“I’m not anti-staff,” Professor Plum quipped as he walked into the mail room. “I’m pro-faculty!”
He read the mail…. (More)
Professor Plum then left with Ms. Scarlet to join the resident faculty in the
wine cellar library, where they’ll spend the weekend drinking thinking on our motto of Magis vinum, magis verum (“More wine, more truth”).
In the staff poker game, the
Professor of Astrology Janitor was very much pro-black, and specifically pro-Clubs. Chef had raised to open the pot, and the Professor of Astrology Janitor called with the Jack and Ten of Clubs. The flop brought the Ace and Seven of Clubs, along with the King of Diamonds. Chef checked and the Professor of Astrology Janitor checked behind her. The Six of Hearts fell on the turn and Chef checked again.
Professor of Astrology Janitor considered checking to see the last card for free. But if he bet now, Chef might fold without his having to worry about making his flush. Conversely, if he checked and made his flush, she would probably fold without putting any more chips in the pot. And if he checked and missed his flush, he would have to fold if she bet at the river. Betting now was the stronger play …
… until Chef raised enough to put him all-in. Had she opened with an Ace-King or Ace-Seven and made two-pair? A pair of Aces, Kings, or Sevens to make three-of-a-kind? Against any of those, he was a 3:1 underdog and should fold. Or might she be betting a vulnerable hand like a small pair? He was only a 3:2 underdog against a pair of Nines or less, and the pot odds would justify a call. And she wouldn’t have checked two pair or three-of-a-kind against an obvious flush draw. She must have a weak pair and be trying to end the pot before the river.
He called and turned over his cards. Chef smiled and turned over a pair of red Queens. The Ten of Spades at the river didn’t help, and the
Professor of Astrology Janitor began his plaintive mewling. Chef went to the kitchen to make a White Bean Breakfast, leaving your lowly mail room clerk to review the week’s correspondence….
Dear Ms. Crissie,
It is apparently somehow a bad thing that I operate this “pro-white” blog. Tell me, what if it was
A pro-black blog?
A pro-Hispanic blog?
A pro-Jewish blog?
A pro-Asian-American blog?
A pro-Muslim blog (minus the calls for violent jihad of course)?
You know the answer – it would be fine. Does it give you pause that only whites are not allowed to be pro-white? Shouldn’t we be all be fighting this tooth and nail?
I am pro-white, because so much out there is anti-white. I am defending that part of my identity that is being attacked. I am not attacking other races, I am defending my own, and I welcome all sincere allies – Black, Hispanic, Jewish, Asian, Muslim, Arab, Persian. If I missed anyone, chime in.
Rob in CT
To paraphrase the bard, “We think thou dost protest too much.” For example, you include this image on your blog:
You defend that with references to hip-hop posters and an out-of-context quote from actor Jamie Foxx, but we find it obvious that you are indeed “attacking other races.” You repeatedly rage against Jews, say readers should practice Buddhist meditation because it “enriches your Hate-Uranium,” and wind your addled way around to this:
Just like the Beatles albums were talking to Charlie Manson, the Terminator movies are talking to us. If you want to fight, make yourself a Mindweapon Terminator. Of course, the cinematic Terminator had to go around killing people or it wouldn’t have made money.
Real life Terminators, the Mindweapons, maneuver themselves to being the ones who sign the checks. The hand that signs the checks, rules the world. Nathan Rothschild was the Terminator of the Napoleonic era.
Still, you insist, you’re not “attacking other races.” You just think whites should rule over them. Your wife, a candidate for county probate judge, was quoted as saying “He did not have those views when we married, but acquired them after. What am I supposed to do? Divorce him?”
Our answer would be a resounding “Yes.”
Dear Ms. Crissie,
After a long conversation with RNC Chair Reince Priebus, I’m going to stop using the phrase “war on whites.” It’s obvious from his comments, he prefers we come up with a better descriptive phrase that describes what the Democrats are doing with their making race an issue wherever they can. He said I was 100 percent right that the Democrats were race-baiting and using hate speech. He also elaborated by saying that the national Democrats campaign strategy to interject race on an emotional – not rational – basis was nasty and wrong and diabolical.
Mo in AL
While you may feel vindicated when the chairman of the RNC says Democrats are race-baiting and using hate speech, we note that he is hardly an unbiased source. We also note you have a long record of divisive and provocative comments, having said you support “anything short of shooting” undocumented immigrants, that employers who wanted to hire Jamaicans should “open a plant in Jamaica,” and that majority-white schools in south Huntsville should “secede” from the district to keep a bigger share of the school budget.
You also told the USA Today that under “current federal law, there is only one skin color that you can lawfully discriminate against. That’s Caucasians – whites.”
As a matter of law, your claim is plainly false, as the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, even if that race is white. Your claim is equally false as a matter of fact, as Fred L. Pincus documented in his 2003 book Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth. Indeed a 2013 Pew Research Center study found the median income for whites is almost 50% greater than that of blacks and Hispanics, and the median wealth for white families is 10 times greater than that of blacks and Hispanics. That same study found that whites are 50% more likely to own homes, less than half as likely to live in poverty, much less likely to be unemployed, and much less likely to be sentenced to jail or prison.
Finally, we note that most whites understand this, which is why the study found that only 10% of whites reported having experienced racial discrimination in the past year, as compared to 35% of blacks and 20% of Hispanics. We conclude that if there were a “war on whites,” the data clearly show that whites are winning.
Dear Ms. Crissie,
Eek. Umm, once I get my appetite back, how do I make that White Bean Breakfast?
Hungry Again Soon (I Hope) in Blogistan
Dear Hungry Again Soon,
We apologize for what we hope will be a temporary interruption of your appetite. To make Chef’s White Bean Breakfast, heat 1 Tablespoon of olive oil in a skillet and lightly sauté 4 cloves of minced garlic and 1 teaspoon of minced jalapeno pepper until fragrant. Then stir in 1 15-oz can of white beans, drained and rinsed, along with 2 Tablespoons of olive oil, 1 teaspoon of oregano, and a pinch of ground tumeric. Cook for about 5 minutes, stirring regularly, until the olive oil is mostly absorbed. Then stir in 2 Tablespoons of pesto, remove the pan from the heat, and lightly season the mixture with salt to taste. Spoon the bean mix onto rye toast, squeeze on the juice from a lemon wedge, top with a fried egg, and garnish with a sprinkling of grated Parmesan cheese. Bon appétit!
Mo in AL; long record of divisive and provocative comments; Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race; even if that race is white; Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth; 2013 Pew Research Center study.