As I may have mentioned once or twice, many people assume that because Barack Obama is of mixed ancestry, he naturally identifies with all his ancestral races, as does, say, Tiger Woods or Ward Connerly. In reality, Obama has instead felt the constant need to prove he is black enough.

I’m looking for more examples of this phenomenon of feeling the need, due to your unusual background, to prove you are X enough. Perhaps actress Halle Berry? Maybe Zach de la Roccha of Rage Against the Machine is an example. (Daniel Day-Lewis is an amusing example of something slightly different: a complete insider — his father was Poet Laureate of England and his maternal grandfather ran England’s top movie studio — who has used all his Method acting skills to convince himself that he is a much-discriminated against Irishman). Or Eamon de Valera of Ireland, although I’m not really familiar with his personality. In a different way, Hitler, Napoleon, and Stalin were all from the peripheries of empire.

I think there must be more. Do you know of any?

Can you think of any examples in movies or novels? I heard today about a 1993 movie called either “Bound by Honor” or “Blood In, Blood Out” that is a huge favorite among East LA chicanos. The main character is a completely European looking Mexican-American who must constantly act like a total cholo to prove he’s Mexican enough.

In recent decades, the U.S. has been globalizing its economy, by cutting tariffs and shipping manufacturing jobs to China, and has been globalizing its population by importing tens of millions of poorly-educated Hispanics with IQs around the global average of 90.
Notice the problem?
People with an average IQ of 90 and a decent work ethic make okay assembly line workers. They don’t do well, however, in a knowledge-based post-industrial economy.
If we had wanted to have tens of millions more Hispanics, with their blue-collar capabilities, then we should have kept up the tariffs so there would be decent-paying factory jobs for them.
Or
If we had wanted to have a post-industrial “symbolic manipulation” economy, then we should have kept out the flood of people whose children grow up to have low NAEP scores. (A recent study by sociologists with the UCLA Chicano Studies Center found that only 6% of fourth-generation Mexican-Americans — i.e., people whose grandparents were born in America — had college degrees.)
You can successfully globalize your economy or your population, but not both.
We did both, so we ended up with fewer factory jobs but lots more people best suited to work in factories. Since the assembly line jobs weren’t there, lots of them went into construction instead, temporarily helping lower the cost of building or improving houses, houses that we weren’t making enough valuable goods to actually pay for.

On September 26, 2008, “The Editors” at National Review came out for the now-passed bailout, after making some conservative noises of regret, of the kind that John Ehrlichman called a “modified limited hangout.”

We understand, and share, the instinctive repulsion many conservatives feel for the plan. But in a true crisis, the financial system needs a government backstop. Panics must be stopped because it is their very nature to damage the economy out of all proportion to reason. So something must be done, and it appears that the Paulson plan is going to have to be the template for that something.

Reasonable conservatives might well disagree with that judgment. We understand our compatriots who consider it too risky and too costly, not just to the U.S. government but to our principles.[The Paulson Predicament by The Editors on National Review Online ]

But as William Kristol said recently, “What are cherished principles for but to be violated in emergencies?”

What could cause “The Editors” at National Review to support this massive bailout of Wall Street against all free-market and fiscally conservative principle? Well, here, with no comment attached, is the biography of National Review’s President, Thomas L. (Dusty) Rhodes:

Prior to joining National Review, Rhodes held several posts at Goldman, Sachs & Company in New York. He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974 and subsequently served as vice president (1977–1982); vice chairman, Goldman Sachs Limited, London, England (1982–1985); and partner (1986–1992).

From This American Life (thanks to Jerry Pournelle), comes a tale of a society with a distinct aversion to reality checks.

Alex Blumberg: For example, a guy I met named Clarence Nathan. He worked 3 part time, not very steady jobs, and made a total of roughly 45 thousand dollars a year roughly. He got himself into trouble and needed money, so he took out a loan against his house. A big one.

Clarence Nathan: Call it 540 for round figures

Alex Blumberg: And you basically borrowed that from the bank and they didn’t check your income?

Clarence Nathan: Right. It’s a no-income verification loan. They don’t do that. It’s almost like you pass a guy in the street and say: lend me 540,000 dollars? He says, what do you do? Hey, I got a job. OK. It seems that casual even though there are a lot of papers that get filled out and stuff flies all over with the faxed and emails. Essentially, that’s … that the process.

Alex Blumberg: Would you have loaned you the money?

Clarence Nathan: I wouldn’t have loaned me the money. And nobody that I know would have loaned me the money. I know guys who are criminals who wouldn’t loan me that and they break your knee-caps. I don’t know why the bank did it. I’m serious … 540 thousand dollars to a person w/bad credit. …

(more…)