Lion of the Blogosphere

Chelsea Clinton says she doesn’t care about money

Reported by the Daily News:

“I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t,” she told Fast Company in an interview that ran in the magazine’s May edition, explaining why she gave up lucrative gigs to join her family’s philanthropic foundation.

The Daily News article is observant enough to point out that Chelsea Clinton lives in $10.5 million dollar apartment in Manhattan. Maybe she would care more about money if she was living in a crappy studio apartment in the Bronx.

* * *

Jim writes in a comment: “Chelsea Clinton’s life of ascetic simplicity in her $10.5 million dollar Manhattan condo should be an inspiration to all of us.”

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 23, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Posted in Bobos

199 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Stupid cunt. She hasn’t had to “care” about money since she hatched from her witch of a mom’s infected cooch.

    Tom

    June 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM

    • This doesn’t count as a mean spirited comment?

      Dave Pinsen

      June 23, 2014 at 6:05 PM

    • Well said.

      destructure

      June 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM

    • Teacher, Tom made a mean-spirited comment… lol

      shiva1008

      June 26, 2014 at 3:13 AM

  2. Like many people, I wonder what Catherine Rampell thinks about all of this.

    After all, before she got engaged she was humblebragging that the Wall Street studmuffins on her carousel wanted her to be a homemaker.

    Yet Chelsea was able to get a commitment from a Wall Street guy who has no problem with her working.

    Theory: Maybe m’lady Rampell provoked more jealousy in her suitors, while Chelsea’s husband figures no one would be too interested in stealing her away.

    Fiddlesticks

    June 23, 2014 at 4:15 PM

    • One other thing – Catherine Rampell just looks nurturing in a nice way. Guys can tell who’s the type that would glow around their future kids. That’s another reason why suitors wanted her to be a SAHM. They perceived that Rampell has more of an instinct for that and certainly less family baggage tied up in it than Chelsea.

      Obviously, there’s a lot of ideological pressure in the US for Rampell types to WORK MOAR, I mean, “Lean In,” and she has chosen to box herself in to that lifestyle by marrying someone whose salary can’t fully finance the UMC Acela Corridor Dream.

      But my prediction is that once she starts having kids, adores them and discovers that her true nature is to want to be with them all the time, she is going to feel very conflicted about the fact that she MUST get up ‘n’ go to work to make the house payments. She could always ask Daddy for help but that would probably go against her principles.

      Fiddlesticks

      June 23, 2014 at 4:36 PM

      • I don’t think that someone with perfect SAT scores could ever be intellectually satisfied spending all day changing diapers and doing other menial child-rearing labor.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 23, 2014 at 4:46 PM

      • Ironically, though, it is exactly this type of infant care that even Millennial-grade feminism agrees should remain in Mom’s domain.

        Whenever The Party wants to propagandize about daycare, they always use photos and illustrations of almost-kindergarten-aged kids.

        The imagery of a 6-month-old being handed off is too poignant for even them to stomach.

        Anyway, that drudgery is just a short period of time, maybe 18 months, before she can start enriching them and figuring out the best 30 million words or whatever to say to them. When she’s 39-40 she can always go back into career mode.

        In sum, M’Lady, don’t listen to Lion. Listen to me, your True Knight.

        Fiddlesticks

        June 23, 2014 at 5:19 PM

      • “I don’t think that someone with perfect SAT scores could ever be intellectually satisfied spending all day changing diapers and doing other menial child-rearing labor.”

        Why can’t they get intellectual satisfaction from book clubs and stuff, after they put the kids to bed?

        Hepp

        June 23, 2014 at 6:19 PM

      • Lion, are you still painting?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 23, 2014 at 10:03 PM

      • I don’t get your “nurturing” perception. To me she looks like a bartender waiting to happen.

        tourney pmb

        June 24, 2014 at 1:46 PM

      • Your “bartender” perception furthers my point.

        Who is going to feel more passionate, nurturing instincts towards their loved ones: 1) A hot bartender, or 2) some anal-retentive Dollar-Store-Hillary ladyjobby “project manager” / “insurance claims administrator” / “accounts receivable specialist”?

        Exhibit A, Matt Damon’s wife.

        Now, M’Lady is smart but as you can see from that “bartender” vibe, she also has that passion inside.

        Fiddlesticks

        June 24, 2014 at 11:28 PM

    • Wouldn’t marrying a Clinton also mean entry into the American aristocracy for your children? I know men care a lot about looks a lot and not so much about their children’s breeding as they used to, but wouldn’t it be quite a big deal to think of the opportunities this would afford to your children?

      As for the headline…of course Chelsea thinks about money as often as the average person thinks about the air that they breathe. But Chelsea has elevated her indifference to the struggles of life into proof of a zen-like absence of materialism.

      She seems like a young lady that, if one were to meet her, the discovery of just one positive attribute would come as a very pleasant surprise.

      Prolier Than Thou

      June 23, 2014 at 5:27 PM

    • @Lion “I don’t think that someone with perfect SAT scores could ever be intellectually satisfied spending all day changing diapers and doing other menial child-rearing labor.”

      Maybe I missed some prior posts – in fact, I know I did, but went back and looked and couldn’t find the answer. Where did the assumption (or fact that) Catherine Rampell has perfect SAT scores come from?

      Truth

      June 25, 2014 at 11:29 PM

      • Where did the assumption (or fact that) Catherine Rampell has perfect SAT scores come from?

        If she does, her talent has been wasted.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM

  3. In addition to the $600,000 she pulled down as a special NBC correspondent, the only child of Bill and Hillary picked up $300,000 for attending a handful of board meetings as a director for Barry Diller’s IAC/InteractiveCorp.

    Yes, but think of all the “value” that Chelsea Clintion has created!!!

    Wade Nichols

    June 23, 2014 at 4:26 PM

    • According to libertarian theory, she created value equal to the amount of money she was paid, thus attending a few board meetings created more value than a team of software developers in India working for a year.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM

      • Libertardians getting #BTFO

        jjbees

        June 23, 2014 at 4:57 PM

      • Hehe. OK, you won this round. Someday when people look up “value transference” in the dictionary, there should be a picture of the Clintons.

        BehindTheLines

        June 23, 2014 at 5:09 PM

      • Libertarians are never wrong.

        That’s why no one thinks of them as losers.

        ScarletNumber

        June 23, 2014 at 6:00 PM

      • She offers value in that paying her is a deposit in the favor bank of her parents.

        Dave Pinsen

        June 23, 2014 at 6:09 PM

      • Value = access to and favor from the Clinton machine. Look at it as a kind of targeted advertising.

        Jody

        June 23, 2014 at 8:29 PM

      • But libertarian stands for liberty, freedom. So just as libertarians argue we should have the freedom to do dumb things like take drugs, they also argue that we should have the freedom to dumb things like overpay people who don’t create value. And Chelsea does bring value to the board meetings she attends because the Clinton name enhances the status of everyone there by association. Does she create value for society? No. But society’s not the one paying her, private citizens are.

        pumpkinperson

        June 23, 2014 at 10:00 PM

      • The “freedom” will ultimately lead to enslavement by those who all the value has been transferred to.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 24, 2014 at 6:54 AM

      • Oh, c’mon. How many times are going to use that straw man? That’s not “libertarian theory.” Libertarians simply say that exchange should be voluntary. It says nothing about the value created.

        Regardless, why do you think they REALLY paid her $600K? Inside information? Networking? Influence peddling? It sure wasn’t journalism.

        destructure

        June 24, 2014 at 1:27 AM

      • She was paid that because she’s famous.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 24, 2014 at 6:56 AM

      • Libertarians don’t stand for freedom for everyone. They stand for the “freedom” of property owners to coerce workerers to work on their property, on their terms and to accumulate so much property that no one else has a chance.

        Kant

        June 24, 2014 at 8:45 AM

      • This straw woman again?

        rob

        June 24, 2014 at 2:55 PM

    • According to libertarian theory, she created value equal to the amount of money she was paid,

      She was paid that much because her parents are elite government workers who used connections to maneuver her to the top. Libertarian economics have nothing to do with this.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 23, 2014 at 10:02 PM

      • This comment seems deliberately obtuse. It is the exact equivalent of a Soviet functionary saying ‘this factory only made left-footed shoes due to a mistake in the calculation for demand. Dialectical materialist philosophy has nothing to do with it.’

        At the very least, all economic theories must surely try to explain fiscal matters, to seek to explain where they would fit into their own worldview, whether they are wrong or right, and whether they be necessary evils or the man-made glitches of a system that their own theories would, if properly implemented, iron out.

        Does Libertarian theory say that Chelsea Clinton is worth the money she gets by virtue of being paid it, or does it not?

        Prolier Than Thou

        June 25, 2014 at 7:58 AM

      • Libertarianism is a moral philosophy. It doesn’t make predictions, it says what is right and wrong. My belief that murder is wrong is in no way helpful in predicting next year’s homicide rates.

        Now, fortunately it does turn out that free market societies are more prosperous than command economies, but that is a fortunate coincidence of human nature. It is not embedded in libertarian belief.

        Consequentialism sucks.

        BehindTheLines

        June 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

      • Reality check. 99% libertarians believe that good things will come from following their philosophy.This is called a just-world bias.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 25, 2014 at 2:37 PM

      • Libertarians spend a lot of time talking about the utilitarian benefits of freedom because that is a good political tactic. I consider the statement, “I am a conscious being, so I have ownership over my own body and property” to be a self-evident axiom. Others don’t share this belief, so if I’m convincing others about why freedom is good, I’m going to use utilitarian arguments.

        Libertarian thought says “Do not hit people or take their stuff.” That’s it. The fact that Chelsea Clinton exists does not mean that I get to hit people and take their stuff.

        BehindTheLines

        June 25, 2014 at 3:05 PM

      • At the very least, all economic theories must surely try to explain fiscal matters, to seek to explain where they would fit into their own worldview,

        Libertarian economics has an an explanation. Any nation ruled by unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats will suffer as the children of those elite government workers get jobs strictly through connections. Of course this happens in capitalist nations, but our government of rule by technocracy has taken corruption to extremes never seen before.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 25, 2014 at 7:35 PM

      • “Libertarian thought says ‘Do not hit people or take their stuff.'”

        What happens when a select few take and buy all the stuff so nobody else has a chance? And therefore have all the power aganist the worker to coerce them to do things beyond their will? Unregulated accumulation of property to an absurd level is more or less “taking stuff” from others. Libertarianism is tyranny.

        Kant

        June 26, 2014 at 9:02 AM

  4. I’m sure if I was rich and married to an investment banker, and was being paid 600K a year for a no show job, I wouldn’t care about money either.

    Mike Street Station

    June 23, 2014 at 4:26 PM

  5. Comments disabled on the Daily News piece. What a shocker.

    Jacob

    June 23, 2014 at 4:27 PM

    • No they aren’t.

      peterike

      June 23, 2014 at 4:58 PM

  6. “… explaining why she gave up lucrative gigs to join her family’s philanthropic foundation.”

    Which is a who’s who network of well monied contacts who in turn pay for access. On top of that, that is a lucrative gig. Fact, power and money are intrinsically linked. Influence might not technically be money, but it’s always traded for money. It’s ALL about money. Who does she think she’s fooling?

    “Maybe she would care more about money if she was living in a crappy studio apartment in the Bronx.”

    Maybe she would care more about money if she really didn’t have any. What a disingenuous fraud. Her mother and father taught her well.

    political bottom feeder

    June 23, 2014 at 4:28 PM

    • “Maybe she would care more about money if she really didn’t have any. What a disingenuous fraud.”

      People with ample cash almost never care about money or talk about money as much as poor folk, who are obsessed with it. So Chelsea sounds legitimately ingenuous when she says she doesn’t care about money — I believe her 110%.

      coolhandle

      June 23, 2014 at 6:29 PM

  7. It’s easy to “not care” about money when your life experience is that basically money grows on trees and is easy to come by. You just have to know the people who know the people.

    What does she think we think when she works at a “philanthropic foundation”? That she’s out on the street in the cold clanging a bell so people drop quarters into a pot? Or that she flies around the world, goes to fancy conferences in five star hotels and lives a life of luxury that would make a Renaissance King look like a serf?

    peterike

    June 23, 2014 at 5:04 PM

    • Remember, philanthropy starts with yourself.

      Glengarry

      June 25, 2014 at 6:44 AM

  8. seeing a lot of prole-like hating on the smart, rich and successful (can’t believe I’m defending a Clinton ..yuck never again)

    partisanship is the enemy of reason

    grey enlightenment

    June 23, 2014 at 6:21 PM

    • Chelsea is certainly rich, but is neither “smart” nor “successful” by any stretch of the imagination. Being born into Clinton “royalty”, and enjoying the fruits of being such a “noble” ($600k for doing nothing, etc.), implies neither intelligence or success (how smart or industrious is it to accomplish nothing more than emerging from the right vagina?).

      Sanjuro

      June 24, 2014 at 12:59 PM

      • Intelligence is genetically inherited, and both her parents are extremely smart. For a guy like Bill from a prole background to get top grades at the world’s most elite schools, he’s smart.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 24, 2014 at 1:26 PM

      • Too bad he turned out to be a stupid liberal!

        JS

        June 24, 2014 at 4:46 PM

      • Regression to the mean.

        Rosenmops

        June 24, 2014 at 6:31 PM

      • Top grades in soft subjects are easy, even at “elite” schools. George Bush also graduated from Yale, with a mediocre GPA. Ability doesn’t matter in high US political office, as we have seen for the past 50 years at least.

        Michael

        June 25, 2014 at 8:30 AM

      • WRONG. Top grades are very hard at elite schools because you are competing against the best of the best and the smartest of the smartest for the top grades. Although I agree it’s possible for people who were only state-school material to get by with average grades in those “soft” subjects.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM

      • Oh please. Top grades are easy at elite schools in soft subjects. All the Harvard, et al graduates I know tell me about widespread grade inflation. It is hard to get into those schools (because everyone wants to attend them, not because their quality is necessarily better) but easy to graduate from (because they have proffered high graduation rates as a figure of merit of “quality” to the general public, it is far harder to get top grades in hard sciences and engineering since the correct answer is needed (unlike history, psychology, non-quantitative economics, most liberal arts subjects, in which many interpretations can be considered “valid” to some extent). In the high quality technological university I attended, it wasn’t as difficult to get accepted (though they now accept only a third of applicants) but it was hard to stay in and graduate. Who says the ” elite” schools have the “best of the best”? Consider my previous example of George Bush. If you are rich and/or politically connected Harvard, et al will still accept you and make sure you graduate by steering you into a soft major (not that it matters of course, since if one is rich actually using a degree to develop a useful skill or ability to practice a profession isn’t necessary – as in Clinton’s or Bush’s case).

        Michael

        June 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM

      • Until you’ve taken a class at Harvard, and one at State School, you don’t know. This is just wishful thinking on your part.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM

      • WRONG. Top grades are very hard at elite schools because you are competing against the best of the best and the smartest of the smartest for the top grades.

        Two different conceptions of difficulty in obtaining top grades need to be distinguished from one another: objective and subjective difficulty. It is easy to test your claim for the objective conception of difficulty; one simply registers the percentage of students obtaining top grades and evaluate whether that number credibly satisfy the proposed account of grading at elite schools. Framed this way, I take it that the rampant, nearly universal grade inflation of the day will convince virtually everyone that it is not objectively hard to obtain top grades at elite schools (exempting Caltech, MIT, and a few others).

        As for whether any subjective conception of difficulty characterizes grading at elite schools, I am less sure. If courses have gotten subjectively harder at elite schools in the last few decades, and the quality of students at elite schools has not increased proportionally in the last few decades, then it might still be subjectively hard to obtain top grades at elite schools (assuming it once were). Even if one relaxes the strength of the conditional such that the subjective difficulty of courses and the quality of students at elite schools have been constant, then it is possible that it is still subjectively hard to obtain top grades. It might be less hard, but that could nonetheless constitute considerable difficulty.

        In conclusion, I think your account accurately describes grading in the past, both in terms of objective and subjective difficulty, but it probably fails to describe current grading practices at elite schools.

        FAW

        June 25, 2014 at 1:53 PM

      • Until you’ve taken a class at Harvard, and one at State School, you don’t know. This is just wishful thinking on your part.

        I know of an academic who teaches at a State School and got his PhD from one, and he tells me there isn’t anything spectacular or superior about his peers who gotten theirs at the Ivies. He’s a philosophy professor.

        JS

        June 25, 2014 at 3:39 PM

      • @ FAW- I read as recently as last year that something on the order of 70% of Harvard’s graduates graduated with some type of “honors”. If that is true what does that say regarding grade inflation? In any population I would expect grades to follow more or less a normal distribution. In my school, the most recent graduating class had about 17% graduating with honor or high honor (3.6 or higher GPA), and about 20% qualify for the dean’s list (which has a relatively low cutoff of 3.0). Those numbers reflect an honest grading system in which students must actually earn their grades, as well as reflecting the difficulty and rigor of the subjects. One might say that we actually had a degree of “grade deflation”. The faculty were not lenient graders.

        If I am hiring someone, I want someone who is “objectively” intelligent and can solve real problems, not one who graduated “with honors” as a result of liberal grading. I guess as I said before it’s unfortunate that someone can graduate from an “elite” college with inflated grades and “honors” in a suft subject and be hired just on that basis but the real talented person with the honest grade in a hard subject has to work they much harder. This is one reason why this country is descending into Third World.

        Michael

        June 25, 2014 at 4:29 PM

      • Oh please. Top grades are easy at elite schools in soft subjects.

        At Ivy League schools. MIT and Johns Hopkins are both elite and rigorous.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 25, 2014 at 7:27 PM

      • Princeton does not have the grade inflation that the rest of the Ivies have. Poor bastards get killed in the med/law/biz admissions process compared to the other elites.

        Renault

        June 25, 2014 at 11:34 PM

      • Princeton does not have the grade inflation that the rest of the Ivies have.

        Isn’t their engineering program the strongest of the Ivies?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 26, 2014 at 9:40 PM

      • Speaking as someone who has experience taking classes in state schools as well as both attending and teaching at Ivies — There’s nothing especially difficult about Ivies when it comes to softer subjects. That might have been true 100 years ago (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvardexam.pdf) but it’s not true any longer, but the institutional reputation persists.

        Getting good grades in college can either be about hard work, or it can be about being savvy about the classes you take and the professors you take classes with. Bill Clinton is a smart guy but his real talent is in social savvy, I would not be shocked to learn that he was well-liked by all of his professors and had many mentors all working to help him out, and avoided the obligatory grumpy old guy who was a harsh grader.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        June 26, 2014 at 11:35 PM

      • @ Undiscovered- Engineering is tough at all accredited engineering schools. By “soft” subjects I mean most non- quantitative ones. My observation in working with engineers from many schools is that as a group the ones educated at technologically-based universities (eg, Institutes of Technology or equivalent ) were more in-depth problem solvers than ones from generic universities, including Ivy Leagues. I worked with a couple from Princeton and Univ. of Penn. who were pretty good though.

        Michael

        June 27, 2014 at 8:10 AM

      • Ability doesn’t matter in high US political office, as we have seen for the past 50 years at least.

        not in the case of tricky dick.

        milton friedman said that nixon was the smartest person he had ever met “in terms of pure iq”. and it’s VERY obvious listening to his interviews and those of other presidents that the ONLY president who has ever resigned was also the smartest in the last…at least since wilson.

        jorge videla

        June 30, 2014 at 6:41 PM

      • bill is A LOT smarter than hill.

        he’s a prole, but in iq points he’s the smartest prez since nixon.

        jorge videla

        June 30, 2014 at 6:43 PM

  9. People who say that they don’t care about money are usually people who have never been poor. More so, if they’ve never really had to work for themselves.
    You can tell that Bubba cares about money.

    Half Canadian

    June 23, 2014 at 6:52 PM

  10. I hope she makes a publicity stunt and start passing 100 dollar bills to NAMs in NYC. Better yet, set up a house party at her apartment, where blacks could come by, first come, first serve basis!

    JS

    June 23, 2014 at 6:52 PM

  11. I hope she and Bill de Blasio will come out and tackle the sky high rents in NYC.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/nyc-charts-housing-unaffordable_n_5210739.html

    Not!

    JS

    June 23, 2014 at 7:02 PM

  12. Beta/Omega male rage?

    A Indian-American student from Seattle said he was the next “Elliot Rodger” and was then arrested.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/keshav-bhide-elliot-rodger-perfectly-justified_n_5502797.html

    Here’s another example. This PUA “Roosh” wrote an article saying that Asian and Indian men are the least attractive race to women.

    http://www.rooshv.com/totem-pole-of-race-attractiveness

    In return, this Indian kid went berserk and started hundreds of topics on online forums, asking how he could overcome the dating disadvantages inherent to being Indian. He had an online feud with Roosh.

    http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-12759.html

    It appears that there’s a huge problem of Indian/Pakistani/Punjabi men trolling online forums, asking why they can’t get girls. Many forums are being spammed by them. It’s so prolific that PUA/dating sites have a term for it – “Indian race trolling.”

    It appears that as beta as Asian men are, Indian men fare even worse. They do the worst in online dating.

    http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/

    JT1

    June 23, 2014 at 7:17 PM

    • Again, physical attractiveness is perhaps the most important component for women to judge a guy whether he has SMV. Asian and Indian men fall short because they are usually less attractive than other men. PUA, alpha, beta, omega, none of these matter.

      JS

      June 24, 2014 at 9:39 AM

      • Slightly O/T, but that’s one of the reasons why Neel Kashkari is not going to be the next governor of California. He’s Indian and while he has a shaved head doesn’t like all that masculine. Combine a name that sounds like a breakfast cereal and an appearance and demeanor that is going to turn women off, he’s got no chance, even against the octogenarian in waiting, Jerry Brown.

        Sgt. Joe Friday

        June 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM

      • East Indian men are probably better off than Asian men because Indian women aren’t being taken by White men, like they do with East Asian women. East Indian men are a smaller demographic and they appear to do better with women than the Chinese and Koreans, etc, for their numbers.

        Roosh doesn’t think Indian women are attractive, but the irony is that most stunning Indian women are drop dead gorgeous, when compared to East Asian women who are very rare in the beauty department, and prettier than many American White women. Northern Indian, Afghan, and Nepalese (the ones with the Caucasian phenotype) women are usually much more attractive than East Asian women, gather, they don’t reveal their body hair.

        JS

        June 26, 2014 at 9:42 AM

      • because Indian women aren’t being taken by White men, like they do with East Asian women.

        Which is completely weird to me because I don’t get the Asian fetish at *all* (to me they look like space aliens), but East Indian chicks – va-va-voom! The ones in Canada, anyway, are usually descended from well-to-do families back home, which translates into beauty.

        Samson J.

        June 26, 2014 at 6:06 PM

      • Completely wrong. The problem is that so many South Asian men have the mannerisms of a used-car salesman. They seem sleazy and overly-ingratiating. This is a *huge* turnoff to most American women (of any race). If you’re looking for tall, dark, and handsome, there are plenty of Indian men who would fit the bill. (Yeah, there are short ugly Indian and Pakistani guys, too.) But when they shake hands and it feels like you let a fish get away, you’re not going to like them much. The other type is the Muslim fanatic – the guy who makes Rick Santorum sound like a relaxed, laissez-faire guy. Some women go for that, but not many in the U.S.

        Anthony

        June 26, 2014 at 6:33 PM

      • @ JS

        I much prefer Indian women to East Asian ones, both in physical appearance and personality.

        Renault

        June 26, 2014 at 7:19 PM

      • Completely wrong. The problem is that so many South Asian men have the mannerisms of a used-car salesman. They seem sleazy and overly-ingratiating. This is a *huge* turnoff to most American women (of any race). If you’re looking for tall, dark, and handsome, there are plenty of Indian men who would fit the bill.

        Anthony – Westernized Indian men who shave off their undesirable mannerisms, adjust better than most East Asian men. Personality-wise and behaviorally, they blend in better with Whites than Asians, because Indians are mostly Caucasoids. I used to work in a company where there was an Indian guy and Asian guy who were both middle managers, and the Indian dude was promoted way ahead of him. He was more extroverted, easy going and laid back, where as East Asians have a tendency to micromanage and grind to their fullest, when given the opportunity, and they are also less “pro social”. There is a certain gain of truth that East Asian make boring elites because it’s all genetic, meaning they are less socially engaging.

        JS

        June 28, 2014 at 10:47 AM

    • Indian men found mates via arranged marriages. When that safety net is taken away they have to rely on looks, which they can’t compete on. Even their own women aren’t attracted to them.

      Chelsea

      June 26, 2014 at 4:20 PM

      • Are you Chelsea Clinton?

        Samson J.

        June 28, 2014 at 8:58 AM

  13. For people like Chelsea Clinton, money is a force of nature, like gravity. They never notice it…unless or until it’s gone.

    Oswald Spengler

    June 23, 2014 at 7:29 PM

  14. Folks, I can believe her on this. Money can do almost anything, but unfortunately it cannot fix her pathetic looks.

    MyTwoCents

    June 23, 2014 at 7:31 PM

    • Chelsea Clinton is pretty good looking as an adult. Probably had some work done here or there at some point…

      anon

      June 24, 2014 at 8:32 AM

      • I agree, she’s not so ugly like people say she is.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 24, 2014 at 8:59 AM

      • I’d wager she’s more attractive than most of the other women born in Arkansas in the year 1980. And as far as presidential offspring, she’s not too bad; I mean, look what happened to Caroline Kennedy – she fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on her way down. The Bush twins were pretty hot when they were young.

        Sgt. Joe Friday

        June 24, 2014 at 11:20 AM

      • “Pretty good looking” does not sound good. You can try telling it to some woman as a complement and see reaction. Catherine Rampell is an average looking girl that looks more appealing after some spackling and colors were added liberally here and there and quite a bit of hair removed. Now we have Chelsea that probably applied more of all that stuff and maybe even some surgeries and still she is rather not appealing. I would not like my daughter look like her.

        MyTwoCents

        June 25, 2014 at 12:21 AM

  15. One thing many people, especially guys, miss. A woman before she falls in love, after she falls in love, during pregnancy, and after baby is born are four different women. They will give different answers to the same question. So, asking a girl you are on a date with if she wants to be SAHM is a very stupid question. It is stupid because she does not know the answer yet, but chances are high she gets offended by the question. A high IQ is not an issue. It will be directed towards bringing up that baby, often in weird ways like paying extra for the “cleanest” water, the most “organic” food, and the most “elite” education.

    MyTwoCents

    June 23, 2014 at 7:43 PM

    • So, asking a girl you are on a date with if she wants to be SAHM is a very stupid question.

      Ha ha, yeah. I’ve related before somewhere that when I was young and more foolish I rejected a girl from my church because, while chatting with her at a church picnic, I asked her about her future goals – probing for mother material – and she said, “Oh, well, you know, I’m hoping to get a job in [my field].” I thought, Oh, great, another young woman ruined by careerist aspirations. She was like 23 – of *course* she wasn’t going to launch into a plaintive soliloquy about how she’s looking for a man to give her babies and keep her in the kitchen, but I didn’t understand that back then. It sounds downright aspie of me in retrospect, but really, many (most) young men don’t understand that women don’t understand their own desires.

      Samson J.

      June 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM

  16. Has she had plastic surgery? I remember her face looking more interesting. Now she looks like just any other average looking lady.

    bjdubbs

    June 23, 2014 at 8:00 PM

  17. an example of how the american elite and its children are out of touch with reality.

    what she really means is she doesn’t care to have more than she has, but she’s unaware of how much that is already.

    jorge videla

    June 23, 2014 at 8:14 PM

  18. Woah, more misanthropy here than a typical Real Housewives episode. Don’t mean to bust your bubble of cynacism, but well brought up young women aren’t supposed to acknowledge the importance of money. Like asking someone how they are, it doesn’t have to reflect heartfelt concern.

    Ron

    June 23, 2014 at 8:32 PM

    • You’re assuming that Chelsea was “well brought up.” Her father was and still is prole, and her mother doesn’t exactly exude warmth and charm and class.

      Sgt. Joe Friday

      June 24, 2014 at 11:28 AM

      • She only attended elite private schools. Her peers were smart girls from rich families.

      • Prole will out.

        Glengarry

        June 25, 2014 at 6:47 AM

  19. and regarding introversin/extroversion vs social intelligence:

    the cranberries’ “zombie”. my very extroverted brother didn’t understand that the “in your head” meant “I.R.A.” = irish republican army or that “zombie” meant “some day”. they appeared on snl, iirc, but they’re sinn fein all the way. as they should be. only the uk is in the running vs the us for shittiest developed country.

    putting people on a linear scale always ignores the tree.

    jorge videla

    June 23, 2014 at 8:55 PM

    • Where did you hear this bizarre interpretation? It seems pretty clear to me that the song is about the continuing Troubles (at that time) in Northern Ireland. The ‘zombie’ is the Irish people (including the North) fighting with each other ever since the Easter Rising and the Civil War, due to differences and that are ‘in their head’–a zombie-like repetition of the cycles of partisanship and violence is what the song’s about. People turn a blind eye or continue to support the violence because as the song says ‘it’s not my family’.

      I think your extrovert brother may have been right on this one.

      Prolier Than Thou

      June 27, 2014 at 1:03 PM

  20. Her stint as a news pundit earned her $600,000 a year. A classic case of value transference.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    June 23, 2014 at 9:59 PM

  21. According to Guidestar, the IMDB of nonprofit organizations, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation took in $227,746,085 in 2012 and had administrative expenses totaling $14,795,588. Chelsea Clinton worked 35 hours a week as a director but received no reportable compensation from the organization.

    Mark Caplan

    June 23, 2014 at 10:20 PM

  22. chelsea clinton may not care about money but her parents sure do. her parents have done a lot of dirty work to make sure she is OK for the rest of her life. the most interesting question going into 2016 will be – who exactly owns the clintons? lots of people have shelled out unrestricted funds to support the stupid library and their speeches. also, doesn’t hurt that chelsea married into a well-to-do spawn of similarly corrupted/embarrassed politicos.

    lion of the lionosphere

    June 23, 2014 at 10:48 PM

  23. “I don’t think that someone with perfect SAT scores could ever be intellectually satisfied spending all day changing diapers and doing other menial child-rearing labor.”

    It doesn’t take all day to change diapers or whatever. She could be reading books throughout the day and then in the evening she could host dinner parties for rich and important people. That sounds a lot better than “working. “

    Josh

    June 23, 2014 at 11:30 PM

    • Not to mention that Lion is projecting his own biases on someone else with his statement.
      I received a perfect score on my SAT, work with numbers and math all day, but if you asked me what I felt was most engaging and most satisfying in my life it would always be things that bring me emotional happiness. Very rarely is that “work,” but more my hobbies outside of work and things like my wife and children.

      Panther of the Blogocube

      June 26, 2014 at 11:46 PM

  24. Sounds like something Gwyneth Paltrow would say.

    rivsdiary

    June 24, 2014 at 12:25 AM

  25. Chelsea, if you don’t care about money, give it all away to the poor you and your disingenuous parents say they care so much about. After all, no one NEEDS to live in a $10 million apartment, and these should really be reserved for those who earned them and appreciate them anyway! And who aren’t hypocrites about liking money and enjoying its fruits. Maybe you’d also care more about the money if it had not all been earned as a result of who you were born. Or if you never had any, you’d again perhaps be a bit more interested – aren’t you curious to try that and see?

    Truth

    June 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM

  26. There’s a difference between not caring about money and not HAVING TO care about money. Big difference.

    ice hole

    June 24, 2014 at 8:23 AM

  27. Chelsea’s aristocratic status locks her out of most niches of the economy. I can not think of any “work” Chelsea could do without lowering her status. As a philanthropist she is following a logical segue. Her comments about money reveal that she is clueless to the sensitivities of the masses, and will lock her out as a politician.

    can anyone recall a peak status offspring who found productive work without lowering their status? ??
    Example: Mark Zuckerburg’s wife trained as a pediatrician. Realistically, the potential malpractice threat will lock her out of clinical work.
    in 15 years , we will observe how the Obama daughters will flush out this conundrum.

    jz

    June 24, 2014 at 9:43 AM

    • Military service? That’s what the British Royals do “or are supposed to”.

      doctors without borders?

      Academic at a top tier institution in a self-actualizing field?

      uatu

      June 24, 2014 at 4:37 PM

      • Chelsea may not be smart enough for that – you still have to be pretty smart to become an academic, unless you become really famous on your own merits.

        Anthony

        June 26, 2014 at 6:36 PM

  28. For some reason I’m reminded of the scene in the Aviator, where the Katherine Hepburn character tells Howard Hughes, “we’re all socialists here, of course.” And Hughes fires back “yeah, you can afford to be because you’ve already got money.”

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    June 24, 2014 at 11:31 AM

  29. She is so brave to admit she does not care about money! Just like Ana Paquin bravely coming out as bisexual when attractive bisexual women have to face such hatred and discrimination in this society!

    Bernie

    June 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM

  30. Is Chelsea, or at least her descendants (I heard she was pregnant), gonna belong to the sacred category of toos?

    Colmainen

    June 24, 2014 at 1:46 PM

    • Chelsea Clinton “out of sight”? Really?

      Renault

      June 24, 2014 at 11:09 PM

      • We don’t hear much about her unless she speaks out like this time.

        Colmainen

        June 25, 2014 at 12:23 PM

  31. When I was growing up, all my friends had parents ten years younger than mine, precisely because my folks had no parental financial help and had to save every dime, not even having a second car until they were 45. Chelsea’s just the worst of it, but all UMC kids who lived through the two booms, 83-90 and 94-00 are totally clueless about economic struggle.

    department 11

    June 24, 2014 at 1:55 PM

  32. O/T: I’ve been in the seattle area visiting recently, I would imagine it being a big hit with lion or sailer readers.

    Even the most prole jobs in retail and other sectors are held by semi-intelligence non-nams, especially on the eastside in bellevue/kirkland. These jobs in a big metro area in any other part of country would surely be populated by nams.

    uatu

    June 24, 2014 at 4:34 PM

    • Yes, with the exception of SWPL foodie outlets, all of NYC’s Staples, Best Buy, Home Depot, and other big box retail stores are staffed mostly by blacks.

      JS

      June 25, 2014 at 10:49 AM

  33. The Clinton women seem to be remarkably tone deaf when they make comments about money. They really are in a bubble and have no idea how ordinary people live. I didnt get that feeling about Romney even though he is rich.

    Rosenmops

    June 24, 2014 at 6:34 PM

    • You’re exactly right, and that’s why it was so twisted and cruel when the liberal media complex turned him (Romney) into a vulgar caricature of the avaricious crony-capitalist. They’re just so g-d hypocritical. It makes ya want to pull your hair out!

      Ryan_Clark

      June 25, 2014 at 12:53 AM

  34. The statements on money were originally made in a Fast Forward article http://www.fastcompany.com/3028155/chelsea-clinton-makes-her-move

    What is amazing is that someone with a history degree from Stanford and Oxford was able to work as a chemical-industry analyst at a hedge fund. The elites do not ever try to pretend that their college degrees are relevant to what they do for a career.

    superdestroyer

    June 24, 2014 at 9:12 PM

    • College degrees that match your career are for proles.

      • Given the fact if that is the case, 99% of non-Ivy students are always pondering what will they major in, that will lead to a good paying job. So yes, the majority of Americans are proles.

        JS

        June 25, 2014 at 12:17 AM

      • We could also say MBA degrees are prole, because Ivy League undergrads who go into Finance don’t need the MBA (Masters of Bullsh*t Admin) degree.

        JS

        June 25, 2014 at 12:20 AM

      • I would say that this is not true, an MBA from an elite school is a valued degree for getting into the elite professions of finance and management consulting.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 25, 2014 at 6:46 AM

      • Like professor at the U (Yale, Harvard, or what have you) would be prole? Right? Makes lots of sense…

        MyTwoCents

        June 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM

      • Don’t you think this position would have gone to a science major and/or MBA if not reserved for cronyism?

        PS – I think the Daily Mail handled this story perfectly, great headline!

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666265/I-tried-care-money-I-says-Chelsea-Clinton-married-hedge-funder-lives-11m-home-paid-600-000-NBC-doing-nothing.html

        Truth

        June 25, 2014 at 2:55 AM

      • Yep – this even holds for those that went to elite schools for ‘lion-approved’ career tracks.

        Take Penn for instance,

        Wharton -> S&T/IB/HF/PE/MBB Consulting is for less elite than

        CAS, Art History -> S&T/IB/HF/PE/MBB Consulting.

        The Wharton grad had to slave away for four years with a boring curriculum and a brutal curve due to every wharton student being an insufferable gunner.

        The CAS student majoring in self-actualizing majors but still land the same job are much more elite.

        uatu

        June 25, 2014 at 2:52 PM

      • @ JS

        Having an MBA doesn’t really signify “prole” status — it’s still all-but-required in certain fields (private equity, management consulting, etc.), even for HYP grads. An elite undergrad with a non-HSW MBA (you could probably stretch it to M7+Tuck for anyone outside of private equity), however, might be considered “prole” in fancy circles.

        @uatu

        You’re basically correct, though Wharton is just so far ahead of CAS in terms of prestige and placement that I’m not sure your point completely stands. When comparing Wharton to its peers (HYPS, probably Dartmouth, maybe Columbia), however, it’s clear that Wharton suffers from being a dirty trade school. That said, Wharton beats every school in the country barring Harvard when it comes to actual job placement (many direct-to-buyside jobs recruit only at Harvard and Wharton).

        Renault

        June 25, 2014 at 11:23 PM

      • Liberal arts undergrad –> Finance = Less Prole

        Business undergrad or MBA –> Finance = Prole

        STEM degrees are actually not prole compared to Business degrees, because they require a form intellect, but with our degenerate culture, that isn’t the case.

        JS

        June 26, 2014 at 9:30 AM

      • @Renault:

        Can ‘elite strategy consulting’ still be considered non-prole when more and more of the billings even at MBB are for operational work rather than pure strategy? Monitor did mostly strategy work and they got bought out by Deloitte and couldn’t live on strategy billings alone.

        I’ve read in a few places that McKinsey now gets 65% of their annual revenue through operational engagements.

        uatu

        June 26, 2014 at 12:46 PM

      • @ uatu

        As long as MBB keep attracting the cream of the nerd crop (pre-MBA MBB hires tend to be academic gunners) from HYPS every year, MBB will remain a relatively prestigious place to work. It also has fantastic exit opps after the pre-MBA stint (MBB doesn’t place as well into the buyside as investment banking does, but it has interesting strategy/corporate exits and is second-to-none when it comes to business school placement).

        Renault

        June 26, 2014 at 7:11 PM

      • the mba has little respect outside les etats unis merdeux. ceos in germany and japan and even the uk are much more likely to be technical people.

        jorge videla

        July 1, 2014 at 10:51 PM

    • I would say that this is not true, an MBA from an elite school is a valued degree for getting into the elite professions of finance and management consulting.

      Lion – Why do people go into Finance and EMC? MONEY MONEY MONEY to live comfortably – Its essence is a Prolish – Sisyphean endeavor. Work hard so you don’t have to work hard.

      In a post scarcity world, these fields would be considered prole!

      JS

      June 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM

      • JS, Most to be honest go into finance and elite MC for the exit opportunities. Take all the women in strategy at high fashion retailers – most have high fennance/MC backgrounds.

        I would argue the exit opportunities to more top end self-actualizing careers (those that are interesting AND pay well) are a HUGE lure of fennance/consulting.

        uatu

        June 25, 2014 at 2:55 PM

    • “The CAS student majoring in self-actualizing majors but still land the same job are much more elite.”

      I don’t dispute that at all. Only that Chelsea and her history major likely never would have been offered the position, if her last name was Smith instead of Clinton. Seems to me if this position is being filled for actual job performance, the employer wants a science undergrad with an MBA, preferably with financial industry/analyst experience between the two degrees. If it’s an indirect campaign contribution to Hillary Clinton, or just wanting to suck up to their power and connections, then none of this matters, Chelsea doesn’t even need a degree of any sort.

      Truth

      June 25, 2014 at 4:49 PM

  35. The “elites” don’t even pretend that they know anything about the field in which they are working.

    Michael

    June 25, 2014 at 6:23 AM

    • Like this: http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/06/23/how-marissa-mayer-fell-asleep-and-kept-ad-executives-waiting-for-hours/

      Marissa Mayer not showing up on time at an executive dinner because she was tired and fell asleep. The same person who doesn’t believe in telecommuting, you have to show up to your cubicle everyday on time.

      In this day of age where very little value creation and life changing trends are taking place, almost all social functions seem like cookie cutter scenarios, with the same people talking about the same things over and over again.

      JS

      June 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM

      • marissa mayer has been exposed for the sham she is. Any alpha in YHOO was generated by predecessors investing in alibaba.

        The actual business she was brought on to turn around has been a negative. She has lost yahoo lots of money.

        Completely out of her depth and needs to go.

        uatu

        June 25, 2014 at 10:27 PM

      • Here’s a good read about her from Vanity fair awhile back.

        http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/01/marissa-mayer-yahoo-google

        L

        June 26, 2014 at 2:12 PM

      • With the exception of Google, almost of all of these social media tech companies aren’t looking into the future, but rehashing and confirming that narcissism is where the money is.

        JS

        June 26, 2014 at 3:21 PM

      • I still don’t understand how Yahoo makes money. They can’t command the kind of ad revenue that Google generates. Do they just have a lot of Legacy server farms that they rent out for cash to other entities? Are they just a hedge fund?

        As for Marissa Mayer, yeah, well, a woman CEO is usually an indicator of company decline. Marissa was probably the one pretty computer science major at Stanford who made all the boys think they had a chance with her while getting them to do her homework. I doubt Marissa has coded anything on her own since “hello, world.” The result of this is a long career of getting lots of help until she ran out of people to turn to.

        map

        June 26, 2014 at 3:58 PM

      • yahoo makes a murdoch tabloid look like the financial times.

        jorge videla

        July 1, 2014 at 10:48 PM

  36. The People of New York City extend their fondest wishes to Chelsea Marie Antoinette Clinton.

    Actually, sounds like an instance of the well known story, grandpa made the money, pa kept it, I spent it.

    Glengarry

    June 25, 2014 at 6:53 AM

    • Funny, there is a story in NY Magazine right now referring to Hillary as Marie Antoinette. Of course since it’s by Jonathan Chait it contains a big dollop of clueless. It does bring up the “what about Elizabeth Warren?” scenario, and any number of the comments are pimping for Cherokee Liz. I have a sneaking suspicion that Warren see heap big chance be President, make-um attack on Buzzard Queen, try win primary.

      http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/how-did-hillary-clinton-become-marie-antoinette.html

      peterike

      June 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM

      • President Warren. That’d be such a wonderful day for native americans, won’t it?

        Glengarry

        June 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM

    • And her descendants to the 100 million generations.

      It was good that Simon the shoemaker starved Marie Antoinette’s son to death. Otherwise we would have seen her ghost again.

      Colmainen

      June 25, 2014 at 12:24 PM

  37. Chelsea Clinton’s life of ascetic simplicity in her $10.5 million dollar Manhattan condo should be an inspiration to all of us.

    A crappy studio apartment in the Bronx is quite adequate for most people’s meager needs.

    Jim

    June 25, 2014 at 9:21 AM

    • Or a decent size apartment in a smaller or lesser city is quite adequate for most people, who don’t have pay a lot for housing.

      And a crappy studio is correct, as most Americans will now put up with subpar excellence in everything. Joe Biden’s remark about La Guardia Airport looking like a 3rd world rat hole was meant to say that America is becoming one.

      JS

      June 25, 2014 at 10:38 AM

      • And by the way, the Port Authority manages La Guardia Airport. I’m sure gov’t funding has been received in the past for any pet projects. So where did all the money go?

        As one person puts it: The Port Authority doesn’t run airports, it provides jobs and feeds the Soprano family.

        JS

        June 25, 2014 at 3:08 PM

  38. This is OT but a great New York NAM story. Dude walks into McDonald’s with a knife in his back. Pictures taken! Just another day in Jamaica. Jamaica, New York that is.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/man-walks-into-mcdonalds-with-a-knife-in-back.html

    peterike

    June 25, 2014 at 10:07 AM

    • Pete – Who said 2 million blacks in NYC is going to be an easy life for the rest of us? Despite what we’ve been hearing about black flight from the Big Apple, bringing this population down to a half is just impossible.

      I can’t wait till day when Jamaica in NYC fully gentrifies ~ year 2100!

      JS

      June 25, 2014 at 2:52 PM

    • And looking at the twitter photo makes me want to leave this country ASAP!

      This could be a place in Lion’s neck of the woods, Chelsea, the East or West Village, it doesn’t matter!

      JS

      June 25, 2014 at 5:16 PM

      • where in manhattan does lion live? has he ever told us?

        uatu

        June 25, 2014 at 10:23 PM

      • I believe he’s up in the UWS, the land of Jewish grandmothers.

        Renault

        June 25, 2014 at 11:33 PM

      • Chelsea->Clinton:

        Lion lives in a neighborhood above Chelsea (a neighborhood full of gays), which is now called Clinton, under its gentrified moniker, which also attracts gays who have been priced out of Chelsea. But most people call Clinton, “Hells’ Kitchen” – it’s original name from its pre-gentrification days when it was a gang infested and a working class prole neighborhood.

        Plenty of blacks loiter around the Port Authority bus station and the areas surrounding Times Sq. Don’t forget, most of the public schools in Manhattan have a NAM majority, so during the 3’o clock recess time, much of the city is teeming with NAMs who are being let loose.

        JS

        June 25, 2014 at 11:57 PM

  39. Off topic, but I called it: implementation of Osamacare AKA RobertsTax has sent American economy into recession. Imagine if Bathhouse Barry and the Democraps had implemented the whole shit sandwich instead of delaying the most destructive aspects until after the 2014 midterms and/or 2016 Coronation of Thunderbuns Clinton. So are you still a big fan of Osamacare, Lion?

    coolhandel

    June 25, 2014 at 12:21 PM

  40. TOOS is sacred.

    Some people may say god does not exist but god does exist. It is called toos.

    Some people might think Chelsea is not toos but she certainly appears to consider herself as one.

    Colmainen

    June 25, 2014 at 12:27 PM

    • By eschewing both income-creating labor and politics, instead pursuing an avocation in philanthropy, she’s acting very TOOS.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 25, 2014 at 2:43 PM

      • Can we rule out politics? She is still in the first half of her thirties meaning she has a good fifty years to menace us with this possibility.

        Hillary waited until Bill was done before getting into politics. Now Chelsea may be waiting for mom.

        Nepotism is something you can pretty much count on. Consider just the very recent past. Bill and Hillary, all of the Bushes, Dan Quayle and son, Ron Paul and son, Bob Dole and wife, Al Gore Sr. and Al Gore Jr. Jesse Jackson Sr. and Jr.

        There are a large number of jurisdictions where Michele Obama would (will?) flatten all comers with 114% of vote in certain demographics.

        Dan

        June 25, 2014 at 3:28 PM

      • She is still in the first half of her thirties meaning she has a good fifty years to menace us with this possibility.

        Fortunately she’s not ambitious or ruthless enough to make a run for the presidency. Hillary and Bill were planning their way to power the minute they were born. Not so with Chelsea. At worst, if she does run and win office it will be a Congressional or Senate seat.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 25, 2014 at 7:21 PM

      • Obviously betraying my lack of NYC street cred, but what the hell is TOOS?

        Ron

        June 25, 2014 at 7:54 PM

      • Top Out Of Sight, according to the late Paul Fussell, the highest social class.

      • By eschewing both income-creating labor and politics, instead pursuing an avocation in philanthropy, she’s acting very TOOS.

        The behavior of TOOS are common among average European SWPLs. Non-TOOS, bobos in America are all about snobbery via money – mass consumption, if not status, such as being a college professor.

        JS

        June 26, 2014 at 11:20 AM

      • “Fortunately she’s not ambitious or ruthless enough to make a run for the presidency.”

        Yep. Chelsea didn’t finish her doctorate until age 34, which means she’s a slacker and typical of her generation. Keep in mind that her mom, Thunderbuns, grew up in a time of feminist rah-rah “we will overcome” malarkey. Chelsea and her generation take female political and economic supremacy as a given and so she doesn’t have that fire in the belly to prove that she’s as capable as a man.

        coolhandel

        June 26, 2014 at 1:13 PM

      • Yep. Chelsea didn’t finish her doctorate until age 34, which means she’s a slacker and typical of her generation. Keep in mind that her mom, Thunderbuns, grew up in a time of feminist rah-rah “we will overcome” malarkey. Chelsea and her generation take female political and economic supremacy as a given and so she doesn’t have that fire in the belly to prove that she’s as capable as a man.

        Wasn’t George W. Bush also a slacker in his youth? He still continued the family’s political legacy.

        pumpkinperson

        June 26, 2014 at 7:41 PM

      • Thunderbuns, grew up in a time of feminist rah-rah “we will overcome” malarkey.

        Politics will return to sanity when boomer elites retire. Younger generations, ‘tweeners’, Generation X and Y, are conformists who lack the passion to continue the amazing failures of the boomers when the latter’s dominance fades.

        This meek, confused girl, Chelsea, and 80% of young women with Mrs. degrees, would default into a quiet Stepford wife role if her crazy parents – imitating their fellow, crazy, elite boomer parents with daughters- weren’t screaming at her, ‘conquer the world’; as if they were Phillip II and she Alexander the Great.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 26, 2014 at 10:03 PM

      • and though fussel might give some useful terms, the guy was no expert.

        he was a real estate lawyer’s son from la.

        my great great grandmother was a prole, but she was the titanic’s most famous survivor, etc. but i’m just lumpenprole.

        but then so are the toos. even the european variety. as hitchens said, “the royal family is trailer trash.”

        jorge videla

        June 26, 2014 at 11:59 PM

      • @Jorge

        Molly Brown was born in Hannibal, Mo, whose more famous former resident was Samuel Langhon Clemens who also tried to wash out his proleness (I mean what name is more prole than Mark Twain?) and was burnt completely.

        There is something special, something sacred in toos. They might act in a trashy way among themselves but ordinary people simply can’t touch their aura.

        Colmainen

        June 27, 2014 at 12:22 PM

  41. How mad does this make dorky libertarians who majored in engineering and make $85k, in beige cubicle farms, with clueless Baby Boomer bosses?

    Logan Circle Dreaming

    June 25, 2014 at 5:11 PM

  42. and she’s not alone.

    in general money and the things it buys aren’t anyone’s motivation past enough for a private jet and houses around the world. but that’s the toos. what’s a lear jet? 20m?

    jorge videla

    June 26, 2014 at 12:39 AM

  43. O/T – Montreal looks like another NYC cesspool metropolis. Although NAMs appear to be less frequently spotted. And the women look uglier than NYC women.

    JS

    June 26, 2014 at 9:57 AM

    • Have you ever been there? Or are you speculating by watching videos on Youtube?

      The women there are attractive. French-looking, but attractive.

      DdR

      June 26, 2014 at 3:48 PM

      • Montreal is one of the most attractive NA cities. I have to disagree with JS here.

        uatu

        June 26, 2014 at 4:05 PM

      • Many of those people are not French looking, that is if you don’t count people who are French mulattos (Creoles), and 3rd world migrants from North and Sub-Sahara Africa.

        I was there in 2005. It seems like the city changed a lot. More non-Whites who are not only unattractive and overweight, but antithetical to what Western countries stand for, that is, they want to assert their own tribal influences coming from their native cultures in a White majority nation, and also competing with other non-White groups for that assertion as well.

        JS

        June 26, 2014 at 4:28 PM

      • The women there are attractive. French-looking, but attractive.

        Dude, French-Canadian chicks are on average the *most* attractive in the country; no need for the “but”.

        Samson J.

        June 26, 2014 at 6:08 PM

    • Girls in Montreal remind me of ones you might find in Brooklyn (hipster Brooklyn, not NAM or prole white Brooklyn).

      One strange thing I’ve noticed about Montreal (been there five times in the past three years) is the relative lack of “attractive”/alpha/whatever guys — it always feels like there’s absolutely no competition, which is something that pretty much never happens here in Manhattan (and to a lesser extent Brooklyn).

      Renault

      June 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

      • Montreal guys aren’t all that different from Manhattan guys in the physical department.

        Despite NYC’s dog eat dog culture, Manhattan really has no competition at all. As a guy, either you are made out to be successful or not, and being a male striver in Manhattan doesn’t cut it, because it’s all about de facto status coming from race, looks, occupation after graduation and even your alma mater.

        Many guys will know early on that being average doesn’t cut it in Manhattan, and those who can’t get women usually leave the city altogether. Many normal women in NYC complain about the lack of “good” men, because they themselves have exceedingly high standards, and will not settle for anything less. The statistics show that about 50% of NYC’s men are undatable in the eyes of college educated women, that includes a lot of minority men such as Asians, Indians, NAM underachievers and White men who are in their middle age, despite having a good paying job.

        The stereotype of Montreal women, unlike let’s say NYC women, is that they are like the male horndogs in America, who don’t mind sleeping around with different men and have lower standards.

        JS

        June 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM

  44. O/T – How can any landlord charge more than 1/2 million in yearly rent for a small business? Union Square Cafe is relocating because of this, even though the owner is a multimillionaire himself. It seems like the city will truly evolve into a divide of immense wealth and power, and a complete 3rd worldism at the other end.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/dining/union-square-cafe-joins-other-victims-of-new-york-citys-rising-rents.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

    Big box retail outlets with billions of dollars heading to NYC, will be hiring more inner city ghetto NAMs as their workers!

    JS

    June 26, 2014 at 11:10 AM

    • A commentator in that NYT article by the name of Robert Coane from Nova Scotia and New York said this:

      AMERICA is so wrong in so much and so blind to cultural heritage it has little to none.

      Evidence that America respects no history, tradition, institution or site, only the almighty $$$$$. Then Americans go to Europe or Asia or Latin America and marvel at the “antiquity” America willl never achieve.

      Wreck and profit, innovation and greed!

      Lived on West 16th Street for 30 years. I remember “Needle Park.”

      RIP, Union Square Café! If anyone can muster a memory, it will die soon too. Money talks in amnesiac USA.

      I’m not sure if Nova Scotia up in Canada has any cultural offerings that is on par with Quebec City, but I’m sure it’s lot better than a place such as NYC, when it comes unfettered out of sync multiculturalism via out of control capitalism. When the rents in NYC has become so expensive and people are just tired and fed up with the price gouging – theme park atmosphere of Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, many people will make an exodus and Bill de Blasio and his NAM minions will get what they want, that is more affordable housing will be readily available to them, as supply outstrips demand.

      JS

      June 26, 2014 at 2:52 PM

      • Nova Scotia doesn’t look a whole lot different than Maine.

        Halifax is a nice enough city, but if you woke up there one day, it wouldn’t be immediately obvious that you were in a foreign country.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 26, 2014 at 3:01 PM

      • A lot of your male readers (usually with low agreeableness) would like to see more of this in NYC, which was common sighting in the early to mid 2000s:

        http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/06/beautiful-woman-reads-book-in-russian.html

        The status charging SWPL, sex and the city themes which runs around your blog becomes a tiring drivel after a while.

        JS

        June 26, 2014 at 3:43 PM

      • I’m not sure if Nova Scotia up in Canada has any cultural offerings that is on par with Quebec City

        Depends on what you’re envisioning. Old-town Quebec is a treasure, to be sure, and there’s nothing *quite* like it in the rest of the country, but good ol’ Nova Scotia has some high points, including plenty of historical buildings and not one but two colonial-era fortresses. There’s also great seafood and a lively culture of Celtic music. And it’s not expensive.

        (Not to sound too much like a tourism-industry spambot, but NS is the poorest, most pitiful province at the mo’ and tourism is really its most important industry.)

        Actually the comparison to NYC, and the US in general, is interesting to me. Obviously NYC is the cultural and financial capital of North America, but – honest question here – speaking as a fan of history, and especially military history, is there anyplace in the US with historical fortifications similar to Quebec, Louisbourg or the Halifax Citadel?

        Samson J.

        June 26, 2014 at 6:22 PM

      • Money talks in amnesiac USA.

        right. there’s no question whatsoever that bush et all lied the country into the second iraq war, that they are war criminals, and should be hanged just like so many were in nuremberg.

        jorge videla

        June 26, 2014 at 11:53 PM

      • anyone who topped bush, cheney, or rummy wouldn’t be a terrorist. he’d be a hero.

        jorge videla

        June 26, 2014 at 11:55 PM

      • @ Samson J.

        NYC is the financial capital of America? Yes, that seems to be the case with Wall St. But NYC being the cultural capital of America would be harder to pinpoint. Unless, you’re saying high culture in America is all about mass consumption and status signaling, where unfettered greed would allow anyone to engage in these activities unhampered. If this is the case, then yes, NYC is this culture capital of America.

        JS

        June 27, 2014 at 12:12 PM

      • the cultural capital of america is like the scientific research capital of the central african republic.

        jorge videla

        June 27, 2014 at 10:02 PM

      • Lion – An American driver was treated with due respect by Canadian border guards when he headed up north to New Brunswick. Upon returning, his fellow Americans at the gates treated him like a second class citizen like what you see at the airport these days.

        Tell me, how is the similar landscape between upper New England and Eastern Canada, an important issue to compare between the 2 nations?

        JS

        June 28, 2014 at 10:05 AM

      • upper upper ne has some french speakers. and it’s dirt poor. by some measures maine is the poorest state in the union.

        jorge videla

        June 29, 2014 at 12:21 AM

  45. L

    June 26, 2014 at 2:35 PM

    • If you haven’t read this guy’s blog, he’s disgusted with Lion’s position on pro-abortion for prole and NAM women.

      http://politicsandprosperity.com/2013/10/11/the-most-disgusting-thing-ive-read-today/

      He seems to think Lion’s take on it is about eugenics, but it’s more about IQ leading to poor outcomes. One needs to understand that perpetual proledom and NAMdom is a good measure of IQ. Multigenerational poverty, dysfunctionality and underachievement are a result of low IQs.

      JS

      June 26, 2014 at 5:54 PM

      • or low-er iqs.

        it’s impossible for no one to be below average. and being at the bottom of ability in a simultaneously competitive and post scarcity economy exaggerates whatever prole tendencies.

        human behavior, contra alfred rosenberg, steve hsu and other latter day nazis, is NOT an epiphenmenon of the blood.

        jorge videla

        June 27, 2014 at 10:06 PM

      • America remains to be a nation of underdogs and underachievers, and these unique qualities will become more apparent as the planet achieves a global village status. Most Americans are too dumb and too poor to leave this country. Only ~30% of Americans have passports.

        JS

        June 28, 2014 at 9:56 AM

  46. Only overindulged, overpriveleged brats don’t understand the value of money.

    I bet she thinks Mark married her for her great looks and fascinating personality as well.

    Chelsea

    June 26, 2014 at 3:57 PM

  47. You don’t have to make another post. This story encapsulates all things wrong with modern America and the comments, rightfully, will never stop.

    JQ

    June 26, 2014 at 5:18 PM

    • Anyone who wants to say anything positive about modern America, is that it’s all about a zero sum game, rivaling that of non-White nations. The concept of being alpha, domineering in commercial matters, where the winner takes all, ironically, resembles those people whom we call “beta” in places such as East Asia. America just seems to be more violent.

      JS

      June 27, 2014 at 9:46 AM

      • america is unique in the history of the world in convincing its poor people to be ashamed of their poverty and worship rich people.

        sodomy, etc. poverty is america’s only unforgivable sin.

        it’s people believe they live in a meritocracy with a distribution of wealth like sweden’s. yet it is the least meritocratic and most unequal developed country.

        in the last 15 years the middle has risen in ALL developed countries EXCEPT the us.

        “An old joke has an Oxford professor meeting an American former graduate student and asking him what he’s working on these days. ‘My thesis is on the survival of the class system in the United States.’ ‘Oh really, that’s interesting: one didn’t think there was a class system in the United States.’ ‘Nobody does. That’s how it survives.”

        jorge videla

        June 27, 2014 at 10:10 PM

      • america is the neo-roman empire. the only difference is that the roman elites knew that the good life was all about leisure, not politics, not corporate wall st, not academic diatribe which american elites spent most of their time.

        JS

        June 28, 2014 at 10:08 AM

      • College campuses see rise in homeless students

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/21/homeless-students-american-colleges/3144383/

        Of course, they should have said Prole State Schools!

        JS

        June 28, 2014 at 11:57 AM

      • The girl, Tina Giarla featured in that article, is another IA proless. It’s rather unfortunate!

        I need to work, work, work, so I could have a roof under my head. America is such a great place, she tells ya!

        On a lighter note, Lion, how about self actualization as a gypsy traveler and writer? I have no job, no money, hopefully some kind hearted prole in middle America could accommodate me for a few days, and I’ll move on the next one, as I keep a diary about my travel memoirs.

        JS

        June 28, 2014 at 12:06 PM

      • strangely enough i think the us may have to import lots of people to prevent change.

        immigrants are almost as patriotic as red necks.

        jorge videla

        June 29, 2014 at 12:24 AM

      • As you were saying, Americans are overly obedient. Occupy Wall St was a joke.

        Disingenuous protestors who were more interested in free food, and joining the status quo than protesting against it.

        JS

        June 30, 2014 at 12:02 PM

    • And these people will be the overlords stomping on the faces of the ordinary whites for ever. The only consolation would be watching them stomping on the faces of the ordinary nonwhites as well.

      Colmainen

      June 27, 2014 at 7:30 PM

  48. Has her husband’s hedge fund – eaglevale even done well? I think it’s aum is tiny – under 450 million. I believe its a global macro fund as well, which hasn’t been the best performing strategy in aggregate in the HF space

    uatu

    June 27, 2014 at 10:57 PM

    • and with a few genuine exceptions it can be said of the hedge fund industry and the private equity industry ala churchill:

      “Never in the field of business has so much been paid to so few for so little.”

      as ian paisley would say, “never! never! never! never!”

      jorge videla

      June 29, 2014 at 12:31 AM

      • Very true.

        uatu

        June 29, 2014 at 11:26 PM

    • Doesn’t matter since it is kind of ‘protection money’ from TOOS in case of a Hillary Presidency. They can live without these sums but having money in that fund will go a much longer way than any profits that fund might generate.

      Colmainen

      June 30, 2014 at 1:00 PM

  49. Very annoying; how can people used to being in the public eye and supposedly media savvy, say such stupid shit for publication? I mean, to give benefit of the doubt, let’s say she meant to imply ‘well, yes, i’m personally protected and comfortable financially in a way that 99-percent of the rest of the population isn’t —- but i still don’t get a vocational satisfaction out of greatly increasing my personal or company’s wealth,’ that would be one thing.

    But she didn’t; she said something much more crude and ignorant of her standing; so people have the right to be insulted. Stupid-ass brat shit.

    nikcrit

    June 30, 2014 at 1:04 AM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: