Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'll tell you about the intelligence of the Ashkenazi, my MIL would bake spaghetti.

I made eggplant parmesan on Christmas day which my son described as "aggressively Italian". I took that as a compliment.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'll tell you about the intelligence of the Ashkenazi, my MIL would bake spaghetti.

But the piece, ultimately, tries for a "nurture" explanation for the facts on Nobel prizes, etc. Basically Eastern European Jews have had to rely on the intangible because they keep having the tangible taken away. Citing this paper for the IQ stat is certainly sloppy, but racist because the author is? I assume the NYT has an editor (two maybe?) that read the piece before publication. Are they racist?

I don't think I would jump to calling Bret Stephens a racist, but this is a good response to him. When people like him conflate opposition to Israel's policies with anti-Semitism, they cheapen anti-anti-Semitism.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

For Sebby, from Benjamin Wittes:

[T]he Horowitz report does, in fact, pose a deep challenge to those of us who have broadly defended expansive surveillance authorities over the past several years and regarded the FISA process as embedding adequate safeguards against abuse of those authorities. That challenge, however, is emphatically not the one that Trump and his supporters have lodged against the FBI and its integrity over the past three years. There is no criticism in this report of senior leadership at the bureau for acting politically or out of animus for Trump or sympathy for his opponent. Indeed, the identified errors are confined largely to line agents and a line lawyer. What’s more, Horowitz is unable to find evidence even that any of the errors or misconduct he identifies at this level were politically driven, though he does not rule out the possibility in certain cases. The question the Horowitz report raises is thus not—no matter what Attorney General William Barr may have said in his statement characterizing the document—whether the FBI was weaponized against a political campaign.

Rather, the challenge the inspector general’s report presents is a less exotic and much older one—the same challenge that mainstream civil libertarians have been putting forth since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. Indeed, even if the report offers no support for the idea of a coup, it still poses the question of whether the bureau’s day-to-day rigor and candor with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is adequate for the trust we have placed in it. And, in this sense, the challenge it poses is both deep and alarming. The errors Horowitz documents are numerous. Some of them, at least, are quite substantial. One may even have been intentional. Particularly cumulatively, they grossly undermine the integrity of several surveillance applications submitted to the court. Nobody who has defended the FISA process should be able to read this report without a great deal of anxiety about whether those of us who did so were being naively overconfident about its average performance.

It will not do to note that Trump’s allegations are wrong and to conclude from that fact that the problems Horowitz noted are minor—any more than it will do to note that Horowitz discovered significant problems and to conclude from that fact that Trump’s allegations must have been correct. Two points must be allowed to coexist: Trump’s allegations were slanders—slanders against individuals, slanders against the institution, and slanders against the men and women who work for the institution—and the FBI may have major problems in the FISA process.

link

More here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think I would jump to calling Bret Stephens a racist, but this is a good response to him. When people like him conflate opposition to Israel's policies with anti-Semitism, they cheapen anti-anti-Semitism.

Dude, mommies with their kids are getting punched or killed on the streets of NYC. I really think the piece in question (at least the revised version) had little to do with the roots of Jew hating. How do you see this dreck article as actually responding to the Stephens’ piece?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'll bet Sebby is even willing to defend Bret Stephens, who proved himself, once again, a racist bedbug.

I find Stephens insufferable most of the time. Holier than thou, unfunny, pedantic.

He also appears to be trafficking in less than rigorous “science,” like Murray.

But I’d want to test if he really believes his point had merit before I’d say he was more racist than just a dumb fuck, which I think he is more than anything else.

I’d like to find out how such a whiffle intellect gets gigs like his. There’s perhaps a really strong indictment of the Times, and credentialism generally, built into that inquiry.

ETA: None of this suggests that he isn’t racist or bigoted (I do not believe Jews are a “race” as that flawed term is often used as much as an ethnic group). But if you seek to argue group IQ, you necessarily argue genetic superiority, which makes you a creep. I suggest Stephens may be more dumbass than anything else because that needs to be emphasized. He’s a brand of low end pundit who is somehow considered an intellect. I’m of the opinion any one of us here would kill him in a debate on almost any subject.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Dude, mommies with their kids are getting punched or killed on the streets of NYC. I really think the piece in question (at least the revised version) had little to do with the roots of Jew hating. How do you see this dreck article as actually responding to the Stephens’ piece?

Maybe you didn't get to this paragraph?

Unfortunately, the reaction to this renewed outbreak of anti-Semitism has partially served to reinforce it. First, consider Stephens and other Americans or Europeans who now equate harsh opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism. Stephens writes, “It’s no surprise that Jew hatred has made a comeback, albeit under new guises. Anti-Zionism has taken the place of anti-Semitism as a political program directed against Jews.” Personally, I consider a two-state solution, which would allow Palestinians’ self-government, the best of options, but if Israel continues to rule over the West Bank and indirectly over Gaza, the only other democratic option is to grant the Palestinian Arabs that Israel now subjugates the right to participate fully in Israel’s political and economic life. That would end the Jewish state as such, but if Israel continues its current colonial policies, it is the only just alternative. What Stephens and the Israeli government do is equate anti-Zionism with opposition to Judaism itself. In doing so, they don’t combat, but reinforce, the second kind of anti-Semitism rooted in the Israeli occupation. They are not foes, but enablers, of the growing anti-Semitism.

If it were true that anti-Zionism is surrogate anti-Semitism, which I do not believe, I nonetheless don't see it as motivating the attacks we have seen recently.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I made eggplant parmesan on Christmas day which my son described as "aggressively Italian". I took that as a compliment.

Am I the only person who detests eggplant? The seeds and texture are gross. Same goes for kiwi fruit.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I find Stephens insufferable most of the time. Holier than thou, unfunny, pedantic.

He also appears to be trafficking in less than rigorous “science,” like Murray.

But I’d want to test if he really believes his point had merit before I’d say he was more racist than just a dumb fuck, which I think he is more than anything else.

I’d like to find out how such a whiffle intellect gets gigs like his. There’s perhaps a really strong indictment of the Times, and credentialism generally, built into that inquiry.

To paraphrase Madeline Albright, there is always room at the Times for a mediocre man.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Am I the only person who detests eggplant? The seeds and texture are gross. Same goes for kiwi fruit.

You have not had properly prepared eggplant, and you are not alone. Good eggplant is divine.

There are three vegetables that people often prepared very, very poorly - eggplant, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts. The only vegetable that is actually objectively awful, no matter how you prepare it, is Broccoli.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe you didn't get to this paragraph?



If it were true that anti-Zionism is surrogate anti-Semitism, which I do not believe, I nonetheless don't see it as motivating the attacks we have seen recently.

Can you please look at the Stephens piece in question and show me where any of your quoted section has anything to do with it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You have not had properly prepared eggplant, and you are not alone. Good eggplant is divine.

There are three vegetables that people often prepared very, very poorly - eggplant, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts. The only vegetable that is actually objectively awful, no matter how you prepare it, is Broccoli.

Eggplant is go. You need to get the bitter juice out, but it is magic.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe you didn't get to this paragraph?



If it were true that anti-Zionism is surrogate anti-Semitism, which I do not believe, I nonetheless don't see it as motivating the attacks we have seen recently.

You’ll find me a 100% ally on both of those points. The article was excellent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You have not had properly prepared eggplant, and you are not alone. Good eggplant is divine.

There are three vegetables that people often prepared very, very poorly - eggplant, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts. The only vegetable that is actually objectively awful, no matter how you prepare it, is Broccoli.

Finely diced broccoli heated and mixed in fromage blanc and good Romano is tasty.

Btw, I’ll hear no ill of broccoli rabe sautéed in olive oil, red peppers and fresh garlic. None of that kind of talk.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’ll find me a 100% ally on both of those points. The article was excellent.

Dude, black Israelites and Nazis are not reacting to Israeli treatment of Palestinians. But Rave On!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Finely diced broccoli heated and mixed in fromage blanc and good Romano is tasty.

Btw, I’ll hear no ill of broccoli rabe sautéed in olive oil, red peppers and fresh garlic. None of that kind of talk.

If you take a small amount of broccoli, cook it until there is no flavor left, and then add it to something tasty and strong tasting, the result will taste fine.