Steve Sailer's right: I've never heard of 'em and never would have guessed.
« Blinded With Science | Main | Week-Late Sopranos Blogging »
Principals Unions
06 May 2007 06:42 pm
Comments (52)
Steve Sailer is thoroughly hateful and hatefilled, and I can not imagine why you would refer to such a complete scoundrel.
Nice to have teachers unions and principals unions too, by the way. Nice to have unions in general when unions have been under such pressure for several decades.
What's so surprising? It's not like school principals own the means of production.
It should be obvious why principals need unions, post NCLB. When you hear people talk about holding schools accountable, you should substitute the word "school" for principal. In New York City for example, they're getting rid of support structures that have existed for years, and making administrators do things that have nothing to do with education. This is, of course, labeled empowering schools. In fact, they're making administrators sign agreements to meet "standards", while cutting them off at the knees in other areas. Unions are going to be really important as government tries to shift the blame to administrators, all the while underfunding schools and not supporting them. Flash forward five years from now, and Mickey Kaus will move from the UFT and be trying to break Principal Unions
The last principal at my kid's school here in a L.A. suburb could have used one. After pissing off a few parents (and nearly all the teachers), Parents ran him out of town.
Interestingly, the quality of education hasn't noticeable changed, either before or after his stint. It seems he just rubbed everyone the wrong way.
Why are you so anti-union in education?
Am I anti-union in education?
"Am I anti-union in education?"
Matt, do you belong to a union at The Atlantic now? If not, are you planning to organize one? If not, why not?
"Steve Sailer is thoroughly hateful and hatefilled"
Jennifer, please quote me a single, solitary "hate-filled" paragraph from Steve Sailer.
His website is isteve.com. He has tens of thousands of paragraphs on it. I await eagerly your reply pointing out for me the most "hate-filled" one(s).
Kind regards,
Zagnut
Actually, I can't really say Steve Sailer's writing is "hate-filled" because most of it's just so incoherent that I have no idea what he's talking about. Except for his comment posts here, which are, without exception, trollish and juvenile attempts to push people's buttons.
To judge from his website, he sure is obsessed with the idea that there's a genetic justification for racism, though. Here's a sample paragraph (from http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060226_derbyshire.htm) on why the US should hold off on immigration while awaiting scientific proof that the dirty foreigners' genes will pollute our precious Aryan bloodlines:
"The genetic science is progressing so fast that we'll know soon enough—perhaps two decades to be rock solid certain. We know which way the scientific wind is blowing right now, but even if we ignore that, wouldn't the prudent action be to wait a couple of decades, to restrict immigration and refrain from utopian foreign adventures, until the science is in?"
Zagnut,
The fact that Steve Sailer is a racist is common knowledge. Rather than ask Jennifer to wade through Sailer's muck, why don't you just google "Steve Sailer racist"? It's easier.
You'll quickly find that Sailer was roundly condemned for some pretty despicable comments after Katrina. Not by liberal hippies, but by the folks over at National Review online.
Matt, I assume, is taking the view that even a broken clock can be right twice a day. At least I hope he is.
James Gary,
Two questions:
1) Do you consider the paragraph you quoted to be "hate-filled"?
2) Do you deem it factually incorrect?
LaurenceB,
MattY cites Sailer regularly, as do two of the other three Atlantic bloggers, Andrew Sullivan and Ross Douthat.
Sailer has also been cited positively by John Tierney, David Brooks, and Nicholas Wade in the New York Times, by Mickey Kaus at Slate, by Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly, and many other reputable writers all over the political spectrum.
He is in no way hateful (Jennifer). He does write things that make people uncomfortable, but only if such things are true, interesting, and important.
Save your breath: no, I'm not Steve Sailer and have never met him. But I do read his blog every day, because it's the most interesting blog in all of cyberspace.
And a lot of influential people think the same damn thing. We didn't create this world, but we want to know the truth about it.
How's Vermont, Matt Weiner?
James,
Do you ever leave comments on Steve Sailer's blog?
I ask because I've just read the comment thread from Steve's post "May Day Illegal Immigrant Rallies Bust" from a few days ago. Among the comments were these pearls of wisdom. I'm curious, are any of these comments yours?
"NATIVE CHRISTIAN AMERICANS [have] two options:organize politically around race or become economically and racially dispossessed in the nation they founded and created."
"Brenda Walker you disgusting SF bull-dyke, who cares if asian and muslim LEGAL IMMIGRANT women murder their children. They are doing US a favor by reducing the number of asians and muslims who occupy OUR AMERICA."
"This tired old line about Jose fighting for the Declaration of Independence and taking bullets in Iraq to preserve the glorious gringos, seems to be a Wall-Street-Journal-style canard (though there ARE probably a relatively tiny number of swarthy Spanish-speakers in the US military; not the same thing)."
"Steve posted something about a decrease in national IQ of only a couple of points over the next 50 years or whatever. I say that's a best-case scenario that doesn't take into account increasing demographic momentum.
Steve also posted about the "new-white" population of Los Angeles which is Iranian and Armenian gold-chain wearing types. Of course, this is not at all white as white Americans understand it. These people are better described as beige, Semitic, Arab, Persian or Mediterranean.
The latin flood is going to increase in the long run not controlled or reduced. The upcoming power shift away from white-Jewish to beige-Jewish and bronze-Jewish is going to shock whites."
"The previous post is dead on accurate. When it happens , the Israeli kikes will move in and manipulate the situation to their advantage and to the disadvantge of Euro_Christian Americans. Just like they are doing in Iran at the current moment.
I curse the fucking Jews for what they did to America."
"i don't think jewish people will control much in the US in 2050. jewish people don't have kids, and mexicans dislike jews. jewish political power depends in part on them looking like europeans. when white guys named cohen and levy are the only white faces in a room of brown people, the mexicans immediately know who doesn't belong."
"Jody,
You're overlooking the fact that the Mexican-American elite is dominated by Mexicans of Sephardic-Jewish ancestry."
"Just come out and say it:I PREFER TO LIVE IN ANMERICA WITH A MAJORITY EUROPEAN POPULATION. This is the proper response to a SPIC who issues a demographic threat to NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICA."
"Question: do white people really belong in the deserts? Is it any surprise the LA is being filled by desert traders from the MidEast, and desert workers from Mexico?
Long term, whites will probably end up in the more northern latitudes and trade-coasts, which is more in tune with their nature."
Yes James, answer LaurenceB's question: are any of these comments yours, or do you agree in any part with any of them?
Answer us, James!
My bad. I meant Zagnut of course.
I suspect we won't hear from Zagnut again.
No, Zagnut is nothing if not persistent.
Matt Weiner: I *am* persistent, thank you! A persistence you will come to admire during your harsh Green Mountain State winters. But the warm apple cider won't hurt either.
LaurenceB: I know who you were talking to. I was mocking your Inquisitor-style guilt by association tone. Because the views of person X (me) can be fairly summarized by selected comments on the website of person Y (Sailer) left by some semi-literate hick named person Z.
X=Z...Y the hell not? You don't want me to apply this standard to writers who link to Democratic Underground, do you?
To answer your questions: Sailer didn't write any of the things you cite, and neither did I. I read his blog daily but have never posted there.
Goodnight, James and Matt Weiner -- have to get up early tomorrow.
Matthew's never heard of a principal's union? Really? They'ver been a big deal for a while now in NYC, since they've opposed many of the reforms Bloomberg has proposed, since as increasing accountability for principals (in exchange for increasing principals' authority and freedom to make changes).
Dave,
I guess we were both right. He took one last shot at a straw-man and high-tailed it.
Of course my point was not that Steve Sailer is racist because his commenters are racist, nor was it my point that his readers are racist because his commenters are racist. My point was simply that his commenters are racist. That is indisputable. But Zagnut can't even bring himself to admit this.
In my opinion, it says volumes that Steve Sailer's comments are dominated by racists. Does he object to this? I honestly don't know. I can only assume that Sailer makes a point to distance himself from the obvious and despicable politics of his audience, but does he ever just come out and condemn them en masse? If it were my blog I certainly would. Perhaps Zagnut, who reads Sailer religiously, can point us to such a statement from Sailer?
LaurenceB
1) Who the hell is "Dave"?
2) "Of course my point was not that Steve Sailer is racist because his commenters are racist, nor was it my point that his readers are racist because his commenters are racist. My point was simply that his commenters are racist. That is indisputable. But Zagnut can't even bring himself to admit this."
Zagnut's rule: when people write 'of course,' what follows will be debatable 86.3 % of the time.
Like here. LaurenceB, we all know exactly what your point was. Of course, I could be mistaken.
"it says volumes that Steve Sailer's comments are dominated by racists."
Well, define racist? Is someone who believes in hbd, even to a small degree, automatically racist in your view?
Why should I be required to "define racist"? One only has to look to my previous comment above in which I quote verbatim comments from Sailer's blog to see abundant racism. Are we to believe you don't see it? If you don't, that's quite remarkable.
And I'm going to use any more names. Obviously, I'm up past my bedtime. (doh!)
Yeah Laurence, work on the names thing or pricks like me will make fun of you for it.
"Why should I be required to 'define racist'?"
Don't need a rigorous definition, just whether someone who believes in hbd even a little bit is racist in your book. Keep in mind that'll probably put ~6.3 billion of the world's 6.7 billion people in the racist camp.
Honestly, I think we've come to the end of this conversation. I'm really not interested in defining racism, and you're clearly not interested in condemning it. Let's call it a night.
Come on Laurence -- let's scrap all night, then laugh about it over blueberry pancakes at IHOP in the dewy light of early morn!
But we don't have to. G'night buddy.
Take care
isteve.com doesn't actually have comments. After Malcom Gladwell complained that Sailer commented all the time on the Gladwell sites but didn't allow comments on his own, Sailer opened up his archive site to comments (apparently his main site's software doesn't allow comments).
The thing is, most people who read isteve.com never bother going to the archive site, and (as with most blogs), I'd imagine even of those people who read a post, a small minority actually post a comment. What makes Steve's site so damn interesting is not that he's smarter than the average bear, but he has so many original insights that even if he swings and misses most of the time, he's worth reading for those times he knocks it out of the park.
To give one example, he posted yesterday about how the people (Republican or Democratic) who end up in foreign policy making positions are obsessed with "The Great Game" of power politics. Our country would be better off with a noninterventionist foreign policy and making energy independence a priority instead of starting wars over oil or human rights or just to prove how damn tough they are.
Steve is right, they (and we) would be better off if they exercised their will to power in less harmful ways (a la rich college alums bribing high school athletes to play at their favorite college).
stop giving this guy a podium.
At this point, I suspect Matt is going to make the occasional link to a (relatively innocuous) post of Sailer's just to piss off those of us who have suggested that he not do that. Fine, whatever.
Laurence B,
Thank you for so amply showing us what racism consists of. Steve Sailer is only hatefilled, as shown with any and every post and comment he makes or those about him make.
For those who want to judge for themselves, here is Steve Sailer's first essay about race and Hurricane Katrina (his most widely-read essay up until that point).
Some of you ostrich-types may unfairly dismiss this as racism, but those of you who are honest will see a lot of truth in the essay -- particularly the part about lower class blacks constituting a "low trust" community. Because of that low trust they have for each other (because poor blacks are often the victims of crime by other blacks), the New Orleans plan for those with cars to offer rides to those without cars was unrealistic.
Also, Sailer's point about lower class blacks' failure to plan for the future is also largely true. Consider that news reports were predicting that a category-five hurricane was headed for New Orleans five days before the (weaker) hurricane hit. With that much notice, even someone with no money or transportation could have walked away from the danger zone.
Another instance of prejudice from Fred, assuring we do not have to ever bother with the incessant destructive prejudice of Sailer. Got it, Fred.
From the Sailer article Fred linked to:
'"Let the good times roll" is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.'
and
'In contrast to New Orleans, there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan—because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren't blacks. '
That's enough for me. Is it hateful? Well, gosh, let me see....
I've got no opinion of school principals having a union, but Matt, I urge you to expand your information sources a bit. You can do much better.
Thank you for so amply showing us what racism consists of. Steve Sailer is only hatefilled, as shown with any and every post and comment he makes or those about him make.
Jennifer, are you a bot?
Steve Sailer:
'"Let the good times roll" is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.'
and
'In contrast to New Orleans, there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan—because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren't blacks. '
There we have crazed racism as a showcase of crazed racism.
Sailer is a definitely racist with hateful tendencies - he flirts too much with some very suspect racist causes. For example, he constantly trumpets the so-called "Ukrainian holocaust." While the Ukranian famine was certainly a massive crime against humanity, people who call it a "holocaust" usually do so to play up the putative Jewish leadership in the Soviet Communist Party, i.e. why do Jews whine about the Germans when they did the same thing to the Ukrainians, blah, blah, blah. It's a distortion of history I find particularly distasteful and Steve seems to never tire of championing this cause. Despite that though, I find the unwillingess of many so-called liberals to thoughtfully engage some of Steve's ideas pretty disheartening. Running away with your fingers in your ears screaming "racist, racist" just give the Sailers of the world more credibility. It's a mistake to think of Sailer as only a racist nutjob though, he has interesting insights on issues like Iraq, the importance and persistence of class in American society, the hypocrisy of the upper middle classes on race issues, and really some of the consequences of following Darwinian theory to its logical conclusions. He doesn't rant, he provides enough thought to his theories, even if they're wrong, that complete refusal to engage with him only makes him look like the open-minded thinker, and the Jennifers of the world like ostriches.
alwsdad,
Sailer's general plan for helping blacks do better in American society is to reshape public policy and private mores to create an environment where blacks do better than they do now. A critical component of this is taking into account average biological differences between blacks and whites. You cannot solve a problem you do not first accurately assess.
alwsdad's plan is, like so many others: move far away from blacks (try moving to Vermont with the sanctimonious Matt Weiner!) and call anyone who points out any differences between groups a racist.
Which plan do you think will help blacks more?
I used to run an after-school program that had a high % of black kids. It is common knowledge among black parents that, on average, black boys need more structure than white boys. They made offhand comments about it on many occasions. They musta been hataz!!
What in my comment tells you what "my plan" is or where I live? I just pointed out Sailer's own words.
And if you can't see the difference between the statement "My son and his friends need structure" and "All African Americans have poor judgment", then I can't help you. (No, Sailer didn't use the word "all", but that is clearly what he was saying.)
"Sailer's general plan for helping blacks do better in American society is to reshape public policy and private mores to create an environment where blacks do better than they do now. A critical component of this is taking into account average biological differences between blacks and whites."
Crazed racism, again as a showcase of crazed racism. Crazed beyond hope.
What in my comment tells you what "my plan" is or where I live? I just pointed out Sailer's own words.
I'm right, though, aren't I? Go to city-data.com, type in your city and tell us what % African-American it is. I bet my left nut it's 5% or lower. Do I need to self-castrate? Please tell me I don't.
Ever notice how whites moving away to white suburbs and towns doesn't help blacks in any way?
And if you can't see the difference between the statement "My son and his friends need structure" and "All African Americans have poor judgment", then I can't help you. (No, Sailer didn't use the word "all", but that is clearly what he was saying.)
I enjoy the pattern: the anti-Sailers have to quote stuff Sailer didn't write in order to criticize him.
There is no way Sailer wrote something as stupidly innumerate as "All African Americans have poor judgment." If you can find it, I'll vivisect my right nut and donate it to science.
Surely, you are a thorough hatefilled and degenerate monster.
I enjoy the pattern: the anti-Sailers have to quote stuff Sailer didn't write in order to criticize him.
We're still waiting to hear if you agree with that "stuff Sailer didn't write". Or don't you have an opinion on the subject?
Personally, if I had a blog that attracted the comments Sailer's blog gets, I would put a huge disclaimer at the top: "Please Note: For whatever reason, racists are attracted to my blog like flies to roadkill. I am not a racist and I disagree strongly with the views of my audience. Please ignore them."
By the way, I have no problem with Matt linking to anyone he wants. It's not my blog. But Sailer is a racist. No two ways about it.
Yes, let's debate the semantic difference between the statements "African Americans have poor judgment" and "All African Americans have poor judgment". It will certainly prove that Sailer is filled with nothing but love.
And I've lived in the same small town since I got out of school. It's 5.2% African American. How you respond to that is your own business.
It's 5.2% African American.
Argh, this is going to be a messy operation. Off to buy a crate of gauze.
Laurence, we were supposed to do this over blueberry pancakes at 6 AM! Now I'm left here with a punctured scrotum and a Heath Bar for breakfast and you choose this moment to scrum?
alwsdad:
"'In contrast to New Orleans, there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan—because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren't blacks. '"
That sound more logical to me than Nick Kristoff's explanation for the same contrast, i.e., "the reasons are complex and partly cultural".
Generalizations about members of a racial group are not racist if: 1) they are accurate; 2) they are expressed as generalizations, and not stipulated to be true of all individuals in the group. While not all blacks will riot after a natural disaster, it's certainly accurate to say that African Americans in general are more likely to riot after one than Japanese. To ignore that reality doesn't make you a better than Steve Sailer, just more dishonest.
Indeed, Japanese people have always behaved in exemplary fashion after earthquakes.
(And don't tell me that that was a long time ago, or that Japanese society in 1923 was very different from American society in 2005. If you're pretending to tell is hard truths based on human bio-diversity, you don't get to cite social factors.)
Dear Matt:
Sailer is a racist, which you can see in almost all of his articles because he believes that race exists. Everyone knows race cannot exist because all are equal, it is ugly and vicious to deny it. Please stop reading him and/or linking to him, because reading a racist is wrong and may pollute your own thoughts. Linking him is evidence of readin ghim and therefore also wrong.
Matt Weiner's right: it's racist and wrong to generalize about Japanese or blacks. Plenty of Japanese are prone to rioting, and plenty of blacks are good at math. There are no differences between different ethnic groups.
So uh Matt? What's with rolling out the welcome mat for the Sailerbot and his army of syncophants and sockpuppets? Does the Atlantic have you on a quota system for ad impressions or something? If that's the case, there's no need for half measures: a single trackback to littlegreenfootballs.com should set you up for at least the month if not the quarter. If that's not the case... maybe you could tone it down on the approving links to "respectable" white supremacists? Sullivan's already got that angle well-covered.
Yeah, Matt, I bet David Duke's got some fascinating things to say about the price of tea. Check 'em out and then you can have a post titled 'David Duke is Right!'
Comments closed May 20, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Why are you so anti-union in education? Do you really believe all the anecdotal right wing propaganda? Anyone who has a job that is so controlled by politics and other things beyond their control would definitely benefit from belonging to a union. Some unions may protect people who deserve to be fired, but I have not seen any shred of evidence that that is the case here.
Posted by Grogor | May 6, 2007 7:37 PM