He Who Controls Test Prep Controls the Future

My peers at high school (I graduated in 1984) often did SAT preparation and the like. Their parents often went over with their homework. As a result, they usually got much better scores than I did. I occasionally asked my parents a question but it never occurred to them review my homework or to get me tutoring.

I would not have liked it if my parents had been more involved in my life.

They did review my report card and until 10th grade, they were rarely happy about my grades. From 10th grade on, I had a B+ average or better.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* In America, you have a lot of public spirited people. For the Hillery dump to Wikileaks I suspect an honest player who got fed up with what he was seeing. Sort of like Snowden who didn’t destroy his life to empower some fraction over another. I suspect that someone just got pushed to the edge seeing too much nastyness and squealed. They were on a team and would like to win but not at the cost of seeing institutions trashed.

I doubt operatives for the Republican Party hacked computers and leaked emails. Who would have directed and organized that? Trump barely influences the Pub Party. Does Ryan have a huge bureaucracy at his beck and call? Can any Pub call in CIA, FBI or NGO people and give them clandestine orders?

In places where raw power rules, like Turkey or the Middle East or the Far East, perhaps everything is subordinate to how it hurts or benefits the actor. If you live under a sort of despotism where power determines everything about your life, pursuit of even little slivers of power becomes all encompassing, requiring abandoning integrity to self interest. Not America yet. I am able to make a living and avoid legal trouble without joining any [prison] gang for survival.

* And why can’t we think and behave like this? The American right either thinks too wildly (revolutionary fantasies) or too timidly (making sure our soft spoken arguments comply with Aristotelian logic). Identifying and manipulating choke points is the sensible middle.

* There have been a few with your mindset, but it seems to have petered out over the years. Getting the alt right on board for a pragmatic long march has proven to be akin to herding cats. Many of us soldier on in our own way, but without an effective organizational framework I am not optimistic.

* The CIA has long supported Islamists as long they’re pro-US and anti-Soviet/Russia, similar tactics have been used by Israel, Mossad supported the creation of Hamas to weaken the secular/leftists PLO who was seen as a bigger threat, the Sunni terrorist organizations aren’t a threat to Israel as the secular Dictators like Saddam, Gaddaffi or Assad, I heard from a Israeli that their biggest fear was someone like the secularist Nasser uniting the Arab world against them.

* This certainly goes along with alt-right themes about the “Cathedral,” at the center of which are the elite universities. Most talk about beating the progressives at their own game surround building our own, alternative Cathedral. But that’d take generations. We abjure the black/hippy method of gaining power through outright violence and scofflawry. Cheat-prep lies in the middle ground.

It had occurred to me to game the system, because it’s obvious. But I never thought of doing so in such an organized manner. Home schooling is a start. We need also to develop pseudo-progressives, CIA-style, who can take down the Cathedral from within. Sorta like how the progressives took it over in the first place, then rolled over for a series of lesser leftists, who degenerated into the PC, zombie-morons who run it now.

* If those of you reading this and are so concerned would like to manipulate one of those choke points, here you are: Chobani yogurt. I’ve already gotten a mom and pop grocer my mother always uses and I sometimes use to take it off their shelves and cancel their distribution contract. Now, I’m working on St. Louis’s prominent big box grocer to do the same.

Why Chobani? Its Kurdish ethnic Turkish national CEO working in the United States loves to import refugees (“–”) to work in his yogurt plants. One of them is in Twin Falls, Idaho. Refugees in Twin Falls quasi-raped a five year old white girl recently.

I read in WND that the girl’s parents are at a loss for what to do. Because they don’t think they have any option. They (and we) can’t take on the Federal government who brought the refugees here, because it’s too big, powerful and abstract. We can’t do anything about the refugees themselves, because refugees are considered sympathetic downtrodden figures. Voting? Spare me. However, not all hope is lost here, because the choke point is Chobani and its CEO, because while the force of the Feds is used to bring the refugees in country, they need a business or NGO or humanitarian org partner to find a specific place within the country to settle them where they can have amenities and work. If we can do the Jack Ryan strategy (OD’s Jack Ryan, not the Clancy novels’ Jack Ryan), and make it personal against those people, make them suffer consequences and feel some sort of pain, then they’ll knock it off. Hurting Chobani’s business is an ideal way, another good way is to make its CEO’s personal life a living hell.

Posted in Education | Comments Off on He Who Controls Test Prep Controls the Future

How Not to Name Your Child

My parents had no idea I would convert to Orthodox Judaism when they named me “Luke Carey Ford.” They feared the other kids at school would call me “Elsie” (LC), but that never happened.

I think Luke Ford is an awesome name. I could not have come up with a better one. I had to move to LA and become a blogger with that name.

A name shapes your life.

I would have had a different life with a different name, perhaps stayed a Seventh-Day Adventist and become a pastor.

“Melvin Ford” does not inspire.

Would Donald Trump be just as Trumpian with a different name?

When I converted to Judaism, I chose “Levi Ben Avraham” because “Levi” is close to “Luke” and “Ben Avraham” means child of Abraham. I quickly learned that “Luke” marked you out in Orthodox Jewish life so I quickly adopted “Levi,” but whenever my rabbi was mad at me, he would call me “Luke.” When Orthodox Jews like me, they usually call me “Levi,” but when they don’t accept my conversion as real, they call me “Luke.”

According to the Talmud, “Luke” is one of the names that marks someone as a goy.

I never correct anyone between “Luke” and “Levi.” If Orthodox Jews push me, I say I have a preference for “Levi,” but with my goyisha punim (gentile face) and goyisha mannerisms, I’m obviously a ger (convert).

by Phoenicia Hebebe Dobson-Mouawad

How not to name your child – five golden rules

Thinking of giving your baby an unusual name? Think about the effect it will have on their life, says Phoenicia Hebebe Dobson-Mouawad

My name is Phoenicia Hebebe Dobson-Mouawad. No, I’m not kidding. This is the name my parents chose for me 19 years ago and it is the reason I don’t go to Starbucks. Choosing a name for your baby can seem like a way to determine what type of parents you will become – many aim for trendy rather than traditional. However, faced with the resentment of your grownup offspring, who have endured a childhood of being embarrassed by their unusual name, you may wish you could turn back time.

My experience of living with an unusual name has been, to put it lightly, difficult. There has not been one occasion when making a new acquaintance has not resulted in a remark about it, or some degree of confusion.

… Have you heard the name before? If not, no one else will have.

Can you pronounce it without having to look it up? Because if you need to look it up, I can tell you firsthand that you will be the only person your child ever meets who has taken the time to do so.

Avoid hyphens unless both names are easily pronounceable. Dobson – that’s fine. Mouawad – more than enough effort on its own. Dobson-Mouawad – no comment.

Can a child of primary school age say it? If they look confused and say, “What?”, take that as a strong no.

Remember that your child’s name is for their happiness alone and not to prove to the world how cool and creative you are. That’s what Instagram is for. Take it from someone who knows or in 19 years’ time your child will be as fed up as I am.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* I use Steve Sailer mostly because it’s easier for other people to spell than Steven Sailer.

There are other writers with almost identical names: I co-wrote a National Review article in 1997 with an academic named Stephen Seiler. And there’s a novelist named Steven Saylor who writes detective stories starring a gay detective in Ancient Rome.

* According to David Hackett Fischer, onomastic creativity in America comes from the (real) Scots-Irish, the blacks learned it from them.

* Another consideration that is increasingly relevant in the Internet age is making your name unique enough that you can track it on the Internet.

This is especially important if your surname is common.

I know a journalist who changed the spelling of his first name because one of the most famous journalists in his country already shared both his name and surname, so “making a name” for himself with that name would have been very hard to impossible.

Do not however be overly autistic and/or ideological about it. That gender-denying SJW with whom Sailer engaged with on that question reminds one, in his attitudes, of the 1920s Bolshevik freaks who gave their children names like “Iskra” and “Barrikada.” Won’t do his child any good under the Trumpenreich! 😉

If I had to summarize, keep it: Short, simple, unusual, timeless.

* If someone is named Hiram, dad was probably a Mason and hoped the son would be too.

The best research tool for this is Wolfram Alpha. It will give a graph of popularity of most any male or female given name.

It’s also worth mentioning that adults have no excuse for being too upset with a given name because they can change it. Or use a middle name. Or, if Catholic, their confirmation name. On and on.

* I’m actually happy that there are a number of people called exactly the same as I am, so that it’s a little bit more difficult to track me down. Not that it makes a big difference to intelligence services etc., but it might protect me somewhat from some lone nuts.

* Working with large numbers of Black people as I do, I have encountered some real creativity in first names: Sitting Bull (for a black Hispanic man), two Geronimos, and Lexis…my absolute favorite was Twatia (pronounced “Twasha”).

* Parents don’t name their daughters with male names to be feminist or push “gender equality” or whatever. They do it because it sounds hot. A beautiful woman with a man’s name is like a beautiful woman in a man’s shirt; the contrast of femininity is amplified. The problem is these parents who are secretly trying to create a gorgeous popular girl with their word choices, have far less influence than biology. Nobody ever leaves room for the possibility that their daughter won’t be a beauty.

So James King, when she still went by that name, was extra hot with that name. But if someone who looked like Rosie O’Donnell was named James, it would be extra pathetic. Once James King started going by Jamie King, everyone began to notice she was actually kind of average looking and had pound puppy fangs.

People should be careful trying to pick the name which they think at the time sounds most like a head cheerleader, because you can overshoot it. A hot name won’t fix ugly, but if you are pretty it might give you that extra psychological push to choose a life of stripping. I knew a very beautiful stripper named Honey. I did not believe that was her real name until I saw her license. Her parents overshot the mark on that one.

One simple rule: picture your kid as the fattest loser in high school. Is their name a source of added torment? Then pick something else. Pick something that works equally well for a jock as a nerd, because you don’t get to choose what your kid is.

* Is saying “Christian name” common in Germany? In the US we say “first name” with “given name” a distant second. Virtually no one would understand “Christian name” especially given how much Christianity has disappeared, although occasionally people say “christening” to mean “naming a child”.

* What this all really signifies is the rapid decomposition of the highly connotated, form-rich world of organic society, and the consequent loss of understanding of what a name actually is.

A name is fundamentally a spacial designation that marks the “place” of an individual within society. Thus, our a priori notions about how the world is ordered are mirrored in our conception of the individual and are expressed in our naming conventions. Social order supervenes on individual identity, therefore there can be no change in the social order without a parallel change in the role of the name.

A glance at the past (and at foreign cultures) reveals an adequate sampling of how names are applied in traditional societies. One commonly recurring feature is the family or clan name, the most basic marker of identity. Often this family name (corresponding to our “last” name) is expressed first, as in Chinese or Japanese. The name Sakai Hiroyuki, spoken proudly, conveys the sentiment, “I am the clan Sakai personified in the man Hiroyuki.” In cultures where the family honor is paramount, there is really no other way to identify oneself. The individual is a sort of bud or flower on the family tree. To suffer the family name to be disgraced or lost is a fate worse than death. It is the obliteration of one’s entire identity.

Closely associated with clan names is the idea of patronymic or matronymic names, which describe lineal descent. It is significantly more insular and “nuclear” than the clan name, though, and serves rather to aggrandize the parent than the entire tribe. Essentially it denotes a time horizon delimited by two generations. Johann considers himself to have discharged his duty to posterity when he sires “Johann’s son,” and little Sven Johansson is constantly admonished by his very moniker to live up to the deeds and righteousness of the mighty Johann. For this reason, patronymics are almost always used in either an affectionate or authoritative tones of voice. Their purpose is that of chain wherewith to bind another in either love or servitude, especially among the Nordics and the Slavs. Among the Semitic peoples they serve almost exclusively as parental adornments. Abdul bin Mohammed, one of a sprawling horde of sons by multiple wives, is just another jewel in Sultan Mohammad’s tiara.

From the feudal order and settled village life of the traditional West there emerged two immensely significant themes: the place-name and the trade-name, the former predominating among the aristocracy and the latter among the peasantry. We cannot overstate the symbolic importance of these developments, for an entire world is expressed thereby. It is impossible to understand a name like Comte d’Orleans if one considers it to be a mere job title; in fact it is a contemplated vision of the social order which contains several important characteristics. First, there is a place called Orleans. This is taken to be a metaphysical fact that needs no further explanation. It has perdurance, it has boundaries, it has a quality and flavor all its own; and intrinsic in the conception of such places, of which Orleans is one, is the idea that there be a man to rule and protect it, the Count. So necessary is the man to this place that he cannot be thought of without it, nor the place without him. Out of this vision grew the medieval maxim “no land without a lord,” and it is from this that we are able to truly understand King Louis XIV’s famous “L’etat, c’est moi.” Modern people take that phrase to be the very height of arrogant absurdity, but it is actually a profound and pithy expression of the metaphysical basis of all political power.

And down in the village there are the Millers, the Smiths, the Weavers, the Coopers, toiling away at their assorted tasks, perhaps presided over by a Burgermeister, while in the manor house the Count is attended by the Chancellors, Chamberlains, and Reeves. A whole organic society springs into being and is girded by these identities, which are all connected by the Great Chain of Being to the King and the Emperor, to the priest and the Pope, and to God Himself. Even the lowliest Porter or Carter has a role to play. The organic society, like the Ptolemaic universe, is driven by wheels within wheels, from the highest to the lowest. In such a world even the secular order is suffused by sacred rays. Work is a blessing, a vocation, and dishonest trade an offense against the whole civitas, to be punished harshly with the approval of onlookers. Added to this of course is the person’s “Christian name,” the name of some saint or apostle that the child receives at christening, which grafts him into Holy Church and the society formed in its image.

At the present time this world no longer exists. In the modern age, the metaphysical basis for societal order is undergoing constant assault. There are today no more lords, no more priests, no more families, no more clans, no more titles—only atomized individuals and their “jobs.” The modern American space-concept is at best boringly and tritely Cartesian, our “first” and “last” names being merely the x and y coordinates that locate us, however transiently, in a boundless Euclidean plain. Nowadays “James Fowler” is just a point in the American phase-space. He does web analytics for the local hospital association. He doesn’t know a thing about raising chickens and he has no idea whether he is the son of Zebedee or the brother of Jude. The burning void that is his identity is temporarily tranquilized by Comicon and fantasy sports, but deep down inside he is forever nobody.

The “creative names” spoken of in this post represent the final stage of irony. It is the ultimate recidive of a form-filled world into arbitrariness and chaos. Throughout the Cartesian plain there are weeds growing up through the cracks. Deshawn and Shaniqua are aberrations, colorful monsters, overfed carrion birds feeding off our detritus—a bit of African animism blown off course by civilizational gales, now living as exotic interlopers in our poorly-tended parks. The process has its parallel everywhere you look these days. Nihilism and ennui are the defining characteristics of our time, from the girl with the pink dreadlocks to the guy with anime tattoos. Open borders, globalism, and political correctness are the same phenomena on a vast scale. Nobody has any identity except the freaks.

Upon all who aspire to a better future it is incumbent to change our identity by changing how we view the world, and to beseech Heaven for a superior vision. He who can believe in himself literally has a nation inside him waiting to be born. To those who find their true names belong the future.

Posted in America, Personal | Comments Off on How Not to Name Your Child

DEFECTIVES IN THE LAND: Disability and Immigration in the Age of Eugenics

Everything good depends upon discrimination to survive, but for those who don’t think, “discrimination” is a dirty word.

Every living thing should be expected to seek their self-interest and to try to preserve their world from invasive species. Why would birds want to allow cats in their habitat to kill them? Why would deer want to allow lions in? Why would dolphins welcome killer sharks? Why would non-Muslims want to allow Muslims in? Why would Europeans welcome a migration of Africans?

New York Times:

The aim of a state’s immigration policy has to be one that would-be immigrants ought to accept as reasonable (even if in practice they disagree with it). For example, it is legitimate for a state to admit only high-skilled immigrants if this serves its economic goals, despite the fact that this policy may be unpopular with low-skilled migrants. By contrast, it is illegitimate for a state to admit only people of a certain skin color, or to have a “temporary” migrant policy (say, for guest workers) that in actuality creates a semi-permanent two-caste system. An unfortunate policy is O.K. An unfair one is not.

Does that distinction seem as if it might get blurry in practice? The early history of immigration policy in America, as told by the historian Douglas C. Baynton in DEFECTIVES IN THE LAND: Disability and Immigration in the Age of Eugenics (University of Chicago, $35), suggests so. Traditionally, scholars have divided that history into two periods: a “selective” phase starting in 1882, which in large part (aside from the Chinese Exclusion Act) involved screening out individuals with any “defect” that would render them “likely to become a public charge”; and a “restrictive phase” starting with the passage of a ­literacy test in 1917, which marked the beginning of a series of proxy measures for keeping out whole nationalities or races. Using Miller’s principles, you might condone much of the first phase but condemn the second.

Yet Baynton, challenging the conventional historiography, argues that the selective phase of American immigration policy, despite its heavy reliance on the ­sensible-sounding “public charge” standard, was no less discriminatory. During those years, he demonstrates, immigration officials could and did customarily invoke this standard to rule out such “defectives” as women unaccompanied by male providers and members of races with supposed “predispositions” to criminality. Even those with “objective” physical impairments (as the Americans with Disabilities Act would underscore many years later) were incapable of work only if you made certain assumptions about how workplaces were to be structured. So beware “reasonable” justifications for immigration policies, Baynton warns.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on DEFECTIVES IN THE LAND: Disability and Immigration in the Age of Eugenics

Invasive Species

As a convert to Orthodox Judaism, I believe that the Jews are God’s Chosen People, that the Torah is God’s revelation to the world, and that the purpose of Jews is to be a blessing to the world. These are my faith statements. Without looking through the eyes of faith, however, I see the world as composed of various forms of life competing for scarce resources and seeking to fulfill their genetic imperative to propagate. In other words, life is often war.

Here is an example of brutal reality from Youtube: “Like a cuckoo, the greater honeyguide lays its eggs in the nests of other birds – in this case, a bee-eater. When they hatch, the honeyguide chick mauls its foster siblings to death with a vicious bill-hook.”

American Freedom Party candidate Robert Ransdell ran for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky in 2014 with the slogan “With Jews, you lose.”

I welcome that challenge. My faith tells me that the purpose of Jews is to be a blessing to the world. If Jews aren’t a blessing to their country, then something is wrong. Jews need to look at themselves and ask, “Am I and are my people are blessing to the goyim?” Is it true that with Jews, the goyim lose? If so, then it is in the goyim’s interest to get rid of us. If we are a blessing to the goyim, then it is in the self-interest of the goyim to keep us around.”

I don’t want to make any special pleading on behalf of Jews. If Jews are an asset to their gentile country of residence, they will be blessed by that country. They will be popular and revered. If Jews are a curse, they will be cursed. Just as the normal Orthodox Jew asks, “What is good for the Jews?,” I want and expect gentiles to ask the same question. “What is good for the Germans?” “What is good for the Americans?” “What is good for the Japanese?”

Wouldn’t it be great if unpopular groups in America asked themselves if there was anything they were doing that was hurting their popularity? I suspect most Americans would prefer to live without many minority groups around them.

Every minority group should ask themselves if they are behaving themselves in a way that is a blessing to the majority population. If not, then there is no self-interested reason for the majority to keep them around.

I don’t believe there is any superior race. Different races evolved in different places. Some people are most fit for certain locations and other people for other places. Some races are great at living at high altitude, other races are great at living in the tropics, and other races thrive in the high latitudes.

I think the animal kingdom is a great analogy for how the different human sub-species relate. The introduction of cats in some places has been devastating for birds. Cats and birds usually have different interests.

Going back to the slogan, “With Jews, you lose,” I think it depends on what kind of society you want. For certain types of societies, such as a Nazi society, Jews are not a benefit. If you want a multicultural society that values excellence, then Jews are awesome.

It would be self-interested for birds to have the slogan, “With cats, birds lose.” It would be self-interested for the Japanese to not allow in much non-Japanese immigration, particularly very little Muslim and black immigration. For the Japanese and probably for Europeans as well, with blacks and Muslims you lose. You could make an argument that any gentile country that wants unity and cohesion around strong racial, national and religious identity, with multi-culti Jews you lose.

From Wikipedia:

Wild rabbits are a serious mammalian pest and invasive species in Australia causing millions of dollars of damage to crops. Rabbits in Australia are European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in the Lagomorph family.

They were introduced to Australia in the 18th century with the First Fleet and became widespread after an outbreak caused by an 1859 release. Various methods in the 20th century have been attempted to control the population. Conventional methods include shooting rabbits and destroying their warrens, but these had only limited success. In 1907, a rabbit-proof fence was built in Western Australia in an unsuccessful attempt to contain the rabbits. The myxoma virus, which causes myxomatosis, was introduced into the rabbit population in the 1950s and had the effect of severely reducing the rabbit population.

It does not make sense that the introduction of a species or sub-species into a particular environment will only have benign results. Every species will have a differing effect. The introduction of a lion into a group of deer is going to result in a lot of dead deer.

In reaction to an invasive pest, Australia mounted a rabbit holocaust but it was not successful. So they turned to chemical warfare instead and it was more effective. I wonder if there are chemical weapons that affect different groups of people differently.

I think the concept of invasive species is a good analogy for immigration. Immigrants always affect the native population, and often negatively.

Wikipedia:

An invasive species is a plant, fungus, or animal species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and which has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.[1][dubious – discuss]

One study pointed out widely divergent perceptions of the criteria for invasive species among researchers (p. 135) and concerns with the subjectivity of the term “invasive” (p. 136).[2] Some of the alternate usages of the term are below:

The term as most often used applies to introduced species (also called “non-indigenous” or “non-native”) that adversely affect the habitats and bioregions they invade economically, environmentally, or ecologically. Such invasive species may be either plants or animals and may disrupt by dominating a region, wilderness areas, particular habitats, or wildland-urban interface land from loss of natural controls (such as predators or herbivores). This includes non-native invasive plant species labeled as exotic pest plants and invasive exotics growing in native plant communities.[3] It has been used in this sense by government organizations[4][5] as well as conservation groups such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the California Native Plant Society.[2] The European Union defines “Invasive Alien Species” as those that are, firstly, outside their natural distribution area, and secondly, threaten biological diversity.[6] It is also used by land managers, botanists, researchers, horticulturalists, conservationists, and the public for noxious weeds.[7] The kudzu vine (Pueraria lobata), Andean Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) are examples.
An alternate usage broadens the term to include indigenous or “native” species along with non-native species, that have colonized natural areas (p. 136).[2] Deer are an example, considered to be overpopulating their native zones and adjacent suburban gardens, by some in the Northeastern and Pacific Coast regions of the United States.[citation needed]
Sometimes the term is used to describe a non-native or introduced species that has become widespread (p. 136).[2] However, not every introduced species has adverse effects on the environment. A nonadverse example is the common goldfish (Carassius auratus), which is found throughout the United States, but rarely achieves high densities (p. 136)

Posted in Evolution, Immigration | Comments Off on Invasive Species

What About Hillary’s Speech?

Comments at Steve Sailer:

I am currently listening to Hillary’s speech, and whoever predicted she would move to the center doesn’t understand the “coalition of the fringes” (per Sailer) as she is busy throwing meat to each part of the coalition. I don’t think she is winning any new voters tonight. Prediction: big win for Trump. Especially if Russia (or whoever) releases those 33,000 deleted emails.

BTW does anybody know what proportion of the delegates are black? Because the cameras, when they scan the audience, invariably manage to show a preponderance of whites.

* Dull speech. Now it’s up to the CNN panel to drag that lumpen pantsuit over the finish line.

* The only part I remember that sticks out is that she believes in Climate Change and is going to create millions of jobs in Green Energy, which, apparently will solve all our problems.

Strangely unaffecting speech.

She looked pretty good tonight. Has no charisma. Her voice is neither attractive nor authoritative.

Numerous attacks on Trump but they didn’t seem to draw blood.

– Trump’s speech was way better as text, although his delivery involved too much shouting.

This speech was mostly about having more school dances: the usual.

* Adelson vs Soros in a cage match to see which puppet becomes prez.

* Cankles was her usual angry reproachful self tonight. The usual terrible delivery, especially of the punchlines. The speech itself was fairly forgettable, just one of her typical campaign speeches. No one will remember it a day from now. Also a lot of platitudes (“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” Seriously?). The “join us” bit was especially weak and awful. The only thing that surprised me was the lack of pandering to BLM and minorities. It was a fairly “white” speech. Either she figures she has the minorities in the bag or she is desperate to increase her share of the white vote.

That said, she was on stage for over an hour, and looked pretty healthy. I’m not convinced about the health rumors, coughing fits, etc…Also no major gaffes or awkward moments, so I guess by her standards it was a successful speech. But it will be Michelle’s speech that everyone will remember, not hers.

As a side note, Bernie looked really nonplussed when she mentioned him, couldn’t even manage a fake smile. I guess there is only so much humiliation someone can take.

* Maybe failing the DC bar exam the summer she passed the Arkansas bar exam had something to do with her relationship with Bill? Maybe deep down she really wanted to follow Bill to Arkansas, but her feminism told her that was too womanly, so she solved the problem for herself by passing only the bar exam where Bill was headed?

* Didn’t Sarah Silverman almost die recently, needing a week in the hospital? Maybe they shouldn’t have shoved her out on stage so soon?

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on What About Hillary’s Speech?