R&B singer Lauryn Hill was on trial for not paying taxes, and one blog sums up her defense as "slavery made me do it." See http://grapevine981.blogspot.com/2013/05/lauryn-hill-slavery-made-me-do-it.html
A black man can basically blame slavery for causing him to do any bad deed, and Pharisaical liberals will call anyone who disagrees with him racist. Democrats believe adversity does NOT make blacks stronger but rather causes them and their distant ancestors to do bad stuff. Perhaps they'd excuse one of Thomas Sowell's works against their cultural Marxism if he said "slavery made me write it."
Friday, May 17, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
The Picture of Lindsay Lohan
The following was originally posted in the summer of 2010. We took it down because we thought it was too harshly critical of feminine physicality. But we've found it necessary to publish it again with the hope that it will serve as a warning against unhealthy lifestyles. We apologize for dramatizing Ms. Lohan's plight by comparing her to Dorian Gray in the the Picture of Dorian Gray. Our then-youthful insensitivities are to blame. Nevertheless, the message is a good one even if told in a boorish way.
While driving home from the factory late one night, I tuned in to the Michael Smerconish talk radio program. Among his characteristically insignificant talking points was Lindsay Lohan's lawsuit against E-trade for naming one of its talking babies 'that milk-aholic Lindsay'. If I were a judge, I would say that E-Trade has the full right to insinuate that Lindsay Lohan is an alcoholic...because she is an alcoholic.
Upon checking the news item on the Internet, I noticed the full extent to which poor Miss Lohan has suffered the ravages of a party-hardy lifestyle.
The Fall
It would have been near impossible not to notice Lohan for either her movie "Freaky Friday" or for "Mean Girls". She indeed was ravishing then.
After 2004, it would also be impossible not to notice her plunge into a less flattering figure, trading wondrous curves for famished skeletal rigidity; youthful rounded cheeks for an every-day angular visage.
The picture above is of Lindsay in 2004, shortly after she turned 18. (Try this link to see the original pic; the one on my blog is a little distorted such that it is too wide.) The feeling which any bachelor feels upon seeing her is one of awe. He would literally fall all over himself before her, having the sentiment that she is to die for. If eyes ever could seduce, they would be Lindsay's in this picture. So also, her small feminine chin, ample cheeks, and fragile lips make her the most delectable of eye candy. (Admittedly, I took the best picture which I could find from the pre-party period of her life, for illustrative purposes.)
I mean not to make an example of poor Lindsay; she probably entered the Hollywood scene as a normal girl looking to fit in. But, her inherited tendencies toward addiction would prove fatal for her career and countenance.
And what we end up with is the picture below from March 2010, of which I will spare you the misery of description.
Now perhaps it wasn't totally the Hollywood lifestyle which stole Lindsay's curves. Some people these days naturally gain weight during puberty and then shed it in their late teens or early 20's.
But nonetheless, Miss Lohan has lost quite a bit of weight--whether intentionally or not, it is difficult to say. Regardless, other actresses like Christina Ricci have suffered aesthetically after shedding pounds. Typically, young actresses enter Hollywood at a healthy weight, but then unnecessarily lose weight along with a little beauty.
Needless to say, drinking, drug use, endless carousing, frequent hair dying, and extensive sun exposure take their toll on the skin. Has Lindsay paid a price for her glamorous bacchanalian lifestyle?
As a side note, the kind of killer music played in the clubs which youth like Lindsay frequent is often so intolerably loud that it still sounds loud even if one presses his hands over his ears. Such loud 'music' has been rumored to boil eggs placed near speakers at rock concerts. If this is true, think what such does to the brain! Moreover, excessive exposure to the kind of discordant tunes found rock, rap, techo, and pop have reportedly caused rodents to become demented and dogs to become vicious and mean. Regardless, brainstem jarring volume has got to take a toll somehow.
In other words, regardless of how one is judged by Jesus Christ after one's life, there is an earthly price to pay for a rapacious, modern-day club-hopping lifestyle--especially for girls. It is a shame that Lindsay could not have been saved from it.
There is still hope for Lindsay. Although she may never again look like she did in the top picture, she may become a moral example to fans by turning away from the destructive Hollywood lifestyle. But given her recent life choices (among which is support of the obamanable executive), this doesn't appear to be on the horizon.
Morals aside, she's aged too much in the past six years. I admit, that even today, in less candid pictures, Lindsay probably looks better than the average 23 year-old woman; but it's too bad she couldn't have had a picture to take punishment like Dorian Gray did.
Upon checking the news item on the Internet, I noticed the full extent to which poor Miss Lohan has suffered the ravages of a party-hardy lifestyle.
The Fall
It would have been near impossible not to notice Lohan for either her movie "Freaky Friday" or for "Mean Girls". She indeed was ravishing then.
After 2004, it would also be impossible not to notice her plunge into a less flattering figure, trading wondrous curves for famished skeletal rigidity; youthful rounded cheeks for an every-day angular visage.
The picture above is of Lindsay in 2004, shortly after she turned 18. (Try this link to see the original pic; the one on my blog is a little distorted such that it is too wide.) The feeling which any bachelor feels upon seeing her is one of awe. He would literally fall all over himself before her, having the sentiment that she is to die for. If eyes ever could seduce, they would be Lindsay's in this picture. So also, her small feminine chin, ample cheeks, and fragile lips make her the most delectable of eye candy. (Admittedly, I took the best picture which I could find from the pre-party period of her life, for illustrative purposes.)
I mean not to make an example of poor Lindsay; she probably entered the Hollywood scene as a normal girl looking to fit in. But, her inherited tendencies toward addiction would prove fatal for her career and countenance.
And what we end up with is the picture below from March 2010, of which I will spare you the misery of description.
Now perhaps it wasn't totally the Hollywood lifestyle which stole Lindsay's curves. Some people these days naturally gain weight during puberty and then shed it in their late teens or early 20's.
But nonetheless, Miss Lohan has lost quite a bit of weight--whether intentionally or not, it is difficult to say. Regardless, other actresses like Christina Ricci have suffered aesthetically after shedding pounds. Typically, young actresses enter Hollywood at a healthy weight, but then unnecessarily lose weight along with a little beauty.
Needless to say, drinking, drug use, endless carousing, frequent hair dying, and extensive sun exposure take their toll on the skin. Has Lindsay paid a price for her glamorous bacchanalian lifestyle?
As a side note, the kind of killer music played in the clubs which youth like Lindsay frequent is often so intolerably loud that it still sounds loud even if one presses his hands over his ears. Such loud 'music' has been rumored to boil eggs placed near speakers at rock concerts. If this is true, think what such does to the brain! Moreover, excessive exposure to the kind of discordant tunes found rock, rap, techo, and pop have reportedly caused rodents to become demented and dogs to become vicious and mean. Regardless, brainstem jarring volume has got to take a toll somehow.
In other words, regardless of how one is judged by Jesus Christ after one's life, there is an earthly price to pay for a rapacious, modern-day club-hopping lifestyle--especially for girls. It is a shame that Lindsay could not have been saved from it.
There is still hope for Lindsay. Although she may never again look like she did in the top picture, she may become a moral example to fans by turning away from the destructive Hollywood lifestyle. But given her recent life choices (among which is support of the obamanable executive), this doesn't appear to be on the horizon.
Morals aside, she's aged too much in the past six years. I admit, that even today, in less candid pictures, Lindsay probably looks better than the average 23 year-old woman; but it's too bad she couldn't have had a picture to take punishment like Dorian Gray did.
Why Big Business likes Diversity--Perhaps to its Peril
There was an old word called cosmopolitanism which meant attaining a universal ethic among all peoples. This universal ethic would allow for people of different beliefs to overlook differences and interact more fluidly. In modern times, this ethic would be required most in the business world, where markets seek to expand to nations which are different from the West such as China or Singapore.
Diversity within an organization artificially arranges things so that people of different backgrounds have to constantly work together rather occasionally on business trips. This would seem to make interactions with dissimilar business partners much easier because of already having to relate to different people is already a necessity within the company.
But like cosmopolitanism, diversity tends to make people become worldly, consumerist, and less focused on "dirty" beliefs of religion and aesthetics-- beliefs that function as a selectively permeable membrane to things which are irrelevant to the success of the corporation and that serve only as potential barriers.
This is probably why corporations, who seek loyalty from workers even above religion, race, and ethnicity, don't mind if such allegiances are diminished. The company and other companies can thrive on the void left in their wake, which will presumably be filled with consumerism. And from consumerism comes the real payoff from diversity: profits.
Whether the loss of "dirty" beliefs will hurt people in the long run can only definitively be seen in the future. But forces like gender and racial equality which underpin the going diversity/cosmopolitan ethic would seem to prove dangerous in time.
For example, feminism leads to fewer children being born, and non-feminist cultures would seem to proportionately replace feminist ones. Moreover, an atmosphere of racial equality permits races of lower potential population IQ to mix with those which have higher average IQ, thus lowering the proportion of people suitable to fill highly skilled occupation necessary for the functioning of the modern world. So, a society reduced in number and genius may find itself reverting invariably to "dirty" beliefs of religion and ethnic identity as the potential for functioning of business and science is reduced.
Paradoxically, preservation of the mental material needed to sustain a cosmopolitan society seems to require the very same beliefs of religion and ethnicity which cosmopolitanism seeks to wear away.
But markets, along with cosmopolitanism, are focused on the present. The question is how long the present will last.
Diversity within an organization artificially arranges things so that people of different backgrounds have to constantly work together rather occasionally on business trips. This would seem to make interactions with dissimilar business partners much easier because of already having to relate to different people is already a necessity within the company.
But like cosmopolitanism, diversity tends to make people become worldly, consumerist, and less focused on "dirty" beliefs of religion and aesthetics-- beliefs that function as a selectively permeable membrane to things which are irrelevant to the success of the corporation and that serve only as potential barriers.
This is probably why corporations, who seek loyalty from workers even above religion, race, and ethnicity, don't mind if such allegiances are diminished. The company and other companies can thrive on the void left in their wake, which will presumably be filled with consumerism. And from consumerism comes the real payoff from diversity: profits.
Whether the loss of "dirty" beliefs will hurt people in the long run can only definitively be seen in the future. But forces like gender and racial equality which underpin the going diversity/cosmopolitan ethic would seem to prove dangerous in time.
For example, feminism leads to fewer children being born, and non-feminist cultures would seem to proportionately replace feminist ones. Moreover, an atmosphere of racial equality permits races of lower potential population IQ to mix with those which have higher average IQ, thus lowering the proportion of people suitable to fill highly skilled occupation necessary for the functioning of the modern world. So, a society reduced in number and genius may find itself reverting invariably to "dirty" beliefs of religion and ethnic identity as the potential for functioning of business and science is reduced.
Paradoxically, preservation of the mental material needed to sustain a cosmopolitan society seems to require the very same beliefs of religion and ethnicity which cosmopolitanism seeks to wear away.
But markets, along with cosmopolitanism, are focused on the present. The question is how long the present will last.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Pagan Symbols at Easter do NOT Celebrate Evil Things
Some Christians believe that secular and/or pagan symbols of Easter are mutually exclusive with the Christian celebration of Christ's resurrection. They want to change what has become a largely secular celebration of Easter into "Resurrection Sunday", a solely Christian celebration of the without peeps, eggs, and bunnies. Some even refuse to celebrate Resurrection Sunday, claiming that Easter was an attempt to Christianize an irrevocably pagan holiday.
Whether the peeps and bunnies are idolatrous is a good question, but the concepts behind them are not necessarily antithetical to Christian life. In fact, these symbols represent things that could be considered a precondition of the Christian life.
First, some background. The peep represents new life on earth for obvious reasons. The rabbit represents fertility since to breed like a rabbit is to have many children. Indeed, these symbols celebrate earthly life and not the salvation that Christ accomplished by dying for us at Calvary. But new life on earth isn't necessarily a bad thing because it is a necessary condition of future salvation since there cannot be salvation among people who haven't been born.
People usually think of salvation in terms of saving souls otherwise destined for damnation, thus limiting the number of those sent to hell (or the grave if you don't believe in Hell). But the famous Italian Catholic priest Padre Pio, in one of his remarks, thought of salvation in additive terms. He viewed marriage as a means to "populate the earth and paradise" with saints [emphasis mine]. The Bible seems to affirm expansive procreation--but not in the context of salvation. It presents salvation more as means of preventing people from perishing, "that none would perish," rather than a way to add more souls to heaven. The idea that one should have children just to populate heaven with more Christians is an interesting concept but is not really found in scripture. Having many children could be a way of investing in future missionaries, assuming more than two children become missionaries. This might be called salvific investing.
God blessed Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28, telling them to be fruitful and multiply. Normally, in the Old Testament, children are seen as a blessing. For example, Abraham and Sarah were blessed with their son Isaac. Job was blessed with a family due to fidelity to God after losing his previous one. Psalm 127:3 states that "Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a reward from him."*
In the New Testament, there is no conflict with child-bearing, but in some instances, it may seem that way. The apostle Paul writes that it is better for a man not to marry so that he can focus on doing God's work. Not marrying obviously means having no children in the Christian moral paradigm. But Paul's opinion is not a commandment because he permits those who cannot control their urges to marry rather than burn with passion. Paul then esteems childbearing for such people in 1 Timothy 2:15 by writing that a woman "shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety."
We should add that opposition to the bearing of children within the confines of marriage seems to be forbidden in scripture, as in the case of Onan who deliberately tried to frustrate the act of sex in marriage and thus won the word onanism as his namesake. Pope Pius XI, in Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930, states quite blatantly that “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children .” The Bible seems to echo Pius XI's sentiment that a child born and trained to serve God is a blessing. In Luke 1:14-15, an angel tells John the Baptist's mother-to-be that "thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his [John the Baptist's] birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." In other words, the Gospel of Luke seems to affirm the idea of bearing children who go on to be servants of God. But because there are no similar verses, we must consider that it is not a prime concern of the gospels at large.
At the very least, childbearing is not necessarily discouraged in the New Testament and is even commended as long as the children are brought up by a God-fearing wife. In the Old Testament children are seen as a blessing. So, the phenomenon of new life on earth should not be disdained. Furthermore, life on earth is a necessary but not sufficient condition of salvation, since believing in and living for Christ is the sufficient condition.
Indeed, pagan symbols should not overshadow Christian symbols at Easter. Maybe it is inappropriate to idolize fertility in the Spring. But without fertility, Christians would die out. They would either run out of potential pagan converts by evangelizing all of them, or they would go out of existence with only pagans left in their wake. These pagans may come across a written copy of the Bible and convert, but there will be no one around to mentor them. It seems necessary that there be some childbearing as an investment in a Christian future.Thus, the baby of childbearing should not be thrown out with the bath water of pagan symbolism.
In other words, the pagan symbols of Easter can be done away with if they are bad, but the concepts they celebrate should not be seen as antithetical to Christianity.
Whether the peeps and bunnies are idolatrous is a good question, but the concepts behind them are not necessarily antithetical to Christian life. In fact, these symbols represent things that could be considered a precondition of the Christian life.
First, some background. The peep represents new life on earth for obvious reasons. The rabbit represents fertility since to breed like a rabbit is to have many children. Indeed, these symbols celebrate earthly life and not the salvation that Christ accomplished by dying for us at Calvary. But new life on earth isn't necessarily a bad thing because it is a necessary condition of future salvation since there cannot be salvation among people who haven't been born.
People usually think of salvation in terms of saving souls otherwise destined for damnation, thus limiting the number of those sent to hell (or the grave if you don't believe in Hell). But the famous Italian Catholic priest Padre Pio, in one of his remarks, thought of salvation in additive terms. He viewed marriage as a means to "populate the earth and paradise" with saints [emphasis mine]. The Bible seems to affirm expansive procreation--but not in the context of salvation. It presents salvation more as means of preventing people from perishing, "that none would perish," rather than a way to add more souls to heaven. The idea that one should have children just to populate heaven with more Christians is an interesting concept but is not really found in scripture. Having many children could be a way of investing in future missionaries, assuming more than two children become missionaries. This might be called salvific investing.
God blessed Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28, telling them to be fruitful and multiply. Normally, in the Old Testament, children are seen as a blessing. For example, Abraham and Sarah were blessed with their son Isaac. Job was blessed with a family due to fidelity to God after losing his previous one. Psalm 127:3 states that "Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a reward from him."*
In the New Testament, there is no conflict with child-bearing, but in some instances, it may seem that way. The apostle Paul writes that it is better for a man not to marry so that he can focus on doing God's work. Not marrying obviously means having no children in the Christian moral paradigm. But Paul's opinion is not a commandment because he permits those who cannot control their urges to marry rather than burn with passion. Paul then esteems childbearing for such people in 1 Timothy 2:15 by writing that a woman "shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety."
We should add that opposition to the bearing of children within the confines of marriage seems to be forbidden in scripture, as in the case of Onan who deliberately tried to frustrate the act of sex in marriage and thus won the word onanism as his namesake. Pope Pius XI, in Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930, states quite blatantly that “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children .” The Bible seems to echo Pius XI's sentiment that a child born and trained to serve God is a blessing. In Luke 1:14-15, an angel tells John the Baptist's mother-to-be that "thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his [John the Baptist's] birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." In other words, the Gospel of Luke seems to affirm the idea of bearing children who go on to be servants of God. But because there are no similar verses, we must consider that it is not a prime concern of the gospels at large.
At the very least, childbearing is not necessarily discouraged in the New Testament and is even commended as long as the children are brought up by a God-fearing wife. In the Old Testament children are seen as a blessing. So, the phenomenon of new life on earth should not be disdained. Furthermore, life on earth is a necessary but not sufficient condition of salvation, since believing in and living for Christ is the sufficient condition.
Indeed, pagan symbols should not overshadow Christian symbols at Easter. Maybe it is inappropriate to idolize fertility in the Spring. But without fertility, Christians would die out. They would either run out of potential pagan converts by evangelizing all of them, or they would go out of existence with only pagans left in their wake. These pagans may come across a written copy of the Bible and convert, but there will be no one around to mentor them. It seems necessary that there be some childbearing as an investment in a Christian future.Thus, the baby of childbearing should not be thrown out with the bath water of pagan symbolism.
In other words, the pagan symbols of Easter can be done away with if they are bad, but the concepts they celebrate should not be seen as antithetical to Christianity.
Monday, February 25, 2013
The Virtue of Mr. Magoo
Blindness to peril helps one move around in the world.
Doing dangerous things without knowledge of their danger is not necessarily brave or valiant, because the actions are done out of simple ignorance. This would describe the actions of Mr. Magoo, the cartoon character who does daredevil things mistaking them to be every day actions due to his nearsightedness. Luckily for him, he always gets by without suffering any serious harm.
Perhaps the key to life--or one of the keys to it--is being ignorant enough to get out and do potentially dangerous things, like Mr. Magoo does, but to be lucky enough to survive them without significant loss. Some live, some die, and some stay home, but in a sense you can't live without leaving home and being like Mr. Magoo to one degree or another. Maybe this is the sense of altruism that entrepreneurs, explorers and mountain climbers take into consideration when they take risks. They might bear in mind that even if they fail, as long as there are many people trying making it possible for one person to succeed, then all of humanity will succeed.
Increasingly, it seems that blindness of social status, class, etc., can be necessary for people to move around in the world and to make their lives interesting. Blindness of static status may be necessary for both improvement and, potentially, loss.
But, if asked, many of those who've died or suffered because of taking a risk--however great it may be--would probably say that they should have stayed home, at least to the extent that they wouldn't have ended up in their present, sad condition. Maybe being like Mr. Magoo isn't all that great.
Mark Twain wrestled with this idea as he wrote of his leisurly steamboat trip down the Mississippi River as a newcomer to the mighty river. Later, after he became a steamboat captain, he learned of all the perils of guiding a steamboat, including signs of shallow water below which lay jagged rocks that would sink the boat and leave stranded those on board. How stupid he thought of himself to have once been ignorant of the danger in the river and to have even regarded signs of shallow water as elegant expressions of nature. His eyes now manically scoured the water signs of danger, but in a sense, he longed for the ignorance..and hapiness... he once had.
Shakespeare was right that all's well that ends well, and whether one goes about life with caution and refrain or happy Magoo-like rambling, the present consequences of the actions taken seem to shed either shadow or illumination on past actions.
If any conclusion can be drawn, those who've have fortune enough to take risks and live should be humble and remember all those who strived similarly but were not so lucky.
Doing dangerous things without knowledge of their danger is not necessarily brave or valiant, because the actions are done out of simple ignorance. This would describe the actions of Mr. Magoo, the cartoon character who does daredevil things mistaking them to be every day actions due to his nearsightedness. Luckily for him, he always gets by without suffering any serious harm.
Perhaps the key to life--or one of the keys to it--is being ignorant enough to get out and do potentially dangerous things, like Mr. Magoo does, but to be lucky enough to survive them without significant loss. Some live, some die, and some stay home, but in a sense you can't live without leaving home and being like Mr. Magoo to one degree or another. Maybe this is the sense of altruism that entrepreneurs, explorers and mountain climbers take into consideration when they take risks. They might bear in mind that even if they fail, as long as there are many people trying making it possible for one person to succeed, then all of humanity will succeed.
Increasingly, it seems that blindness of social status, class, etc., can be necessary for people to move around in the world and to make their lives interesting. Blindness of static status may be necessary for both improvement and, potentially, loss.
But, if asked, many of those who've died or suffered because of taking a risk--however great it may be--would probably say that they should have stayed home, at least to the extent that they wouldn't have ended up in their present, sad condition. Maybe being like Mr. Magoo isn't all that great.
Mark Twain wrestled with this idea as he wrote of his leisurly steamboat trip down the Mississippi River as a newcomer to the mighty river. Later, after he became a steamboat captain, he learned of all the perils of guiding a steamboat, including signs of shallow water below which lay jagged rocks that would sink the boat and leave stranded those on board. How stupid he thought of himself to have once been ignorant of the danger in the river and to have even regarded signs of shallow water as elegant expressions of nature. His eyes now manically scoured the water signs of danger, but in a sense, he longed for the ignorance..and hapiness... he once had.
Shakespeare was right that all's well that ends well, and whether one goes about life with caution and refrain or happy Magoo-like rambling, the present consequences of the actions taken seem to shed either shadow or illumination on past actions.
If any conclusion can be drawn, those who've have fortune enough to take risks and live should be humble and remember all those who strived similarly but were not so lucky.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Summoning Boyz II Men, a Good Move for Putin
A lot of people are making fun of Russian President Vladimir Putin for bringing in the R&B group Boyz II Men to Russia to encourage Russians to have more children. It is indeed and odd gesture, as the "sophisticates" mocking it allege. But overall, it was good because it brought publicity to the Russian people's birth rate which is clining toward their ethnic extinction.
Russia's fertility rate is said to be 1.6, which is below the 2.11 necessary for replacement. By no means is this as low as some other areas of Europe, such as Italy, where it is 1.4 and even lower than that in Northern Italy.
Russia is also not in danger of becoming a cold weather Saudi Arabia, like Germany, Denmark, and Holland. It is not losing entire areas to Mohammedan immigrants like France and Sweden are. There are no ghettos where non-Moslems are not safe to venture, like there are in Paris.
However, 1.6 is still a cline toward extinction. At this rate, there will be half as many Russians in sooner than three generations. With terrorists like Pussy Riot publicizing a poisonous ideology of feminism, which is demographically self-refuting, Putin must go on the ideological warpath to save Russia from extinction. His first challange is to get publicity, and he has succeeded in doing that.
Russia's fertility rate is said to be 1.6, which is below the 2.11 necessary for replacement. By no means is this as low as some other areas of Europe, such as Italy, where it is 1.4 and even lower than that in Northern Italy.
Russia is also not in danger of becoming a cold weather Saudi Arabia, like Germany, Denmark, and Holland. It is not losing entire areas to Mohammedan immigrants like France and Sweden are. There are no ghettos where non-Moslems are not safe to venture, like there are in Paris.
However, 1.6 is still a cline toward extinction. At this rate, there will be half as many Russians in sooner than three generations. With terrorists like Pussy Riot publicizing a poisonous ideology of feminism, which is demographically self-refuting, Putin must go on the ideological warpath to save Russia from extinction. His first challange is to get publicity, and he has succeeded in doing that.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Marxists Against Affirmative Action?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Most people forget about the first part of the saying. But its meaning is rather hard to misconstrue. Abilities are the criteria by which people should produce things in a Marxist society. We plan to show that insofar as affirmative action displaces people with ability in favor of those with less, it may be anti-Marxist.
Before we continue, we must illustrate that affirmative action can result in less qualified people being promoted over more qualified ones.
Suppose there are black and white people in a given area, and a black and a white person apply for a job in that area. Suppose also that there is a quota for a black employee and one job open. Suppose there is a test which correlates 100% with job performance. The black person scores an 80 on the test, and the white scores 90. In this case, the white person does not meet the demand of the quota, so the less qualified black person is given a job above him. The precept of "from each according to his abilities" is ipso facto violated.
(Henceforth we'll call the ability line "the ability precept" and the needs line the "needs precept".)
However, by violating the ability precept, the needs precept may be affected. Suppose the test scores indicate how many units of utility a person would produce on the job in a year. Following the example above, the black person gets the job and produces 80 units. Redistribution of wealth is a fixed cost in a Marxist society, and thus is not covered by this thought experiment. Assume that the black and white person have identical needs. So in the end. the black is given 40 of the 80 units produced, and the white is given 40 as well.
Now suppose the ability precept is followed and affirmative action takes a backseat to ability. Then, the white person is hired, produces 90 units, and the units are redistributed, 45 to the white and 45 to the black. Are not both parties better off?
Of course, for the black person, the prestige of having a job may outweigh receiving 45 instead of 40 units of utility. For example, having the job may be worth, say, 6 units utility, so that 40+6=46 outweighs not having the job but receiving 45.
Depending on how much more productive the white person is than the black person, and how much more wealth he is able to generate, the black person may or may not be better off if the white person gets the job in accordance with his abilities.
The task of the utility-maximizing Marxist is to weigh higher overall production versus the need among blacks for the prestige of having a job. In any case, if one population shows significantly greater ability, there should not be a 50-50 distribution of jobs because the ability precept would be woefully violated, and the capacity to meet the needs precept would also be reduced.
Suppose, in another example, all conditions remain the same except for that the black person scores 90 and the white scores 90 with black people having fewer jobs and being in need of affirmative action. In that case, the marginal benefit of a black getting the job would clearly be the deciding factor because the black man would derive comparatively more utility and the ability precept would not be violated because the black person is equally qualified.
In sum, affirmative action does not require as a goal the equal per-capita representation of races in high-income jobs to be fully Marxist unless the abilities precept is ignored.
Most people forget about the first part of the saying. But its meaning is rather hard to misconstrue. Abilities are the criteria by which people should produce things in a Marxist society. We plan to show that insofar as affirmative action displaces people with ability in favor of those with less, it may be anti-Marxist.
Before we continue, we must illustrate that affirmative action can result in less qualified people being promoted over more qualified ones.
Suppose there are black and white people in a given area, and a black and a white person apply for a job in that area. Suppose also that there is a quota for a black employee and one job open. Suppose there is a test which correlates 100% with job performance. The black person scores an 80 on the test, and the white scores 90. In this case, the white person does not meet the demand of the quota, so the less qualified black person is given a job above him. The precept of "from each according to his abilities" is ipso facto violated.
(Henceforth we'll call the ability line "the ability precept" and the needs line the "needs precept".)
However, by violating the ability precept, the needs precept may be affected. Suppose the test scores indicate how many units of utility a person would produce on the job in a year. Following the example above, the black person gets the job and produces 80 units. Redistribution of wealth is a fixed cost in a Marxist society, and thus is not covered by this thought experiment. Assume that the black and white person have identical needs. So in the end. the black is given 40 of the 80 units produced, and the white is given 40 as well.
Now suppose the ability precept is followed and affirmative action takes a backseat to ability. Then, the white person is hired, produces 90 units, and the units are redistributed, 45 to the white and 45 to the black. Are not both parties better off?
Of course, for the black person, the prestige of having a job may outweigh receiving 45 instead of 40 units of utility. For example, having the job may be worth, say, 6 units utility, so that 40+6=46 outweighs not having the job but receiving 45.
Depending on how much more productive the white person is than the black person, and how much more wealth he is able to generate, the black person may or may not be better off if the white person gets the job in accordance with his abilities.
The task of the utility-maximizing Marxist is to weigh higher overall production versus the need among blacks for the prestige of having a job. In any case, if one population shows significantly greater ability, there should not be a 50-50 distribution of jobs because the ability precept would be woefully violated, and the capacity to meet the needs precept would also be reduced.
Suppose, in another example, all conditions remain the same except for that the black person scores 90 and the white scores 90 with black people having fewer jobs and being in need of affirmative action. In that case, the marginal benefit of a black getting the job would clearly be the deciding factor because the black man would derive comparatively more utility and the ability precept would not be violated because the black person is equally qualified.
In sum, affirmative action does not require as a goal the equal per-capita representation of races in high-income jobs to be fully Marxist unless the abilities precept is ignored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)