September 30, 2007

Justice Clarence Thomas on "60 Minutes."

"I was never a liberal. I was radical," he says, talking about how difficult it was for him to go to work for a Republican after he graduated from Yale Law School. His Yale Law degree was worth almost nothing, he says. Though he graduated in the middle of his class, he couldn't get a job, and he was enraged to see that the degree meant one thing for whites and another for blacks. Everyone assumed he got into Yale because he was black, and not because he had grown up in severe hardship, and yet had always done well in every environment -- from all black to all white.

ADDED: The video.

53 comments:

Trooper York said...

Fred Sanford: Listen, Esther. In the first place, you can't enter that contest because your not eligible. See one of the things you have to be is a part of a certain race.
Woody Anderson: What race?
Fred Sanford: Human!
(Sanford & Son 1972)

Trooper York said...

Being a star has made it possible for me to get insulted in places where the average Negro could never hope to go and get insulted.
(Sammy Davis, Jr.)

Trooper York said...

No greater injury can be done to any youth than to let him feel that because he belongs to this or that race he will be advanced in life regardless of his own merits or efforts.
Booker T. Washington

Trooper York said...

I'm not interested in trying to work on people's perceptions. I am who I am, and if you don't take the time to learn about that, then your perception is going to be your problem.
(Jim Brown)

SMGalbraith said...

There's a saying in baseball that great players make lousy managers.

That's because most great players simply can't relate to the ordinary player, figuring out how to motivate them or make them perform.

For great players, that drive was inside them already. They had developed it earlier in their careers.

To me, some of what Thomas says about the plight of black Americans resembles this. His great inner drive, his great desire to make something out of himself is not the stuff of ordinary people (black, white or any other race).

Black Americans, because of the legacy of racism as well as the current remnants, still need some help. Whether the Courts are the best vehicle for that assistance can be debated.

One can still argue, correctly, that the role of Justice Thomas is not to help those who don't have his inner drive. That he must rule on the constitutionality of legislation based solely on the facts.

But while this self-help approach may work in judicial review, it can't be applied elsewhere. Life is too complex and people are still too flawed.

Indeed though, Clarence Thomas, given the obstacles he faced and the little tools he had, is a great man.

SMG

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Ah... affirmative action and the law of unintended consequences.

Never let your good intentions be tempered by facts and outcomes.

Trooper York said...

They used to say, 'If we find a good black player, we'll sign him.' They was lying.
(Cool Papa Bell)

Gedaliya said...

Black Americans, because of the legacy of racism as well as the current remnants, still need some help.

What do you mean by "help"?

SMGalbraith said...

What do you mean by "help"?

Ahh, there's the heart of the debate.

Well, we've got, for example, the (mostly) non-controversial policies of businesses advertising new job openings first (or more aggressively) in black newspapers and on black radio stations. Or have more aggressive recruitment efforts in black neighborhoods.

Most everyone would accept these policies.

Aggressive "outreach" by companies or universities into the black community. More resources directed at attracting black applicants.

Through state action, we can have more "testers" being used to root out discrimination in employment.

I think there's a whole range of actions - both private and public - that can be done that everyone agrees is both fair and necessary.

When we get into the "numbers" standard is where things get dicey.

SMG

Gedaliya said...

Well, we've got, for example, the (mostly) non-controversial policies of businesses advertising new job openings first (or more aggressively) in black newspapers and on black radio stations. Or have more aggressive recruitment efforts in black neighborhoods.

I think such efforts are counter-productive because they perpetuate a culture of dependence. I also believe they are inherently corrupt, in that all such efforts produce true economic incentives to perpetuate the status quo, i.e., that blacks "need help."

Through state action, we can have more "testers" being used to root out discrimination in employment.

Come on. Companies are desperate for talent. Few, if any, can risk rejecting qualified workers because of their race.

Instead of funding "testors" we should fund a voucher system that will allow black people to decide where to send their kids to school... to provide an alternative to the disaster that is our large urban public school systems. Real "power to the people" is giving the people the ability to educate their children.

I think there's a whole range of actions - both private and public - that can be done that everyone agrees is both fair and necessary.

I don't think there are any race-based options that escape moral scrutiny. All are by nature corrupt and do more harm than good.

When we get into the "numbers" standard is where things get dicey.


Yeah. Talk is cheap.

SMGalbraith said...

I think such efforts are counter-productive because they perpetuate a culture of dependence.

Sorry, I don't see how a company aggressively recruiting in the black community is creating any dependence at all.

What dependence is being engendered?

If a company needs 15 widget makers, what is the damage if they advertise the openings in black newspapers more aggressively than in mainstream publications?

Or have more job fairs and recruitment drives in predominantly black neighborhoods?

I can't see how that creates dependency.

Second, you don't think some - repeat some - employers or banks turn down black applicants simply because of their race? Admittedly, it may not be the policy of that institution; it may just be an individual interviewer who is prejudiced.

It seems to me that these are perfectly acceptable measures to help black Americans overcome the legacy (and still prevalence) or racism.

You cannot hold back, broadly speaking, an entire race of people for more than a century and not expect some of those consequences to still affect their lives.

SMG

Gedaliya said...


If a company needs 15 widget makers, what is the damage if they advertise the openings in black newspapers more aggressively than in mainstream publications?


Are you suggesting that black widget makers don't read "mainstream publications"? Why are you suggesting that?

Or have more job fairs and recruitment drives in predominantly black neighborhoods?

More than what? More than in white communities? If so, than you are discriminating against white people because of their race. Do you think you can do something like that and not foment and perpetuate deep and abiding tension between the races?

Don't you see how corrupt this is??

Admittedly, it may not be the policy of that institution; it may just be an individual interviewer who is prejudiced.

Ok, once in a while you'll expose some racist schmuck. But at what expense? Why not use the money in places where it will be exponentially more effective in helping Black people, i.e., giving Black people control over their education dollars.

It seems to me that these are perfectly acceptable measures to help black Americans overcome the legacy (and still prevalence) or racism.

It doesn't seem so to me. I think your efforts will make matters worse.

Maxine Weiss said...

Richard Lawrence Cohen hasn't posted on his Blog since July. Althouse, aren't you concerned?

His last post was extremely vague and there was no advance notice given that he would stop posting.

Doesn't the blogger have a responsibility to give some sort of notice to readers before he stops?

SMGalbraith said...

Are you suggesting that black widget makers don't read "mainstream publications"? Why are you suggesting that?

Hmm...you floored me with this. Nowhere did I suggest anything even remotely resembling that. Of course they read or listen to mainstream media. I see it every day at work when I see black co-workers reading the Times or Post (or other publications) online.

The documented evidence is that more black Americans than white American read black-oriented publications. Or listen to black-oriented radio stations. Or television networks like BET.

And because there is a larger black audience for these media, businesses that need widget makers can more aggressively advertise those openings in such media.

I see nothing in this that is divisive or increasing racial tensions or animosity.

As to the other measures, businesses, like universities, have been more aggressively recruiting and seeking qualified applicants among minorities groups for years. I see nothing wrong with it as long as the "mismatch" problem doesn't occur.

As to the "testers", discrimination still takes place. It's illegal. Aggressivel enforcement of the laws is something I support.

Finally, I just disagree with you that these measures will heighten or deepen racial animosity. Obviously, if I thought they did, I'd be against them.

Thanks.

SMG

Trumpit said...

Of course Justice Thomas was chosen for the Supreme Ct. because he is black, to replace Thurgood Marshall who had retired. That is affirmative action in action, folks. Yes, I'm opposed to affirmative action for Supreme Ct. Justices, brain surgeons, & other select professions.

Simon said...

I thought he did really well. Really, just by showing up and seeming gregarious, engaged and articulate - by being himself as he really is - he really did a lot to explode the caricature of him propagated in some circles. Kudos.

Gedaliya said...

Of course Justice Thomas was chosen for the Supreme Ct. because he is black, to replace Thurgood Marshall who had retired. That is affirmative action in action, folks. Yes, I'm opposed to affirmative action for Supreme Ct. Justices, brain surgeons, & other select professions.

The genius of the appointment was that aside from getting a conservative justice on the court for (probably) forty years, the appointment had the delicious effect of exposing the perniciousness of the left's embrace of affirmative action, i.e., that when push comes to shove, race counts less than ideology.

SMGalbraith said...

Gedaliya:
Here's one where we can agree with.

It's actions like this that are absolutely the wrong way of helping black Americans and America: link

SMG

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...

I loved this quote from Julian Bond, talking to Jan Crawford Greenburg on Nightline (video on ABCnews.com right now, no direct link available):

"I don't think that anybody thinks that all black people have to think alike, but on some things, all black people DO think alike, and Justice Thomas is a black person who doesn't think like most black people do."

Trooper York said...

I never doubted my ability, but when you hear all your life you're inferior, it makes you wonder if the other guys have something you've never seen before. If they do, I'm still looking for it.
(Hank Aaron)

Mortimer Brezny said...

Few, if any, can risk rejecting qualified workers because of their race.

This sounds rational, but it doesn't correspond to reality. If it were true, there'd be no discrimination at all, and everyone would be an egalitarian with a bias toward free markets.

Gedaliya said...

This sounds rational, but it doesn't correspond to reality. If it were true, there'd be no discrimination at all, and everyone would be an egalitarian with a bias toward free markets.

Do you believe that race discrimination in hiring is widespread?

XWL said...

At first, seeing a piece on 60 Minutes sympathetic to Justice Thomas had me perplexed. Then I realized that his book must certainly be published by one of the Viacom owned publishers. Turns out that's not the case, it's being published by the Murdoch owned HarpersCollins.

What is this world coming to? 60 Minutes giving a fair shake to a 'controversial' conservative figure? Never thought I'd see the day . . .

B said...

trumpit, you said

Of course Justice Thomas was chosen for the Supreme Ct. because he is black, to replace Thurgood Marshall who had retired. That is affirmative action in action, folks.

I realize you're trying to be clever.

My question is - despite your cleverness - do you really believe that the nomination and confirmation of Clarence Thomas is an example of affirmative action? If so, why?

"Post-Google" by TAR ART RAT said...

at least the united states can talk about this. at least it is an open issue and things are being done, problems have been recognised and action is being taken is some form or another. in most of the rest of the world there is simply no debate.

Revenant said...

His great inner drive, his great desire to make something out of himself is not the stuff of ordinary people (black, white or any other race).

SM, I think you're missing a corollary to most people not being driven to succeed, which is that most people just do what it takes to get by. If you tell a typical student "we've decided to make the test easier for you", that typical student responds by not working as hard -- not by keeping up the same level of effort in order to get better grades.

Some people really want to get ahead in life. Most people really just want to earn enough money to enjoy some basic luxuries and keep themselves and their families fed, clothed, and housed. Lowering standards for a group of people -- which is what any recruitment procedure that isn't strictly merit-based does -- simply encourages laziness in the majority of that population, because the majority of that population responds by thinking (consciously or otherwise) "cool, now I don't need to work as hard to put food on the table".

The correct way to deal with the fact that American blacks are on average poorer than whites or Asians is to do nothing. It will even itself out over time, just as it has with every OTHER once-discriminated-against group in this country. Any other policy just prolongs the problem, which is why black America is still a basket case after 40 years of affirmative action programs.

Mortimer Brezny said...

Do you believe that race discrimination in hiring is widespread?

It depends what you mean by widespread. It certainly isn't virtually nonexistent or negligible.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/pdf/race_report_web.pdf

Mortimer Brezny said...

Lowering standards for a group of people -- which is what any recruitment procedure that isn't strictly merit-based does

I'm not an AA-supporter, but I am very suspicious of "merit". Often "merit" means irrational credentialism or cronyism. It also assumes that past performance, assuming merit can be accurately measured in the first instance, is a reliable indicator of future success, which it often isn't. I also would note that hiring decisions often come down to intangibles, anyway, such as, "He seemed like the guy of guy we want around here." Which could mean anything.

Mortimer Brezny said...

Kind of guy, rather.

cyrus pinkerton said...

Simon wrote:

Really, just by showing up and seeming gregarious, engaged and articulate - by being himself as he really is...

Would you mind telling me how you know how "he really is?"

Cedarford said...

Revenent - The correct way to deal with the fact that American blacks are on average poorer than whites or Asians is to do nothing. It will even itself out over time, just as it has with every OTHER once-discriminated-against group in this country.

Not really.

Things DON'T even out in the long haul, for various reasons

Certain groups do better than the mean over time, others do worse than the mean. Many remain as much on the bottom when discrimination is not a credible factor as when it was real.

If one who follows news and observes relative success rates in a diverse area is presented with a list of Haitians, Native Americans, Jews, white Appalachins, Japanese Americans, blacks, Cuban Americans, Chinese, Poles, Indians, Mexican whites, Mexican Mesticzos ---with immigrants in country for +20 years --

One can pretty well sort that list from top to bottom, with of course individual exceptionalism taken into account

(Anyone can say generalizations do not apply to individuals - "I know this rich Puerto Rican and this lazy dumb poor Chinese guy...etc," - but generalizations are effective and how the real world functions. Hillary is not doing fund raisers in the Haitian-American communities...)

Anyways, on Clarence Thomas, I am just about finished reading the HUGE summary Jan Greenberg has posted through ABC Drudge has linked. I was in the military, in the Gulf at the time...maybe some of the stuff is better known to others, but it is "Holy Cow!" page-turning stuff to me to read what Thomas thinks about major phases in his life.

Thomas seems like a black man who was given a horsewhipping followed by an attempted lynching - not by slaveowners for escaping the plantation - but by progressive white Jewish and Gentile activists in the Democratic Left that horsewhipped him for leaving their plantation of allowable thinking a black man should do.

Can't blame the guy for being bitter at the lynch mob...the whip scars remain..

Gedaliya said...

but by progressive white Jewish and Gentile activists in the Democratic Left...

There you go again with the "Jewish and Gentile" modifiers. What is the purpose of including "Jewish and Gentile" as a modifier to "activist"?

Zeb Quinn said...

Of course Justice Thomas was chosen for the Supreme Ct. because he is black, to replace Thurgood Marshall who had retired. That is affirmative action in action, folks.

You left out the critical part. LBJ kicked it all off and got the ball rolling by making the very first affirmative action appointment, Thurgood Marshall. That was the beauty of the Thomas appointment. It took all the implicit assumptions about the Marshall appointment, including the inherent racism of it, and turned them all on their head.

Zeb Quinn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

At the risk of starting a flame war....Affirmative action while well intentioned, basically sets people up for failure. In the industry that I am in, white male dominated, there was (and probably still is) a push to hire more blacks, asians, latinos and women. They labeled it "diversity". It didn't work.

The result was that they would recruit and hire people who mostly (yes there were some successes) failed because of the nature of the business. Those who did succeed in the business found that they did so by dealing exclusively or heavily with people of their own ethnicity.

Black or Asian sales people did well when they focused on people of their own demographics and were mostly unable to succeed when they were placed in more "diverse" offices. Don't think that the ethnic preferences went only one way. The asian in the black community, the white in the asian, in the mexican in the black, women in highly male dominated demographics, all did poorly.

The fact is that people will (at least in my industry) trust people who are like themselves. This is a fact of human nature and all the social tinkering in the world isn't going to change it. By forcing people, like square pegs into round holes, we are creating failure where there could have been screaming success on a personal level.

This isn't to say that there isn't value in giving access to jobs or higher education to people who may not otherwise have been able to obtain that access. The problem is that you can't use affirmative action/diversity as a blanket solution to a problem or issue that is based on an individual case by case scenario.

Flame away.

Trooper York said...

What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs.
(Harry Caray)

Cedarford said...

but by progressive white Jewish and Gentile activists in the Democratic Left...

Gediyla - There you go again with the "Jewish and Gentile" modifiers. What is the purpose of including "Jewish and Gentile" as a modifier to "activist"?

Describing the cabal that orchestrated the "Anita Hill" smear as Jewish and Gentile activists? Well, because they were. And determined to get Thomas at all costs.

While the black community had some against Thomas, they had some in favor of the guy.

The smear effort started with 3 Yalies in the class of 1980. Susan Hoerchner, James Brudney, and once enlisted, Anita Hill. Hoerchner feared Thomas was anti-abortion and had been working other strategies to discredit him, then she remembered Anita Hill and talked Hill into it - then tried out her DC contacts - mainly activist Jews - to get the smear alive. The effort centered in Howard Metzenbaum's office, with his endorsement, with his legal aide James Brudney orchestrating, then spread out to Ricki Seidman, Gail Lasker, Roy Meyers who then fed the story to Nina Totenberg, Nan Aron, and Kate Michelman, then on to mainly Jewish feminists who formed the Anita Hill "solidarity support group". Ralph Neas became involved as the figurehead of the anti-Thomas forces - but only because Ricki Seidman, who worked as his reschearch director until days before the Thomas nomination - asked him to sub for the women feminist leaders who had "spent their wad" fronting opposition to Souter.

Why did they do that? Noting that one of Thomas's ardent defenders was Arlen Spector, it is not an "all Jew" situation, but the disproportionate numbers of Jews out to lynch Thomas, along with their Gentile activist cabal members - reflects an old Leftist Jewish attitude towards blacks.

"We will help uplift the blacks, we will start the NAACP and teach them Marxist priciples, we will fund black rights causes nationwide. In return, we want black fealty to Jewish leadership in progressive efforts, and to let Jews do the heavy thinking.."

When Thomas went off the Reservation and would not spout the proper narrative the heirs to Stalin wanted - it was time to create the new narrative that would destroy and marginalize him like they had done with other "Uncle Toms" like Booker T Washington, flag-waving black athletes, Sammy Davis Jr. - using media access. The most vicious attacks on Thomas Sowell were always from the Jewish Left about him "serving his wealthy masters"They almost succeeded in demonizing Thomas using the old KKK stereotypes about black men as lying, sexual pedators.

As Thomas said:

I'd grown up fearing the lynch mobs of the Ku Klux Klan; as an adult I was starting to wonder if I'd been afraid of the wrong white people all along — where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes, but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony," he wrote in his book.

Gedaliya said...

Why did they do that? Noting that one of Thomas's ardent defenders was Arlen Spector, it is not an "all Jew" situation, but the disproportionate numbers of Jews out to lynch Thomas, along with their Gentile activist cabal members - reflects an old Leftist Jewish attitude towards blacks.

You are completely mad.

Trooper York said...

There's Roxy looking Foxy in a mink
There's Becky Tishman giving me a wink
Esther's nose and teeth are false
But dig those silicone matzoh balls
Check out all the hot Jewish chicks

There's Francy fancy-shmancy in a wig
She'll swallow anything but shrimp or pig
Ida bleaches her moustache
It gave my brother Saul a rash
We're diggin' all the hot Jewish chicks, Yeah, yeah

Emily got knocked up through a sheet
I'd like to mix her milk with my meat
Just look at all this cleavage
And not one crucifix
We're diggin' all the hot Jewish chicks

Sarah likes to cook and read the Torah
But watch her dance
She puts the "whore" in hora
Tessie does a wicked waltz
I got too close and shot my schmaltz
Check out all the hot Jewish chicks
Doris was a dog - oof - oh so nasty
Now she looks fine - hmm - rhinoplasty
Becky Greenberg makes me drool
I did her in the can at shul
We're diggin' all the hot Jewish chicks, Yes we are

Rose won't tell her age, but here's a hint
She fact-checked the Old Testament
We up and joined Hadassah
So we could get a fix
Of diggin' all the hot Jewish chicks

June likes to get spanked & raise a ruckus
I did her in the can at shul at sukkos... In the tuchis
They light our Shabbos candles
And then they wet our wicks
We dig 'em 'cause they're hot
And shiksa's what they're not
We're diggin' all the hot Jewish chicks
Hot Jewish chicks
Hot Jewish Chicks
(words & music by Sean Altman & Rob Tannenbaum)

I’m just sayin’

SMGalbraith said...

but the disproportionate numbers of Jews

Please, you must be able to see that the fact that they were Jews was a meaningless factor?

They were liberals who happened to be Jewish. If they had been liberal Zoroastrians or liberal animists or liberal anything else, they still would have been against him because the determining factor was their political ideology.

Surely you can see this?

SMG

Caroline said...

"The fact is that people will (at least in my industry) trust people who are like themselves. This is a fact of human nature and all the social tinkering in the world isn't going to change it."

There is a lot of truth in the above statement. Unfortunately this topic, self-selected segregation, is largely ignored because anyone who brings it up is usually branded a racist. Or simply dismissed as not being "progressive" enough.

If we can't rationally discuss something that is at the root of a problem, we will never effectively solve it. Instead, we enact half-measures and failed policies that just prolong the problem and cause other unintended dilemmas.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

If we can't rationally discuss something that is at the root of a problem, we will never effectively solve it. Instead, we enact half-measures and failed policies that just prolong the problem and cause other unintended dilemmas.

What if this IS the point; prolonging the problem?

I can't help but think of other groups who have been severly discriminated against, yet have fully assimilated in the last hundred years without activist groups.

Granted these groups, like the Irish and Southern Eurpoeans, have not had the same history of oppression or basic appearance differences as African-Americans, but still how many of these groups have had professional difference makers constantly advertising the difference?

How many have had cultural standards that precluded them from both enjoying their native culture and joining the major culture at the same time?

BladeDoc said...

Cedaford -- I think you're missing the point that everyone in the world is either Jewish or Gentile i.e. if you're not Jewish you're de facto Gentile. Therefore adding the descriptor "Jewish and Gentile" to some group only serves to point out that there were both Jews and non-Jews in a certain group. To actually describe the conspiracy of Jews that you seem to be trying to convey it would be better to use a more illustrative turn of phrase like "those blood-drinking, socialist Jews and their Gentile lackeys" in order to make it clear that there was a purpose to pointing out that there were both Jews and non-Jews in the group. OTOH your second post cleared that up too.

cyrus pinkerton said...

Gedaliya wrote:

You are completely mad.

Finally, Gedaliya and I agree on something!

Revenant said...

I'm not an AA-supporter, but I am very suspicious of "merit". Often "merit" means irrational credentialism or cronyism.

"Credentialism" is just a way of trying to judge merit.

It also assumes that past performance, assuming merit can be accurately measured in the first instance, is a reliable indicator of future success, which it often isn't.

In my experience, past performance is almost always an indicator of future performance. If the person has done a good job in the past, he probably will in the future. If he screwed up the last few jobs, he'll probably screw up the next one.

Revenant said...

Please, you must be able to see that the fact that they were Jews was a meaningless factor?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, SM, but if there's one thing that the left-wingers, right-wingers, and independents in this forum pretty much all agree on, it is that Cedarford's a Jew-hating fruitcake. Trust me, he is NOT "able to see" that the presence of Jews in a group is anything other than sinister.

SMGalbraith said...

Trust me, he is NOT "able to see" that the presence of Jews in a group is anything other than sinister.

Well, I had to give it a shot.

If he can't see the difference between the views of, say, a Bill Kristol and a Barney Frank, both Jewish, then the cause is hopeless.

SMG

Ralph said...

My grandmother said "they" used to say that a town wasn't considered prosperous until it got its first Jew. I took that as a back-handed compliment, which probably wasn't its original intent.

Cedarford said...

Like it or not, Revenent, liberal Jews led the Clarence Thomas lynch mob.

David Horowitz wrote that his parents were extreme anti-American communist zealots and noted that the tried and true defenses when Jewish communist treachery was uncovered was to either cry anti-Semitism or question the sanity of their critics.

Same old, same old tactic.

Jews claim credit for their positive contributions to America, readily. Civil rights, law, Hollywood, nuclear physics, back in 2003 they claimed the Neocons as yet another Jewish triumph, and Nobel Prizes - noting their disproportionate contribution.

But they are not so keen to claim responsibility for major screwups like their unduely disproportinate contribution to communist sunversion and butchery, criminal rights expansion, dual loyalty issues related to the Israel Lobby working against America's best interests to ensure American policy ensured Israeli best interests, post-2003 Neocon involvements, and singular matters like leading the Thomas lynch mob and smear effort.

Own your problems as well as your successes, Revenent.

60 years have passed, and the Jewish immunity amulet from criticism because of what another foreign country did in partial response to Bolshevikism is pretty much over in most of the world..

SMGalbraith said...

Same old, same old tactic.

As Bill O'Reilly would say, "But Grandma, You've never met any Jews."

SMG

Trooper York said...

I've got two pubic hairs and a three piece suit - Today I am a man
I'm getting bar mitzvah'd just to make some loot (TIAAM)
Mom's all wacked out on Percoset
Dad's back from Reno with a slutty brunette
And here comes Uncle Saul smelling like a vat of Brute
Today I am a man

A bunch of old white guys playing Kool & The Gang (celebration!)
30 thousand bucks on this crummy shebang (TIAAM)
At least I'll get to slow dance with Emily
I wish she wasn't eight inches taller than me
Now there's grown up feeling coming from my wang
Today I am a man

I'm a man - a man who can't drink or vote
I'm a man - my voice cracks with every note
I'm a man - that's what the rabbi said
I'm a man who still wets the bed
I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man

All my parents' friends gave me long term bonds (TIAAM)
By the time they mature I'll be dead and gone (TIAAM)
So I'll trade 'em for a hooker with a big huge chest
She can help me study for my algebra test
So it's a coming of age for me and my shvantz
Today I am a...

Man with the powers God granted all men
Whenever I want I can stay up 'til ten
My manhood's a flower just starting to bloom
"Stop touching your penis and go clean your room!"

I'm a man - bartender, where's my beer?
I'm a man - I wonder if I'm queer
I'm a man - that's what the rabbi said
I'm a man who still wets the bed
I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man
I've got two pubic hairs and a three piece suit
Today I am a man
(TODAY I AM A MAN)
(Sean Altman & Rob Tannenbaum)

Mortimer Brezny said...

"Credentialism" is just a way of trying to judge merit.

Not really. The claim is that one is trying, but that isn't always the case. And "merit" itself is never actually defined.


In my experience, past performance is almost always an indicator of future performance.

We have different experience, then. A person in one context fails and in another context thrives. A person rises to the top and then crashes and burns. These phenomena are commonplace.