It appears too simplistic to criticize a person brave enough to step into the murky political waters than to applaud them for trying to represent conservative Blacks—the same people Walker’s opponent should be representing had he been a true paragon of virtue.
So whether Walker was asked or begged to run, it is because he has constituents. They are a community of folks concerned less about global warming and more about inflation, safe and competitive schools and neighborhoods, strengthening small businesses, and income taxes on said businesses. And we are pleased to see a Black person treading in this space.
By the way, I don’t see much difference between Walker and Harris in terms of clarity on issues. Do you? Your comments could easily describe the person second in charge.
Perhaps, instead of poking fun at Walker, we could congratulate him for stepping up. Next, you and Glenn could form a list of Black candidates who are conservative, informed, and articulate to vet for the future.
Lastly, thank you for the open letter supporting Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas. Well stated. Long overdue. 🙏🏽
Something needs to be addressed here that underlies affirmative action AND the Charles Murray, putatively Wax view that there are differences in intelligence based on race and that these differences affect if not determine, inequality in our society. Both policies focus on group characteristics that ignore the great differences among individuals and have led directly to the Kendi claim that only current and future discrimination in favor of POC will eliminate these inequalities.
Kendi’s solution can never be attained precisely because people do not act as a group, they can only act as individuals. We need to re-focus on individuals for the purpose of academic admissions, in hiring, and in promotion.
Two more points: First, see Stuart Taylor’s book about the widespread failure to graduate among students admitted to the Ivy League schools who are under qualified. Such students might very well succeed in a different and less pressured environment and go on in life without that failure. I don’t think the numbers are small. Second, Amy Wax has denied saying many of the the things attributed to her and unless someone has a recording, I am inclined to believe her - for all the reasons McWhorter identified. And he needs to realize that once the mob succeeds against Wax, they will move on to whomever else is not pure enough to satisfy them. Maybe Loury, maybe McWhorter himself. Marxists advocate perpetual revolution because their revolutionary goals can never be satisfied.
I found the writer's conclusion that it is merely her association with UPENN that is being questioned.
Personally speaking, I think if you can't listen to views that directly challenge your own self-worth, you should probably avoid the practice of law. It is a high conflict profession.
It is also clear that no one has to take her classes to get a degree. Initially I misunderstood she was teaching undergrads. That's why I thought there was so much whining. Now that I'm clear these are 2nd and 3rd year law students, to me it doesn't say much for the personal fortitude of those opposing her so strongly.
Why you would defend Clarence Thomas I don't know. He is a stupid, vindictive man who has been nursing his hatreds for forty years and is now releasing them on us. His comment during his hearing that it was just another lynching of a black man was the most grievous insult possible to the memory of those blameless African-Americans who actually WERE lynched. Comparing himself to them was a truly unforgivable sin....
This is the second time and from a different source that I have heard that Walker does not seem "engaged" in his campaign. As for putting forth black conservative candidates against black liberal congressional candidates, that is happening frequently in my hometown, Houston.
One candidate I knew before he ran, and with his West Point education, combat service, master's degree, business experience, and engaging speaking & personal skills, conservatives think they can field a candidate with broad appeal in a district with a minority as majority. There is even a second person with this level of capability taking on another district. But even with this quality of candidate, it is very hard to get BLUE to edge toward DEEP PURPLE in these districts. As you guys put it, Walker or any candidate has get his head out of the Jet Stream and have a clear message to determine if there is any traction for this kind of candidate.
In Sheila Jackson Lee's district (I like to call her "She-Jack Lee" like in some action movie co-starring Bruce Li) the moderates and conservatives have had to resign themselves to She-Jack in power until she dies and that they are thrown under the bus for the sake of conservative victories in other districts created by Mssrs. Gerry & Mander. As incompetent as Lee is, John may feel that Herschel Walker would be an improvement for the district.
From the New York Times, the CNN of newspapers: The Opinion columnists revisit their incorrect predictions and bad advice — and reflect on why they changed their minds.
I was wrong about inflation by Paul Krugman
I was wrong about Al Franken by Michelle Goldberg
I was wrong about capitalism by David Brooks
I was wrong about the power of protest by Zeynep Tufekci
I was wrong about Trump voters by Bret Stephens
I was wrong about Chinese censorship by Thomas Friedman
I was wrong about Facebook by Farhad Manjoo
I was wrong about Mitt Romney by Gail Collins
Please add this: I was wrong about Herschel Walker by John McWhorter
McWhorter penned: “Walker is fact-challenged”
Mr. McWhorter states this and lists a number of falsehoods.
Wow, look no further than our POTUS for examples of fabrication.
Also: “The problem with Walker is how glaringly unfit he is for public office”
Both Glenn and John deserve good news. Lowell High School in SF to return to academic achievement admissions beginning for students who attend in Fall 2023.
While I have read work by both Glenn and John, this was the first time I heard their voices, which match their written style in uncanny fashion. John's voice reflects someone who is well-prepared, focused, incisive and no nonsense. Glenn's voice, while his comments and follow up are on point, reflects a meta-awareness at the same time. I get the sense he is looking around, perhaps out the window, enjoying the conversation and imbibing a sense of the room's tone and all who are in it.
The blemish of Anita Hill? That was more than a blemish to Anita Hill. He tried to destroy her along with others. Anita still has the stigma of a “bitter black woman” trying to take a black man down. That comment is dismissive. He has not even apologized!
I haven't followed this latest kerfuffle whatsoever, but I still remember the original confirmation hearings. My recollection is that Hill followed Thomas to a new job, seriously undermining her narrative. As far as "trying to destroy," wasn't that the purpose of her testimony at the confirmation hearings?
I do hate the way the left treats Clarence Thomas. It's just wrong on so many levels. He could be an icon for black America, but instead he's hated. It just shows that it was really never about uplifting black Americans, and spreading opportunity, but was about dumb political games.
Amy's behavior, if true, in any other work setting would count as bullying and harassment and would warrant her termination. Academia is its own little universe, and having spent nearly all their lives in that bubble, Glenn and Amy seem oblivious to the rules and codes of conduct the rest of us easily navigate in the real world. Tenure is an enormous privilege, a privilege that allows a select group of people in this country an opportunity to break ground in unexplored territory, advance fields of study, and boldly explore certain ideas. Is Amy Wax really taking that privilege seriously by acting like a troll and subjecting her students, who are paying a lot for that education, to the sort of nonsense we've heard her spout on the Glenn show?
Regarding Clarence Thomas, clearly one of the most powerful people in the country, with lifetime tenure, doesn't need others to fight his battles with some random Twitter trolls. It's background noise. I hope Ketanji Brown Jackson also ignored Ilya Shapiro and Tucker as she sat through the "interview process" for a job that was essentially hers the moment President Biden made the announcement.
What does not kill you makes you stronger. "subjecting her students . . .to the sort of nonsense we've heard her spout on the Glenn show" toughens, strenghtens and benefits them.
Much of what Amy Wax has said recently is so obviously false and over the top that she is benefiting the people she is attacking. With "enemies" like Amy, who needs friends?
As interesting and as necessary as this conversation is, we need to be candid about a few things.
Such as: If White nationalism is a spectrum, Amy Wax is on it; point blank period. There is no need to hem-and-haw about that. Wax may be a legitimate intellectual and a friend of Glenn's, but she's also a White nationalist sympathizer. It's not hard to say any of the above because it's true. The only relevant question is McWhorter's: "Where do we draw the line?"
Apparently there is no consensus on this, particularly on the right, and I get it. They are conflicted when it comes to race.
Where DO we draw the line? If you're me, it's *before* we get all chummy with individuals like Amy Wax. If you're Dr. G, it's obviously beyond that; he certainly has a lot more empathy on these matters; more patience, and more tolerance, too; I will be the first to admit I cannot relate. And if you're a certain type of hardcore Trumper concerned about the Browning of America or America's "heritage" or whatever, you are probably more tolerant than Dr. G.
There's a spectrum among Trump supporters as well. There are straight-up White nationalists who were (and are) strong supporters of Donald Trump, probably because some of his rhetoric genuinely resonated with them. There are also White Trump supporters who don't have a racist bone in their bodies, not to mention a vast grey area in between. But at the end of the day they all voted for the same dude, occasionally for similar reasons.
It is a subject that remains uniquely thorny on the right. (I am talking about race.) This goes back decades. It's just thornier now in large part because of Trump, who in fairness, did not engender this madness. He just took advantage of a common mood in the populace and manipulated it, with little to no concern for the aftermath.
Trump greased those skids like no politician since the Civil Rights Era, to the point where the right too often sounds something like this: "I am not a racist. But I am sick and tired of being called a racist. And who knows? Maybe sometimes I *do* sound like one. But you know what? I don't care. If anything I *like* it when 'the left' hates me, regardless of their reasons why. 'They' made me this way."
Make sense? Yeah. But it's not an excuse. If anything it's a self-own.
Glenn obscures the picture when he says (paraphrased), "If Black people keep pushing this crazy anti-White woke rhetoric, harsh blowback from everyday rank-and-file White people is inevitable."
I agree. I have felt this way since the 90s. But if the above is acceptable, why would the harsh attitudes of African-Americans not be? Who has the bigger beef? What other race/ethnicity has to listen to scholars like Charles Murray imply, rather loudly, that they are innately less intelligent and there is nothing any of us can do about it?
Let the record reflect at this point that I would rather you call me a staunch racist. That is to say, blowback can come from any direction if people feel justified. But we can hardly call ourselves mature or serious, or even legit, if we stop there. That would be the height of intellectual laziness.
I don't pretend to have the answers. But we can start with a lot less spin and defensiveness of our political tribes. A little more empathy would help as well. Be fair. Argue in good faith. Know what you're talking about.
I decided I really didn't like Amy Wax during her last convo with Glenn. I can't remember how she stated it, but she was talking about how we needed fewer Asians in America because they are not capable of American patriotism and unable to integrate successfully into the version of America that she's created in her head. It was pure nonsense.
I also strongly disagreed with her anti-Asian immigrant position and don't have many positive feelings about her. How the issue comes up in class is relevant to the validity of the disciplinary action against her. If she's simply explaining her position in a relevant context, that seems like proper use of academic freedom. If she's intentionally making students of Asian background feel unwelcome, that might be grounds for discipline.
It appears too simplistic to criticize a person brave enough to step into the murky political waters than to applaud them for trying to represent conservative Blacks—the same people Walker’s opponent should be representing had he been a true paragon of virtue.
So whether Walker was asked or begged to run, it is because he has constituents. They are a community of folks concerned less about global warming and more about inflation, safe and competitive schools and neighborhoods, strengthening small businesses, and income taxes on said businesses. And we are pleased to see a Black person treading in this space.
By the way, I don’t see much difference between Walker and Harris in terms of clarity on issues. Do you? Your comments could easily describe the person second in charge.
Perhaps, instead of poking fun at Walker, we could congratulate him for stepping up. Next, you and Glenn could form a list of Black candidates who are conservative, informed, and articulate to vet for the future.
Lastly, thank you for the open letter supporting Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas. Well stated. Long overdue. 🙏🏽
Something needs to be addressed here that underlies affirmative action AND the Charles Murray, putatively Wax view that there are differences in intelligence based on race and that these differences affect if not determine, inequality in our society. Both policies focus on group characteristics that ignore the great differences among individuals and have led directly to the Kendi claim that only current and future discrimination in favor of POC will eliminate these inequalities.
Kendi’s solution can never be attained precisely because people do not act as a group, they can only act as individuals. We need to re-focus on individuals for the purpose of academic admissions, in hiring, and in promotion.
Two more points: First, see Stuart Taylor’s book about the widespread failure to graduate among students admitted to the Ivy League schools who are under qualified. Such students might very well succeed in a different and less pressured environment and go on in life without that failure. I don’t think the numbers are small. Second, Amy Wax has denied saying many of the the things attributed to her and unless someone has a recording, I am inclined to believe her - for all the reasons McWhorter identified. And he needs to realize that once the mob succeeds against Wax, they will move on to whomever else is not pure enough to satisfy them. Maybe Loury, maybe McWhorter himself. Marxists advocate perpetual revolution because their revolutionary goals can never be satisfied.
Posting separately regarding Wax, I found this article/letter defending her that is worth reading...
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/18/a-letter-from-a-current-upenn-law-student-in-support-of-amy-wax/
I found the writer's conclusion that it is merely her association with UPENN that is being questioned.
Personally speaking, I think if you can't listen to views that directly challenge your own self-worth, you should probably avoid the practice of law. It is a high conflict profession.
It is also clear that no one has to take her classes to get a degree. Initially I misunderstood she was teaching undergrads. That's why I thought there was so much whining. Now that I'm clear these are 2nd and 3rd year law students, to me it doesn't say much for the personal fortitude of those opposing her so strongly.
Why you would defend Clarence Thomas I don't know. He is a stupid, vindictive man who has been nursing his hatreds for forty years and is now releasing them on us. His comment during his hearing that it was just another lynching of a black man was the most grievous insult possible to the memory of those blameless African-Americans who actually WERE lynched. Comparing himself to them was a truly unforgivable sin....
This is the second time and from a different source that I have heard that Walker does not seem "engaged" in his campaign. As for putting forth black conservative candidates against black liberal congressional candidates, that is happening frequently in my hometown, Houston.
One candidate I knew before he ran, and with his West Point education, combat service, master's degree, business experience, and engaging speaking & personal skills, conservatives think they can field a candidate with broad appeal in a district with a minority as majority. There is even a second person with this level of capability taking on another district. But even with this quality of candidate, it is very hard to get BLUE to edge toward DEEP PURPLE in these districts. As you guys put it, Walker or any candidate has get his head out of the Jet Stream and have a clear message to determine if there is any traction for this kind of candidate.
In Sheila Jackson Lee's district (I like to call her "She-Jack Lee" like in some action movie co-starring Bruce Li) the moderates and conservatives have had to resign themselves to She-Jack in power until she dies and that they are thrown under the bus for the sake of conservative victories in other districts created by Mssrs. Gerry & Mander. As incompetent as Lee is, John may feel that Herschel Walker would be an improvement for the district.
From the New York Times, the CNN of newspapers: The Opinion columnists revisit their incorrect predictions and bad advice — and reflect on why they changed their minds.
I was wrong about inflation by Paul Krugman
I was wrong about Al Franken by Michelle Goldberg
I was wrong about capitalism by David Brooks
I was wrong about the power of protest by Zeynep Tufekci
I was wrong about Trump voters by Bret Stephens
I was wrong about Chinese censorship by Thomas Friedman
I was wrong about Facebook by Farhad Manjoo
I was wrong about Mitt Romney by Gail Collins
Please add this: I was wrong about Herschel Walker by John McWhorter
McWhorter penned: “Walker is fact-challenged”
Mr. McWhorter states this and lists a number of falsehoods.
Wow, look no further than our POTUS for examples of fabrication.
Also: “The problem with Walker is how glaringly unfit he is for public office”
Once again, look no further than our POTUS.
Both Glenn and John deserve good news. Lowell High School in SF to return to academic achievement admissions beginning for students who attend in Fall 2023.
I adore you John and Glenn. Listening to the two of you disagree, kindly and respectfully, is like a drug I cannot get enough of.
While I have read work by both Glenn and John, this was the first time I heard their voices, which match their written style in uncanny fashion. John's voice reflects someone who is well-prepared, focused, incisive and no nonsense. Glenn's voice, while his comments and follow up are on point, reflects a meta-awareness at the same time. I get the sense he is looking around, perhaps out the window, enjoying the conversation and imbibing a sense of the room's tone and all who are in it.
I wonder if Clarence Thomas had that same belly laugh when he snatched away a women’s rights to their own reproductive choices? Yes what a lovely man.
The blemish of Anita Hill? That was more than a blemish to Anita Hill. He tried to destroy her along with others. Anita still has the stigma of a “bitter black woman” trying to take a black man down. That comment is dismissive. He has not even apologized!
I haven't followed this latest kerfuffle whatsoever, but I still remember the original confirmation hearings. My recollection is that Hill followed Thomas to a new job, seriously undermining her narrative. As far as "trying to destroy," wasn't that the purpose of her testimony at the confirmation hearings?
When did I say that?
I do hate the way the left treats Clarence Thomas. It's just wrong on so many levels. He could be an icon for black America, but instead he's hated. It just shows that it was really never about uplifting black Americans, and spreading opportunity, but was about dumb political games.
Why should he be an icon for black people?
Amy's behavior, if true, in any other work setting would count as bullying and harassment and would warrant her termination. Academia is its own little universe, and having spent nearly all their lives in that bubble, Glenn and Amy seem oblivious to the rules and codes of conduct the rest of us easily navigate in the real world. Tenure is an enormous privilege, a privilege that allows a select group of people in this country an opportunity to break ground in unexplored territory, advance fields of study, and boldly explore certain ideas. Is Amy Wax really taking that privilege seriously by acting like a troll and subjecting her students, who are paying a lot for that education, to the sort of nonsense we've heard her spout on the Glenn show?
Regarding Clarence Thomas, clearly one of the most powerful people in the country, with lifetime tenure, doesn't need others to fight his battles with some random Twitter trolls. It's background noise. I hope Ketanji Brown Jackson also ignored Ilya Shapiro and Tucker as she sat through the "interview process" for a job that was essentially hers the moment President Biden made the announcement.
What does not kill you makes you stronger. "subjecting her students . . .to the sort of nonsense we've heard her spout on the Glenn show" toughens, strenghtens and benefits them.
Much of what Amy Wax has said recently is so obviously false and over the top that she is benefiting the people she is attacking. With "enemies" like Amy, who needs friends?
As interesting and as necessary as this conversation is, we need to be candid about a few things.
Such as: If White nationalism is a spectrum, Amy Wax is on it; point blank period. There is no need to hem-and-haw about that. Wax may be a legitimate intellectual and a friend of Glenn's, but she's also a White nationalist sympathizer. It's not hard to say any of the above because it's true. The only relevant question is McWhorter's: "Where do we draw the line?"
Apparently there is no consensus on this, particularly on the right, and I get it. They are conflicted when it comes to race.
Where DO we draw the line? If you're me, it's *before* we get all chummy with individuals like Amy Wax. If you're Dr. G, it's obviously beyond that; he certainly has a lot more empathy on these matters; more patience, and more tolerance, too; I will be the first to admit I cannot relate. And if you're a certain type of hardcore Trumper concerned about the Browning of America or America's "heritage" or whatever, you are probably more tolerant than Dr. G.
There's a spectrum among Trump supporters as well. There are straight-up White nationalists who were (and are) strong supporters of Donald Trump, probably because some of his rhetoric genuinely resonated with them. There are also White Trump supporters who don't have a racist bone in their bodies, not to mention a vast grey area in between. But at the end of the day they all voted for the same dude, occasionally for similar reasons.
It is a subject that remains uniquely thorny on the right. (I am talking about race.) This goes back decades. It's just thornier now in large part because of Trump, who in fairness, did not engender this madness. He just took advantage of a common mood in the populace and manipulated it, with little to no concern for the aftermath.
Trump greased those skids like no politician since the Civil Rights Era, to the point where the right too often sounds something like this: "I am not a racist. But I am sick and tired of being called a racist. And who knows? Maybe sometimes I *do* sound like one. But you know what? I don't care. If anything I *like* it when 'the left' hates me, regardless of their reasons why. 'They' made me this way."
Make sense? Yeah. But it's not an excuse. If anything it's a self-own.
Glenn obscures the picture when he says (paraphrased), "If Black people keep pushing this crazy anti-White woke rhetoric, harsh blowback from everyday rank-and-file White people is inevitable."
I agree. I have felt this way since the 90s. But if the above is acceptable, why would the harsh attitudes of African-Americans not be? Who has the bigger beef? What other race/ethnicity has to listen to scholars like Charles Murray imply, rather loudly, that they are innately less intelligent and there is nothing any of us can do about it?
Let the record reflect at this point that I would rather you call me a staunch racist. That is to say, blowback can come from any direction if people feel justified. But we can hardly call ourselves mature or serious, or even legit, if we stop there. That would be the height of intellectual laziness.
I don't pretend to have the answers. But we can start with a lot less spin and defensiveness of our political tribes. A little more empathy would help as well. Be fair. Argue in good faith. Know what you're talking about.
These are not unreasonable requests.
Possibly a moron knows until China and other polluting countries get serious about reducing pollutants we are just pissing in the wind.
NASA how pollutants are carried around the world and affect other counties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
I decided I really didn't like Amy Wax during her last convo with Glenn. I can't remember how she stated it, but she was talking about how we needed fewer Asians in America because they are not capable of American patriotism and unable to integrate successfully into the version of America that she's created in her head. It was pure nonsense.
I also strongly disagreed with her anti-Asian immigrant position and don't have many positive feelings about her. How the issue comes up in class is relevant to the validity of the disciplinary action against her. If she's simply explaining her position in a relevant context, that seems like proper use of academic freedom. If she's intentionally making students of Asian background feel unwelcome, that might be grounds for discipline.