The Department of Gene Management and the DOJ's Office of Gene Enforcement - Conservative Proposals for a New Century[photo: The Charles Murray Building, at the historic first site of the Department, c. 2007]
AS, quoting W.D. Hamilton, writes:
... implying that these critics really deserve to be praised as our protectors even when they are factually wrong? ... it is roughly how the self-appointed guardians choose to present themselves
SHOW ME THE MONEY
So, let's suppose all the critics are "wrong", even smugly wrong as the writer suggests.
What is the politics that Andrew or Hamilton proposes to "protect us" instead (and why are they not equally as smug for not offering it up)?
Is it simply to take a laughable route that no protection is needed? Wasn't the early nineteenth century work on IQ ultimately directed toward ... recommendations for withholding the franchise, limiting the vote? What is the "conservative politics" that is forceful enough to circumscribe that outcome, among many others?
We know that the goal of conservatism is to divide the body politic in every way possible to avoid people actually voting their economic interest, so show me the theory that isn't going to get mis-used in that context. Pay close attention also to how the daemons get back into the Pandora's box, once it is opened, by our new "protectors" - just in case it is they who are "wrong".
Michelle Malkin is willing to send people to internment camps. Do you really believe that we are irretrievably post-race in all the right ways?
WHEN MEN OF ELOQUENCE SAY NOTHING
Elsewhere, AS writes:
The social and political ramifications of this deserve a different and deeper treatment ... 20 October, 2007
Following Hamilton above, this is how the best and brightest choose to present themselves on the issue?
What are these ramifications? What are these "deeper treatments"?
Frankly, looking over the history of this discussion, one of main causes that "sane discussion" hasn't proceeded is reflected in both the stunning silence just noted above and the far-fetched lengths to which some are willing to stretch what evidence exists.
