious (in the eyes of liberals) quip about Obama's "deep seated hatred for white people", capitulating to these smears? Is Beck couching 1960's Civil Rights as a nascent conservative movement in order to avoid racist insults?

If so, I find such behavior rather deplorable. Liberalism succeeds because it gradually weakens the traditional zeitgeist, made possible by the less than forthright obstinacy of conservative advocates. By empowering unfair characterizations of "racist" through acquiescence, whites (and their allies) will lose the political war.

Politics and Romantic Relationships

Saturday Audience Participation

HBDGirl was a short-lived HBD blog from last year. She intended to write about her search for an "HBDGuy", ostensibly an individual who shared her political views and un-PC perspective. Of course, the cohort who engages in this sphere of discourse, and the blogopshere in general outside fashion sites, is comprised primarily of males; so Ms. Girl was an outlier in terms of gender.

Nonetheless, her struggle for an acceptable romantic match is a universal quest to which most everyone can relate. Yet, men and women have different attraction stimuli and thus presumably different criterion in defining that perfect match. Women pursue socially dominant men, manifested in a wide array of personality traits, even those expressed by even the most depraved members of our society. And men, the visual creatures that we are, find physicality the most appealing.

However, such a reductionist outlook on male attraction obscures the secondary, yet necessarily important, notion of the female character. And here's a conundrum for the HBD male. He likely covets a kinship with his long-term romantic interest, a mutual value system, and an open sharing of ideas. Of course, race realism underpins much of his political and philosophical ken, thereby making such views central to his person. But this reductionist, materialistic framing of man, urged primarily by his carnal appetite and shaped mostly by his genetic heritage, appeals almost exclusively to men. Women feel and emote; so the cold facts of science and statistics are far less resonant that the contrived narratives of Lifetime movies and Nicholas Sparks novels.

So what is a male HBDer to do? If he resolves to pursue the HBDGirl, he'll likely encounter a girl absent of all those female quirks that men find cute and endearing. Yet he'll have a counterpart in politics and philosophy. Of course, he could ignore this important aspect of his philosophy and pursue a girl who advocates liberalism because she likes puppies, cries at those charity infomercials, and wishes everyone would just get along.

Today's question: Is HBD or conservatism important in romantic (or platonic) relationships? Would you sacrifice political correspondence for those endearing female quirks? Would you go crazy having liberal ideology pushed in your face daily? Or do you need free reign to promulgate the impolite opinions expressed at blogs like this?

This Week in Cultural Descent

The transformation of Rihanna:

Americans' Opinions on 2050

Despite growing turmoil amongst the productive classes, most Americans express optimism concerning our future. A recent nationwide survey asked Americans about technology, terrorism, and social life in the year 2050. Some highlights follow:

53 percent believe ordinary people will travel in space.
53 percent suppose there will be a major terrorist attack on the U.S. involving nuclear weapons.
50 percent say healthcare will be more affordable (46% say less affordable).
49 percent think public education will improve (46% say will get worse).

As for race relations and America's place in the global hierarchy:

Thinking ahead 40 years, 68% say race relations in the United States will better, which is unchanged from the 1999 survey. And in the wake of the election of the nation’s first African American president, large majorities say that the election of a woman (89%) and Hispanic (69%) will definitely or probably occur.

The public expresses mixed views about America’s role in the world in 2050. On the one hand, people are divided over whether China will overtake the U.S. as the world’s main superpower – 46% say this will definitely or probably happen, while 49% say it will not. However, most Americans (53%) say that the United States will be less important in the world 40 years from now than it is today; 40% say it will be more important.

Unsurprisingly, most of the developments ignore the implications of identity politics, NAMs comprising 50% of the populace, and growing despair from an increasingly marginalized majority demographic. Further, as with any society, technological and scientific progress underpins much of the optimism as it has grave importance for healthcare, energy, and staving off extinction events (I'm not kidding).

But will the current trajectory of technological progress continue if hampered by the forces of PC and the never-ending struggle against those obstinate racial and gender gaps? As I've shown before, our nation is headed for a demographic overhaul mostly spurred by Hispanic fecundity. While I avoid libertarian-type histrionics, it's anyone's guess how far the racketeering industry will interlope into the scientific domain.

Right now, we use about 0.1% of funding on gifted education and have only one federally funded gifted education program. Half of our graduate STEM students are foreign born and national fellowships (both undergraduate and graduate) are essentially reserved for women and "underrepresented minorities". As evinced by the uproar following Larry Summer's gender comments, the sciences can not circumvent the social science's omnipresent grousing. Further, as shown by the dismissal of Jonathan Katz, one's personal views are now fair game in deciding who gets to pursue scientific work.

I won't prognosticate on the endgame scenario because I don't possess such hubris. But I will say that our current system does not motivate scientific advancement in an optimal manner. And finally, I know one thing's for sure; in 2050, I won't be living in LA:

Bad Boys and Betas: The Curious Case of Joran Van der Sloot

Last night, Salon.com had the following juxtaposition of stories on their front page.

The first article deals with the female ardor already lavished upon Joran Van der Sloot. Anyone familiar with Game and the carnal urges of (most) women, should find this situation rather unsurprising. Succinctly, social dominance, even in the most base context, attracts women. The Slate.com author offers some uninteresting commentary, but at the end, quotes an individual who evokes the correct evolutionary psychology explanation.

Other experts have focused instead on biological imperatives, turning to scenes observed in the animal world. Murderous men embody perhaps the most extreme presentation of machismo imaginable; they are warriors without rules."[Women] may be equating this sort of violence with masculine strength and then seeking it as a way to bring such a male into their lives, for protection and for producing offspring with a good chance for survival," writes Katherine Ramsland for TruTV.com. "Thus, they're responding to a biological drive that they may not even be aware of."

Well that was encouraging. Let's continue to a classic case of beta nice guy mired in an interminable cycle of LJBF:

I'm a 43-year-old straight male. I haven't dated anyone in years. I haven't had a girlfriend in 15 years. Believe me, it's not that I wasn't trying. It's definitely not that I didn't want one. Occasionally I'd get an e-mail that was written in this weirdly stilted language: "While you are a nice person, I do not at this time wish to pursue a relationship with you."

This inadvertently led to me starting an Emotional and Financial Support Center for Down-on-Their-Luck Dames. See, I'm pretty sensitive to others' emotional needs, and become a caretaker person with very little prodding. Occasionally I would meet a woman who seemed really into me. We would spend a lot of time together. We would share a lot emotionally, but nothing physical. Eventually, these women would always turn out to be in the middle of some crisis: a relationship or a job ending, a life crisis, etc.

In the context of the Van der Sloot article, the advice columnist should encourage this beta nice guy to adopt characteristics of the alpha male instead of the emasculated, androgynous shoulder to cry on. Instead, she goes on some rambling missive that belongs in an Oberlin creative writing course and not an advice column to a downtrodden man. Nonetheless, I'll give her credit for articulating a few truisms:

The other guy is calling the shots and fucking everything up. You need to meet him. Chances are, he's not a likable guy. Maybe he's even kind of an asshole.

Forget being a nice, supportive guy. It's not that you have to be a macho asshole or some overbearing monster.

But then she offers this wonderful moment of transparency:

Maybe you have bad breath. Maybe you're genuinely ugly. That would be fantastic. You could accept that. You might find out that you're ugly or boring or stupid or rude or you're not a good listener or you have no taste in clothes or that you just have no empathy for women, or that you're needy or clingy or wooden and mechanical.

While I generally avoid overused adages, the "truth will set you free" is a particularly poignant one. Perhaps these uber-omegas need to accept the futility of their quest. Perhaps "going their own way" isn't a ploy to occult their closet homosexuality (though I think this is somewhat common), but rather a rational judgment of their position in the sexual marketplace. If the potential benefits of pursuing women results in the most fleeting and unsatisfying of successes interspersed amongst soul-crushing failures, some might question the rationality of prolonging the pursuit.

I'm not sure how to answer that and it's surely only applicable to a subset of omegas. I think many men suffer from simple shyness, not trying enough, and the naivety expressed by the beta above. (Not sure about those that contend they repulse women or even what causes such revulsion.) Can Game help some of these men break out? It's growing popularity should answer that.

Chris Christie on Teachers' Salaries

I don't know much about Chris Christie other than his mild resemblance to The Simpsons mob boss, but his candor has always amused me. Last week, he held a town hall meeting showcasing his unapologetic confidence and forthright, yet playful quips that play well with the Youtube-media. Below, an indignant teacher challenged Christie on her supposedly low salary.



Her rather hackneyed diatribe reeks of the college graduate entitlement I've broached previously. In her prattling monologue, she contends Christie "isn't compensating her for her education". While the sentiment seems plausible and reflects the view of college as a guaranteed trajectory towards middle class status, her statement is actually stupefyingly absurd. College is actually an investment, a sort of (albeit generally safe) risk one takes in believing that one can benefit from obtaining a degree. The teacher actually believes she's owed money simply for spending money, a notion if implied to other situations like the stock market and venture capitalism illustrates its underlying idiocy.

But let's not be too hard on teachers. I've always found the anti-teacher bent amongst HBDers somewhat odd given their ostensible understanding of intelligence differences. Teachers might belong to unions and grouse far too often about the singular struggles of their occupation. But they engage in an ultimately fruitless endeavor and have to endure classrooms full of rambunctious kids. It's an unenviable situation, but again, the market pays what it needs to pay. Sorry.

Back to Christie: After her emotional rant, Christie quickly offers this pithy rejoinder:

Well, ya know what, then you don't have to do it.

I'd end the post there because it wonderfully encompasses much of my personal and political philosophy, but the teacher, armed with endless platitudes about her profession, offers this:

Teachers do it because they love it.

So why are you complaining about the money?

Firing Squad Executions and My Political Background

I grew up in middle class suburbia which lacked a palpable bent to the local social and political zeitgeist. As a result of this general apathy, I had much freedom in forming my own political and intellectual opinions. Unlike a handful of right-wing doctrinaires, even some denizens of this site and its extended blogosphere, I didn't undergo a conservative awakening brought forth by a personal struggle or a national conflict. Honestly, I can't recall a time period in my life where I didn't have sympathy for right-wing and politically incorrect stances.

For example, when I was seven, my family watched SNL where they lampooned the current President. In an exceedingly sanctimonious tone, I reproached my parents for imbibing in such a crass degradation of our leader. I pontificated on authority figures, traditional positions of power, and the importance of respect and honor. At around age eight, I encountered my first polemical issue: the death penalty and cruel and unusual punishment. Yet the grave cogitation on this issue left me nonplussed, as I couldn't fathom why anyone struggled so mightily with it.

Last week, a man in Utah on death row since 1985, asked to be killed via firing squad instead of the usual death by injection. OK? Who cares, kill the bastard and be done with it. Well the (liberal) media wants to investigate the relative brutality of this method.

This may sound gory, but the limited body of research on death penalty methods suggests that the firing squad is actually a pretty good way to go.

There is also some evidence that fatal gunshot wounds of the kind sought by executioners are not only relatively swift, but also not terribly painful. According to a 1993 study of the relative pain associated with different execution methods, gunshot gets the highest rank when compared with lethal gas, electrocution, hanging, stoning, and other popular methods.

"To me, it seems like the more humane choice," she said.

Because when I think of murderers, I really care for their well-being. When I was eight, I obviously didn't know of false positives, but my inchoate intellectual facilities didn't harbor irrational sympathy for bad people. How could anyone conjure up empathy to care about this base, sick man's pain?

While this balderdash about "humane methods" represents our society's increasing pusillanimity and our quest to become "dignified", one could justifiably ask what's the point of more violent executions. I'll very briefly broach two. First, we need to proffer at least some disincentive for heinous crimes. Perhaps it will prove futile, but if Singapore can curb gum spitting on the streets, we can curb murder. Second, and most importantly, we need to maintain an (albeit nebulous) concept of justice. It won't bring back the victims and the perpetrator will ultimately die, but for our collective emotional vigor, we need to know that people get what they deserve. People find satisfaction, irrational and entirely emotional but sating nonetheless, in this notion of karmic retribution.

Yet somehow we have people fighting for felon voting "rights", shorter sentences, and jailhouse universities. I'll leave it to the reader to ponder the basic motivation for these pleas and the commensurate ire directed towards our justice system (hint: same reason our schools are supposedly failing).

Liberal Atheists: White People Don't Exist

Awhile back, I posted on organized atheism's attempt to extirpate religious institutions and replace them with secular ones premised on the diktats of modern liberalism.

The average atheist dismisses religion and as religion generally underpins conservatism, he usually accepts the injurious maxims of modern liberalism. He is then beholden to tolerance and democracy as the preeminent values...[T]he liberal atheist, his judgment clouded by a pseudo-faith in leftist politics and the doctrine of unfettered tolerance, can't mount an opposition even in the worst of circumstances.

Well today I came across a wonderfully illustrative reflection of this argument. Here is a brief synopsis of the Foundation Beyond Belief:

Foundation Beyond Belief is a 501(c)(3) charitable and educational foundation created (1) to focus, encourage and demonstrate the generosity and compassion of atheists and humanists, and (2) to provide support and encouragement for nontheistic parents.

Mission: To demonstrate humanism at its best by supporting efforts to improve this world and this life;

To challenge humanists to embody the highest principles of humanism, including mutual care and responsibility; and

To help and encourage humanist parents to raise confident children with open minds and compassionate hearts.

It seems the mission constitutes a global campaign, one that would presumably include charitable work in every corner of the world. After all, even in secular Europe, organized religion still holds sway over policy decisions and in America, the religious right remains a decidedly important voting bloc. These suppositions make their choice of symbol, shown below, quite perplexing:

So according to the Foundation Beyond Belief, the world is comprised only of South America and Africa. (On a positive note, it's an improvement over 2012). In addition to funneling money to these black holes of destitution, this charity has essentially erased half of humanity. It's as if Asia and the West, where these individuals ostensibly reside, are not worthy of aid or even of mere existence. But one shouldn't be surprised at such a depiction, as the atheist community generally opposes religion because of its obstinate support for traditional concepts like heterosexual marriage, Jesus being white, and its history as a means to maintain racial hierarchies. In general, the putative irrationality of these ancient narratives motivates disbelief as much as religion's blasphemy against the doctrine of modern liberalism. The symbol represents not just a repudiation of religion, but also the conservative ideals that Christianity underpins.

Further, it's interesting that these foundations focus undue energy on combating religion and superstition in South America and Africa. In many of these regions, especially the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa, religious adherents practice both Christianity and some sort of ethnic, highly ritualistic religion. For example, most Haitians practice voodoo, a now notorious observation of Pat Robertson. While evoking the same sorts of intangible constructs, at least Christianity isn't based on such easily falsifiable activities and for the cognitively adept, its pliability allows one some intellectual satisfaction. So in these regions, we have a rather potent concentration of superstitious beliefs, embedded into the culture and the heritage of these peoples.

One would presume these liberal atheists, beholden to the edicts of cultural relativism, would warily attack the cherished beliefs of these noble savages. Further, the "uber-religion" they've constructed by coalescing African mysticism with Western theology, represents a potentially indomitable foe in spreading secularism. Finally, one notes the incorrigible connection between intelligence and religiosity, evinced by any honest anecdotal observations. So how can rationality missionaries imbue these countries with reason if they lack, on average, the intelligence to escape their cognitively puerile beliefs? It's not coincidental that in these regions of the world religion flourishes.

Blogging Tips for Beginners: Getting Traffic and Other Advice

No Saturday Audience Participation today. Instead I'm going to offer general advice for new bloggers. My advice is a basic set of tips and includes a few topics I had trouble with early on yet couldn't find much info about.

Wordpress vs. Blogger: Wordpress users will evangelize for their platform, but the two are almost identical, especially with the recent updates on Blogger. Can't go wrong with either.

How to Think of Topics for Posts: This is probably the hardest thing to do. You should try to post at least 5 times per week and sometimes you'll have trouble just thinking of something to say. How to avoid this? You need a foil, someone to respond to, or a current event that will interest people. Have a set of about 5 sites that deal with your blog's material (i.e. if you write a gossip site, one of these will be PerezHilton.com) and look at what they're talking about. Then share your thoughts or respond to what someone has said.

Getting Traffic: It will be a slow process so don't get discouraged. Your traffic will always drop on Saturdays and on holidays like Christmas and increase on Mondays. Just keep plugging away and try to get in the good graces of other bloggers. It takes time to get search engine authority and the eye of the readership.

Use Google Analytics: I didn't even know what this was when I started blogging. Number of comments doesn't necessarily equate with how much traffic you're getting. Use this service for info on who comes to your blog, how many people come, and from where they arrive. [Sitemeter gives almost identical traffic statistics, maybe about 2% difference.]

Niche Superstars: You're probably starting a blog in an already extant niche, so in the beginning, it's important you comment on these sites and only sometimes leave links back to your site. The people who frequent these blogs are your target audience. But it's also imperative that you get on these blogs' blogrolls (the listed blogs on their sidebar). You also must add a sidebar to your own blog even if it's just starting. The Internet is a place of reciprocal love and you must give to get. And it's probably not a good idea to attack these guys, at least early on.

Don't go overboard with social media: Many blog aficionados encourage you to ping, Technorati, update your Twitter, Squidoo, etc. For most people, this will have little effect on your traffic. Google will automatically pick your blog up and that's what's important. Most blogs come with an RSS feed, but a vast majority of your readers won't use it.

SEO: Pretty simple. Your titles should include keywords that people will search for and you should include these same keywords in links within your posts. That's it.

Template: Make it as simple and clean as possible. You can use Blogger's template designer or choose one for free online, such as here. Don't put every widget on your sidebars. You need the following: Blogroll, Archives, Labels/Categories, and maybe a search engine or a social media link. Also, you probably should add an About page and a Featured Content Page when you've accrued a decent amount of posts. Avoid white on black writing.

Content: Stick to a topic, but diverge from it occasionally. If you have something good to say (or if you're a pretty girl), people will read.

Haters: Finally, we get to the haters. It doesn't matter who you are or what you write about, someone will hate you and let it be known that they hate you. You could be a 12 year-old girl writing about puppies and rainbows and someone will find a reason to despise you. You can't really do anything about it, so delete the hater comments and move on.

Sperm Donor Children Have Problems

A few weeks back, in a post entitled Am I the Only One who Thinks Adoption is Strange?, I decried non-kin adoption as an exceedingly odd practice that denies the primacy of biology in defining oneself. In other words, despite the copious amounts of "love" offered to adopted children, the basic biological disconnect is often too wide to cross.

[I]n our cultural zeitgeist, the one that diminishes kin as a substantial component of man, this inanity is celebrated. I'm not engaging in a wholesale denigration of the adoption process and it does often lead to situations far better than those with the biological parents. But by considering adoption as a regular enterprise generally devoid of incorrigible barriers, idealists ignore the very strong bonds of family. And in the end, what adopted kid doesn't substantiate my point by eventually searching for his birth parents?

A recent study corroborates my observations, noting the struggles endured by children of sperm donors.

Regardless of socioeconomic status, donor offspring are twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report problems with the law before age 25. They are more than twice as likely to report having struggled with substance abuse. And they are about 1.5 times as likely to report depression or other mental health problems.

As a group, the donor offspring in our study are suffering more than those who were adopted: hurting more, feeling more confused, and feeling more isolated from their families. (And our study found that the adoptees on average are struggling more than those raised by their biological parents.)

The rest of the article relays sperm donor kids' anecdotes about feeling confused, lost, and out of place, as if they lack a firm grounding for who they are. And none of this should surprise those that understand the importance of kinship in raising children, a position that also manifests in debate over traditional family structures. While I don't believe ethnicity or race constitutes a deterministic trajectory for individuals, this basic understanding of family background seems an inescapable consequence of our evolutionary past. The need to connect with immediate family has an almost incorporeal pull on us. To deny this, to believe adopted parents can act as fully viable surrogates, imposes an insidious ideology upon these very real children's psyches. The article continues with an interesting insight:

My existence owed almost nothing to the serendipitous nature of normal human reproduction, where babies are the natural progression of mutually fulfilling adult relationships, but rather represented a verbal contract, a financial transaction and a cold, clinical harnessing of medical technology.

I'm sure the religious pundits, pontificating on science meddling in spiritual matters, would jump at the implication of the above. And I'm apt to agree. While we possess the technological means to spring forth life in this wholly impersonal manner, perhaps we should heed caution. The quote above illustrates this point quite poignantly, so I'll leave it at that.

Finally, one wonders what kind of individuals willingly donate sperm. Is it the magnanimous and accomplished or the desperate and sordid with little forethought concerning the final outcome of his "donation"? I'm thinking the latter and it's a tragic consequence of our cultural zeitgeist that anyone could view sperm donation as strictly a financial exchange and not the bringing forth of unique life. Even the nomenclature of this industry, such as sperm "bank" and "donor", reflects the degrading nature of the whole process.

But if a single lesbian wants a baby, who are we to say no.

Hereditarian Perspective: Lifting Weights

One of the main premises of OneSTDV and other related blogs is the notion that human traits derive primarily from our evolutionary past. This manifests in social interactions, intelligence differences, and romantic relationships. While liberal creationists, both from the left and the right, champion culture and its concerted influence as the overriding motivator for behavior, much evidence opposes this blank slatist conception of humanity. For example, note that even blind men, ostensibly removed from being influenced by cultural beauty standards, prefer the same hip-to-waist ratio that sighted men do. This study points to an embedded standard of beauty that likely evolved prior to civilization and did so as an evolutionary adaption.

We report evidence showing that congenitally blind men, without previous visual experience, exhibit a preference for low female WHRs when assessing female body shapes through touch, as do their sighted counterparts. This finding shows that a preference for low WHR can develop in the complete absence of visual input and, hence, that such input is not necessary for the preference to develop.

Today I lifted weights at the gym ("pull" day). I was slightly tired and during the more strenuous sets, I found myself cheating more often that I usually do. For the novice lifter, learning proper form whereby one avoids "cheating" represents perhaps the most important progression into serious lifting. And EVERYONE goes through this phase, where he tries too much weight and uses a number of strategies to overcome his strength deficiency.

But the interesting part is that every new lifter, even those without a prior introduction, cheats in almost the exact same manner. Lifting mentors don't offer demos on cheating, it simply comes naturally. And because this natural inclination arises uniformly, it's likely that this represents yet more evidence for the hereditarian perspective. To make this concrete, a few examples follow:

• Bicep curls: Arch backwards, jerk weight forward, elbows rise to the front and side.
• Pull-Ups: Tucking knees into the chest (it moves your center of gravity upwards).
• Squats: Leaning forward with knees past the front of your feet.
• Bent-Over Rows: Head droops to chest and back is curved.
  
• Bench Press: Arch back off the bench.

Disconnect Between College and Job Market

A recent report foresees problems concerning the job market and the current college system. The reports' authors, presenting their paper at Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-sponsored event, subtly toe the line between educational romanticism and realistic pragmatism.

The United States economy is in serious danger from a growing mismatch between the skills that will be needed for jobs being created and the educational backgrounds (or lack thereof) of would-be workers.

The new report says that the United States is "on a collision course with the future" since far too few Americans complete college. Specifically, the report says that by 2018, the economy will have jobs for 22 million new workers with college degrees, but, based on current projections, there will be a shortage of 3 million workers who have some postsecondary degree (associate or higher) and of 4.7 million workers who have a postsecondary certificate.

Basically, the authors contend that by the end of the decade, we'll have a shortage of college educated individuals. They fatuously use this prediction to champion the "college for everyone" meme, as the following statement implies the demands of employers concerning a college education are reasonable.

"This shortfall will mean lost economic opportunity for millions of American workers," the report says.

Or in other words, the job market that places undue importance on advanced and generally worthless degrees needn't alter their unjustified hiring criterion. Yet in a slightly polemical move, the authors countenance the notion that colleges should focus more on practical training rather than useless esoterica.

But the lead author of the report said in an interview that the report should also shake up colleges -- and challenge most of them to be much more career-oriented than they have been and to overhaul the way they educate students, to much more closely align the curriculum with specific jobs. The colleges that most students attend "need to streamline their programs, so they emphasize employability," said Anthony P. Carnevale, director of the Georgetown center.

Wonderful. Of course, he qualifies such heterodoxy by branding tracking as a necessary evil.

Carnevale acknowledged that such a shift would accept "a dual system" in which a select few receive an "academic" college education and most students receive a college education that is career preparation. "We are all offended by tracking," he said [yes, I'm also offended by tall people]. But the reality, Carnevale said, is that the current system doesn't do a good job with the career-oriented track.

The basic premise alluded to here, that one would actually be offended by natural ability, actually reflects the underlying pretentiousness of the middle class, college-educated sect. In their opinion, encouraging some individuals to pursue a trade track is an insult, as if the jobs represent a degradation of one's moral value. I know this might sound crazy, but not everyone enjoys pondering the complexity of quantum physics or the picayune details of Eastern philosophy.

I'll conclude with data from a New York Times article that reflects on the already overeducated American middle class.

For example, he said, the bureau predicts that education administrators will typically require no more than a bachelor’s degree in 2018. But already, he said nearly half of education administrators have a master’s degree, and 13 percent have a doctorate in education.

Similarly, he added, the bureau predicts that a nuclear technician in 2018 will typically need no more than an associate’s degree. But already, he said, 43 percent of nuclear technicians have at least a bachelor’s degree, and sometimes a more advanced degree.

Further, one notes the decreasing value of the college degree, a situation compounded by rising tuition costs and, as noted above, the lack of specific job training commensurate with obtaining a diploma. In essence, such as with a nuclear technician, potential employees pursue extremely expensive degrees that have little real world value besides adhering to employer hiring criterion. While I applaud the reports' authors for broaching the discordance between college and actual work, I believe the real change needs to arise in the job market. If an associate's degree is sufficient for being a nuclear technician, then stop rewarding those that pursue ultimately useless advanced degrees. Shortly thereafter, the use of an advanced degree as a proxy for conscientiousness and reliability will decrease. And then those pursuing unnecessary education will be justifiably characterized as social climbers and status-mongers.

[Note: Some jobs still require even a graduate degree, such as physics, high level engineering, and medicine.]

Arizona Illegal Immigration Law Goes After Anchor Babies

In Arizona's position as leader of our conservative renaissance, Republican senator Russell Pearce is drafting a bill to undermine the "anchor baby" phenomenon.

Anchor babies isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots — the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. — for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens.

While I cautiously approve of such measures, the professed motivation rests on a shaky causal argument.

While SB1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the anchor and leave.

Such optimism conflicts with a basic economic aphorism: "people act irrationally". One presumes these massive disincentives would engender the intended result, but logic and hubris do more to motivate behavior than basic logic. The actual benefit would instead be more direct, as now Arizona would have legal justification for deporting even more Hispanics each year. An Argentinian immigrant opines:

"I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create — and it's creating it now — a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now."

Once again, it seems as though "if a non-white racial group breaks a law more often than whites, the given law should not be enforced, else the proper enforcement of this law will be considered unjust racial profiling." And note how she castigates those that look at her suspiciously. I understand her frustration, but the blame is ultimately with those that subvert the laws (Hispanic illegals) and thus cast doubt on their racial peers.

This debate ultimately reduces to the notion of a birthright, but not in the context of citizenship. Instead, in the liberal paradigm, "birthright" refers to the right of any individual to pursue American citizenship, independent on their pragmatic qualifications or ability to support himself. Desire is sufficient in buttressing one's case for citizenship. In this formulation, the existence of borders, peoples, and traditional lifestyles are subordinate to a perverse notion of fairness. Of course, this "fairness" never extends to native born (white) Americans who oppose mass immigration on cultural, social (crime), and economic (teens would do "those jobs") bases.

To liberals, America exists as a completely open entity with no justifiable egoistic tendencies. Of course, I do partly sympathize with America beckoning to the world's most capable, the ethereal land of opportunity. And I find the obstinate social conservatism argument flawed (i.e. no 20th century Italians, no pizza). Nonetheless, we have borders, we can't sustain all the world's peoples, especially those only capable of menial labor, we have a historical narrative and a way of life worth preserving, and importing a competitive working class will ultimately be detrimental to American born workers.

I consider myself undeniably lucky to have been born in America. And this allows me to understand that life simply isn't fair. But to liberals, a belief manifested in essentially every context including education, health care, and the modeling industry, the inequitable circumstances of birth must be rectified.

Religious Reaction to Failure of Human Genome Project

Religion engenders the most ardent zealotry known to man, surpassing the passion corresponding with politics, nationalism, and ethnocentrism. In this often blind fervor spanning every intellectual discipline, men seek corroboration instead of truth, gladly ignoring internal inconsistencies in search of emotional satisfaction. And by doing so, these men provide genuine insight into what motivations compel us and what concessions we'll make in our quest for contentment.

A recent article entitled A Decade Later, Genetic Map Yields Few New Cures NYT's furtive HBDer comments on Human Genome project failing to explain the genesis of disease.

But the primary goal of the $3 billion Human Genome Project — to ferret out the genetic roots of common diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s and then generate treatments — remains largely elusive. Indeed, after 10 years of effort, geneticists are almost back to square one in knowing where to look for the roots of common disease.

The failure to see such promise come to fruition should be cause for melancholy. Yet, the religious punditry seems tacitly excited about the toppling of another man-made idol. On Hot Air, a site run by Michelle Malkin, the following headline links to the article in an exceedingly acerbic and almost giddy, puerile "I told you so" manner.

Hey wasn't the humane genome supposed to cure diseases?

Lawrence Auster expounds on the underlying premise in a post at VFR. Auster quotes reader Ben W. who writes in an almost apathetic tone.

Consistent with the overblown and extravagant claims of science, the human genome project has become a disappointment. Supposedly genetics was going to discover the basic structure of life and thereby expose where the defects come in (e.g. illness). Not quite.

They're back to "almost square one" in terms of understanding the roots of common diseases? Are you kidding me--after the wild assertions by geneticists that they have "figured out the human genome?"

Here is that loud voice booming forth:...

Ben then triumphantly provides this scientific stagnancy as proof of the futile nature of science. Yet history has proven such prognostications on the limits of science are usually quite shortsighted. Auster then opines, framing the project as a part of a cultural progression towards the undermining of religion.

Why the repeated pattern we've seen of wildly overstated scientific claims, followed by failure and disillusionment? Because as modern man has progressively denied God's existence and removed him from his consciousness and his culture, the need for substitute gods becomes more and more imperative. The things of this world, man-made things, must be built up into something much greater and more impressive than they really are, in order to fill the void left by the rejection of God.

Auster is desperately reaching here to support his anti-materialism. The motivations for such an endeavor seem conspicuously clear: cure disease, not some surreptitious effort to bash religion. He contends the bombastic descriptions of the project were an emotional surrogate for a godless culture needing a spiritual edifice. Or perhaps the authorities wished to garner funding by trumping their potential accomplishments and found themselves excited at the promise of innovative data and research methods? Finally, note that Auster refrains from lamenting this utter failure, instead choosing to revel in this "victory" for religion.

This nonchalance and underlying relief gauged from the sporadic failures of science are quite disheartening. Of course, almost no sane religious people refuse the benefits of these "man-made" things, as only the most fervent consider pragmatic benefits (i.e. staying alive) subordinate to philosophical consistency. And in the future, when man-made edifices further enter into the spiritual domain, even offering us proxy experiences, what will the reaction be then?

Response to 10 Things That Terrify Right-Wingers

Alternet.org is one of my favorite sites for a glimpse into the current liberal paradigm. It's a bizarro world where War is Peace and the enemies of Eurasia beckon. In a piece yesterday, Joshua Holland, an Alternet editor and senior writer, offers a succinct and exceedingly sardonic taxonomy of the conservative Right's main concerns.

1. Government Concentration Camps
Fear of Obama’s Kenyan shock troops rounding up good conservatives and throwing them into Thunderdome-esque detention centers is nothing new on the Right.

Classic strawman whereby he equates mainstream conservative apprehension about government encroachment (healthcare) with the drivel promulgated by wingnut groups like the Truthers.

2. Moooslims!
If you pay attention to the Right, you might think there are large Islamic armies occupying a few majority-Christian countries these days instead of the other way around. If their rhetoric didn’t justify real-world violence, one could say conservatives have become entertainingly unhinged when it comes to Islam.

Well some on the right don't share these sentiments. After all, Muslims only represent a pernicious collective if we fail to win their hearts and minds, a trivial task, right? For those that understand the intractable disconnect between the West and Islam, evinced by the growing support for Geert Wilders' party, such fears are justified. Only a deluded leftist could still frame the most oppressive societies on Earth, where women can't ride bikes in public, as full of innocents yearning for our democratic values.

5. Plotting Global Elites
The theory holds that the borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States are in the process of being erased, covertly, by a group of "globalists" whose ultimate goal is to replace national governments in D.C., Ottawa and Mexico City with a single trinational state ruled by a bloated EU-style bureaucracy.

Another strawman. One needn't support theories of globalist governments to note the increasing globalism of the Obama administration. The left considers nationalism a refuge of the uncouth and a hindrance to a "We are the World" type system. The machinations of the elite, a cohort that blithely ignores the concerns of their constituency, should not be ignored. Absent from his caustic rant is Mr. Holland's opinion on whether a global government is an attractive alternative.

6. The Decline of Married White Christians
This one worries the operative class: the decline of married white people who identify as “Christians.” The GOP relies on them -- they represent the party’s most loyal demographic. To be clear, there are a lot of white people, a lot of married people, and a lot of people who say they’re Christians. But the share of American voters who are white and married and identify as Christians has been in a long and steep decline, and by every estimate will continue to fall.

It's almost as if he excitedly anticipates the extirpation of this cohort. Mr. Holland attributes this fear to losing an important and loyal cohort of right-wing voters. But perhaps the Tea Party understands that these individuals have always comprised the backbone and maintained the stability of our nation. Or maybe he's watched too much Gilmore Girls and assumed every out of wedlock kid ends up at Yale.

7. The Graying of the Culture Warriors
Because the plenty-plaint is so flexible, you can rest assured that tomorrow’s conservatives will never run out of wedge social issues. Nonetheless, some of the most popular aren’t being embraced by the kids these days, and that’s cause for alarm among those trying to win some elections.

Implicit to this point is the notion that the culture warriors champion values that have little bearing on real world outcomes. Though holding this position is quite ironic given Mr. Holland's likely blank slatism. If probity and discretion don't motivate success, then what does? In my opinion, the degradation of traditional values and the increasing liberal hostility towards them is a means by which to norm NAM behavior. Blacks and Hispanics act poorly, so simply discard any notion of "good behavior" to justify these pathologies. After all, who doesn't like syphilis?

8. White Minority Status
Many people believe that in 2050, if birth and immigration rates do what experts expect them to, white folk will become a minority in the United States.

Can't imagine why this would be a bad thing?

He ends with this (context unimportant):

White working-class “Reagan Democrats” voting for the colored guy? The horror!

You'll never guess which racial group votes uniformly based on race, no matter what. Hint: It's not whites.

The Good Stuff

Saturday Audience Participation Post

Almost all conservative media outlets, including blogs such as this one, offer criticism of the prevailing cultural and political zeitgeist. Admittedly, this critical elucidation of progressive trends, occasionally couched in overwrought and bombastic speech, can veer into abject pessimism.

So for today, let's explicitly avoid denouncement of lesbian-chic, an imposing government, and the harm caused by underclass behavioral norms. What cultural, social, or political meme do you like? What institution or specific product is worthy of our veneration? What group of people are positively affecting change in our society?

(Can't Spoil the Post)

The following is an excerpt from an old article concerning James Watson, racial intelligence differences, and American race relations. It's from a moderately liberal author who often writes about the black-white dichotomy.

Watson's comments – insulting, demeaning, provocative to blacks – have stood in the face of much of what America has accomplished since desegregation. Blacks believe that to substantiate such anachronistic ideas and to maintain that blacks are of lesser intellectual value, as Watson did, is a vile offense. Why did Watson do it? Why has the right rushed to condemn the silencing of this Nobel Prize-idiot who blathered about on this incendiary topic without caution?

"We believe in the First Amendment!" comes the blustery reply. Conservatives rage in rebuttal that the mainstream media shows far more anti-white material than this supposedly scientific material constitutes.

All of which might be true, and none of which is relevant. For this is not a debate over double standards. It is a battle for the hearts and minds of blacks. And if we are to have any hope of winning that battle, we cannot condone insults to their entire race, even under the guise of science.

Though many initially condemned Watson – "inciting racial contempt in this manner is unacceptable" – the far-right, the likes of Imus and Limbaugh, those that push a subtle race war against this oppressed race, seem to have regained control of the message. While many of these pundits criticized Watson's firing, scant few would criticize his statements.

But if the far-right cannot follow the lead of their more moderate peers, and denounce the insulting content of Watson's statements as well as the silencing promoted by these liberal thought police, our struggle for better race relations will be in vain. For we cannot win the friendship of blacks if they believe words of respect for their culture, background, and community are a cover for an abiding contempt.

And let us admit the truth. The views Watson has promulgated have been widely expressed, such as the polemical The Bell Curve tome in 1994.

We are all entitled to hold such views. But if we wish to exercise our right to air them in print or broadcast, we should expect to reap what we have sown. For, as Bishop Berkeley said: "Things are as they are, and their consequences will be what they will be. Why then should we seek to be deceived?"

Only recently, whites would have responded to such insults as blacks and their white liberal peers do today. However, one could argue that blacks are simply more resolute in defense of their community than the whites of modernity.

OK, if you haven't figured it out, that wasn't about Watson. I doctored an excerpt from this column by Pat Buchanan concerning the Danish cartoon controversy.

But note the disturbing parallels between Buchanan's depiction of Muslims, mirroring liberal obfuscation about extremists and moderates, and the left's admonishment of racial intelligence differences. In both cases, the unjustified behavior (violence and PC silencing, respectively) is imposed upon a group professing nothing but the truth. The fake liberal author and Buchanan both urge that the West, those espousing Enlightenment values and unadulterated fact, acquiesce to a group of individuals who seek nothing but the undermining of these ideals. In essence, both believe the West should abide by the irrational and dangerous diktats of a foreign entity, one wishing to either destroy or reshape this civilization to their liking.

Buchanan even goes as far as uttering the cowering, far-left notion that "this is a battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims". Buchanan, like his liberal peers, believes disparate groups can ultimately resolve their mutually exclusive ideals and behavioral norms. In a parallel HBD context, he would champion the notion that NAMs can find collective success comparable to whites and Asians in a meritocratic system, apparently unaware of the current situation in Europe concerning Muslims. Or actually, Buchanan would likely diminish the European Muslim population as a detriment to ethnic culture, but not as a threat to their way of life. After all, Europe can "win their hearts, minds, and friendship" and they can all live happily ever after.

Of course, this discussion connects strongly with the Islamic world's main adversary: Israel. (One could argue this is Buchanan's main motivation as he includes a derisive comment concerning neocons.) But my criticism of Buchanan's blithe dismissal of the Muslim problem is completely removed from that issue. One can countenance American Middle East neutrality and non-interventionism on the grounds of "what's good for America" and such a position surely has merit. But Buchanan can't help but promulgate decidedly leftist/globalist, pro-Muslim apologetics that ignore this very real threat to all of the West. I just can't figure out why individuals like Buchanan feel that the enemy of one's "enemy" must be a "friend", even when this "friend" harbors a gross animosity towards you.

Obama Being Emotional and Government Help

With the BP oil spill, some are disappointed with Obama's decidedly stoic leadership in handling the problem.

"One time, go off!" director Spike Lee urged on CNN's "AC 360°." "If there's any one time to go off, this is it, because this is a disaster." Lee's sentiment echoes the frustration of people who want to see Obama get loud, take charge and inspire them like he did during his presidential run.

Obama needs to build on the momentum with a primetime address and a heartfelt message to the American people, Brinkley said. But instead of a galvanizing cry of outrage at the failed efforts to cap the undersea gusher, Obama's made the "let's not panic" appeal, Brinkley said.

I understand the desire for Obama to be an effusive leader giving overwrought speeches, the desolate spill behind him with his rhetoric a harbinger of inexorable improvement. The public, especially in times of crisis, has always looked to transcendent political figures for guidance and collective emotional support.

But Obama went to law school then became a community organizer. He's not going to strap on SCUBA gear and plug the hole himself (though some of his more loyal acolytes may believe such a thing). Obama can only provide an ultimately empty means for ameliorating the calamity. He can allay the public's fear, but he can't fix the underlying issue. In times of struggle, we too often look to political leaders who proffer vacuous platitudes, tacitly believing political ebullience constitutes real progress.

Officials can only assemble the experts, an illustrative reflection of the general notion that government does its job only through restricted involvement. We shouldn't look to non-experts in impersonal contexts for hope; that should come from personal relationships and individual persistence.

This Week in MTV and Cultural Depression

On Sunday, Sandra Bullock returned at the MTV Movie Awards and to reintroduce herself as a strong, independent woman, she kissed Scarlett Johansson. Why exactly? Because she's a strong independent woman...wooo!! Who wants to do another body shot?!

Also on Sunday, MTV premiered a scripted show about a high school nerd who possesses an extremely large penis. Yes, that's the actual premise of an actual television show.

Response to Defying Gender Norms in Relationships

The article, entitled Defying Gender Norms in Relationships is written by his wife, but I imagine the guy described is surefire Beta of the Month material. In an especially cynical mood, I respond below.

After years of not actively searching, I have found deep love and happiness with an incredible person. He requires very little prodding to rise above his patriarchal upbringing, is elated that I make more money than he does, and is toying with the idea of taking my last name, just to highlight the absurd gendered nature of this practice. He is my "partner in crime" every day in every way.

Does she understand that her given last name was bequeathed by her father? And believe me, he's "elated" by this thorough emasculation only because he considers acquiescence to your feminist balderdash the only means for getting laid.

Prior to this relationship, I had only ever dated older, "accomplished" men, but I found the love of my life in a brilliant, confident, much younger man. Go figure.

Or you aged and your best asset (physical attractiveness) withered away correspondingly. These "older, accomplished" men maintained their sexual capital and pursued women befitting of their higher status. This "brilliant, confident, much younger man" is likely a beta and thus has limited options in the sexual marketplace.

I refuse to blindly follow societal conventions that say that women have to get married and procreate. There's just too much data showing that these choices don't make us happy. In fact, happiness levels are the same for couples whether they are married or simply in a long-term relationship, and kids are one of the primary causes of depression in adults.

Knee jerk rejection of traditional social norms. She provides little evidence besides a non-cited, dubious claim that kids = depression claim.

Then there are the obvious points -- that adoption is a great choice given planet over-population, and I don't want to be part of a societal institution (marriage) that involves the state unjustly excluding consenting adults.

I'm sensing a full bullock and a Jessica Valenti style wedding in her future.

Unfortunately, we don't socialize many men to be truly compatible partners for women who reject their second-class status.

Perhaps because almost all men (and women) find this perversion of gender norms quite displeasing. There's a reason why Scott Peterson gets marriage proposals, the Menendez brothers are married, and Hugh Hefner dates teenagers. And one wonders how such rigid gender norms originated in the first place? Forgive me for being a troglodytic misogynist, but perhaps these modes of behavior arose organically as a reflection of our inherent predispositions.

We raise our little boys to disdain everything that is "feminine," but then act surprised when they grow up to disrespect women/anything feminine. The idea that women aren't quite full human beings is woven into our societal DNA.

No, little boys don't need to socialized to reject Barbies and playing dressup. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the monkey bars are what they gravitate to without any parental or societal prodding. And the last sentence is pure lunacy. Seriously!?!

Fat People and Class

It's common knowledge, especially over at HalfSigma, that fatness corresponds with class. Almost all fat people, the slovenly, People of Walmart types, reside in the lower classes. Walk around any SWPL enclave, elite university, or suburban country club and the paucity of fatties will be rather obvious. A recent study corroborates these anecdotal observations, noting the rate of obese individuals amongst shoppers at various grocery store chains.

The percentage of food shoppers who are obese is almost 10 times higher at low-cost grocery stores compared with upscale markets, a small new study shows.

Researchers say the striking findings underscore poverty as a key factor in America’s growing girth.

In the Seattle area, a region with an average obesity rate of about 20 percent, only about 4 percent of shoppers who filled their carts at Whole Foods Market stores were obese, compared with nearly 40 percent of shoppers at lower-priced Albertsons stores.

In expounding on the root causes, Jamelle Bouie substantiates the claim that PC makes you stupid:

It’s not that healthier ingredients are absent or too expensive — even lower-priced supermarkets have plenty of fresh produce available — it’s that preparing those meals requires more time and energy than is available to most lower-income people. Cooking takes time, and after a long day of hard work in low-wage employment, parents want to relax, and the incredible ease of fast and processed food is a powerful lure.

That said, if there’s anything I’ve learned from watching my friends attempt to navigate the kitchen, it’s that cooking isn’t obvious. Poor people are simply less likely to have access to that kind of knowledge. Moreover, eating habits are generational, and if you grew up in a home where food was prepared from fresh ingredients you’re far more likely to know what to do in a kitchen.

But can't one justifiably apply all these explanations to middle class individuals, especially younger ones with essentially no domestic know-how along with a potent aversion to learning it (i.e. single bachelor). Basically, Mr. Bouie is attempting to divert the blame from these individuals to larger social constructs over which they have little control. A basic liberal tactic ensuring personal responsibility is subordinate to societal imposition in directing behavior.

The real explanation is quite simple. Besides the sanctimonious elitism derived from "healthy eating", most SWPLs understand what constitutes salubrious cuisine. SWPLs accept the rather transparent connection between processed food and obesity or bad health. Lower class individuals might have a minimal understanding of the cause-effect relationship, but it's surely not an embedded concept in their social spheres. Additionally, they probably aren't cognizant of the details of food consumption, such as the different food groups and what happens when you eat these foods. Finally, and likely most importantly, lower class individuals tend to behave impetuously due to a lack of future time orientation. Lower class individuals often avoid ruminating on the future consequences of their present actions. Further, the cumulative effect of continual noxious eating, as opposed to a sporadic bad meal, doesn't resonate amongst individuals in these classes.

And what psychological metric underpins these seemingly disparate social patterns as well as correlating strongly with the class hierarchy? IQ.

College Graduates' Blue-Collar Bias

In addition to a lot of esoteric and wholly impractical knowledge, a college degree now comes with a palpable sense of entitlement. I've discussed this phenomenon before, noting that the rising unemployment rate of college grads results from a presumptuous appraisal of one's own intellectual worth.

Unable to find middle class work befitting someone of their rarefied status, many of them return home unemployed, eager to obtain a reprieve on their loans. Most will scoff at the notion of working in a non-cerebral environment given their educational background and will persist in unemployment until the "proper" job appears.

A few days ago, I got the following pop-up which crystallized how this meme is disseminated. There's a for-profit company named DirectYourDestiny.org that encourages college graduates to take the GMAT and continue on to business school. Their photo ad follows along with a link to one of their Youtube videos.

From an advertising standpoint, I understand the strategy: belittle alternative options so they take yours. But the derision evidenced in these ads, such as the following quote, reflects the rampant anti-blue collar bias that permeates our society.

You didn't take four years earning a BA to get stuck in a job that's BS. To avoid crappy jobs like this one, do yourself a favor: research business schools.

Now who do you think provides the fruits and meat at Whole Foods? This bias stratifies the job market and the individuals that comprise it into a hierarchy acting as a proxy for social status. To be a lawyer or a doctor (along with your degree from Dartmouth) means success; to make a decent living using one's hands and creativity being a carpenter means failure. Note how the ads portray the work profiled as demeaning and beneath those with a college degree. As if drunk escapades interspersed by infrequent cram sessions endows one with a place amongst the elite.

It's ironic that the more accessible the college degree becomes the more privilege individuals attribute to it. And with this presumed privilege comes a contemptuous attitude towards those not possessing this generally empty marker of class.

Game on Seinfeld

Women like bad boys: Seinfeld edition (no embedding so visit the links to watch).

"Anna told me that Elaine said I was one of the worst seeds she'd ever seen."

"She doesn't care for you, then a stern warning, then a phone call. Seems Elaine's made you the bad boy. And Anna dates the bad boy."

"I'm the bad boy. I've never been the bad boy."

The Importance of Popular Culture

Saturday Audience Participation

If you're an avid reader of this blog (and if you're not, subscribe here), you've probably picked up on the fact that I enjoy pop culture. In real life, I drop references quite often; but rest assured, not in the "hey I'm quoting Anchorman" type way, more like Bill Simmons. In addition to contemporary stuff like Lindsay Lohan and the Beib, I frequently allude to the sacred cohort of 80's and 90's movies/shows including Saved by the Bell, The Sandlot, Karate Kid, Rocky IV, and Teen Wolf.

Almost everyone I know understands and often shares my admiration for (ironic or not) and erudite interest in popular culture. For me, the prevailing cultural zeitgeist represents a means of connecting to others, a background for our own personal progress, and an enlightening anthropological record of countries and peoples.

But recently, I met someone who's completely ignorant of these things. He has no clue about any of it. And this affected my view of him and my willingness to befriend him. I've concluded that while I can like and interact positively with someone removed from the goings on of popular culture, I could never create a meaningful personal relationship with them.

Today's question: Are you cognizant of popular culture? Do you watch TMZ or The Soup or read Entertainment Weekly? If so, would you be reticent in befriending someone who was not "into" popular culture and responded blank faced at allusions to various memes, both past and present?

Thoughts on Flotilla Attack and Related Issues

[Keep it civil or comments will be deleted.]

Ron Paul discussed Israel's Flotilla attack yesterday. He reiterated his non-interventionist stance on foreign policy, then viciously condemned Israel's apparent aggressive actions. While I haven't studied the situation thoroughly and try to refrain from entering this impassioned debate, it's hard to conjure up sympathy for a bunch of overweening, trespassing leftists and possible terrorists. And in general, I support Israel's actions, independent of our intimate relationship with them. I do so because Israel remains a decidedly conservative nation and their aggression justifiably stems from the imposition of hostile foreigners (sound familiar?). Though Jews have a claim to that land only dependent upon their continual defense of it and not a national birthright more valid than the claims of Muslims.

As for Paul and other "conservative" libertarians, many of them are ardent opponents of intervention: the notion that America should meddle in the goings on of other countries. I sympathize with this position, especially if one refuses to consider lost American lives an assumed consequence (as many do). Generally, America should lead by example; it is not incumbent upon us to police the world's evils or export our particular brand of government to supposedly fledgling democracies. As a nation, our primary loyalty resides with our citizens and, unfortunately, as with systemic rape in the Congo, this hierarchy of values sometimes precludes our intervention. Further, in concordance with the notion of private responsibility writ large, other nations must not depend on our full backing to solve their problems. I fully welcome Israel as an ally, but that doesn't equate with our unconditional support of their actions, or more appropriately, our militaristic aid in their aggressive action.

However, I would be remiss if I did not qualify such a stance. Are we to always refrain from helping foreign nations? Are we to always withhold support no matter the insidiousness of a potential threat? Paul's zealotry concerning this issue implies our borders do not merely define a nation, a culture, and a people (of course, Paul's libertarian-backed corporations would gladly subvert these values). Rather, Paul's ideology implies our borders provide a rigorous blockade between us and the rest of the world, as if other peoples, including our parent states in Europe, are owed no moral respect beyond empty rhetorical sympathy, ironically mostly reserved for Muslims who seek jihad on our Christian nation. Further, it presumes such a position would quell foreign enmity, a supposition I find quite dubious especially in conjunction with libertarian proposals to decrease military spending and thus further enervate our projected strength.

As for Paul's tacitly pro-Muslim/anti-Israel stance, I covered the same underpinnings in this post on Buchanan. I wonder if these individuals would welcome widespread Muslim immigration just to spite Jews like Anthony Weiner (an equally noxious and ideologically inconsistent commenter who all of a sudden countenances ethno-nationalism and immigration restriction). After all, these right-wing prevaricators become prattling leftists when speaking of those poor oppressed Muslims. Concerning the paleo-right's pro-Hamas stance, Auster and Mangan once again discuss support of Israel as a central component of conservatism. Mangan correctly notes that support of a foreign country should be, at most, a tangential issue of American conservatism. Auster counters with equally perspicacious castigation of paleos, even surmising their hatred of Israel overwhelms their pro-Western sentiments.

I do feel like a tepid flip-flopper for agreeing with both Mangan and Auster, but oh well. My solution: we demand Israel move to a private nation in South America or Africa. America will aid in their relocation, but the situation in the Middle East is simply irrevocably damaged, especially given the relative birth rate disparity. Sure, this represents capitulation to a hostile entity, but isn't serenity and safety worth a mild hit to their collective pride?

Umpire Misses Call...then Admits He was Wrong

In a world full of dissemblers and purveyors of half-truths, a man owning up to his transgressions becomes a worthwhile story. Last night, an umpire blew an obvious call in a baseball game. Why's it a big deal: it was the final out in a potential perfect game, the kind of achievement reserved for the sport's greatest (and luckiest) pitchers. And in a rather surprising turn of events, the umpire courageously and forthrightly admitted his error.

“It was the biggest call of my career, and I kicked the (stuff) out of it,” Joyce said, looking and sounding distraught as he paced in the umpires’ locker room. “I just cost that kid a perfect game.”

Yes he made an egregious error. And that error cost the pitcher an incredible accomplishment. But in a sport dominated by liars and a society replete with dishonesty, we can at least applaud this man for his honor.

Hubris often precludes one from this type of stark self-condemnation. But bombastic pride shouldn't override important values like honesty and a respect for virtue. Admittedly I might be reaching here, especially within a nihilistic/materialist framework. Nonetheless, by clearly differentiating between good and bad, truth and falsity, we maintain a societal concept of value that's not only imperative for our cultural esteem, but also an important component of one's own satisfaction.

Campaign to Repeal the 17th Amendment

Has the Tea Party become cognizant of the coming racial demographic changes? Outside innocuous grousing on affirmative action and blatant hypocrisy, most right-wing movements generally circumvent the race issue. And while these conservative initiatives champion values palatable to any individual, I contend the basic motivation is opposition to a racial and cultural upheaval and the numerous social pathologies commensurate with these changes.

Surely these grassroots campaigns are making headway; however the real conduits for change reside within the elite. Well the Tea Partiers have an idea and it couldn't be more reactionary: repealing the amendment that allowed popular vote to decide choice of Senators.

Few members of the Tea Party have endorsed Rand Paul’s misgivings about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but a surprising number are calling for the repeal of an older piece of transformative legislation: the 17th Amendment. If you don’t have the Constitution on your smartphone, that’s the one adopted in 1913 that provides for direct popular election of United States senators.

Allowing Americans to choose their own senators seems so obvious that it is hard to remember that the nation’s founders didn’t really trust voters with the job. The people were given the right to elect House members. But senators were supposed to be a check on popular rowdiness and factionalism. They were appointed by state legislatures, filled with men of property and stature.

Surprisingly, the author completely misses the racial angle. He however doesn't miss an opportunity to decry such "extremism".

But many Tea Party members and their political candidates are thinking it anyway, convinced that returning to the pre-17th Amendment system would reduce the power of the federal government and enhance state rights. Senate candidates have to raise so much money to run that they become beholden to special interests, party members say. They argue that state legislators would not be as compromised and would choose senators who truly put their state’s needs first.

As I showed last summer, 2050 America will look far different than the nation our Founding Fathers envisioned. Using demographic predictions and current racial voting patterns, I postulated that in 2050, the nominal Left will have almost 57% of the constituency. I surmise the Tea Party understands the implications for voting and policy that correspond with a large minority population.

If not through oblique means like immigration restriction and voluntary sterilization programs (the latter being quite incendiary), the way to temper identity politics is to depress the potency of their numbers. Similar campaigns, such as requirement of literacy tests and laws against prisoner voting, seek the same objective. Yet this 17^th Amendment idea provides a far more furtive and possibly efficacious strategy for doing so.