RSS
The American Political Science Review announces a diverse editorial team:
APSA Announces the New Editorial Team for the American Political Science Review
July 26, 2019 American political science review, APSR, Journals 0
The American Political Science Association is delighted to announce a new editorial team to lead the American Political Science Review (APSR), starting June 1, 2020. The APSA Council selected a team co-led by twelve distinguished political scientists:…
We are honored to have been selected as the American Political Science Review’s new editorial team. We thank the APSA Council and the selection committee for their confidence in our team and for their support for our vision. In entrusting the editorship of the association’s flagship journal to our diverse and all-woman team, the Council is demonstrating its commitment to promoting a wider range of voices and scholarship in the journal and the discipline.
Increasingly, contemporary Americans are no longer concerned with abstract concepts like “diversity.” Now, “diversity” doesn’t mean “diversity,” it instead means the Good People who deserve to win. The opposite of “diversity” is no longer “homogeneity,” it now means Bad People (straight white males) who deserve to lose.
For a while, I’ve suspected that maximal diversity would be a group of 100% black lebians, although in the current year that probably needs to be updated to black transgender illegal immigrants. An alternate theory is that there is a sort of optimal diversity e.g. maximal gender diversity might be around 70% women.
3 Jew broads, 1 negrees, 1 Hindu, 3 possible trannies, and only one worth buying a second drink for on ladies night.
For their first meeting I’d love to get them all in a small conference room with bright lights and mirrors on the walls; crank the heat up to 78 on the t-stat, leave a month’s supply of vaping cartridges on the table, 2 cases of Truly Hard Seltzer in and around the mini fridge, ensure one of the conference chairs was noticeably broken, with massage parlor music playing a little bit too loudly through the speaker in the ceiling.
Lock them in for about 3 hours and roll camera!
With an all female team, the American Political Science Review will come to specialise in one exclusively one form of politics: office politics.
Consistent with my office experience, the older editorial team members, who are in menopause (hot flashes), will fight with the younger team members, who favor short skirts and spaghetti-strap blouses, over control of the air conditioning.
Thus the battle begins.
They could’t find a gay or trans dude to provide some balance? I am sure Pete Buttigieg type gays would have been clamoring for a slot in useless eatersville.
but which of them are trans?
LOL, such a woman thing. The PTO my wife used to volunteer for had like 5 co-presidents. Women have multiple BFFs: “They’re all my best friend.”
It's a very politically expedient thing to do. So I guess it makes sense for a group of Poly Sci professors.
Abraham Lincoln was ranked the greatest American President, while President Donald Trump was ranked last.
Their site though is s gold mine!
Here is one of their public statements:
“APSA expresses deep concern regarding the Hungarian government’s plan to end funding and accreditation for gender studies at the county’s universities.”
I’m sure Orban is shaking. But think of the committee review of that language - think of the debates! “Should it be ‘concern’ NO !- change that - ‘deep concern’”
Correction: “all-unattractive-women team”
They rated Trump as the worst president evahhhh in their 2018 rankings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/20/opinion/sunday/trump-bad-presidents-history.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html
The president of the APSA is a male, Rogers Smith, who has a slight Bruce Hay smell about him.
This is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER representative of why politics don’t seem as effective as they used to be.
I left a comment on their site, ‘Where are the white men?’ but thought better and erased the ‘white’. Will report back, pending developments.
12 disciples awaiting the female Messiah. They thought it was Hillary, but she was just Joan the Baptist.
From poliscirumors:
See the bios of the new editorial team here: https://www.apsanet.org/PUBLICATIONS/Journals/2020-APSR-Editorial-Team
They are even lying about the “diversity” thing. It’s mostly white women.
1. SW Austin: dry hole on GoogleScholar2. ML Dion: Latin American specialist and may even do stats. Much of her publication history taken up with articles on teaching political science, and on articles complaining that broads such as she are shortchanged in compensation and other career accolades.3. LG Bedolla: extensively published on Latino political mobilization in the U.S. (with a side order of feminism). Book chapters, lower rung journals. Raaaaacism blah blah4. CR Hayward: extensively published on American domestic politics. Non-quantitative. SJW5. KM Kadera: IR specialist. Sort of person who lands on 'Peace studies' faculties. Not a good thing.6. J Novkov: extensively published on American domestic politics. No stats as far as I can tell. Race-class-gender blah blah. Some papers on legal-formal matters (would guess there's a JD degree in her past).7. V Sinclair-Chapman: specialist in American domestic politics. Some papers on race, a few on legislative process, a few on teaching political science8. DZ Strolovitch: specialist in American domestic politics. No stats. Writes on race and gender9. AM Tripp: extensively published. No stats. Primarily an Africa specialist with a side-order of comparative politics. The bulk of her work concerns women women women.10. DM Walsh: comparative politics, emphasis on Southern Africa. No stats. Feminism women women women blah blah11. SL Weldon: comparativist. Nearly all of her writing is about the status of women and their 'plight'. Wrote one article on the use of statistics, but doesn't appear to publish quantitative research.12. EJ Wood: comparativist, Latin America specialist. Studies insurgencies (and, of course 'sexual violence'). No stats. Some articles on political economy. Likely the main brain of the group.
No one for whom quantitative methods is integral to their research. No specialists in political theory. No areal specialists in Europe, the Far East, India, or MENA nor any comparativists who've done research there. From their research profile, my guess would be maybe three of these women are conversant in a foreign language. One IR specialist (whose subspecialty is a collecting pool of fools). And pretty much all of them SJWs of one sort or another.
This is what counts as 'distinguished' only in a discipline dominated by corrupt liars or dominated by people who live and work in an impenetrable bubble. Best argument I've seen for simply closing down your poli sci department and putting the faculty out on the curb.
RACISSSSS!! Not a single deaf lesbian Eskimo or trans Malaysian midget.
Is it bad that I’m a college graduate and don’t really know what political science is or why it exists?
But if
Bottom row, 2nd from the left.
Strolovitch and Novkov are presumably Russians, so wig-wearing, prepuce-cutting minorities are covered.
Speaking about diversity : Detroit is 85% black but MoPop Detroit festival is 90% Northern European.
https://localspins.com/mopop-festivals-return-detroit-balances-alt-j-solange-foster-people-michigans-heaters-michigander-stef-chura/
It Europe it’s the same. Indie, Electronic ans Metal music , not speaking of classical music, attract almost only whites with a few East Asian, Latinos and very few Black.
I wonder why.
Looks like the beginning of the end for the relevance of the American Political Science Review. I look forward to articles on food, clothing styles, child rearing, and better sex, all wrapped up in a veneer of political science.
The 3rd diverse council member on the top row looks like none other than Kelly Kapoor. Being from The Office she knows her small-office politics well.
Kelly Kapoor explains the meaning of a text message (go to 1:32 to get to the Kelly part):
“…co-led by twelve…”
Doomed to fail. This will be the downfall of The Squad, too.
OK, all I want to know is, what is “The American Political Science Association”? If it’s not supported by some of my tax money, then let them diversify until youtube is filled with their catfight videos, I don’t care.
Politics is not in any way a science anyway, so let’s not pretend that these people do anything constructive. So long as it’s not with my money, have at it, ladies. Mrrrrowww!
Purge academia when
“Political science” is an oxymoron to begin with……
The “diverse and all-woman team”
George Orwell would be impressed.
The “diverse and all-woman team”
George Orwell would be impressed. Will they have any articles on propaganda?
OT
Regents exams in New York: Why the century-old test may be scrapped
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/07/25/regents-exams-new-york-how-century-old-test-may-scrapped-ended-elia-rosa/1825691001/
white males are the most fragile people ever
They mean diversity in the historical and equitable sense
What’s wrong not being handed everything on a silver platter not fair to you?
Cry me a river
white Christian males only ruin and steal. They create nothing and add nothing
Watch any Comic of Color and they will tell you how much white men are worthless
As long as they included a fair number of conservatives and alt-right Trump supporters in the group it will have the requisite “diversity.” They remembered to do this right?
Yes, I was noticing those two “women of color.” So including 16.7% of a minority which now composes 48% of the population makes you “diverse.”
C’mon, they have tons of diversity. I count at least two shiksas!
That NGO is located in prime DC real estate too. No to low vibrancy.
Giving everyone the title of co-leader allows each of them to state on her CV that she was “leader” of the group.
It’s a very politically expedient thing to do. So I guess it makes sense for a group of Poly Sci professors.
“Bad People” actually means “People who don’t think I’m pretty enough to date”
Probably an attempt to attract attention even if hypocrisy is required
Most of these academics look like they could be dudes wearing a dress for career purposes.
“a wider range of voices”
They are ALL WOMEN. How dumb do they have to be to post that it’s “a wider range” just because there are non-Whites in the group, when it’s 100% one sex? And this is a scientific journal. Incredibly brain dead.
Plus – you hardly need to point out that there wouldn’t be twelve women just by accident. They have to deliberately exclude qualified male applicants and instead include less qualified female applicants. Seeing as almost all breakthroughs in science and technology are done by men. And even if the leftist claim that the sexes are equal in every capacity would be true, that would mean 50% men just by going by qualifications.
Get with the program, Steve.
“Diversity” has always meant “fewer White Men (preferably none).”
You must’ve not been paying attention.
I see diversity in hair length and color. Also, the women are not equally good-looking.
OT:
Deprecated Canadians announce our surrender a thousand times but there’s no one on the First Nations side strong enough to accept it. Sad!
Canada pays tribute to Indigenous people before hockey games, school days. Some complain it rings hollow
By Amanda Coletta The Washington Post
Sat., July 27, 2019
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/07/27/canada-pays-tribute-to-indigenous-people-before-hockey-games-school-days-some-complain-it-rings-hollow.html
When Whitey collectively rolls over and gives up, all the Indians and nice White ladies can do is scold us for being so inconsiderate as to surrender to a people too weak and fucked up to accept the offer. A deeply broken people is unable to accept the unilateral and self-inflicted defeat of a less broken people. Truly this is a golden age!
According to Wiki, in 2018, this association conducted a poll of its members to rank the US Presidents
Abraham Lincoln was ranked the greatest American President, while President Donald Trump was ranked last.
Their site though is s gold mine!
Here is one of their public statements:
“APSA expresses deep concern regarding the Hungarian government’s plan to end funding and accreditation for gender studies at the county’s universities.”
I’m sure Orban is shaking. But think of the committee review of that language – think of the debates! “Should it be ‘concern’ NO !- change that – ‘deep concern’”
Kind of like giving gifts to all the children who attend a birthday party. So they don’t feel left out, you see. Every child is as important as the Birthday Girl! (or Birthday Boy!)
But if
There goes the American Political Science Review.
It's a very politically expedient thing to do. So I guess it makes sense for a group of Poly Sci professors.
In banks, everybody is a vice president, but at least you still have to include the “vice” part on your business card and your resume.
Realise (many – most? – of you probably already do) that “diverse” is one of those words that has now been bastardised and tortured so long, and so effectively, that the goal has been achieved of having the general populace believe it means what the manipulators want them to think it means: “not male, Christian, European, or sexually and mentally normal.”
In work for giant corporations, one will now quite commonly hear – especially in the context of hiring or promotions, or even if cultural backgrounds come up in casual conversation – “So-And-So is diverse” (where So-And-So is a single person and so, by definition, cannot be diverse any more than he can be numerous…). It also comes up as a more impersonal command or question, though also in reference to an individual:
“We need to find a person who is diverse.”
“Is she diverse?”
“That guy is not diverse.”
(The last usually in a tone of disappointment or hostility.)
It’s no mean feat, but they have pulled it off – changing the basic meaning of a common and simple word and concept in about, what, ten years?
It’s happened with demonyms, too. You may have noticed there are no more Minnesotans, Americans, or Japanese – neither in the media or even much common speech. Instead, we’ve only the “Minnesota man,” “the guy in Florida,” or perhaps “people in the U.S.A.” This victory, again, was no mean feat, and it has achieved the critical goal of making people abandon, if only subconsciously, the very idea of nationality or even geographical origins, of ties between people and their lands. Rather, these stilted, new demonyms (if they can even be called that) reinforce that a “Minnesota man” is merely any man who may happen to be in Minnesota at the moment, the “people in Lewiston” may or may not be a bunch of Africans who arrived there last week, and so on.
and how about that WNBA All-Star game:
https://enewspaper.latimes.com/desktop/latimes/default.aspx?pubid=50435180-e58e-48b5-8e0c-236bf740270e
The whole point is make sure political science papers get vetted by a pack of Marxists. It’s creeping bolshevikism ala 1917 on the part of the usual suspects, who are furious that they didn’t succeed in creating their–permanent–totalitarian communist state in Russia, and are trying again here.
and how about that WNBA All-Star game:
Power couples
ALLIE QUIGLEY, left, and wife Courtney Vandersloot embrace during the All-Star game. (John Locher Associated Press)
Power couples
The WNBA All-Star game Saturday in Las Vegas was unique among American pro sports exhibitions in that it featured two married couples competing.
Forwards DeWanna Bonner of the Phoenix Mercury and Candice Dupree of the Indiana Fever, who between them have played 24 seasons in the WNBA and scored 10,871 points, were married in the fall of 2016. Allie Quigley and Courtney Vandersloot, the starting backcourt for the Chicago Sky, tied the knot last December during a holiday break from their European club teams.
All four players were part of the All-Star game player pool, but each couple was split up during Tuesday’s roster draft, with Dupree and Quigley competing for the winning Team Wilson.
Here’s how the two couples compared:
Bonner: 13 points, four for eight field goals, three assists.
Dupree: Eight points, four for seven FGs, five rebounds.
Quigley: 14 points, five for nine FGs, one rebound, one assist.
Vandersloot: Seven points, three for five FGs, eight assists, three rebounds.
newspeak.
orwell was a genius.
PS When is the Tarantino review ?
Do you think any of them are Jewish?
I can’t wait until there’s a class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs will be 16-35 year old men. They’ll sue the insurance companies for the disparate impact of higher auto insurance rates for 16-35 year old men.
“ disparate impact is in and of itself clear and present evidence of discrimination “. that’s been the law of the land for 46 years now.
Back in the olden days when I was in college the political science profs were all White male communists and civil rights activists. Lenin and Mao were their heroes. They all carried around Mao’s little red book Agnes Smedley and Edgar Snow’ s propaganda books about the communist take over of China were their bible.
Every female office worker wears a sign : Please help me to feel offended.
Ah, diversity. Finally, there’ll be toleration, a plurality of worldviews and thoughtful, dispassionate discourse, instead of the lemming-like, predictable lockstep we’ve become so accustomed to. Women truly are superior to men (but equal, as well) and so much fitter as leaders of an otherwise lost humanity, rational as they are. I think I’ll toss on a frock soon and become one. When I grow up and become woke, of course.
As Jack D. pointed out most of these gals are White. And by most we are talking about 9 or 10 out of 12. So long as White women are only benefiting and not paying for diversity, they will support it.
If only we could help accelerate the rejection of White women by the coalition of the fringes, we could hasten their eventual and inevitable return from said coalition. This is especially true for college-educated White women.
You have to take back the universities somehow, methinks. That or just close them down, as many red-state governors are doing. Of course, we can expect to fall behind in science and technology in the future, with all that implies (I'm a little nervous because this is how Europe beat the Arabs and Chinese, after all). Probably concentrate on knocking out the humanities, I'd guess.
If I knew how to get women on my side, I'd be quizzing my kids on math and history by now ("Song of El Cid! That's the one where my ancestors rip each other off!"), not posting here, so I'll defer to the macho-er guys.
What they don't realize is that, on a visceral level, their fellow victims dislike bourgeois white women even more than they dislike the prototypical evil white man. It's why all this "Becky" and "Karen" stuff has taken off to the point where even members of Congress are saying it; every minority knows what it means and they all relate to it. There's no equivalent term for white men. Call a woman a "white bitch" and every black/Hispanic person knows exactly what you mean.
OT:
American “yoofs” stab Italian cop to death:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/27/two-american-teens-confess-to-fatal-stabbing-of-rome-police-officer/
Remember Brett Kavanaugh? He set a new SCOTUS record by hiring all female clerks. Now, the Notorious R.B.G. is in his corner.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/us/politics/kavanaugh-women-law-clerks.html
I’m just laughing. I remember sitting at lunch after the big crash in 2001 with some friends who were academics and telling them that fifty percent of all jobs were reserved for women, if they wanted the job. They exchanged looks saying that I’d been spending too much time in the dark corners of the Internet.
I don’t know what they’d have thought if I had continued by saying “Of course, 50% women is just an average Affirmative Action score. If you want to get an “A”, you appoint way more women than men!”
Doesn’t Kavanaugh know that the Left will never love him, no matter what he does? They hate what he is, and they always will.
You never see lefties bowing and scraping to win approval from cucks.
This is why cucks always lose.
The sooner the GOP is gone, the better.
Obviously nothing important goes on there.
The study of control systems created for and by the ultra wealthy elite families, that own 99.9999% of global wealth, to create the illusion that the little people have a say in matters in a system that is there to keep the 99.9999+ of the population under control.
Economists give cover to the global system where profits flow to a few at the expense of the many.
The women will build a consensus while being inclusive of all ideas at every meeting.
Unless they are having a spat, then the meeting can crash for all they care.
It’s diverse enough. An 8.5, a couple of 7s and 5s and the rest…
Why have “Diversity” when you could have “Deservity”?
Numerically white women are going to be the majority of any ‘woke’ coalition for a while, just for statistical reasons, especially if the Conquistador-American child of rich Mexicans gets Wokemon points. One of the big reasons for the prominence of feminism is simply numerical, plus a lot of gay guys are fun to hang around with for younger women–they like fashion and aren’t threatening.
You have to take back the universities somehow, methinks. That or just close them down, as many red-state governors are doing. Of course, we can expect to fall behind in science and technology in the future, with all that implies (I’m a little nervous because this is how Europe beat the Arabs and Chinese, after all). Probably concentrate on knocking out the humanities, I’d guess.
If I knew how to get women on my side, I’d be quizzing my kids on math and history by now (“Song of El Cid! That’s the one where my ancestors rip each other off!”), not posting here, so I’ll defer to the macho-er guys.
Because only STEM matters, right? Of course, that's the attitude that led to the humanities being taken over. But they don't matter, so why do you care in the first place?
But who cares about logic, invented by Aristotle, which obviously had no role to place in beating the Arabs and Chinese.
PS I like how you mention "my kids" to forestall not being "macho-er".
PPS History is one of the humanities.
It's probably worth falling behind if the alternative is today's worsening insanity.
Plus, industry and private labs would probably pick up the science slack.
BTW, didn't the Arabs and Chinese falter when the universities of their day succumbed to the extant PC?
The way to do it, is:
- Make it a state-law that certain college majors are "beneficiary to the public" -- i.e, worthy of the in-state tuition subsidy. Make these chosen majors in the mathematically-based sciences, and the more politically agnostic fields, like medicine, law, business, accounting, etc. Everything else, you are paying out-of-state tuition.
- Take state-funding away from the politically partisan fields and give it to the above fields, which also coincide with the major money-makers for universities. This aspect is important, since if they ever want to claw funds back, it requires Sociology justifying why they need to take funds from Medicine or Computer Science. Good luck with that, from an electoral perspective.
- It has the added benefit of encouraging hyper-partisan politically-active blue voters to leave your state -- i.e., it keeps your state from turning into a giant Austin, TX.
Again, it could be done with little fanfare. But let's be honest, your average older white conservative state politician is too dumb to do it.
-- less worry over college bills, higher middle class fertility
-- less debt, faster family formation
-- a clear alternative path for kids early on, more teenage motivation and engagement
-- much, much less leftist/minoritarian indoctrination
-- fewer jobs and sinecures for the a*holes
-- lower costs, lower taxes for everyone.I'm pretty sure that's the big win. We've got the efficiences of the Internet and need to be using them anyway.But there are some smaller measures people have noted. One is making colleges responsible for a decent chunk of student loan defaults. This would force them to screen and create departmental contention and the defaulters skew heavily toward the bullshit departments.Another would be making colleges publish department by department figures for employment and salary of graduates (and all the dropouts they accepted). The IRS could supply data.Another is definitely having Republican governors who are willing to wade in, demand efficiencies, close and/or consolidate bullshit departments, require professor accountability and turf out a lot of leftists--get them off the taxpayer tit. Conservatives who are actually willing to say the p-word--"parasite"--and start fighting for their voters is a critical step. "Useless eater" is a darn good expression which people can understand.
Bourgeois white women are in their own minds a beleaguered minority, however they do recognize (if only subconsciously) that they are lesser victims compared to blacks, Hispanics etc. Thus they’ll accept almost any criticism or insult or basically any sort of bile from a member of one of the more prestigious victim groups, and do so with all the usual self-abasement and 0 dignity whatsoever. Their sense of victimhood is very brittle, in other words.
What they don’t realize is that, on a visceral level, their fellow victims dislike bourgeois white women even more than they dislike the prototypical evil white man. It’s why all this “Becky” and “Karen” stuff has taken off to the point where even members of Congress are saying it; every minority knows what it means and they all relate to it. There’s no equivalent term for white men. Call a woman a “white bitch” and every black/Hispanic person knows exactly what you mean.
The most tedious aspect of the feminization of “science” and “review” in a field is how male academics (already a gynecomastic bunch by physique) respond by taking on feminine modes of debate and discourse, primarily snark… this is one of the ways genetics and evolutionary psychology were somehow pozzed even before Poli Sci. Look into any discussion on these topics on Twitter and see how even tenured professors at R1 institutions can’t resist appending catty rejoinders to everything. It makes them sound like a bunch of sniveling, miserable teenage fags, but snark is the language of journalism already, so perhaps it was only a matter of time.
A quick scan through the CVs of the esteemed Co-Chairs is enough to confirm the depth of the poz: lots of race relations, gender studies, former “Diversity Chairs,” the euphemistic “urban politics,” and other various ways of saying “I would have been a medical clerk, but I was born into the turtlenecked NPR caste.”
Remember that it’s not just random political scientists but an “editorial team,” so you have the synergy of two highly useless skill sets.
I do see the potential here for a movie sequel to 12 Angry Men
One’s black and one’s hispanic. All of them work at research institutions. Not one from even the most selective teaching institutions.
1. SW Austin: dry hole on GoogleScholar
2. ML Dion: Latin American specialist and may even do stats. Much of her publication history taken up with articles on teaching political science, and on articles complaining that broads such as she are shortchanged in compensation and other career accolades.
3. LG Bedolla: extensively published on Latino political mobilization in the U.S. (with a side order of feminism). Book chapters, lower rung journals. Raaaaacism blah blah
4. CR Hayward: extensively published on American domestic politics. Non-quantitative. SJW
5. KM Kadera: IR specialist. Sort of person who lands on ‘Peace studies’ faculties. Not a good thing.
6. J Novkov: extensively published on American domestic politics. No stats as far as I can tell. Race-class-gender blah blah. Some papers on legal-formal matters (would guess there’s a JD degree in her past).
7. V Sinclair-Chapman: specialist in American domestic politics. Some papers on race, a few on legislative process, a few on teaching political science
8. DZ Strolovitch: specialist in American domestic politics. No stats. Writes on race and gender
9. AM Tripp: extensively published. No stats. Primarily an Africa specialist with a side-order of comparative politics. The bulk of her work concerns women women women.
10. DM Walsh: comparative politics, emphasis on Southern Africa. No stats. Feminism women women women blah blah
11. SL Weldon: comparativist. Nearly all of her writing is about the status of women and their ‘plight’. Wrote one article on the use of statistics, but doesn’t appear to publish quantitative research.
12. EJ Wood: comparativist, Latin America specialist. Studies insurgencies (and, of course ‘sexual violence’). No stats. Some articles on political economy. Likely the main brain of the group.
No one for whom quantitative methods is integral to their research. No specialists in political theory. No areal specialists in Europe, the Far East, India, or MENA nor any comparativists who’ve done research there. From their research profile, my guess would be maybe three of these women are conversant in a foreign language. One IR specialist (whose subspecialty is a collecting pool of fools). And pretty much all of them SJWs of one sort or another.
This is what counts as ‘distinguished’ only in a discipline dominated by corrupt liars or dominated by people who live and work in an impenetrable bubble. Best argument I’ve seen for simply closing down your poli sci department and putting the faculty out on the curb.
of the University of Florida (Aug. 2001 to Present)
PhD, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, August 1993
- Major areas of emphasis: American Government (Public Law; Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary, and Minority Politics); Minor areas of emphasis: Comparative Politics and Public Administration.
- Dissertation: "Aftermath of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Racial Voting Patterns in Memphis Mayoral Elections, 1967-1991."
MA, University of Memphis, Dec. 1989
Political science with a minor in education
BA, Christian Brothers University, May 1987
History with a minor in political science
https://afam.clas.ufl.edu/files/austin-313x210.jpg
Christian Brothers University (CBU) is a Catholic-run school in Memphis. As of the early 2010s, it was 50% White, 30% Black, 20% Other.
Something online reports CBU's SAT 25%-75% is 1080-1280, or IQ 108-125 based on IQ blogger PumpkinPerson's conversion table. (CBU's middle-50% on the ACT is 21 to 27.)
Professor of Political Science, Yale University, 2004 to Present
(She got her degrees in pairs; spent the 1980s wavering between physics and political science, with the latter finally winning out.)
PhD, Stanford University, 1995 (Political Science)
MA, University of California at Berkeley, 1988 (Latin American Studies)
MA, University of California at Berkeley, 1984 (Physics)
BA, University of Oxford, 1981 (Philosophy and Mathematics)
BA, Cornell University, 1979 (Physics)
https://politicalscience.yale.edu/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/pictures/picture-16-1354126969.jpg
1. Sharon Wright Austin [Black]: BA in May 1987 = Likely born ca.1965. (PhD, 1993.) (Appears to have straight-thru, did the standard "K-to-16," then immediately an MA, then immediately a PhD.)
2. Michelle L. Dion: BA, Latin American Studies with Government concentration, University of Texas at Austin, May 1996 = Likely born ca.1974. (PhD, Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Dec. 2002. Major field: comparative politics. Minor field: political methodology.) (Also looks to be a straight-thru'er; no interruptions, K-to-PhD.)
3. Lisa Garcia Bedolla: BA, University of California at Berkeley, Latin American Studies and Comparative Literature, 1992 = Likely born ca.1970. (PhD, Political Science, Yale, 1999.) (Another straight-thru'er, K-to-PhD.)
4. Clarissa Rile Hayward: BA, Princeton University, Summa Cum Laude, Politics, June 1988 = Likely born ca.1966. (Was alongside Bedolla in Yale PhD program in the mid-late 1990s; Hayward has a "PhD with distinction, Yale, Political Science, Dec. 1998," but this later timing [BA+10.5 years] implies she did break out into some kind of non-academic work, unlike the first three above.)
5. Kelly M. Kadera: BA, Wells College, 1987 = Likely born ca.1965. (PhD, University of Illinois, 1995.) (May or may not be a K-to-PhD straight-thru'er, but is pretty close.)
6. Julie Novkov: AB, Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges, magna cum laude, 1989 = Likely born ca.1967. (PhD, Univ. of Michigan (Political Science), 1998 [Dissertation: "Sex and Substantive Due Process: The Gendered Nature of Constitutional Development"]; MA in 1994 and JD in 1992.) (Looks like straight-thru in academia, K-to-PhD, but took a detour with that JD.)
7. Valeria Sinclair-Chapman [Black]: BA, University of North Carolina-Asheville, 1991 = Likely born ca. 1973. (PhD, Ohio State University, 2002; therefore did not go straight through BA to PhD.) Published an early 2018 paper in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities titled: "(De)Constructing symbols: Charlottesville, the confederate flag, and a case for disrupting symbolic meaning."
8. Dara Z. Strolovitch [very likely Jewish]: BA, Vassar College, Political Science (with Honours; minor in Women's Studies), 1992 = Likely born ca. 1970. (PhD, Yale, Political Science, 2002; M.Phil, Yale, Political Science, also in 2002; MA, Yale, Political Science, 1998.) (Must have been doing something else from about summer/fall 1992 t0 mid 1996 or so; to her credit, then, she is not a straight-thru'er.)
9. Aili Mari Tripp: BA, Chicago, Political Science, 1983 = Would be estimated to be born ca. 1961 using the method being used here, but Wikipedia gives her birth date as May 24, 1958 [seven months older than Steve Sailer]. I find no obvious reason (such as, e.g., Mormon mission work) why she only graduated at 25 instead of the usual 22. (PhD, Northwestern, 1990; MA, Chicago, 1985.)
10. Denise M. Walsh: BA, Bennington College [Vermont] (Politics and Economics), 1985 = Likely born ca. 1963. (PhD, New School for Social Research, New York City, Jan. 2006. Dissertation: "Just Debate: Culture and Gender Justice in the New South Africa.")
Not sure what Denise W. Walsh did between the late 1980s and early 2000s, but maybe she was raising children. This attractive picture with her arms folded is the one she uses (it'll be a good few years old); the only clue as to her her non-academia decade that I see is the ring on her finger there; if she did pause her academic career for ten years to raise children, say what you will, but she has my respect.)
11. S. Laurel Weldon: BA, Simon Fraser University [Canada] (Political Science), 1991 = Likely born ca. 1969. (PhD, University of Pittsburgh, 1999. Dissertation: "Explaining Cross-National Variation in Government Policies on Violence Against Women: Women’s Movements and Political Institutions in Democratic Policymaking.") (Another likely straight-thru'er; also a US-Canada dual citizen.)
12. Elisabeth Jean Wood: First BA in 1979. Confirmed born 1957 by WorldCat. (PhD, 1995, after a combined four BAs and MAs between 1979 and 1988.) A somewhat exotic look; a case of name not matching face. I think I see certain telltale signs of Jewish ancestry. She looks like a less-Jewish version of Amy Wax.
Feminism is a function of technology. The pill, condom, anonymous urban living.
The solution will be De anonymized living, and sex bots so good that women have to compete for men instead of the other way around
You have to take back the universities somehow, methinks. That or just close them down, as many red-state governors are doing. Of course, we can expect to fall behind in science and technology in the future, with all that implies (I'm a little nervous because this is how Europe beat the Arabs and Chinese, after all). Probably concentrate on knocking out the humanities, I'd guess.
If I knew how to get women on my side, I'd be quizzing my kids on math and history by now ("Song of El Cid! That's the one where my ancestors rip each other off!"), not posting here, so I'll defer to the macho-er guys.
“Probably concentrate on knocking out the humanities, I’d guess.”
Because only STEM matters, right? Of course, that’s the attitude that led to the humanities being taken over. But they don’t matter, so why do you care in the first place?
But who cares about logic, invented by Aristotle, which obviously had no role to place in beating the Arabs and Chinese.
PS I like how you mention “my kids” to forestall not being “macho-er”.
PPS History is one of the humanities.
You have to take back the universities somehow, methinks. That or just close them down, as many red-state governors are doing. Of course, we can expect to fall behind in science and technology in the future, with all that implies (I'm a little nervous because this is how Europe beat the Arabs and Chinese, after all). Probably concentrate on knocking out the humanities, I'd guess.
If I knew how to get women on my side, I'd be quizzing my kids on math and history by now ("Song of El Cid! That's the one where my ancestors rip each other off!"), not posting here, so I'll defer to the macho-er guys.
Which red state governor has had the cojones to promote institutional closures, much less extirpating whole disciplines (which is what you’d have to do to get rid of this coven)?
https://www.apnews.com/9b693fb2e63a47a89ebaa60616a51b1c
Maybe not exactly what you would recommend (slash humanities first) but still, I think it qualifies.
1. SW Austin: dry hole on GoogleScholar2. ML Dion: Latin American specialist and may even do stats. Much of her publication history taken up with articles on teaching political science, and on articles complaining that broads such as she are shortchanged in compensation and other career accolades.3. LG Bedolla: extensively published on Latino political mobilization in the U.S. (with a side order of feminism). Book chapters, lower rung journals. Raaaaacism blah blah4. CR Hayward: extensively published on American domestic politics. Non-quantitative. SJW5. KM Kadera: IR specialist. Sort of person who lands on 'Peace studies' faculties. Not a good thing.6. J Novkov: extensively published on American domestic politics. No stats as far as I can tell. Race-class-gender blah blah. Some papers on legal-formal matters (would guess there's a JD degree in her past).7. V Sinclair-Chapman: specialist in American domestic politics. Some papers on race, a few on legislative process, a few on teaching political science8. DZ Strolovitch: specialist in American domestic politics. No stats. Writes on race and gender9. AM Tripp: extensively published. No stats. Primarily an Africa specialist with a side-order of comparative politics. The bulk of her work concerns women women women.10. DM Walsh: comparative politics, emphasis on Southern Africa. No stats. Feminism women women women blah blah11. SL Weldon: comparativist. Nearly all of her writing is about the status of women and their 'plight'. Wrote one article on the use of statistics, but doesn't appear to publish quantitative research.12. EJ Wood: comparativist, Latin America specialist. Studies insurgencies (and, of course 'sexual violence'). No stats. Some articles on political economy. Likely the main brain of the group.
No one for whom quantitative methods is integral to their research. No specialists in political theory. No areal specialists in Europe, the Far East, India, or MENA nor any comparativists who've done research there. From their research profile, my guess would be maybe three of these women are conversant in a foreign language. One IR specialist (whose subspecialty is a collecting pool of fools). And pretty much all of them SJWs of one sort or another.
This is what counts as 'distinguished' only in a discipline dominated by corrupt liars or dominated by people who live and work in an impenetrable bubble. Best argument I've seen for simply closing down your poli sci department and putting the faculty out on the curb.
It made me laugh anyhow.
In their programmatical paper, they explain that they are very much for “a new methodology” in their field – in order to support – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – diversity esp. …
In a way, they are consequent. And they obviously know how to succeed. Their departments will not be closed down at all – they will be better funded. Science turns into a battlefield of the greater societal tensions (SJW – vs. regulars (= grievance studies’ “experts” – vs. the sane (part of) society).
I’d vote for 2,5,7, and 8.
We are approaching matriarchal totalitarianism. We need masculinity infusions from previous generations. Where is Lee Marvin buried?
1. SW Austin: dry hole on GoogleScholar2. ML Dion: Latin American specialist and may even do stats. Much of her publication history taken up with articles on teaching political science, and on articles complaining that broads such as she are shortchanged in compensation and other career accolades.3. LG Bedolla: extensively published on Latino political mobilization in the U.S. (with a side order of feminism). Book chapters, lower rung journals. Raaaaacism blah blah4. CR Hayward: extensively published on American domestic politics. Non-quantitative. SJW5. KM Kadera: IR specialist. Sort of person who lands on 'Peace studies' faculties. Not a good thing.6. J Novkov: extensively published on American domestic politics. No stats as far as I can tell. Race-class-gender blah blah. Some papers on legal-formal matters (would guess there's a JD degree in her past).7. V Sinclair-Chapman: specialist in American domestic politics. Some papers on race, a few on legislative process, a few on teaching political science8. DZ Strolovitch: specialist in American domestic politics. No stats. Writes on race and gender9. AM Tripp: extensively published. No stats. Primarily an Africa specialist with a side-order of comparative politics. The bulk of her work concerns women women women.10. DM Walsh: comparative politics, emphasis on Southern Africa. No stats. Feminism women women women blah blah11. SL Weldon: comparativist. Nearly all of her writing is about the status of women and their 'plight'. Wrote one article on the use of statistics, but doesn't appear to publish quantitative research.12. EJ Wood: comparativist, Latin America specialist. Studies insurgencies (and, of course 'sexual violence'). No stats. Some articles on political economy. Likely the main brain of the group.
No one for whom quantitative methods is integral to their research. No specialists in political theory. No areal specialists in Europe, the Far East, India, or MENA nor any comparativists who've done research there. From their research profile, my guess would be maybe three of these women are conversant in a foreign language. One IR specialist (whose subspecialty is a collecting pool of fools). And pretty much all of them SJWs of one sort or another.
This is what counts as 'distinguished' only in a discipline dominated by corrupt liars or dominated by people who live and work in an impenetrable bubble. Best argument I've seen for simply closing down your poli sci department and putting the faculty out on the curb.
As much as I’m inclined towards the social sciences, I admit I’d be very hard pressed to think of anything they’ve ever contributed to society (or even to knowledge itself). I’d still rather co opt them than abolish them, but it’s probably far easier for a Republican governor to eliminate their positions than to shoehorn conservatives into them.
War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Peace is War, Diversity R Us…
Wouldn’t it be weird and wonderful to live in a country that had helpful academics, rather than well-paid saboteurs and scolds? There would have to be a peaceful revolution for any of us to see that in our lifetime.
You have to take back the universities somehow, methinks. That or just close them down, as many red-state governors are doing. Of course, we can expect to fall behind in science and technology in the future, with all that implies (I'm a little nervous because this is how Europe beat the Arabs and Chinese, after all). Probably concentrate on knocking out the humanities, I'd guess.
If I knew how to get women on my side, I'd be quizzing my kids on math and history by now ("Song of El Cid! That's the one where my ancestors rip each other off!"), not posting here, so I'll defer to the macho-er guys.
Public (i.e. land grant) colleges were meant to provide, with occasional exceptions, practical and theoretical training to the next generation of applied scientists.
It was intended that those motivated and analytical students all receive free rides; money was set aside, in tax-free, interest bearing trust, in order to fund that burden in-perpetuity.
The institution of public, liberal arts colleges was just another catastrophe brought to us by the egalitarian progressives.
Political “science”. Ya, sure.
The study of control systems created for and by the ultra wealthy elite families, that own 99.9999% of global wealth, to create the illusion that the little people have a say in matters in a system that is there to keep the 99.9999+ of the population under control.
Economists give cover to the global system where profits flow to a few at the expense of the many.
The women will build a consensus while being inclusive of all ideas at every meeting.
Unless they are having a spat, then the meeting can crash for all they care.
There are at least four credible candidates. Top row 1 and 3, bottom row 2 and 3.
OT:
ENgland is celebrating the 400 anniversary of the Mayflower by building a replica …and burning it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-devon-49144207/replica-mayflower-built-to-be-burned-in-great-torrington
Rule of thumb: Anything that calls itself a science is not a science.
Political science is not a science.
This particular editorial board is just a way to funnel money to political workers. No more, no less. The old corrupt labor unions used to do this — you had to subscribe to a particular (expensive) publication or be in the bad graces of the union establishment. I once worked (briefly) for one of these outfits. Robert Kennedy convicted its publisher of racketeering on the grounds that I’ve laid out above.
This is a simple con, along with most of the Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) and similar. I’ve brushed up against cons like these to be sure about that.
Counterinsurgency
Data science.
It's not a 'natural science'. It's an archaic use of the term 'science' (I think the old usage meant something like 'knowledge'), not latter-day puffery.
Reminds of the King of the Hill episode where Peggy was on the all-female roller derby team:
“It all seemed so simple in my head! Everyone would be everyone else’s boss.”
1. SW Austin: dry hole on GoogleScholar2. ML Dion: Latin American specialist and may even do stats. Much of her publication history taken up with articles on teaching political science, and on articles complaining that broads such as she are shortchanged in compensation and other career accolades.3. LG Bedolla: extensively published on Latino political mobilization in the U.S. (with a side order of feminism). Book chapters, lower rung journals. Raaaaacism blah blah4. CR Hayward: extensively published on American domestic politics. Non-quantitative. SJW5. KM Kadera: IR specialist. Sort of person who lands on 'Peace studies' faculties. Not a good thing.6. J Novkov: extensively published on American domestic politics. No stats as far as I can tell. Race-class-gender blah blah. Some papers on legal-formal matters (would guess there's a JD degree in her past).7. V Sinclair-Chapman: specialist in American domestic politics. Some papers on race, a few on legislative process, a few on teaching political science8. DZ Strolovitch: specialist in American domestic politics. No stats. Writes on race and gender9. AM Tripp: extensively published. No stats. Primarily an Africa specialist with a side-order of comparative politics. The bulk of her work concerns women women women.10. DM Walsh: comparative politics, emphasis on Southern Africa. No stats. Feminism women women women blah blah11. SL Weldon: comparativist. Nearly all of her writing is about the status of women and their 'plight'. Wrote one article on the use of statistics, but doesn't appear to publish quantitative research.12. EJ Wood: comparativist, Latin America specialist. Studies insurgencies (and, of course 'sexual violence'). No stats. Some articles on political economy. Likely the main brain of the group.
No one for whom quantitative methods is integral to their research. No specialists in political theory. No areal specialists in Europe, the Far East, India, or MENA nor any comparativists who've done research there. From their research profile, my guess would be maybe three of these women are conversant in a foreign language. One IR specialist (whose subspecialty is a collecting pool of fools). And pretty much all of them SJWs of one sort or another.
This is what counts as 'distinguished' only in a discipline dominated by corrupt liars or dominated by people who live and work in an impenetrable bubble. Best argument I've seen for simply closing down your poli sci department and putting the faculty out on the curb.
IR?
Is #12 any relation to David Letterman?
Ever notice that women are all about “we?” We this. We that. Women are tireless about stamping out “I.” Which of course means the end of thinking.
You have to take back the universities somehow, methinks. That or just close them down, as many red-state governors are doing. Of course, we can expect to fall behind in science and technology in the future, with all that implies (I'm a little nervous because this is how Europe beat the Arabs and Chinese, after all). Probably concentrate on knocking out the humanities, I'd guess.
If I knew how to get women on my side, I'd be quizzing my kids on math and history by now ("Song of El Cid! That's the one where my ancestors rip each other off!"), not posting here, so I'll defer to the macho-er guys.
Wokemon points, that’s great! Did you coin it?
Somewhat OT:
In Estonia, a school field trip to a “feminist art exhibit” featured a striptease by a non-stereotypically-attractive female:
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/07/26/disbelief-and-anger-over-image-of-school-kids-being-flashed-by-feminist-at-art-exhibit-field-trip-778707
This picture has been edited for public consumption. You can find the uncensored version if you poke around on the interwebs:
Any naked female body that can cause those young fellows to look away is a bad body, indeed.
Why isn't she just treated as a flasher and arrested, the way we would treat any Wienie Waver in modern society? I suspect that her real motives for this display are much the same.
4 5 3 6 5 6 5 4 3 5 4 4.
Average 5.
But overall ... yeah, it's a very average looking group of American women. Not a big surprise, there's a certain intelligence and discipline required to climbing the academic greasy pole. So you're screening off the truly disfunctional genetic combos, who tend to be ugly. And, of course, there's a selection in that really cute girls, who are normally ordered, have really good options and usually to exercise the one that is marriage and children with a successful--or likely to be successful--guy.
My overall take is what it always is: Some of these gals were born pain-in-the-asses. But some would have made really good wives and mothers in a saner culture. (I'm guessing probably half are unmarried or at least childless.)
1. SW Austin: dry hole on GoogleScholar2. ML Dion: Latin American specialist and may even do stats. Much of her publication history taken up with articles on teaching political science, and on articles complaining that broads such as she are shortchanged in compensation and other career accolades.3. LG Bedolla: extensively published on Latino political mobilization in the U.S. (with a side order of feminism). Book chapters, lower rung journals. Raaaaacism blah blah4. CR Hayward: extensively published on American domestic politics. Non-quantitative. SJW5. KM Kadera: IR specialist. Sort of person who lands on 'Peace studies' faculties. Not a good thing.6. J Novkov: extensively published on American domestic politics. No stats as far as I can tell. Race-class-gender blah blah. Some papers on legal-formal matters (would guess there's a JD degree in her past).7. V Sinclair-Chapman: specialist in American domestic politics. Some papers on race, a few on legislative process, a few on teaching political science8. DZ Strolovitch: specialist in American domestic politics. No stats. Writes on race and gender9. AM Tripp: extensively published. No stats. Primarily an Africa specialist with a side-order of comparative politics. The bulk of her work concerns women women women.10. DM Walsh: comparative politics, emphasis on Southern Africa. No stats. Feminism women women women blah blah11. SL Weldon: comparativist. Nearly all of her writing is about the status of women and their 'plight'. Wrote one article on the use of statistics, but doesn't appear to publish quantitative research.12. EJ Wood: comparativist, Latin America specialist. Studies insurgencies (and, of course 'sexual violence'). No stats. Some articles on political economy. Likely the main brain of the group.
No one for whom quantitative methods is integral to their research. No specialists in political theory. No areal specialists in Europe, the Far East, India, or MENA nor any comparativists who've done research there. From their research profile, my guess would be maybe three of these women are conversant in a foreign language. One IR specialist (whose subspecialty is a collecting pool of fools). And pretty much all of them SJWs of one sort or another.
This is what counts as 'distinguished' only in a discipline dominated by corrupt liars or dominated by people who live and work in an impenetrable bubble. Best argument I've seen for simply closing down your poli sci department and putting the faculty out on the curb.
Dr. Sharon D. Wright Austin
of the University of Florida (Aug. 2001 to Present)
PhD, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, August 1993
– Major areas of emphasis: American Government (Public Law; Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary, and Minority Politics); Minor areas of emphasis: Comparative Politics and Public Administration.
– Dissertation: “Aftermath of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Racial Voting Patterns in Memphis Mayoral Elections, 1967-1991.”
MA, University of Memphis, Dec. 1989
Political science with a minor in education
BA, Christian Brothers University, May 1987
History with a minor in political science
Christian Brothers University (CBU) is a Catholic-run school in Memphis. As of the early 2010s, it was 50% White, 30% Black, 20% Other.
Something online reports CBU’s SAT 25%-75% is 1080-1280, or IQ 108-125 based on IQ blogger PumpkinPerson’s conversion table. (CBU’s middle-50% on the ACT is 21 to 27.)
Look again, second row, second from the left … looks M2F to me. Only thing they seem to be missing is a trans F2M.
OT:
Breitbart is the absolute worst for Jeffrey Epstein coverage of all the major media sites I’ve checked so far. Even CNN is better. Daily Caller is really bad, too.
We’re getting better coverage of this from leftist sites or Fox News than we are from “right-wing” media.
‘Once Upon A Time in PEDOWOOD’: Vandals swap faces of Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt for Jeffrey Epstein and Roman Polanski on a billboard for the new Quentin Tarantino movie
Jeffrey Epstein’s ex-cop ‘quadruple murderer’ cellmate tells how he ‘saved the billionaire pedophile’s life when he found him unconscious following prison suicide attempt’
‘Charity founded by socialite who “procured underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein” is investigated by FBI’
‘He bragged she was his sex slave’: Jeffrey Epstein ‘purchased Nadia Marcinkova as a girl from her family, shot child porn of her with underage teen and forced her into threesomes’
All of this was published in the last 2-3 days, but none of it has found its way onto Breitbart. Fox is much better; maybe I should start reading there, and stop reading shitebart. CNN seems to be doing minimum coverage, just a hair better than shitebart. Same goes for ABC News.
And this is all based on using the respective sites’ search functions; I didn’t even bother to check their front pages.
My guess is he has some dirt on one of the principals, though who knows?
You have to take back the universities somehow, methinks. That or just close them down, as many red-state governors are doing. Of course, we can expect to fall behind in science and technology in the future, with all that implies (I'm a little nervous because this is how Europe beat the Arabs and Chinese, after all). Probably concentrate on knocking out the humanities, I'd guess.
If I knew how to get women on my side, I'd be quizzing my kids on math and history by now ("Song of El Cid! That's the one where my ancestors rip each other off!"), not posting here, so I'll defer to the macho-er guys.
This.
It’s probably worth falling behind if the alternative is today’s worsening insanity.
Plus, industry and private labs would probably pick up the science slack.
BTW, didn’t the Arabs and Chinese falter when the universities of their day succumbed to the extant PC?
Yup, though it was religious for the Arabs, and the Chinese always had a problem with excessive veneration of the past from what little I know. And Catholic Europe fell behind Protestant Europe for the same reason (though I am sure people will pop on to argue that one).
What happened to the old team?
of the University of Florida (Aug. 2001 to Present)
PhD, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, August 1993
- Major areas of emphasis: American Government (Public Law; Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary, and Minority Politics); Minor areas of emphasis: Comparative Politics and Public Administration.
- Dissertation: "Aftermath of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Racial Voting Patterns in Memphis Mayoral Elections, 1967-1991."
MA, University of Memphis, Dec. 1989
Political science with a minor in education
BA, Christian Brothers University, May 1987
History with a minor in political science
https://afam.clas.ufl.edu/files/austin-313x210.jpg
Christian Brothers University (CBU) is a Catholic-run school in Memphis. As of the early 2010s, it was 50% White, 30% Black, 20% Other.
Something online reports CBU's SAT 25%-75% is 1080-1280, or IQ 108-125 based on IQ blogger PumpkinPerson's conversion table. (CBU's middle-50% on the ACT is 21 to 27.)
Is she black, blackish or other?
Average 5.
With only face portraits, how can you rate those women?
Ben Franklin said, in reference to older women, the pleasures below remain regardless of the face,
You have to take back the universities somehow, methinks. That or just close them down, as many red-state governors are doing. Of course, we can expect to fall behind in science and technology in the future, with all that implies (I'm a little nervous because this is how Europe beat the Arabs and Chinese, after all). Probably concentrate on knocking out the humanities, I'd guess.
If I knew how to get women on my side, I'd be quizzing my kids on math and history by now ("Song of El Cid! That's the one where my ancestors rip each other off!"), not posting here, so I'll defer to the macho-er guys.
This is something that could be done easily. The fact that it has not been done, speaks to the overall braindeadedness of 45 y.o+ white conservative thinkers. At the end of the day, they care more about winning sports teams than other things, like the living standards of their posterity and the survival of western rational thought.
The way to do it, is:
– Make it a state-law that certain college majors are “beneficiary to the public” — i.e, worthy of the in-state tuition subsidy. Make these chosen majors in the mathematically-based sciences, and the more politically agnostic fields, like medicine, law, business, accounting, etc. Everything else, you are paying out-of-state tuition.
– Take state-funding away from the politically partisan fields and give it to the above fields, which also coincide with the major money-makers for universities. This aspect is important, since if they ever want to claw funds back, it requires Sociology justifying why they need to take funds from Medicine or Computer Science. Good luck with that, from an electoral perspective.
– It has the added benefit of encouraging hyper-partisan politically-active blue voters to leave your state — i.e., it keeps your state from turning into a giant Austin, TX.
Again, it could be done with little fanfare. But let’s be honest, your average older white conservative state politician is too dumb to do it.
OT: I just thought of a cool term for a transexual.
A Woman of Penis.
1. SW Austin: dry hole on GoogleScholar2. ML Dion: Latin American specialist and may even do stats. Much of her publication history taken up with articles on teaching political science, and on articles complaining that broads such as she are shortchanged in compensation and other career accolades.3. LG Bedolla: extensively published on Latino political mobilization in the U.S. (with a side order of feminism). Book chapters, lower rung journals. Raaaaacism blah blah4. CR Hayward: extensively published on American domestic politics. Non-quantitative. SJW5. KM Kadera: IR specialist. Sort of person who lands on 'Peace studies' faculties. Not a good thing.6. J Novkov: extensively published on American domestic politics. No stats as far as I can tell. Race-class-gender blah blah. Some papers on legal-formal matters (would guess there's a JD degree in her past).7. V Sinclair-Chapman: specialist in American domestic politics. Some papers on race, a few on legislative process, a few on teaching political science8. DZ Strolovitch: specialist in American domestic politics. No stats. Writes on race and gender9. AM Tripp: extensively published. No stats. Primarily an Africa specialist with a side-order of comparative politics. The bulk of her work concerns women women women.10. DM Walsh: comparative politics, emphasis on Southern Africa. No stats. Feminism women women women blah blah11. SL Weldon: comparativist. Nearly all of her writing is about the status of women and their 'plight'. Wrote one article on the use of statistics, but doesn't appear to publish quantitative research.12. EJ Wood: comparativist, Latin America specialist. Studies insurgencies (and, of course 'sexual violence'). No stats. Some articles on political economy. Likely the main brain of the group.
No one for whom quantitative methods is integral to their research. No specialists in political theory. No areal specialists in Europe, the Far East, India, or MENA nor any comparativists who've done research there. From their research profile, my guess would be maybe three of these women are conversant in a foreign language. One IR specialist (whose subspecialty is a collecting pool of fools). And pretty much all of them SJWs of one sort or another.
This is what counts as 'distinguished' only in a discipline dominated by corrupt liars or dominated by people who live and work in an impenetrable bubble. Best argument I've seen for simply closing down your poli sci department and putting the faculty out on the curb.
Dr. Elisabeth Jean Wood [b.1957]
Professor of Political Science, Yale University, 2004 to Present
(She got her degrees in pairs; spent the 1980s wavering between physics and political science, with the latter finally winning out.)
PhD, Stanford University, 1995 (Political Science)
MA, University of California at Berkeley, 1988 (Latin American Studies)
MA, University of California at Berkeley, 1984 (Physics)
BA, University of Oxford, 1981 (Philosophy and Mathematics)
BA, Cornell University, 1979 (Physics)
Political science is not a science.
This particular editorial board is just a way to funnel money to political workers. No more, no less. The old corrupt labor unions used to do this -- you had to subscribe to a particular (expensive) publication or be in the bad graces of the union establishment. I once worked (briefly) for one of these outfits. Robert Kennedy convicted its publisher of racketeering on the grounds that I've laid out above.
This is a simple con, along with most of the Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) and similar. I've brushed up against cons like these to be sure about that.
Counterinsurgency
Agreed.
Data science.
of the University of Florida (Aug. 2001 to Present)
PhD, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, August 1993
- Major areas of emphasis: American Government (Public Law; Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary, and Minority Politics); Minor areas of emphasis: Comparative Politics and Public Administration.
- Dissertation: "Aftermath of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Racial Voting Patterns in Memphis Mayoral Elections, 1967-1991."
MA, University of Memphis, Dec. 1989
Political science with a minor in education
BA, Christian Brothers University, May 1987
History with a minor in political science
https://afam.clas.ufl.edu/files/austin-313x210.jpg
Christian Brothers University (CBU) is a Catholic-run school in Memphis. As of the early 2010s, it was 50% White, 30% Black, 20% Other.
Something online reports CBU's SAT 25%-75% is 1080-1280, or IQ 108-125 based on IQ blogger PumpkinPerson's conversion table. (CBU's middle-50% on the ACT is 21 to 27.)
She looks like dark Indian.
In Estonia, a school field trip to a "feminist art exhibit" featured a striptease by a non-stereotypically-attractive female:
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/07/26/disbelief-and-anger-over-image-of-school-kids-being-flashed-by-feminist-at-art-exhibit-field-trip-778707
This picture has been edited for public consumption. You can find the uncensored version if you poke around on the interwebs:
https://i.ibb.co/BTxpgmG/Untitled2.png
Estonia picked a lousy time to rejoin the West.
American Political Science Review.
Who reads this?
Which is the significance of that publication?
Average 5.
Many years ago I dated a young women who has since become very prominent in these _circles_ (not in this picture though).
She remains _very_ attractive in middle age–while all of her “colleagues” in her women’s organizations are 3s or lower.
Her life story is out there–she was radicalized by being “sexually harassed” many many times–and as we all know that means she was approached in the workplace by men she found unattractive. The poor guys just didn’t know what they were doing–and couldn’t help themselves. (Redpill theory says minimize social interaction with women at work–absolutely a must-do for men in today’s workplace.)
As a result of refusing many bosses advances she “moved on” from one job to another over the years–probably with sexual harassment settlements with confidentiality agreements.
That attractive women with the great credentials and sweet smile in the interview room is trouble–big trouble.
Crazy times.
Oh I am so confused! What should I think???
In the bad old days I’d look at a leadership slate of all-male or all-White candidates and figure: “Well, they must all be good…. more than qualified to hold the positions they hold. The cream always rises to the top, etc. The organization wouldn’t have hired them unless they were super qualified!” And then I’d go about my day, confident that we were all trying to do our very best to hire & promote only the very best.
But then I learned how wrong I was!
I learned that YOU can tell a book by its cover…and that a ‘cover’, a slate of all male or all White leaders, was, by definition, BAD because they all looked the same. I learned that when you look-the-same, you are ‘known’ (per the Progressive Book of Sin & Salvation) to think and act the same. And that was BAD.
I learned that the ever more elusive ‘Quality’ CANNOT be achieved by trying to hire Quality (that would be, however, a common trap that most people fall into) — rather it can only be achieved by hiring individuals who look DIFFERENT….and thereby sneak-up on Quality. And so once again, I’d go about my day, still confident that once again we were still trying to do our very best.
But now???!!! What the heck? They all look the same again!!
So that must mean, per the “Progressive Book of Sin & Salvation” that the APScience Review is no longer interested in Quality!
But then I read the blurb and I learn that now we’re SURE this Non-Diversity really IS quality (just not the New Quality (similar to New Coke, I’m guessing)). This new non-Diverse quality must be the Newer New Quality.
Does that mean we can go back to all-male or all White leadership groups and say that the all-male or all-White hiring is “demonstrating our commitment to promoting a wider range of voices and scholarship in the journal and the discipline”??
Hmmmm. I’d guess not.
I guess what we’ve really learned here is what Humpty Dumpty said:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” So when Humpty says non-diversity is diverse, it’s GOOD! And when Humpty says that same non-diversity is NOT diverse, it’s BAD.
Somehow that seems, I dunno….perverse? crooked? corrupt? idiotic? racist & sexist? I dunno — hard to find the right words.
Political science is not a science.
This particular editorial board is just a way to funnel money to political workers. No more, no less. The old corrupt labor unions used to do this -- you had to subscribe to a particular (expensive) publication or be in the bad graces of the union establishment. I once worked (briefly) for one of these outfits. Robert Kennedy convicted its publisher of racketeering on the grounds that I've laid out above.
This is a simple con, along with most of the Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) and similar. I've brushed up against cons like these to be sure about that.
Counterinsurgency
Computer science? That’d be news to the STEM worshipers around these parts.
Someone else here did, sadly. Earliest citation appears to be Steve himself a few months ago.
It's probably worth falling behind if the alternative is today's worsening insanity.
Plus, industry and private labs would probably pick up the science slack.
BTW, didn't the Arabs and Chinese falter when the universities of their day succumbed to the extant PC?
BTW, didn’t the Arabs and Chinese falter when the universities of their day succumbed to the extant PC?
Yup, though it was religious for the Arabs, and the Chinese always had a problem with excessive veneration of the past from what little I know. And Catholic Europe fell behind Protestant Europe for the same reason (though I am sure people will pop on to argue that one).
There is no "behind" here, no direction, no advancing mankind. This illusion of an historical progression is foundational to everything you decry. Wherever this idea is to be found, there will be SJWism, which is only Protestantism realized.
Europe did not "beat" the Arabs and Chinese any more than this year's raspberries "beat" the dry, brittle brambles of last year's growth. The Arabs and Chinese were dead before the Europeans were born. Their histories completed, they endure only in the fellaheen state of lifeless human masses.
The notion that more "STEM" is necessary to prevent us from falling "behind" the walking dead is so full of rank absurdities and misconceptions that it almost defies criticism.
1789 (5 countries assessed): Britain, x; Portugal, 0.77x; France, 0.74x; Sweden, 0.71x; Poland, o.41x
1840 (10 countries assessed): Britain, x; Netherlands, 0.85x; Denmark, 0.72x; France, 0.68x; Greece, 0.63x; Austria, 0.62x; Norway, 0.58x; Italy, 0.57x; Sweden, 0.50x; Portugal, 0.44x; Poland, 0.28x
1885 (18 countries assessed): Belgium, 1.04x; Britain, x; Switzerland, 0.99x; Netherlands, 0.88x; Spain, 0.84x; Germany, 0.74x; France, 0.73x; Denmark, 0.70x; Norway, 0.62; Austria, 0.56x; Sweden, 0.55; Greece, 0.51; Italy, 0.41; Tsarist Russia, 0.40; Poland, 0.39; Portugal, 0.33; Finland, 0.31; Roumania, 0.14.
1913 (23 countries assessed): Belgium, 1.07x; Britain, x; Switzerland, 0.88x; Germany, 0.87x; Denmark, 0.87x; Netherlands, 0.86x; Norway, 0.82x; France, 0.81x; Sweden, 0.75x; Spain, 0.69x; Austria, 0.59x; Ireland, 0.58x; Czechoslovakia, 0.57x; Tsarist Russia, 0.44; Italy, 0.43; Finland, 0.36; Poland, 0.35; Portugal, 0.26x; Greece, 0.25; Hungary, 0.24; Albania, 0.19x; Roumania, 0.14x; Yugoslavia, 0.13x.
1958 (n countries assessed): Switzerland, 1.16x; Iceland, 1.02x; Denmark, x; Britain, x; Sweden, 0.98x; Germany, 0.91x; Norway, 0.90x; Netherlands, 0.89x; France, 0.86x; Belgium, 0.79x; Czechoslovakia, 0.77x; Soviet Russia, 0.70x; Austria, 0.70x; Finland, 0.66x; Italy, 0.57; Spain, 0.52; Slovenia, 0.50x; Ireland, 0.49x; Croatia, 0.44x; Bulgaria, 0.40x; Greece, 0.38x; Hungary, 0.36x; Poland, 0.35x; Portugal, 0.32x; Serbia, 0.20x; Albania, 0.18x; Roumania, 0.14x;
'Once Upon A Time in PEDOWOOD': Vandals swap faces of Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt for Jeffrey Epstein and Roman Polanski on a billboard for the new Quentin Tarantino movieJeffrey Epstein's ex-cop 'quadruple murderer' cellmate tells how he 'saved the billionaire pedophile's life when he found him unconscious following prison suicide attempt''Charity founded by socialite who "procured underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein" is investigated by FBI''He bragged she was his sex slave': Jeffrey Epstein 'purchased Nadia Marcinkova as a girl from her family, shot child porn of her with underage teen and forced her into threesomes'All of this was published in the last 2-3 days, but none of it has found its way onto Breitbart. Fox is much better; maybe I should start reading there, and stop reading shitebart. CNN seems to be doing minimum coverage, just a hair better than shitebart. Same goes for ABC News.And this is all based on using the respective sites' search functions; I didn't even bother to check their front pages.
Breitbart’s run by Jewish guys, which I thought you knew…they’ve had lots of fun at Lena Dunham’s expense, though.
My guess is he has some dirt on one of the principals, though who knows?
In Estonia, a school field trip to a "feminist art exhibit" featured a striptease by a non-stereotypically-attractive female:
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/07/26/disbelief-and-anger-over-image-of-school-kids-being-flashed-by-feminist-at-art-exhibit-field-trip-778707
This picture has been edited for public consumption. You can find the uncensored version if you poke around on the interwebs:
https://i.ibb.co/BTxpgmG/Untitled2.png
Look at that white kid’s smirk! We need a drunk Indian to bang a drum in his face, pronto!
I bet they’re all into the politics of hair.
International relations.
I’ve come to the conclusion in the last five or ten years or so, we just need separation.
I know these people are wrong, clueless about most of socio-political reality that we have a good handle on–from history, biology and current data.
I also know–just like i know the sun will come up tomorrow in the east–that civilization is fundamentally created and maintained by men. Civilization is not equal to patriarchy, but civilization requires patriarchy. Women–their proper socialization and the socialization they give to children–are critical to civilization, but they don’t creat it or maintain it and if in charge will destroy it.
I’m a freedom guy. I’m perfectly happy to let these gals–and any soy boys who want to go with them–wander off and have their matriarchal rainbow nation. Part of the minoritarians’ rainbow nation or separate–don’t care.
But we normals absolutely need to demand the right to have a normal nation–has a core people, has one culture, has borders, run by the responsible and productive men.
Their upcoming annual meeting is titled “Populism and Privilege”
of the University of Florida (Aug. 2001 to Present)
PhD, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, August 1993
- Major areas of emphasis: American Government (Public Law; Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary, and Minority Politics); Minor areas of emphasis: Comparative Politics and Public Administration.
- Dissertation: "Aftermath of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Racial Voting Patterns in Memphis Mayoral Elections, 1967-1991."
MA, University of Memphis, Dec. 1989
Political science with a minor in education
BA, Christian Brothers University, May 1987
History with a minor in political science
https://afam.clas.ufl.edu/files/austin-313x210.jpg
Christian Brothers University (CBU) is a Catholic-run school in Memphis. As of the early 2010s, it was 50% White, 30% Black, 20% Other.
Something online reports CBU's SAT 25%-75% is 1080-1280, or IQ 108-125 based on IQ blogger PumpkinPerson's conversion table. (CBU's middle-50% on the ACT is 21 to 27.)
Christian Brothers University (CBU) is a Catholic-run school in Memphis.
Notionally. Rudolph Giuliani attended a Christian Brothers college, back when it was run by…Christian Brothers. There were about 950 Christian Brothers in the U.S. in 1965. It’s a teaching order, so you can provide a critical mass of faculty to a mess of schools with that amount of manpower. Last I checked (around 2002) the order had 7 seminarians in formation. You have 0.7 ordinations per year, your population stabilizes at 25 working friars. They may have had the worst demographic collapse of any order operating in the U.S. at the time of the 2d Vatican Disaster.
A married (male) priesthood would be much natural, healthier. I'm not going back, but if i did i'd rather be hearing a sermon from someone like Twinkie. Allow women and you're done--finished.
Political science is not a science.
This particular editorial board is just a way to funnel money to political workers. No more, no less. The old corrupt labor unions used to do this -- you had to subscribe to a particular (expensive) publication or be in the bad graces of the union establishment. I once worked (briefly) for one of these outfits. Robert Kennedy convicted its publisher of racketeering on the grounds that I've laid out above.
This is a simple con, along with most of the Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) and similar. I've brushed up against cons like these to be sure about that.
Counterinsurgency
Political science is not a science.
It’s not a ‘natural science’. It’s an archaic use of the term ‘science’ (I think the old usage meant something like ‘knowledge’), not latter-day puffery.
None of the new ways of thought really proved to be of physical significant [1] (although they made great political organizers), hence the rule about "if is says it's a science, it isn't".
Counterinsurgency
1] Hegel's, Marx's, etc thought all eventually became Postmodernism.
S. Hicks
"Stephen Hicks - Explaining Postmodernism In 2018 ".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BGbHG63x8w
These people did interesting work, and did break radically with the society around them and with previous thought, but all attempts to base new societies on their thought failed badly.
The Christian Brothers used to make a very nice altar wine. At least so it seemed to me as altar boy back in the late 60s. (A definite upgrade from my dad’s occasional bottle of MoganDavid 😉
I’ll leave it to the real Catholics here, but it’s very hard to maintain an adequate celebate priesthood in our sort of culture. The faggification of it in the early part of the revolution was pretty depressing. (I altar boy’d for one of these priests–whom we all couldn’t stand–in the early part of the revolution. The dude later died of AIDS.) And, of course, had the predictable results you’ll get from anything that goes gay.
A married (male) priesthood would be much natural, healthier. I’m not going back, but if i did i’d rather be hearing a sermon from someone like Twinkie. Allow women and you’re done–finished.
1. SW Austin: dry hole on GoogleScholar2. ML Dion: Latin American specialist and may even do stats. Much of her publication history taken up with articles on teaching political science, and on articles complaining that broads such as she are shortchanged in compensation and other career accolades.3. LG Bedolla: extensively published on Latino political mobilization in the U.S. (with a side order of feminism). Book chapters, lower rung journals. Raaaaacism blah blah4. CR Hayward: extensively published on American domestic politics. Non-quantitative. SJW5. KM Kadera: IR specialist. Sort of person who lands on 'Peace studies' faculties. Not a good thing.6. J Novkov: extensively published on American domestic politics. No stats as far as I can tell. Race-class-gender blah blah. Some papers on legal-formal matters (would guess there's a JD degree in her past).7. V Sinclair-Chapman: specialist in American domestic politics. Some papers on race, a few on legislative process, a few on teaching political science8. DZ Strolovitch: specialist in American domestic politics. No stats. Writes on race and gender9. AM Tripp: extensively published. No stats. Primarily an Africa specialist with a side-order of comparative politics. The bulk of her work concerns women women women.10. DM Walsh: comparative politics, emphasis on Southern Africa. No stats. Feminism women women women blah blah11. SL Weldon: comparativist. Nearly all of her writing is about the status of women and their 'plight'. Wrote one article on the use of statistics, but doesn't appear to publish quantitative research.12. EJ Wood: comparativist, Latin America specialist. Studies insurgencies (and, of course 'sexual violence'). No stats. Some articles on political economy. Likely the main brain of the group.
No one for whom quantitative methods is integral to their research. No specialists in political theory. No areal specialists in Europe, the Far East, India, or MENA nor any comparativists who've done research there. From their research profile, my guess would be maybe three of these women are conversant in a foreign language. One IR specialist (whose subspecialty is a collecting pool of fools). And pretty much all of them SJWs of one sort or another.
This is what counts as 'distinguished' only in a discipline dominated by corrupt liars or dominated by people who live and work in an impenetrable bubble. Best argument I've seen for simply closing down your poli sci department and putting the faculty out on the curb.
Inferring ages from years BA earned:
1. Sharon Wright Austin [Black]: BA in May 1987 = Likely born ca.1965. (PhD, 1993.) (Appears to have straight-thru, did the standard “K-to-16,” then immediately an MA, then immediately a PhD.)
2. Michelle L. Dion: BA, Latin American Studies with Government concentration, University of Texas at Austin, May 1996 = Likely born ca.1974. (PhD, Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Dec. 2002. Major field: comparative politics. Minor field: political methodology.) (Also looks to be a straight-thru’er; no interruptions, K-to-PhD.)
3. Lisa Garcia Bedolla: BA, University of California at Berkeley, Latin American Studies and Comparative Literature, 1992 = Likely born ca.1970. (PhD, Political Science, Yale, 1999.) (Another straight-thru’er, K-to-PhD.)
4. Clarissa Rile Hayward: BA, Princeton University, Summa Cum Laude, Politics, June 1988 = Likely born ca.1966. (Was alongside Bedolla in Yale PhD program in the mid-late 1990s; Hayward has a “PhD with distinction, Yale, Political Science, Dec. 1998,” but this later timing [BA+10.5 years] implies she did break out into some kind of non-academic work, unlike the first three above.)
5. Kelly M. Kadera: BA, Wells College, 1987 = Likely born ca.1965. (PhD, University of Illinois, 1995.) (May or may not be a K-to-PhD straight-thru’er, but is pretty close.)
6. Julie Novkov: AB, Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges, magna cum laude, 1989 = Likely born ca.1967. (PhD, Univ. of Michigan (Political Science), 1998 [Dissertation: “Sex and Substantive Due Process: The Gendered Nature of Constitutional Development”]; MA in 1994 and JD in 1992.) (Looks like straight-thru in academia, K-to-PhD, but took a detour with that JD.)
7. Valeria Sinclair-Chapman [Black]: BA, University of North Carolina-Asheville, 1991 = Likely born ca. 1973. (PhD, Ohio State University, 2002; therefore did not go straight through BA to PhD.) Published an early 2018 paper in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities titled: “(De)Constructing symbols: Charlottesville, the confederate flag, and a case for disrupting symbolic meaning.”
8. Dara Z. Strolovitch [very likely Jewish]: BA, Vassar College, Political Science (with Honours; minor in Women’s Studies), 1992 = Likely born ca. 1970. (PhD, Yale, Political Science, 2002; M.Phil, Yale, Political Science, also in 2002; MA, Yale, Political Science, 1998.) (Must have been doing something else from about summer/fall 1992 t0 mid 1996 or so; to her credit, then, she is not a straight-thru’er.)
9. Aili Mari Tripp: BA, Chicago, Political Science, 1983 = Would be estimated to be born ca. 1961 using the method being used here, but Wikipedia gives her birth date as May 24, 1958 [seven months older than Steve Sailer]. I find no obvious reason (such as, e.g., Mormon mission work) why she only graduated at 25 instead of the usual 22. (PhD, Northwestern, 1990; MA, Chicago, 1985.)
10. Denise M. Walsh: BA, Bennington College [Vermont] (Politics and Economics), 1985 = Likely born ca. 1963. (PhD, New School for Social Research, New York City, Jan. 2006. Dissertation: “Just Debate: Culture and Gender Justice in the New South Africa.”)
Not sure what Denise W. Walsh did between the late 1980s and early 2000s, but maybe she was raising children. This attractive picture with her arms folded is the one she uses (it’ll be a good few years old); the only clue as to her her non-academia decade that I see is the ring on her finger there; if she did pause her academic career for ten years to raise children, say what you will, but she has my respect.)
11. S. Laurel Weldon: BA, Simon Fraser University [Canada] (Political Science), 1991 = Likely born ca. 1969. (PhD, University of Pittsburgh, 1999. Dissertation: “Explaining Cross-National Variation in Government Policies on Violence Against Women: Women’s Movements and Political Institutions in Democratic Policymaking.”) (Another likely straight-thru’er; also a US-Canada dual citizen.)
12. Elisabeth Jean Wood: First BA in 1979. Confirmed born 1957 by WorldCat. (PhD, 1995, after a combined four BAs and MAs between 1979 and 1988.) A somewhat exotic look; a case of name not matching face. I think I see certain telltale signs of Jewish ancestry. She looks like a less-Jewish version of Amy Wax.
- Youngest: b.1974
- Mean birth year: 1966
- Median birth year: 1966.5______________________Years between BA and PhD:- Shortest: 6 years
- Longest: 21 years
- Mean: 10 years
- Median: 8.5 years______________________Race:- Blacks: 2 of 12 (Austin and Sinclair-Chapman);
- White-Hispanics: 1 of 12 (Bedolla; her twitter pic is a lot more flattering than the one they used in the 12-woman graphic in the article -- second front left, top row);
- Jews: 1.5? (Strolovitch, and ?);
- White-Christians of broadly NW-European origin: 7.5?
- Muslims: 0.
- Asians of any kind: 0.______________________The median member of this board is thus a White woman, born in 1966, who earned her PhD in the year 1997. Only two of these women stand out for having waited a significant amount of time between BA and PhD: Denise Walsh (20.5 years) and Elisabeth Wood (16 years, but there were several other BA and MA degrees in between in her case).All these women are now past their childbearing years, with the youngest now 45. I'd be curious what the final, completed fertility rate for this group was.
1. Sharon Wright Austin [Black]: BA in May 1987 = Likely born ca.1965. (PhD, 1993.) (Appears to have straight-thru, did the standard "K-to-16," then immediately an MA, then immediately a PhD.)
2. Michelle L. Dion: BA, Latin American Studies with Government concentration, University of Texas at Austin, May 1996 = Likely born ca.1974. (PhD, Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Dec. 2002. Major field: comparative politics. Minor field: political methodology.) (Also looks to be a straight-thru'er; no interruptions, K-to-PhD.)
3. Lisa Garcia Bedolla: BA, University of California at Berkeley, Latin American Studies and Comparative Literature, 1992 = Likely born ca.1970. (PhD, Political Science, Yale, 1999.) (Another straight-thru'er, K-to-PhD.)
4. Clarissa Rile Hayward: BA, Princeton University, Summa Cum Laude, Politics, June 1988 = Likely born ca.1966. (Was alongside Bedolla in Yale PhD program in the mid-late 1990s; Hayward has a "PhD with distinction, Yale, Political Science, Dec. 1998," but this later timing [BA+10.5 years] implies she did break out into some kind of non-academic work, unlike the first three above.)
5. Kelly M. Kadera: BA, Wells College, 1987 = Likely born ca.1965. (PhD, University of Illinois, 1995.) (May or may not be a K-to-PhD straight-thru'er, but is pretty close.)
6. Julie Novkov: AB, Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges, magna cum laude, 1989 = Likely born ca.1967. (PhD, Univ. of Michigan (Political Science), 1998 [Dissertation: "Sex and Substantive Due Process: The Gendered Nature of Constitutional Development"]; MA in 1994 and JD in 1992.) (Looks like straight-thru in academia, K-to-PhD, but took a detour with that JD.)
7. Valeria Sinclair-Chapman [Black]: BA, University of North Carolina-Asheville, 1991 = Likely born ca. 1973. (PhD, Ohio State University, 2002; therefore did not go straight through BA to PhD.) Published an early 2018 paper in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities titled: "(De)Constructing symbols: Charlottesville, the confederate flag, and a case for disrupting symbolic meaning."
8. Dara Z. Strolovitch [very likely Jewish]: BA, Vassar College, Political Science (with Honours; minor in Women's Studies), 1992 = Likely born ca. 1970. (PhD, Yale, Political Science, 2002; M.Phil, Yale, Political Science, also in 2002; MA, Yale, Political Science, 1998.) (Must have been doing something else from about summer/fall 1992 t0 mid 1996 or so; to her credit, then, she is not a straight-thru'er.)
9. Aili Mari Tripp: BA, Chicago, Political Science, 1983 = Would be estimated to be born ca. 1961 using the method being used here, but Wikipedia gives her birth date as May 24, 1958 [seven months older than Steve Sailer]. I find no obvious reason (such as, e.g., Mormon mission work) why she only graduated at 25 instead of the usual 22. (PhD, Northwestern, 1990; MA, Chicago, 1985.)
10. Denise M. Walsh: BA, Bennington College [Vermont] (Politics and Economics), 1985 = Likely born ca. 1963. (PhD, New School for Social Research, New York City, Jan. 2006. Dissertation: "Just Debate: Culture and Gender Justice in the New South Africa.")
Not sure what Denise W. Walsh did between the late 1980s and early 2000s, but maybe she was raising children. This attractive picture with her arms folded is the one she uses (it'll be a good few years old); the only clue as to her her non-academia decade that I see is the ring on her finger there; if she did pause her academic career for ten years to raise children, say what you will, but she has my respect.)
11. S. Laurel Weldon: BA, Simon Fraser University [Canada] (Political Science), 1991 = Likely born ca. 1969. (PhD, University of Pittsburgh, 1999. Dissertation: "Explaining Cross-National Variation in Government Policies on Violence Against Women: Women’s Movements and Political Institutions in Democratic Policymaking.") (Another likely straight-thru'er; also a US-Canada dual citizen.)
12. Elisabeth Jean Wood: First BA in 1979. Confirmed born 1957 by WorldCat. (PhD, 1995, after a combined four BAs and MAs between 1979 and 1988.) A somewhat exotic look; a case of name not matching face. I think I see certain telltale signs of Jewish ancestry. She looks like a less-Jewish version of Amy Wax.
Known or likely years of birth of the twelve:
1965, 1974, 1970, 1966, 1965, 1967, 1973, 1970, 1958, 1963, 1969, 1957.
– Oldest: b.1957
– Youngest: b.1974
– Mean birth year: 1966
– Median birth year: 1966.5
______________________
Years between BA and PhD:
– Shortest: 6 years
– Longest: 21 years
– Mean: 10 years
– Median: 8.5 years
______________________
Race:
– Blacks: 2 of 12 (Austin and Sinclair-Chapman);
– White-Hispanics: 1 of 12 (Bedolla; her twitter pic is a lot more flattering than the one they used in the 12-woman graphic in the article — second front left, top row);
– Jews: 1.5? (Strolovitch, and ?);
– White-Christians of broadly NW-European origin: 7.5?
– Muslims: 0.
– Asians of any kind: 0.
______________________
The median member of this board is thus a White woman, born in 1966, who earned her PhD in the year 1997.
Only two of these women stand out for having waited a significant amount of time between BA and PhD: Denise Walsh (20.5 years) and Elisabeth Wood (16 years, but there were several other BA and MA degrees in between in her case).
All these women are now past their childbearing years, with the youngest now 45. I’d be curious what the final, completed fertility rate for this group was.
Off topic, but there are many Catholics here, and I have a question regarding wine: Is there any history indicating that wine once played a more intoxicating role in the faith? Innocently, I wonder if communion originally involved more imbibing than it does now.
I have taken communion in Catholic churches and others. This has always involved women, of course. Either I was dating one who was Catholic who took me there, or I was (am) married to a good soul who takes me to her old Protestant church that does the same thing. Always I have felt that the wine should be better and in larger quantity.
I mean, if you are going to drink the blood of Christ, then by God drink it! A tasteless few milliliters of red juice in a plastic mini-cup is insufficient for making me feel like I have really “communed.”
Somewhere sometime I got the idea that maybe the original Christians got down at wine-fueled parties and really felt their connection to whatever. You have to admit it would have made a good tool for convincing followers that something special was happening.
As for the little crackers, maybe croissants would be more inspiring.
I believe before Vatican II, it wasn't common for everybody attending Mass on Sunday to take communion like they do now.
Christian Brothers champagne is wonderful, as good as Cristal and reasonably priced. We used to buy it all the time. It seems to have disappeared from west coast stores.
- Youngest: b.1974
- Mean birth year: 1966
- Median birth year: 1966.5______________________Years between BA and PhD:- Shortest: 6 years
- Longest: 21 years
- Mean: 10 years
- Median: 8.5 years______________________Race:- Blacks: 2 of 12 (Austin and Sinclair-Chapman);
- White-Hispanics: 1 of 12 (Bedolla; her twitter pic is a lot more flattering than the one they used in the 12-woman graphic in the article -- second front left, top row);
- Jews: 1.5? (Strolovitch, and ?);
- White-Christians of broadly NW-European origin: 7.5?
- Muslims: 0.
- Asians of any kind: 0.______________________The median member of this board is thus a White woman, born in 1966, who earned her PhD in the year 1997. Only two of these women stand out for having waited a significant amount of time between BA and PhD: Denise Walsh (20.5 years) and Elisabeth Wood (16 years, but there were several other BA and MA degrees in between in her case).All these women are now past their childbearing years, with the youngest now 45. I'd be curious what the final, completed fertility rate for this group was.
Who cares about their fertility? You can probably find the information in their Wikipedia entries.
Average 5.
I think you’re exceptionally generous to a few of these gals–particularly on the 2nd row. Conversely, i’d say Lori Loughlin is at least–judging only on this tiny pic–at least a 7.
But overall … yeah, it’s a very average looking group of American women. Not a big surprise, there’s a certain intelligence and discipline required to climbing the academic greasy pole. So you’re screening off the truly disfunctional genetic combos, who tend to be ugly. And, of course, there’s a selection in that really cute girls, who are normally ordered, have really good options and usually to exercise the one that is marriage and children with a successful–or likely to be successful–guy.
My overall take is what it always is: Some of these gals were born pain-in-the-asses. But some would have made really good wives and mothers in a saner culture. (I’m guessing probably half are unmarried or at least childless.)
You have to take back the universities somehow, methinks. That or just close them down, as many red-state governors are doing. Of course, we can expect to fall behind in science and technology in the future, with all that implies (I'm a little nervous because this is how Europe beat the Arabs and Chinese, after all). Probably concentrate on knocking out the humanities, I'd guess.
If I knew how to get women on my side, I'd be quizzing my kids on math and history by now ("Song of El Cid! That's the one where my ancestors rip each other off!"), not posting here, so I'll defer to the macho-er guys.
I am very sad to say this but the idea that STEM departments are adding much to America’s technological edge is, at this point, probably not true.
In terms of training, the vast majority of graduate students are Indian or Chinese nationals. The undergrads are generally US citizens, but the teaching is done from relatively standardized textbooks in big lecture halls so that is nothing special.
While universities file lots of patents, most of them never get licensed and the tech transfer offices of most universities actually lose money. There are some notable exceptions of course, but frankly outside of Stanford, MIT, etc. most of these offices don’t really accomplish anything. Even at higher end universities I’ve found that the IP people are generally not up to the same level as you would find in private practice.
Anyway I did some transitional research in the past and was sometimes approached by people from industry and sometimes approached by people from STEM academia to assist on various projects. The industry people always wanted to get a product made that people used. The academics wanted to get interesting results that they could use to fund their next grant. The industry people would immediately abandon an idea if it became apparent there was some reason it was unlikely to work out. The academic people would just keep grinding along with some idea even when it was clear that there were multiple showstoppers. The academic people had much ‘cooler’ ideas that looked great in a magazine, and the industry people tended to have relatively boring incremental ideas that actually worked.
Now academia is good as a holding pen for people to meet up to launch companies, a lot of people meet up in academia and leave to start companies. But these people are just using academia like a dating service, they aren’t lifers, and they don’t keep a foot in both worlds.
If you flip through the pages of Technology Review from ten years ago (or some similar magazine devoted to showcasing STEM professors’ research) you can see that usually none of those ideas every go anywhere. Of course there are a lot of failures in private industry too.
In terms of STEM profs that created industries I can only think of a handful. John Goodenough came up with most of the chemistry used in lithium batteries. That didn’t do much for us, though, since most of that industry ended up in Asia. Rodney Brooks sorta did this with robotics but he’s had a mixed record (Rethink robotics folded up last year, iRobot is pretty niche). I’m sure there are others but I can’t recall any off the top of my head. Private industry, though: fracking, integrated circuits, most communications and semiconductor tech came from private industry. Bell labs alone puts MIT to shame.
So anyway, smash away.
What do you mean by "smash away"?
I kinda like AnotherDad's idea of making the industries responsible for defaults--it'll selectively damage the grievance studies departments while doing a lot less damage to things like science and business we actually need.
You have to take back the universities somehow, methinks. That or just close them down, as many red-state governors are doing. Of course, we can expect to fall behind in science and technology in the future, with all that implies (I'm a little nervous because this is how Europe beat the Arabs and Chinese, after all). Probably concentrate on knocking out the humanities, I'd guess.
If I knew how to get women on my side, I'd be quizzing my kids on math and history by now ("Song of El Cid! That's the one where my ancestors rip each other off!"), not posting here, so I'll defer to the macho-er guys.
Good comment SFG.
An immigration moratorium/stop is orders of magnitude more important than anything else. But the university issue is a big one.
As i’ve written before, i think the best approach is certification exams where kids (and non-kids) can directly demonstrate proficiency in a range of skills and subjects useful for white collar work and cut out the middle man. This would really energize the on-line education market and enable all sorts of positive feedback, which i’ve enumerated before, but include:
— less worry over college bills, higher middle class fertility
— less debt, faster family formation
— a clear alternative path for kids early on, more teenage motivation and engagement
— much, much less leftist/minoritarian indoctrination
— fewer jobs and sinecures for the a*holes
— lower costs, lower taxes for everyone.
I’m pretty sure that’s the big win. We’ve got the efficiences of the Internet and need to be using them anyway.
But there are some smaller measures people have noted. One is making colleges responsible for a decent chunk of student loan defaults. This would force them to screen and create departmental contention and the defaulters skew heavily toward the bullshit departments.
Another would be making colleges publish department by department figures for employment and salary of graduates (and all the dropouts they accepted). The IRS could supply data.
Another is definitely having Republican governors who are willing to wade in, demand efficiencies, close and/or consolidate bullshit departments, require professor accountability and turf out a lot of leftists–get them off the taxpayer tit.
Conservatives who are actually willing to say the p-word–“parasite”–and start fighting for their voters is a critical step. “Useless eater” is a darn good expression which people can understand.
A married (male) priesthood would be much natural, healthier. I'm not going back, but if i did i'd rather be hearing a sermon from someone like Twinkie. Allow women and you're done--finished.
Why?
Shouldn’t the United States be reserving graduate school positions for Americans?
What do you mean by “smash away”?
Professor of Political Science, Yale University, 2004 to Present
(She got her degrees in pairs; spent the 1980s wavering between physics and political science, with the latter finally winning out.)
PhD, Stanford University, 1995 (Political Science)
MA, University of California at Berkeley, 1988 (Latin American Studies)
MA, University of California at Berkeley, 1984 (Physics)
BA, University of Oxford, 1981 (Philosophy and Mathematics)
BA, Cornell University, 1979 (Physics)
https://politicalscience.yale.edu/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/pictures/picture-16-1354126969.jpg
Well, at least they included a dude in there!
-- less worry over college bills, higher middle class fertility
-- less debt, faster family formation
-- a clear alternative path for kids early on, more teenage motivation and engagement
-- much, much less leftist/minoritarian indoctrination
-- fewer jobs and sinecures for the a*holes
-- lower costs, lower taxes for everyone.I'm pretty sure that's the big win. We've got the efficiences of the Internet and need to be using them anyway.But there are some smaller measures people have noted. One is making colleges responsible for a decent chunk of student loan defaults. This would force them to screen and create departmental contention and the defaulters skew heavily toward the bullshit departments.Another would be making colleges publish department by department figures for employment and salary of graduates (and all the dropouts they accepted). The IRS could supply data.Another is definitely having Republican governors who are willing to wade in, demand efficiencies, close and/or consolidate bullshit departments, require professor accountability and turf out a lot of leftists--get them off the taxpayer tit. Conservatives who are actually willing to say the p-word--"parasite"--and start fighting for their voters is a critical step. "Useless eater" is a darn good expression which people can understand.
In the age of easy, cheap access to information, it’s far from clear that the university as we know it is necessary at all. (It is directly descended from the Middle Ages model: In distant-past centuries, the only good way to get information/knowledge was to physically congregate around the smartest guy in the area and listen to what he had to say. This model has long, long been obsolete, and is, I’d say, laughably obsolete today; certainly from the perspective of “acquiring information.”)
Imagine if Ron Unz forbade anyone from reading The Unz Review unless the prospective reader (1) paid unz a hundred or two hundred dollars per day for the privilege, and (2) physically came to a certain building that Unz rented in Palo Alto, between 10am and 6pm M-F. That would be the “university model” applied to this website.
This is far from a novel insight, I know, but most college for most people is (has long been) a luxury consumption good — but one which looks to be, on net, a troublingly serious waste of resources in many/most cases.
I actually agree private industry stuff is more practical (which makes sense, a company has to make money after all), but where does industry get its science PhDs from? If we’re not training them eventually industry is going to run out–or have to recruit from overseas.
I kinda like AnotherDad’s idea of making the industries responsible for defaults–it’ll selectively damage the grievance studies departments while doing a lot less damage to things like science and business we actually need.
That last one looks like the love child of John Sebastian.
I like this 1969 cover of Sebastian's "You Didn't Have to be So Nice" by an unknown Texas Latin band:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUrwjuzFJKo
http://thetxmm.ning.com/photo/triste-janero-1969
I have a thing for bands that can cover a song and successfully turn it into a completely different genre, as for instance Dynamite Hack doing "Boyz in the Hood."
Modern STEM is useful in one major regard at this point: most of the fields have a hard IQ floor, (resembling the IQ floor that was required for any college degree in the 1960’s).
It's not a 'natural science'. It's an archaic use of the term 'science' (I think the old usage meant something like 'knowledge'), not latter-day puffery.
Far as I know, “political science” dates back to maybe the 1920s in the US. Back then, it really was thought of as a science. at least by some of its practitioners. See Bloom, _Closing of the American Mind_. Hegel and Nietzsche and even Marx impressed quite a few people as having revolutionized human thought, making “social science” and “political science” and eventually, may G0d help us withstand the shock, “business administration”.
None of the new ways of thought really proved to be of physical significant [1] (although they made great political organizers), hence the rule about “if is says it’s a science, it isn’t”.
Counterinsurgency
1] Hegel’s, Marx’s, etc thought all eventually became Postmodernism.
S. Hicks
“Stephen Hicks – Explaining Postmodernism In 2018 “.
These people did interesting work, and did break radically with the society around them and with previous thought, but all attempts to base new societies on their thought failed badly.
” The opposite of “diversity” is no longer “homogeneity,” it now means Bad People (straight white males) who deserve to lose.”
Well, apparently ANY male.
Not a single black man, asian man, australian aborigine, etc.
This is about as diverse as the Huffpo editorial board.
Right.
Consistent with my office experience, the older editorial team members, who are in menopause (hot flashes), will fight with the younger team members, who favor short skirts and spaghetti-strap blouses, over control of the air conditioning.
Thus the battle begins.
Average 5.
Take that down two points across the board and I’ll concur.
In Estonia, a school field trip to a "feminist art exhibit" featured a striptease by a non-stereotypically-attractive female:
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/07/26/disbelief-and-anger-over-image-of-school-kids-being-flashed-by-feminist-at-art-exhibit-field-trip-778707
This picture has been edited for public consumption. You can find the uncensored version if you poke around on the interwebs:
https://i.ibb.co/BTxpgmG/Untitled2.png
Those poor children.
Any naked female body that can cause those young fellows to look away is a bad body, indeed.
Why isn’t she just treated as a flasher and arrested, the way we would treat any Wienie Waver in modern society? I suspect that her real motives for this display are much the same.
“Diversity” means you get 2 choices: tuna or roast beef.
I kinda like AnotherDad's idea of making the industries responsible for defaults--it'll selectively damage the grievance studies departments while doing a lot less damage to things like science and business we actually need.
Well, I do absolutely think we should have PhD programs, but they should be filled with US citizens only. If you did that there would probably be a natural equilibrium reached with people getting appropriate pay compared to other career paths. Right now PhDs in STEM are almost always a bad deal for Americans because the market is artificially depressed by Chinese and Indian PhDs (and postdocs.) If you cut out these students you would make a lot fewer PhDs but it would be a better deal for everyone involved, except for the people running labs on slave labor, and the foreign PhDs themselves. Familiar story, no different than white roofers or landscapers being driven out of business.
A lot of industry has moved towards considering a Masters in Engineering ‘good enough’ to go as high as you want, I think because otherwise they would have no non-Indian non-Chinese managers.
You should check out Mike Dunlevy of Alaska
https://www.apnews.com/9b693fb2e63a47a89ebaa60616a51b1c
Maybe not exactly what you would recommend (slash humanities first) but still, I think it qualifies.
I bet the white ones are Jews or lesbians or Jewish lesbians.
A married (male) priesthood would be much natural, healthier. I'm not going back, but if i did i'd rather be hearing a sermon from someone like Twinkie. Allow women and you're done--finished.
Sounds good, but once they give that up, what else is up for grabs?
Technically, I cannot go back. But if I could, I would agree with you.
OT
A little stale, but I just found the L.A. Times obit for John Tanton. It’s surprisingly fair, and the byline is “Ask a Mexican” Gustavo Arellano.
https://www.latimes.com/obituaries/story/2019-07-18/john-tanton-dead-anti-immigrant
Arellano moved from a columnist gig to a full-time staff writer job, with benefits, at the beginning of the year. He’s quite good when his Chicano is tamped down a bit.
In my five decades plus kicking around the planet I’ve yet to discover a reason to believe Political Science has anything to do with science.
Understandable, tsotha, but you've dropped onto the planet during a particularly arid period for political science--or, for that matter, any discipline in the humanities or social sciences. In 1970 plus/minus five years, the rug was mysteriously snatched from beneath the feet of educators everywhere, fueled by (take your pick) a Learyesque drug high or a trendily passionate "New Left," a la SDS or Black Power. To avoid an overly long post, I'll reluctantly pass over a more extended discussion of this period in academia, except to note that the New Left challenge to the authority of the (academic) "system" was met, first, by resistance and push-back, and second, by cooptation (Selznick, 1949).
This cooptation--"the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy-determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence"--consisted most overtly in trends signalled by the first black studies department (1969) and women's studies (1970). This cooptation effectively pulled the teeth of anti-academic revolutionaries, but in the process it accelerated the collapse of the legitimacy of academia for its participants. The Caucus for a New Political Science (CNPS), formed in 1967 within the American Politica Science Association, rose up to challenge the discipline's predominant methodology, part and parcel of the "behavioral revolution" that aimed, largely successfully, to transform the discipline from legal, historical, and philosophical approaches to a methodology concerned with phenomena that are independently observable and quantifiable. (Still with me, tsotha? I'm closing in on "poly sci isn't science.") At first, this anti-behaviorism trope left room for the American Political Science Review, et al., to publish dubious articles that mainly complained about "social injustice," without accruing any knowledge. But political scientists from prestigious institutions (or ambitions toward same) did not sit around in the feckless culture of the CNPS with nothing to do. Increasingly, the intellectual leaders of the discipline who had not joined the feckless crowd of post-modern "revolutionaries" were championing rational modeling approaches, whether based on economic models (Olson, 1965) or game theory (Hardin, 1982). But this growing movement was effectively quashed, in 2000, when the so-called perestroika movement, fomented by emails circulated by one "Mr. Perestroika" in 2000, gained a strong foothold, a revolt against what the perestroikians considered a suffocating grip of mathematical models and of formal theory in political science.
And now this. The risible claim of "diversity" from and about an all-women editorial board for the APSR applies not only to the invisible diversity of the individuals who will occupy the editorial board, but extends to "substantive... and methodological diversity," thereby increasing the journal's engagement with the "fundamental, foundational, and constitutive roles of, inter alia, race, class, gender, and sexuality in structuring power, politics, and policy." So, they've already figured out what the basic concepts and independent variables are; their commitment to substantive diversity extends "to a commitment to diversify the subfields, geographic foci, and methodological approaches represented in the APSR."
Come on, tsotha. That's not scientific enough for you? (btw, another profound commentary on science in political science is Voegelin, 1952.)
--------------
Hardin, Russell (1982). Collective Action
Olson, Mancur (1965). The Logic of Collective Action
Selznick, Peter (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots
Voegelin, Eric (1952). The New Science of Politics
https://bestclassicbands.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/John_Sebastian_1970_300-300x227.jpg
OT
I like this 1969 cover of Sebastian’s “You Didn’t Have to be So Nice” by an unknown Texas Latin band:
http://thetxmm.ning.com/photo/triste-janero-1969
I have a thing for bands that can cover a song and successfully turn it into a completely different genre, as for instance Dynamite Hack doing “Boyz in the Hood.”
Dieter Kief writes, “In a way, they are consequent.” I am guessing from his name that by “consequent” he means “konsequent”, which is the German word for “consistent”.
Btw. - you might want to have a look at the New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary - to find: "consequent" - meaning exactly what you supposed I would have meant by writing the word consequent. - Strange coincidence, isn't it? - Thanks for reading. It's hot today in the German South...
I like this 1969 cover of Sebastian's "You Didn't Have to be So Nice" by an unknown Texas Latin band:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUrwjuzFJKo
http://thetxmm.ning.com/photo/triste-janero-1969
I have a thing for bands that can cover a song and successfully turn it into a completely different genre, as for instance Dynamite Hack doing "Boyz in the Hood."
Roman Polanski told the police to check out John Sebastian’s alibi in the murder of Sharon Tate.
Review: Quentin Tarantino's Obscenely Regressive Vision of the Sixties in "Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood"
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/review-quentin-tarantinos-obscenely-regressive-vision-of-the-sixties-in-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywoodApparently, the movie doesn't address and solve all the world's problem in two hours.
If you weren’t baptized as a Catholic and didn’t go through First Communion as a Catholic, you weren’t supposed to take Communion in a Catholic church.
I believe before Vatican II, it wasn’t common for everybody attending Mass on Sunday to take communion like they do now.
Also, what if you don't drink? I mean, even if you don't want to wet your tongue with a few drops? Does that disqualify you from being a Catholic in good standing?
Very few of them have Wikipedia entries. These are not well known people.
They also tightly control what biographical info is released. They all have these typical, carbon-copy-esque bios that are really just prose versions of their CVs. None seem to talk at all about family, or hometowns, or religion (say). (I am, somehow, here reminded of the old “jealous guardians of little fiefdoms” metaphor for a certain kind of academic.)
https://www.apnews.com/9b693fb2e63a47a89ebaa60616a51b1c
Maybe not exactly what you would recommend (slash humanities first) but still, I think it qualifies.
Best governor in the USA!
Kavanaugh is a cuck. Cucks bow and scrape to seek approbation from blue city lefties. It will never, ever happen.
You never see lefties bowing and scraping to win approval from cucks.
This is why cucks always lose.
The sooner the GOP is gone, the better.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html
The president of the APSA is a male, Rogers Smith, who has a slight Bruce Hay smell about him.
Nonsense. Everyone knows Calvin Coolidge was the best president.
Regents exams in New York: Why the century-old test may be scrapped
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/07/25/regents-exams-new-york-how-century-old-test-may-scrapped-ended-elia-rosa/1825691001/
Students of the yellow color do even better than students of the white color. How long until they officially pull Asians’ color card?
The way to do it, is:
- Make it a state-law that certain college majors are "beneficiary to the public" -- i.e, worthy of the in-state tuition subsidy. Make these chosen majors in the mathematically-based sciences, and the more politically agnostic fields, like medicine, law, business, accounting, etc. Everything else, you are paying out-of-state tuition.
- Take state-funding away from the politically partisan fields and give it to the above fields, which also coincide with the major money-makers for universities. This aspect is important, since if they ever want to claw funds back, it requires Sociology justifying why they need to take funds from Medicine or Computer Science. Good luck with that, from an electoral perspective.
- It has the added benefit of encouraging hyper-partisan politically-active blue voters to leave your state -- i.e., it keeps your state from turning into a giant Austin, TX.
Again, it could be done with little fanfare. But let's be honest, your average older white conservative state politician is too dumb to do it.
Too stupid and too cucked.
I think a fun little project would be to have everyone commenting here to start maintaining a fake but realistic-looking Twitter profile. Then when things like this happen, everyone can use those Twitter accounts to mass tweet something to the American Political Science Review, something like, I dunno, “why haven’t you included any trans men or gender non-binary individuals in your committee?”, sit back, and watch their heads explode.
I think the problem that the social sciences have is that they are about 3000 years late to the game–they are trying to find insights into human nature, the nature of society, etc., but that was one of the first things that thinkers tried to suss out and the ancients had great success. There are not a lot of insights you can get from the social sciences that you couldn’t get from courses in philosophy, literature, other humanities… Disciplines like political science are just reinventing the wheel.
Are you going to be reviewing Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? Maybe to balance this one:
Review: Quentin Tarantino’s Obscenely Regressive Vision of the Sixties in “Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood”
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/review-quentin-tarantinos-obscenely-regressive-vision-of-the-sixties-in-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood
Apparently, the movie doesn’t address and solve all the world’s problem in two hours.
Yup, though it was religious for the Arabs, and the Chinese always had a problem with excessive veneration of the past from what little I know. And Catholic Europe fell behind Protestant Europe for the same reason (though I am sure people will pop on to argue that one).
It’s not so much that it needs to be argued, it’s just that anybody who repeats this threadbare Whiggish nonsense shows himself not to have grasped the matter at all.
There is no “behind” here, no direction, no advancing mankind. This illusion of an historical progression is foundational to everything you decry. Wherever this idea is to be found, there will be SJWism, which is only Protestantism realized.
Europe did not “beat” the Arabs and Chinese any more than this year’s raspberries “beat” the dry, brittle brambles of last year’s growth. The Arabs and Chinese were dead before the Europeans were born. Their histories completed, they endure only in the fellaheen state of lifeless human masses.
The notion that more “STEM” is necessary to prevent us from falling “behind” the walking dead is so full of rank absurdities and misconceptions that it almost defies criticism.
I believe before Vatican II, it wasn't common for everybody attending Mass on Sunday to take communion like they do now.
So if you convert as an adult, under the more traditional rules you shouldn’t take communion?
Also, what if you don’t drink? I mean, even if you don’t want to wet your tongue with a few drops? Does that disqualify you from being a Catholic in good standing?
This website is totally infested with people like you. You're a Dunning-Kruger MOAB who is completely ignorant of anything resembling metaphysics, orthodoxy, Western history, or contemporary reality, and yet you think you're cocking a clever snook at a 2,000-year-old, divine institution. Just shut up so as not to further insult the oxygen wasted on your animation.
I think the point is that these people are not diverse or inclusive in many ways beyond the lack of white men. Why are so many female academics childless spinsters, or lesbians, or god forbid trannies? Academia often has an outsized influence on law, regulations, and social attitudes that affect us all, and it’d be nice for normal family women to have a seat at the table.
I believe before Vatican II, it wasn't common for everybody attending Mass on Sunday to take communion like they do now.
I guess I’m going to Hell then.
Roman Polanski Thought Bruce Lee May Have Killed Sharon Tate
It's not a 'natural science'. It's an archaic use of the term 'science' (I think the old usage meant something like 'knowledge'), not latter-day puffery.
Just like medicine is an “art”.
An interesting debate among Claire Lehmann, Yoram Hazony, and Nicholas Taleb:
I kinda like AnotherDad's idea of making the industries responsible for defaults--it'll selectively damage the grievance studies departments while doing a lot less damage to things like science and business we actually need.
No. If we foreclose the possibility of overseas recruitment, industry will step in and provide the proper incentives to recruit and train them domestically.
They mean diversity in the historical and equitable sense
What's wrong not being handed everything on a silver platter not fair to you?
Cry me a river
white Christian males only ruin and steal. They create nothing and add nothing
Watch any Comic of Color and they will tell you how much white men are worthless
You should be the MOST OFFENDED not a single Single black male? Why are they discriminating? Not a single Asian man? What did they ever do to not be included?!? It’s a crime!
There’s a 20-page thread on Polisci Rumors with some amusing comments. Here’s a post with their bios: https://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/new-aprs-editors/page/5#post-1482090
Doomed to fail. This will be the downfall of The Squad, too.
The next time the Squad meets up, leave an apple on the meeting room table “to the most beautiful”.
A Woman of Penis.
A WOP
Regents exams in New York: Why the century-old test may be scrapped
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/07/25/regents-exams-new-york-how-century-old-test-may-scrapped-ended-elia-rosa/1825691001/
(Basketball.)
American "yoofs" stab Italian cop to death:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/27/two-american-teens-confess-to-fatal-stabbing-of-rome-police-officer/
Would this be a Trump intervention sort of situation?
Kavanaugh, disappointingly, seems to be a bit of an idiot.
(Not to mention, over/under on time to his #MeToo accusations?)
You would think the university would at least inform them about the consequences during the mandatory sexual harassment seminars.
https://i0.wp.com/politicalsciencenow.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/psnowbanner_ad.jpg
Unexpected, lol. It will be a faux pas to arrive without your pussy hat on.
Don’t forget, “comments are closed”.
Consistent with my office experience, the older editorial team members, who are in menopause (hot flashes), will fight with the younger team members, who favor short skirts and spaghetti-strap blouses, over control of the air conditioning.
Thus the battle begins.
Perhaps the menopausals could move up to the more prestigious ‘cool floor’.
It’s always been a joke.
The accelerationist in me is inclined to think we’d have been better off with Hillary judges. What an abject tool.
I left a comment pointing out that they won’t reach maximum diversity as long as they still have white women. The comments are moderated so there is no chance it will actually appear, but at least the moderator will read it. 🙂
SPLC => APSA
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Regents exams in New York: Why the century-old test may be scrapped
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/07/25/regents-exams-new-york-how-century-old-test-may-scrapped-ended-elia-rosa/1825691001/
It’s another indicator we live in clown world, and that school administration is an occupation that attracts and retains completely unserious people. They’re worse than the ‘reporters’ who act as their press agents.
Bingo.
You’re right. – How come you found out?
Btw. – you might want to have a look at the New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary – to find: “consequent” – meaning exactly what you supposed I would have meant by writing the word consequent. – Strange coincidence, isn’t it? – Thanks for reading. It’s hot today in the German South…
I guarantee you this is going to generate mass drama and lulz. Just wait.
Most of them would be two points lower if the pictures were full body shots, because I’d bet at least half of them are over weight.
Lori Loughlin in a naturally pretty 8. I used 5 as average, and that is what most of these women are. The redhead is probably the only one who I’d let eat crackers in my bed.
The solution will be De anonymized living, and sex bots so good that women have to compete for men instead of the other way around
MGTOW fantasy. We won’t see anything like that in our lifetimes. Your hoped-for war would be a more plausible adjustment.
When men see truly beautiful women in close proximity (in the workplace) the logic circuits of their brain shut off…that is why rigorous Redpill training (including field practice!) is what is needed–sexual harassment seminars won’t get it done. 🙂
Yup, though it was religious for the Arabs, and the Chinese always had a problem with excessive veneration of the past from what little I know. And Catholic Europe fell behind Protestant Europe for the same reason (though I am sure people will pop on to argue that one).
‘Catholic Europe’ did not ‘fall behind’ ‘protestant Europe’. First the Netherlands and then Britain occupied the position of vanguard economy in Europe, but their particular advantages were not broadly distributed in protestant Europe. The Maddison Project has collated enough data to provide estimates of per capita product per year. The comparative numbers are..
1789 (5 countries assessed): Britain, x; Portugal, 0.77x; France, 0.74x; Sweden, 0.71x; Poland, o.41x
1840 (10 countries assessed): Britain, x; Netherlands, 0.85x; Denmark, 0.72x; France, 0.68x; Greece, 0.63x; Austria, 0.62x; Norway, 0.58x; Italy, 0.57x; Sweden, 0.50x; Portugal, 0.44x; Poland, 0.28x
1885 (18 countries assessed): Belgium, 1.04x; Britain, x; Switzerland, 0.99x; Netherlands, 0.88x; Spain, 0.84x; Germany, 0.74x; France, 0.73x; Denmark, 0.70x; Norway, 0.62; Austria, 0.56x; Sweden, 0.55; Greece, 0.51; Italy, 0.41; Tsarist Russia, 0.40; Poland, 0.39; Portugal, 0.33; Finland, 0.31; Roumania, 0.14.
1913 (23 countries assessed): Belgium, 1.07x; Britain, x; Switzerland, 0.88x; Germany, 0.87x; Denmark, 0.87x; Netherlands, 0.86x; Norway, 0.82x; France, 0.81x; Sweden, 0.75x; Spain, 0.69x; Austria, 0.59x; Ireland, 0.58x; Czechoslovakia, 0.57x; Tsarist Russia, 0.44; Italy, 0.43; Finland, 0.36; Poland, 0.35; Portugal, 0.26x; Greece, 0.25; Hungary, 0.24; Albania, 0.19x; Roumania, 0.14x; Yugoslavia, 0.13x.
1958 (n countries assessed): Switzerland, 1.16x; Iceland, 1.02x; Denmark, x; Britain, x; Sweden, 0.98x; Germany, 0.91x; Norway, 0.90x; Netherlands, 0.89x; France, 0.86x; Belgium, 0.79x; Czechoslovakia, 0.77x; Soviet Russia, 0.70x; Austria, 0.70x; Finland, 0.66x; Italy, 0.57; Spain, 0.52; Slovenia, 0.50x; Ireland, 0.49x; Croatia, 0.44x; Bulgaria, 0.40x; Greece, 0.38x; Hungary, 0.36x; Poland, 0.35x; Portugal, 0.32x; Serbia, 0.20x; Albania, 0.18x; Roumania, 0.14x;
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html
The president of the APSA is a male, Rogers Smith, who has a slight Bruce Hay smell about him.
This shows why the “evolution” of APSA has not yet reached equilibrium. Although its leadership is all female, it is not yet truly diverse (i.e. brown) enough and remains painfully white. They rate a dead white male Republican #1? You have got to be kidding. It should be obvious to the Woke that our first black President is #1 just by virtue of his blackness – Obama’s election was the moment when America finally began to pay for its original sin.
Also, what if you don't drink? I mean, even if you don't want to wet your tongue with a few drops? Does that disqualify you from being a Catholic in good standing?
Are you a troll, a complete moron, or both? First Communion means First Communion; there is no maximum age at which this can occur, you stupid twat.
The laity do not receive Communion under both species in the Traditional Rite; that was another Vatican II novelty.
This website is totally infested with people like you. You’re a Dunning-Kruger MOAB who is completely ignorant of anything resembling metaphysics, orthodoxy, Western history, or contemporary reality, and yet you think you’re cocking a clever snook at a 2,000-year-old, divine institution. Just shut up so as not to further insult the oxygen wasted on your animation.
Politics is not in any way a science anyway, so let's not pretend that these people do anything constructive. So long as it's not with my money, have at it, ladies. Mrrrrowww!
Although the Association itself may not be directly funded by the government, its members are all academics. Virtually all of American higher education depends in one way or another on government funding, either directly in the case of state universities, thru grants that fund most of their budgets in the case of private universities and lastly thru the government guaranty of student loans. Take away the various forms of government funding and the higher ed sector (and its inflated prices) collapses instantly and you are left with the handful of divinity and professional schools that we had before the bubble started to inflate.
2) Yes, cut off the money (Fed and States)!
3) I'd be glad if that happened.
I am very close to this University bubble, Jack D., in a couple of ways. It will probably cost me some assets when it happens, but I'm all for imploding the whole thing any time. There are 26 articles already with the University (scroll down) Topic Key, as Peak Stupidity is all over it like white on rice. Read just the "University Bubble 99 - Remedial ..." posts to get started.
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/philippines/look-filipina-raised-in-slums-is-new-president-of-american-university-1.2209901
Here’s a real presidency not awarded to a white woman.
Utah Valley University is comparable to City or Hunter College in New York. Large, accessible to strivers, good programs, and well situated to feed the booming tech outpost up the road.
Don’t hold your breath if you’re counting on the Saints to perpetuate the European genome. With this appointment Big Mormon’s fealty to Diversitarianism is on display. And it is embraced by the rank and file with their trademark reverent fervor.
Because only STEM matters, right? Of course, that's the attitude that led to the humanities being taken over. But they don't matter, so why do you care in the first place?
But who cares about logic, invented by Aristotle, which obviously had no role to place in beating the Arabs and Chinese.
PS I like how you mention "my kids" to forestall not being "macho-er".
PPS History is one of the humanities.
The Long March of the Left through the institutions is virtually complete. If you want to take them back, you have to start somewhere. It makes the most sense to start with STEM because it is the least inherently politicized area. Even in the Soviet Union they gave the STEM people some slack because they recognized that Party hacks could not design an airplane that flew, etc. no matter how well versed they were in the Party Line.
The way to do it, is:
- Make it a state-law that certain college majors are "beneficiary to the public" -- i.e, worthy of the in-state tuition subsidy. Make these chosen majors in the mathematically-based sciences, and the more politically agnostic fields, like medicine, law, business, accounting, etc. Everything else, you are paying out-of-state tuition.
- Take state-funding away from the politically partisan fields and give it to the above fields, which also coincide with the major money-makers for universities. This aspect is important, since if they ever want to claw funds back, it requires Sociology justifying why they need to take funds from Medicine or Computer Science. Good luck with that, from an electoral perspective.
- It has the added benefit of encouraging hyper-partisan politically-active blue voters to leave your state -- i.e., it keeps your state from turning into a giant Austin, TX.
Again, it could be done with little fanfare. But let's be honest, your average older white conservative state politician is too dumb to do it.
Republicans have complete control of roughly half of the state legislatures and governorships. There is nothing stopping but themselves.
It sounds more like a Journal of Self Pity, than a Scientific Journal. I guess the Nation is better off employing them to write their nonsense in a worthless journal, than having them screaming their aberrant thoughts at a fire plug, while they defecate in full view of everyone, in the streets of San Francisco.
1) I do realize how that money flows, Jack.
2) Yes, cut off the money (Fed and States)!
3) I’d be glad if that happened.
I am very close to this University bubble, Jack D., in a couple of ways. It will probably cost me some assets when it happens, but I’m all for imploding the whole thing any time. There are 26 articles already with the University (scroll down) Topic Key, as Peak Stupidity is all over it like white on rice. Read just the “University Bubble 99 – Remedial …” posts to get started.
“I’ve yet to discover a reason to believe Political Science has anything to do with science.”
Understandable, tsotha, but you’ve dropped onto the planet during a particularly arid period for political science–or, for that matter, any discipline in the humanities or social sciences. In 1970 plus/minus five years, the rug was mysteriously snatched from beneath the feet of educators everywhere, fueled by (take your pick) a Learyesque drug high or a trendily passionate “New Left,” a la SDS or Black Power. To avoid an overly long post, I’ll reluctantly pass over a more extended discussion of this period in academia, except to note that the New Left challenge to the authority of the (academic) “system” was met, first, by resistance and push-back, and second, by cooptation (Selznick, 1949).
This cooptation–“the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy-determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence”–consisted most overtly in trends signalled by the first black studies department (1969) and women’s studies (1970). This cooptation effectively pulled the teeth of anti-academic revolutionaries, but in the process it accelerated the collapse of the legitimacy of academia for its participants. The Caucus for a New Political Science (CNPS), formed in 1967 within the American Politica Science Association, rose up to challenge the discipline’s predominant methodology, part and parcel of the “behavioral revolution” that aimed, largely successfully, to transform the discipline from legal, historical, and philosophical approaches to a methodology concerned with phenomena that are independently observable and quantifiable. (Still with me, tsotha? I’m closing in on “poly sci isn’t science.”) At first, this anti-behaviorism trope left room for the American Political Science Review, et al., to publish dubious articles that mainly complained about “social injustice,” without accruing any knowledge. But political scientists from prestigious institutions (or ambitions toward same) did not sit around in the feckless culture of the CNPS with nothing to do. Increasingly, the intellectual leaders of the discipline who had not joined the feckless crowd of post-modern “revolutionaries” were championing rational modeling approaches, whether based on economic models (Olson, 1965) or game theory (Hardin, 1982). But this growing movement was effectively quashed, in 2000, when the so-called perestroika movement, fomented by emails circulated by one “Mr. Perestroika” in 2000, gained a strong foothold, a revolt against what the perestroikians considered a suffocating grip of mathematical models and of formal theory in political science.
And now this. The risible claim of “diversity” from and about an all-women editorial board for the APSR applies not only to the invisible diversity of the individuals who will occupy the editorial board, but extends to “substantive… and methodological diversity,” thereby increasing the journal’s engagement with the “fundamental, foundational, and constitutive roles of, inter alia, race, class, gender, and sexuality in structuring power, politics, and policy.” So, they’ve already figured out what the basic concepts and independent variables are; their commitment to substantive diversity extends “to a commitment to diversify the subfields, geographic foci, and methodological approaches represented in the APSR.”
Come on, tsotha. That’s not scientific enough for you? (btw, another profound commentary on science in political science is Voegelin, 1952.)
————–
Hardin, Russell (1982). Collective Action
Olson, Mancur (1965). The Logic of Collective Action
Selznick, Peter (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots
Voegelin, Eric (1952). The New Science of Politics
Nice.
For their first meeting I'd love to get them all in a small conference room with bright lights and mirrors on the walls; crank the heat up to 78 on the t-stat, leave a month's supply of vaping cartridges on the table, 2 cases of Truly Hard Seltzer in and around the mini fridge, ensure one of the conference chairs was noticeably broken, with massage parlor music playing a little bit too loudly through the speaker in the ceiling.
Lock them in for about 3 hours and roll camera!
Just give the black one the broken chair and wait 5 minutes.
For their first meeting I'd love to get them all in a small conference room with bright lights and mirrors on the walls; crank the heat up to 78 on the t-stat, leave a month's supply of vaping cartridges on the table, 2 cases of Truly Hard Seltzer in and around the mini fridge, ensure one of the conference chairs was noticeably broken, with massage parlor music playing a little bit too loudly through the speaker in the ceiling.
Lock them in for about 3 hours and roll camera!
When your show comes on, give me a heads-up, Mike. Maybe I can get a TV … during a riot or something …
It’s a man, baby!
"Diversity" has always meant "fewer White Men (preferably none)."
You must've not been paying attention.
There it is.
I find it funny (and sad) that BoomerCucks like Charles Murray are shocked, shocked! that "diversity" actually means "no White men" instead of "diversity."
https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/1154948486237962240
Come on. I'm GenX. This became clear to me in the 1990s.
BoomerCucks are like "The Simpsons'" Mr. Burns referring to gasoline as "petrol" and the refrigerator as "the icebox."
Murray and his kind are living in the long-ago past and still playing by rules prevalent when America was supermajority White (i.e. "White norms and rules").
$100 says his zip code is supermajority wealthy White. The man has no clue.
Some repost-worthy comments, including some from those who claim familiarity with some of the women, either personally or their published work:
1789 (5 countries assessed): Britain, x; Portugal, 0.77x; France, 0.74x; Sweden, 0.71x; Poland, o.41x
1840 (10 countries assessed): Britain, x; Netherlands, 0.85x; Denmark, 0.72x; France, 0.68x; Greece, 0.63x; Austria, 0.62x; Norway, 0.58x; Italy, 0.57x; Sweden, 0.50x; Portugal, 0.44x; Poland, 0.28x
1885 (18 countries assessed): Belgium, 1.04x; Britain, x; Switzerland, 0.99x; Netherlands, 0.88x; Spain, 0.84x; Germany, 0.74x; France, 0.73x; Denmark, 0.70x; Norway, 0.62; Austria, 0.56x; Sweden, 0.55; Greece, 0.51; Italy, 0.41; Tsarist Russia, 0.40; Poland, 0.39; Portugal, 0.33; Finland, 0.31; Roumania, 0.14.
1913 (23 countries assessed): Belgium, 1.07x; Britain, x; Switzerland, 0.88x; Germany, 0.87x; Denmark, 0.87x; Netherlands, 0.86x; Norway, 0.82x; France, 0.81x; Sweden, 0.75x; Spain, 0.69x; Austria, 0.59x; Ireland, 0.58x; Czechoslovakia, 0.57x; Tsarist Russia, 0.44; Italy, 0.43; Finland, 0.36; Poland, 0.35; Portugal, 0.26x; Greece, 0.25; Hungary, 0.24; Albania, 0.19x; Roumania, 0.14x; Yugoslavia, 0.13x.
1958 (n countries assessed): Switzerland, 1.16x; Iceland, 1.02x; Denmark, x; Britain, x; Sweden, 0.98x; Germany, 0.91x; Norway, 0.90x; Netherlands, 0.89x; France, 0.86x; Belgium, 0.79x; Czechoslovakia, 0.77x; Soviet Russia, 0.70x; Austria, 0.70x; Finland, 0.66x; Italy, 0.57; Spain, 0.52; Slovenia, 0.50x; Ireland, 0.49x; Croatia, 0.44x; Bulgaria, 0.40x; Greece, 0.38x; Hungary, 0.36x; Poland, 0.35x; Portugal, 0.32x; Serbia, 0.20x; Albania, 0.18x; Roumania, 0.14x;
Can you please provide links for this info? Looks interesting, but how can I investigate it further without sources?
Thanks.
They have two methods of calculating per capita product and they have a spreadsheet of data for each. They recommend using cgdppc for cross-national comparisons and the other one for longitudinal comparisons.
It’s not a science. That fits in with C.I.’s theory very well.
Consistent with my office experience, the older editorial team members, who are in menopause (hot flashes), will fight with the younger team members, who favor short skirts and spaghetti-strap blouses, over control of the air conditioning.
Thus the battle begins.
The men, of course, have the sense to simply don or remove sweaters and jackets as needed so they can get on with doing all the work.
The solution will be De anonymized living, and sex bots so good that women have to compete for men instead of the other way around
Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
Following a woman around while panting and leering has never worked very well. Nevertheless, workplace redpill training will not arrive any time soon.
NYT — I Wanted to Know What White Men Thought About Their Privilege. So I Asked — My college class asks what it means to be white in America — but interrogating that question as a black woman in the real world is much harder to do.
In the early days of the run-up to the 2016 election, I was just beginning to prepare a class on whiteness to teach at Yale University, where I had been newly hired…
2. To a Leftist, "having a conversation about race" mean "shut up whitey while I lecture to you." In their mind, people of color have been forced to sit quietly (we all know how quiet black people are) and listen to whitey lecture to them for the last 300 years, so in order to complete the "conversation" it's now whitey's turn to be forced to listen to them.
In the early days of the run-up to the 2016 election, I was just beginning to prepare a class on whiteness to teach at Yale University, where I had been newly hired...
https://twitter.com/katrosenfield/status/1153630215668719622
The white guy probably was doing some math in his head–how much would it cost to buy every black person a first class one-way ticket to Africa? 😉
It's also evidence Whites will never be able to do enough to satisfy these people -- instead they will sow victimhood and resentment in generation after generation.
https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/
They have two methods of calculating per capita product and they have a spreadsheet of data for each. They recommend using cgdppc for cross-national comparisons and the other one for longitudinal comparisons.
Maybe — more to the point are the elaborate ‘hate Whitey’ self-victimization fantasies of many otherwise rather successful ‘people of color’ — this (black) woman (Claudia Rankine) is on the faculty of Yale, yet she still feels compelled to see and write about herself as a victim (the NYT gladly publishes stuff like that) — and teach a class on “whiteness” — you have to wonder what the content and exams in such a class are like, as well as the effect on impressionable students (some of whom may also be ‘people of color’ admitted to Yale, so also hardly victims).
It’s also evidence Whites will never be able to do enough to satisfy these people — instead they will sow victimhood and resentment in generation after generation.
They have two methods of calculating per capita product and they have a spreadsheet of data for each. They recommend using cgdppc for cross-national comparisons and the other one for longitudinal comparisons.
Thank you.
In the early days of the run-up to the 2016 election, I was just beginning to prepare a class on whiteness to teach at Yale University, where I had been newly hired...
https://twitter.com/katrosenfield/status/1153630215668719622
1. The Left is all about projection.
2. To a Leftist, “having a conversation about race” mean “shut up whitey while I lecture to you.” In their mind, people of color have been forced to sit quietly (we all know how quiet black people are) and listen to whitey lecture to them for the last 300 years, so in order to complete the “conversation” it’s now whitey’s turn to be forced to listen to them.
It's also evidence Whites will never be able to do enough to satisfy these people -- instead they will sow victimhood and resentment in generation after generation.
It’s pretty easy to guess. Such classes are usually notoriously easy A’s, not only because prof. of color like to give out A’s to students of color but because it’s very easy to parrot back the correct ideological line on the exams and papers (God help you though if you don’t). No one who doesn’t believe this stuff already gets their mind changed by it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
Most photos of Laughlin are carefully arranged publicity shots, with her hair and makeup done and where she is posed and smiling coyly for the camera. Candid shots show considerable mileage. There is considerable artifice to her “natural” prettiness as there is in almost all women, esp. north of age 30.
Modern Educayshun in a a nutshell:
Oh come on! that would be too easy. I say give it to the relatively attractive one first, and when the lesbians out themselves by offering her their chair, the remaining ugly straight ones will get really pissy about it.
For their first meeting I'd love to get them all in a small conference room with bright lights and mirrors on the walls; crank the heat up to 78 on the t-stat, leave a month's supply of vaping cartridges on the table, 2 cases of Truly Hard Seltzer in and around the mini fridge, ensure one of the conference chairs was noticeably broken, with massage parlor music playing a little bit too loudly through the speaker in the ceiling.
Lock them in for about 3 hours and roll camera!
Top row, third from the right?
The way to do it, is:
- Make it a state-law that certain college majors are "beneficiary to the public" -- i.e, worthy of the in-state tuition subsidy. Make these chosen majors in the mathematically-based sciences, and the more politically agnostic fields, like medicine, law, business, accounting, etc. Everything else, you are paying out-of-state tuition.
- Take state-funding away from the politically partisan fields and give it to the above fields, which also coincide with the major money-makers for universities. This aspect is important, since if they ever want to claw funds back, it requires Sociology justifying why they need to take funds from Medicine or Computer Science. Good luck with that, from an electoral perspective.
- It has the added benefit of encouraging hyper-partisan politically-active blue voters to leave your state -- i.e., it keeps your state from turning into a giant Austin, TX.
Again, it could be done with little fanfare. But let's be honest, your average older white conservative state politician is too dumb to do it.
Your idea is good, but it is a little too radical. Gradual change is always better, something the Fabians understood well. And there is also this: politicians have a lot on their mind, and most of that is how best to placate their constituents. What percent of constituents do you think have the ability to evaluate your proposed policy on its merits. Maybe 1%?
Lol yeah.
I find it funny (and sad) that BoomerCucks like Charles Murray are shocked, shocked! that “diversity” actually means “no White men” instead of “diversity.”
Come on. I’m GenX. This became clear to me in the 1990s.
BoomerCucks are like “The Simpsons’” Mr. Burns referring to gasoline as “petrol” and the refrigerator as “the icebox.”
Murray and his kind are living in the long-ago past and still playing by rules prevalent when America was supermajority White (i.e. “White norms and rules”).
$100 says his zip code is supermajority wealthy White. The man has no clue.
Looks like Murray’s residence is Burkittsville MD.
Burkittsville is 99.3% White.
It’s all so tiresome.
E.g., I favor Muslim expulsion, an immigration moratorium, a generous interpretation of Second Amendment rights, passage of a constitutional amendment affirming that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman, and repeal of the 19th amendment! And that’s for starters. Obviously this isn’t typical of all Boomers, but scores of those whom I personally know hold many views pretty close to my own. They’re just not that vocal about them.
But I won’t take it personally. ツ
I find it funny (and sad) that BoomerCucks like Charles Murray are shocked, shocked! that "diversity" actually means "no White men" instead of "diversity."
https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/1154948486237962240
Come on. I'm GenX. This became clear to me in the 1990s.
BoomerCucks are like "The Simpsons'" Mr. Burns referring to gasoline as "petrol" and the refrigerator as "the icebox."
Murray and his kind are living in the long-ago past and still playing by rules prevalent when America was supermajority White (i.e. "White norms and rules").
$100 says his zip code is supermajority wealthy White. The man has no clue.
Lol yep.
Looks like Murray’s residence is Burkittsville MD.
Burkittsville is 99.3% White.
It’s all so tiresome.
I find it funny (and sad) that BoomerCucks like Charles Murray are shocked, shocked! that "diversity" actually means "no White men" instead of "diversity."
https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/1154948486237962240
Come on. I'm GenX. This became clear to me in the 1990s.
BoomerCucks are like "The Simpsons'" Mr. Burns referring to gasoline as "petrol" and the refrigerator as "the icebox."
Murray and his kind are living in the long-ago past and still playing by rules prevalent when America was supermajority White (i.e. "White norms and rules").
$100 says his zip code is supermajority wealthy White. The man has no clue.
Hey, I agree with you, but there is one thing you said that reminds me of something similarly said by other commenters (and kinda make me nervous!) with all this talk about how Boomers ruined America. Because, you see, I’m a Boomer and yet I am the most Conservative person I know (although to be precise, TradCon is the best way I’d describe my views).
E.g., I favor Muslim expulsion, an immigration moratorium, a generous interpretation of Second Amendment rights, passage of a constitutional amendment affirming that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman, and repeal of the 19th amendment! And that’s for starters. Obviously this isn’t typical of all Boomers, but scores of those whom I personally know hold many views pretty close to my own. They’re just not that vocal about them.
But I won’t take it personally. ツ