"While working on this article, I found that people of all races had principled reservations about and passionate critiques of these practices. But the group that most consistently believed participants were deluding themselves about not trying to look white were, well, white people. Was that a symptom of in-group narcissism — white people assuming everyone wants to look like them? Or is it an issue of salience — white people only paying attention to aesthetics they already understand? Or is white horror at ethnic plastic surgery a cover for something uglier: a xenophobic fear of nonwhites 'passing' as white, dressed up as free-to-be-you-and-me political correctness?"

PolitiFact verifies.

Here's the ad:



Other things to think about: Should Walker concentrate ads on Mary Burke's family's company? Which voters are susceptible to arguments based on Trek's use of Chinese labor to makes its bikes? Which voters are susceptible to the argument that Mary Burke would make a good governor because her family has a business that makes great bikes? If I'm riding around on my Trek bike, am I a rolling ad for Mary Burke?

ADDED: Instapundit says:

[A]ttacking Dems on hypocrisy that will hurt them with their base is an excellent turnout-reducing strategy. People bothered by these ads won't vote for Walker, necessarily, but they'll be less likely to show up at all. Same reason people should go after Democratic officeholders who pay women less than men.

And as I said in the comments a few hours ago:

I think Walker is trying to deprive Mary Burke of an argument she wants to use: That Walker didn't keep his "promise" to cause X number of jobs to come into being in Wisconsin.

It's his preemptive "Yeah, you're worse."

As you can see from this Green Bay Gazette report, Burke does use that argument. Democrats are fixated on 250,000 as the number of jobs Walker promised. PolitiFact is keeping track of the statistics here.

But it's 34, and I think you know why.

No, it's not that the bigger men get the less likely they are to buy pants.

It's that men don't wear pants at the waist level. The belly floats free, above the so-called waistband.

"The school's director, Jason Baeten, says that the goal is instead to create an educational space where boys can make mistakes, be vulnerable and learn to be self-reliant."

Baeten says, "We all came together and decided what we wanted our graduates to look like, what qualities we wanted them to have. So, things like: respects women, flexible, resilient — all of these."

One of the ways that the school is trying to upend tradition is by re-inventing shop class for the 21st century. In fact, they don't even call it "shop." At the East Bay School for Boys, it goes by a different name: "work."

David Clifford, the school's director of innovation, explains why: "We moved away from the language of shop because it has a history behind it, where for decades now, shop has been considered second or third tier in education, where first tier is academics."

This school is in Berkeley, California, and the report is from NPR.

Tease it with the line "Is she the queen of the selfie?"

I refuse to link to that. I'm annoyed at myself for clicking.

And that on a morning when I actual read — more or less — an article written by a philosopher about a book written by a philosopher about — more or less — selfies.

If I were more self-absorbed, I'd hate myself.

The word is "feminism."

ADDED: The problem on display is:

1. There are widely shared equality goals but these have been met, leaving nothing more to do under the banner "feminism."

2. Some people want other things, and the term is useful to them, so they use it actively, demanding things that are off-putting to a lot of people.

3. Those who were fine with the widely shared goals become conflicted about the term, but not enough to successfully take the definition back.

4. A small group of those who are put off want to make a thing out of disowning the term.

5. Most people don't bother one way or another. They move on, following their individual lives, which is good feminism. Or that's what I'd say if I had to have an argument about it, but I don't.

Who started it?

Who benefits?

The "Run, Rick, go - GO!" viral video.

Only $9.95 a month.

Too expensive. Even if you like her.

Don't you think?

ADDED: She's a propagandist. What's the point of making people pay for propaganda? One answer might be: So your consumers don't perceive it is propaganda. Another might be: Because you're a failed propagandist, in a fading, failing phase, which you're trying to monetize. 

1. Instapundit links to a news report of 2 teenage girls arrested for torturing a gopher tortoise. They were caught because they made a video of their brutality and posted it on Facebook, replete with the voiceover "Burn baby, burn baby. Now you're scared of us, huh?"

2. David Sedaris wrote a story called "Loggerheads" revealing the way he and a friend, when they were young, treated some sea turtles. As an adult, looking back, he identifies with them, but here's the description of the fate of 5 baby sea turtles he found at a beach and installed in his aquarium and fed raw hamburger:

The turtles swam the short distance from one end of the tank to the other, and then they batted at the glass with their flippers, unable to understand that this was it—the end of the road....

It took a few weeks for my first turtle to die. The water in the tank had again grown murky with spoiled, uneaten beef, but there was something else as well, something I couldn't begin to identify. The smell that developed in the days after Halloween, this deep, swampy funk, was enough to make your eyes water. It was as if the turtles' very souls were rotting, yet still they gathered in the corner of their tank, determined to find the sea...

All they'd ever wanted was to live in the ocean—that was it, their entire wish list, and instead I'd decided they'd be better off in my bedroom. Just as my dad had decided that I'd be better off at the football game. If I could have returned them to the beach, I would have, though I knew it was already too late. In another few days they would start going blind. Then their shells would soften, and they'd just sort of melt away, like soap.

1. I'm offended by his absurd shorts — cut-off stone-washed jeans. But I must say I got a kick out of the photograph of him with his 26-year-old girlfriend Lina Nilson because — she's also in shorts — the 2 have virtually identical legs.

2. The Sufis are offended that his new cologne, Just Cavalli, has a logo that looks a lot like a symbol the M.T.O. Shahmaghsoudi school of Sufism has used for 150 years — and have had trademarked for 27 years. It spells out the words "Allah" and "Ali." According to Georgia May Jagger — the 22-year old model (and Mick Jagger daughter) who appears in the video ad — the perfume's logo is supposed to look like "The tattoo is the bite, the snake bite. It draws us together. And it's basically the sign of seduction." That kind of talk tends to irk the Sufis, whose symbol is said to represent "peace, purity and the name of God." The Sufis lost in court on the trademark infringement issue, but it seems obvious that the Cavalli people would have selected a different logo if they'd seen that their effort to seem very sexy was going to get mixed up with Islam. Here's the ad:



And here are the 2 logos, side by side (with the Cavalli logo tipped sideways):