When will America become Post-Racial?

As Obama's Teflon armor starts to erode, his status as leader of a post-racial America is becoming increasingly implausible. Glenn Beck stated, in a shockingly overt manner, that "Obama has exposed himself as a person with 'a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.'" At Townhall.com, Ben Shapiro offers this assessment of Obama:

[Gates] is a defender and purveyor of the "dominant white racism" myth that continues to plague American society. He is, underneath it all, Barack Obama. He and Gates are on the same wavelength...Whites can never quite do enough to atone for the sins of their ancestors. And blacks, short of openly violent conduct, can never do anything that would justify arrest.

Even Obama himself expressed disappointment at the press ignoring the hate-whitey segment of his NAACP speech. The post-racial, colorblind Obama image is starting to wane. It's appropriate to reflect on both the possibility and the time frame of a post-racial America.

First, we have to understand the motives and normative values of black America. The GSS and black intellectuals like Cornel West provide a suitable representation. According to Audacious Epigone, blacks exhibit levels of racialism almost four times higher than whites. Further, using the GSS variable EQINCOME, which asks about wealth distribution, blacks have a less favorable opinion of the free market than whites. 53% of blacks agree with redistribution compared to 30% of whites, while 25% of blacks disagree compared to 44% of whites. Finally, the venerable "black scholar" Cornel West opines:

This means not simply that Americans have inherited racist attitudes and prejudices, but, more importantly, that institutional forms of racism are embedded in American society in both visible and invisible ways. These institutional forms exist not only in remnants of de jure job, housing, and educational discrimination and political gerrymandering. They also manifest themselves in a de facto labor market segmentation, produced by the exclusion of large numbers of peoples of color from the socioeconomic mainstream.

[A] democratic socialist society is the best hope for alleviating and minimizing racism, particularly institutional forms of racism.

Note his socialist agenda centers around white to black wealth redsitribution. Other typifying exmaples include black liberation theology prevelant amongst black churches and Obama's continually high approval ratings amongst blacks as compared to whites (~85% to 50%).

From the above, it's clear black communities glorify the collective above the individual. Ideologies pervasive throughout the community continually harp on racial uplift, collective achievement, socialist economic schemes, and an "us" versus "them" mentality. This collectivist rhetoric is typified in the popular clothing brand FUBU, an acronym meaning "For Us, By Us". In the black world, an individual is seen not as an individual entity, but as merely an extension of his racial group. When OJ was acquitted, lumbering black woman across the country exclaimed, "We won!" Everything is couched in the language of groups and all facts are interpreted in this manner.

What does this have to do with a post-racial society? Much of black ire towards mainstream America and whites derives from the gaps in education, income, poverty, and crime. Blacks are generally unwilling, or unable, to judge these disparities in individual terms. It's inconsequential to blacks that highly intelligent blacks seem to succeed at levels commensurate with their similarly qualified white peers. To blacks, only the entirety of racial groups matter in assessing equality. As a result, blacks see our society as fundamentally flawed given the differing situations of the two most prominent racial groups. Intensifying the situation, our PC culture and its parasitic race racketeers have concocted a narrative that ignites black racialism by laying all fault at a "white power structure". This creates a dynamic whereby a collectivist-obsessed group angrily notes the lower status of their race and castigates the dominant group for their troubles.

We can't have a post-racial society when one group so intensely harbors ill will towards the other. Given the above argument, the only remedy is for blacks to achieve parity with whites. Affirmative action was the first attempt at such a shift. This has ultimately failed in creating a vibrant black middle class. And it's not surprising, as the proportional population of potential black middle class members is significantly lower than the same metric for whites.

Of course, this is due to race and intelligence differences. So will we ever see a post-racial America? I find this situation somewhat implausible because the intelligence, inhibition, and future time orientation gaps all seem incorrigible. Blacks will only become amicable if they achieve parity. Yet widespread success relies heavily on genetics. Thus, a post-racial society seems like a long shot.

Further, an entire "business" thrives off racial animus. It includes race racketeers and empyt black suits like Obama and the omnipresent "Reverands". It sustains white guilt through aggressive accusatory politics and reaps the welfare benefits as a result. Blacks also have a strong monopoly on racial discussion, owed to their constant grousing about perceived racial discrimination. Their offensive and forthright tactics, in conjunction with the more nuanced, but equally insidious approach of individuals like Gates and West, give them the upper hand. It's in blacks' best interest to eschew a post-racial society. Ironically, talking heads implicitly assure us it's whites who are unwilling to move past race. Here's an illustration. The MSM condemned an honest, upstanding white police officer for racism while never uttering the word concerning Revered Wright.

Finally, a post-racial society assumes the absence of race. Yet, such a situation is biologically infeasible as race exists independent of its social implications. One thing is assuredly clear: our supposedly prophetic uniter is not helping things.

While America Slept...

While Europe Slept is a book by Bruce Bawer. It details Europe's increasing Muslim population. Here's a description from Wikipedia. For a fun exercise, replace Muslim with NAM and Europe with America:

In While Europe Slept, Bawer claims that Europe's politically correct culture defends and protects the Islamic fundamentalism that is preying upon its liberal social systems. Bawer argues that Islamists use welfare and religious grants to fund extremist mosques and support imams with a violent past. Once established in Western European nations, Bawer maintains, the Islamists avoid integration and answer only to sharia law. In his conclusion, Bawer states that rising Muslim birthrates and refusal to integrate will allow them to dominate European society within 30 years, and that the only way to avoid such a disaster is to abolish the politically correct and multicultural doctrine that according to him is rife within the continent. He also suggests a physical solution for the problem he perceives: "European officials have a clear route out of this nightmare. They have armies. They have police. They have prisons. They're in a position to deport planeloads of people everyday. They could start rescuing Europe tomorrow."

Fundamental Constant of Sociology and Stuyvesant Admissions Test

At iSteve, Sailer posted analysis from La Griffe du Lion showing the FDNY tests followed the Fundamental Constant of Sociology. Readers of this blog should note that 'OneSTDV' derives from the law:

On tests of reasoning ability, the observed mean difference between non-Hispanic whites and African Americans is 1.1 ± 0.2.

On La Griffe's website, he shows the approximately one standard deviation gap applies to the SAT, LSAT, Bar exam, MCAT, and ACT.

I decided to look into the most high-stakes, and highly contested, scholastic exam in the country, the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test (SHSAT). High scorers on this test are offered admission to the Harvard, Yale, Princeton of New York high schools: Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech. Unsurprisingly, the test has been attacked by diversity groups, including ACORN, for exhibiting the same old racial trends (source: NYT):

Parents of black and Hispanic students have long complained about the lack of diversity in the elite schools’ enrollment

Among the 21,490 public school students who last year took the exam, the single gateway to eight high schools, 6 percent of blacks and 7 percent of Hispanics were offered admission, compared with 35 percent of Asians and 31 percent of white students.

Using the numbers above with Excel's norminv function and assuming a normal distribution, I calculated the z-score of the "passing standard" for each race. I subtracted the black z-score from the white z-score to obtain the gap as a scalar of the assumed equal standard deviation value. This is La Griffe's method but I explained it without integrals.

For overall test takers, the black-white gap was 1.06.

To decrease the racial disparities in access to test prep materials, educational quality, and studying motivation, a test prep institute was formed specifically for the SHSAT.

The test-prep institute, which includes a full-time five-week summer session and twice-a-week workshops during the school year, was a core part of the city’s strategy to diversify the ranks of the elite schools.

The results:

While 90 percent of Asians and 85 percent of white students at the institute take the test, 65 percent of blacks and 70 percent of Hispanics do; last year, of the institute graduates taking the test, 58 percent of the Asians, 49 percent of whites, 21 percent of Hispanics and 19 percent of blacks were offered admission.

The black-white gap for the test-institute students was 0.85. Notice a significantly lower proportion of blacks from the institute took the test. We can presume these would have been the worst scorers as their poor performance probably discouraged them from taking the actual exam. The slightly lower than normal gap can likely be attributed to this.

So, yet again, the fundamental law of sociology holds.

How To Create a Tween Sensation

Demi Lovato is Disney's newest tween sweetheart. In this recent New York Times profile, they lay out the standard explanation for her success:

Now she’s the headliner, her warp-speed climb to the top of kid pop — by way of albums, TV films and her sitcom, “Sonny With a Chance“ — a testament not only to her indefatigable energy and legitimate talent, but also to the vitality and efficiency of the Disney star-making machine, which cultivates young talent across media platforms.

While noting Disney's strong grasp on the tween market, they fail to provide an explanation of how Disney effortlessly creates legitimate pop princesses. In the past decade, they have crafted the persona and facilitated the rise of Hilary Duff, Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan, Ashley Tisdale, Vanessa Ann Hudgens, Selena Gomez, and now Demi Lovato. I'll add Taylor Swift because she fits the pattern as well.

Not surprisingly, each girl is very attractive and young. Yet, it's often stated that a tween artist can only attain fame if she easily relates to her audience. The relevant market for these acts is normal girls from ages 9 to 12. This period of adolescence is filled with emotional, social, and physical turmoil. How can an extremely attractive, popular pop star be palatable to a general audience of young girls struggling with all sorts of confidence issues and social problems?

Disney uses this fact to brand their acts. Disney provides a launching platform for each act, usually a show or movie. Each production is centered on the potential star, with a set of middle America parents, two (multicultural) best friends, and an antagonist or two at school. For example, Hilary Duff starred in Lizzie McGuire with Jewish and Mexican best friends, an annoying younger brother, an unrequited love, and a queen bee at school who constantly teased her. Anything sound familiar?

To the average tween girl, that's life. A prepubescent girl deals with not fitting in, feeling self-conscious about body image, and maneuvering new social structures. So Disney concocts shows where each episode deals with a familiar problem: your best friend didn't come to your aid, the boy you like likes someone else, you didn't get a good grade, or you're self-conscious about some uncool talent. Yet unlike the average tween, these very attractive stars should not confront the same issues. After all, they're beautiful, confident, and everyone seems to love them. The fact that a beautiful girl faces the same challenges (in the imaginary show) makes the tween girl feel better about their latest disappointment. If everyone failed a test, including that brilliant Asian kid in the front row, then why wallow in misery?

Disney formulates narratives for Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato much in the same way educational romantics treat Einstein. By framing adolescent problems so that even the coolest and best-looking girls go through it, Disney creates beautiful, talented and ACCESSIBLE stars.

Note: I didn't detail how each girl's platform put her in these positions so I'll provide one example. Taylor Swift's most recent song complains about a guy only seeing her as a friend. In fact, this her second song to deal with this issue. But, come on.

How Hip-Hop Feuls today's Multiculturalism

In this January 2009 article, entitled The End of Whiteness, the author discusses the end of "white" as defining the American mainstream. The piece ruminates on changes that have transformed this country and what a changing racial demographic portends for our cultural future. Surprisingly, there's no mention of dsygenic fertility. In the middle of the piece, he mentions the importance of hip-hop culture:

Over the past 30 years, few changes in American culture have been as significant as the rise of hip-hop. The genre has radically reshaped the way we listen to and consume music, first by opposing the pop mainstream and then by becoming it. From its constant sampling of past styles and eras—old records, fashions, slang, anything—to its mythologization of the self-made black antihero, hip-hop is more than a musical genre: it’s a philosophy, a political statement, a way of approaching and remaking culture.

Hip-hop corresponds with other musically-based youth movements in the 20th century. But none tackled race, or was tackled by race, in the same manner. Cultural rebellion, almost invariably against the parent generation, is a recurring theme throughout American history. The Roaring Twenties, Elvis hysteria, the hippie movement, and 70's hard rock all represent kids divesting themselves from their parents' norms. Yet while some of the iconoclastic movements appropriated black musical forms, the entertainers still associated with and appealed to a white audience. Contrastingly, the originators and present performers of hip-hop are entirely black.

This fact, that hip-hop never became a white art form, is the main reason it has such relevance to our multicultural society. The "hip-hop" generation, birth cohorts beginning around 1970, had a chance at not only a cultural, spiritual, or aesthetic repudiation of their parents. They had a chance at the ultimate rebellion: one against whiteness and the fact that whiteness is the most entrenched aspect of traditional America. Instead of simply adopting new fashion trends, they adopted a new pseudo-racial classification.

As Hsu notes, the acceptance of hip-hop amongst the mainstream has "bred an unprecedented cultural confidence in its black originators." Generation X and Y now view blackness as authentic and vibrant, inundated with the "alpha male/womanizer/antihero/struggle against the Man" narrative propagated in rap songs. Rap and rappers become the ultimate example of anti-traditionalism and the challenge articulated in rap songs is perpetually "the struggle". Of course, those who struggle oppose the "white Man", typified by classics from NWA (NSFW) and Public Enemy.

To be white became the anti-black, the oppressive Man, the Joker to the black Batman, or more appropriately, Scarface. The uprising against struggle gave black rappers priceless "street cred" and transformed them from faceless thugs to palatable underdogs. An entire generation was inundated with this perspective on racial relations, culminating in a view that "to be white is to be culturally broke". The fix in the minds of a generation currently gaining power: multiculturalism.

The early pioneers of affirmative action likely instituted the program as a means for controlling blacks. Yet, their concocted fable of American history wasn't only adopted by blacks, but their liberal white classmates at elite universities. This generation, the Baby Boomers with notions of idealistic harmony, begat a generation eager to find authenticity through other people, especially blacks. Their childhood experience, with Harriet Tubman in school and Biggie at home, created an group eager to advance "diversity".

Education Spending Does Nothing

Via Inductivist, Obama thinks more spending will improve education (along with healthcare and the economy)! Apparently no one in the education sector did any research. I found this graph in only two minutes searching online.

Educational Attainment and Belief in Racial Profiling

In criticizing Skip Gates' arrest, his supporters claim that racial profiling and institutional bias permeate our society, contending that crime and arrest disparities derive from stereotyping of blacks. Further, they generalize this idea concerning differences in the job market, educational system, and leadership positions. Despite contrary evidence, why does the institutional racism myth persist and how can it explain Gates' reaction? I used the General Social Survey (GSS) to answer this.

Since our educational system preaches a biased account of American history, I researched how attitudes about discrimination were shaped by educational attainment. The GSS asks the following question:

On the average Blacks have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people. Do you think these differences are mainly due to discrimination?

Looking at the responses only for blacks, I obtained the chart below.

The percent of "yes" responses has a definite trend upwards as educational level increases. A slight drop off is observed for a graduate degree, but the sample size was only 25 (compared to 108, 333, 46, 45). [Update: Frequent commenter 'mike' posits the graduate dropoff occurs because most graduate degrees are in practical subjects. He states those pursuing an advanced degree would tend to be those with a more realistic outlook.]

Clearly, educational advancement assures the increased study of "structural racism". The curriculum of high schools and colleges focus heavily on black figures and claim whites monopolize wealth and influence. More exposure to this material is bound to cause increasingly racialist and antagonistic attitudes. Further, as the educational level increases, the intellectual requirements become more stringent. Due to affirmative action, many blacks do not perform at commensurate levels to their peers. Unable to accept this, they blame racism for underachievement. Finally, many intelligent blacks are encouraged to read authors like James Baldwin and Toni Morrison or major in African-American studies. As a result, these individuals wholly accept the discrimination narrative.

And now back to Gates'. Gates' life has been defined by racialist affairs, even addressing the Yale undergraduate admissions board as "whitey". His entire educational and personal history is full of racially motivated engagements that disseminate the "whites are racist" meme. Is it any surprise that someone taught by our PC educational system and sheltered in the world of sycophantic academia reacts in such a way? From the above chart, it's ostensibly clear that education increases racialist suspicion. Gates' simply reflects the ideas entrenched in that system.

NFL sues Delaware over Sports Betting

Back in May, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that sports betting adhered to state laws. The major issue concerned the predominance of skill over luck in determining betting outcomes. Sports betting is under the tent of "lotteries" and the Delaware constitution demands that "lottery" results be primarily based on chance, not skill.

a federal judge concluded that lotteries need not be matters of pure chance, and "an element of calculation or even of certainty" could be involved, as long as chance was the dominant or controlling factor.

Today, the NFL, along with four other sports agencies, have sued the state of Delaware in order to outlaw sports betting. The NFL's participation is especially important as football betting outweighs any other sports gambling. They issued the following reasoning for their opposition:

Delaware's sports betting plan "would irreparably harm professional and amateur sports by fostering suspicion and skepticism that individual plays and final scores of games may have been influenced by factors other than honest athletic competition,"

So a tiny state adopting sports betting will harm the integrity of the game? Really? Of course, that's not the actual motive. The NFL has become an increasingly totalitarian brand, fitting their "No Fun League" nickname. The NFL desperately wants full control over its brand and the profits derived from it.

It comes down to money. The NFL wants to disallow sports betting because they're aware some bettors can consistently make profits. For the most astute bettors, skill and statistical patterns can yield a slight player advantage. And the NFL can't stand anyone profiting from their product. The house can only win using randomly-based, rigged games where the law of averages rules.

The NFL knows their product follows certain rules (home team wins 60%) and even the jiggering of expert odds-makers can be beaten, for a profit, by some bettors.

Nicholas Wade on Conformity in science

Two names within the HBD community, Thomas Burchard and Nicholas Wade, appear in a recent NYT online piece. HalfSigma discussed this issue recently as well. The article, entitled "Researcher Condemns Conformity Amongst His Peers", reflects HBD criticism of the scientific establishment. The article reads:

The strength of this urge to conform can silence even those who have good reason to think the majority is wrong. You’re an expert because all your peers recognize you as such. But if you start to get too far out of line with what your peers believe, they will look at you askance and start to withdraw the informal title of “expert” they have implicitly bestowed on you.

He speaks of scienctific "consensus" here:

Conformity and group-think are attitudes of particular danger in science, an endeavor that is inherently revolutionary because progress often depends on overturning established wisdom.

He cautiously, using a sarcastic and vague cover, continues:

Global warming, you say? You mean it might be harder to model climate change 20 years ahead than house prices 5 years ahead? Surely not – how could so many climatologists be wrong?

He finally gets explicit at the end, using Brouchard as a mouthpiece. It's refreshing that a prominent figure like Brouchard sheds light on PC doctrine. The study of any possible phenonmenon should be encouraged, an ideal often ignored by the establishment's "free-thinkers". Arguments citing adverse social implications have long opposed knowledge advancement, such as the contention that Galileo's observations would erode human status. The HBD argument is the latest taboo theory to be silenced by conforming researchers.

What’s wrong with consensuses is not the establishment of a majority view, which is necessary and legitimate, but the silencing of skeptics. “We still have whole domains we can’t talk about,” Dr. Bouchard said, referring to the psychology of differences between races and sexes.

He briefly comments on the impact of groupthink within Asian cultures.

It’s curious that Japan, for example, despite having all the ingredients of a first rate scientific power – a rich economy, heavy investment in R&D, a highly educated population and a talented scientific workforce – has never posed a serious challenge to American scientific leadership. [I think we know what he really wants to say: high IQ population].

Conformity and obudrate adherence to tradition often impedes technological advancement. The Asian Einstein would likely discard his ideas, fearful of undermining the hallowed status of Newtonian mechanics. This phenonmenon has important economic implications. Scientific and technological revolution that drastically shifts forward society is full of iconoclastic personalities, like Galileo and Tesla, rarely found amongst the rigidly strict Asian peoples.

For this reason and the related issue of Asian reticence, it's unlikely Asia will surpass the United States. I imagine their progress is limited by our own. Due to their industriousness, high IQ, and dearth of social tension, Asians do well in building and maintaining efficient infrastructures, but not developing them. Most of the seminal achievements in science and technology will emerge from the West and thus give us a headstart in implementing these innovations for profit.

Racial Profiling and Institutional Racism: The Chimera of African-American Studies Departments

Addendum: Inductivist points to another study showing the absence of racial profiling.

The Gates arrest has spurred discussion of institutional racism and racial profiling. In regards to the Gates' situation, President Obama says:

what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact

the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause casts suspicion even when there is good cause.

First, Obama adheres to the egalitarian argument that racial behavior inequalities stem from environment and not behavioral patterns. Second, Obama assumes that police target minorities due to implicit racism. This characterization, a vile accusation expressed so often that it engenders little response or challenge, is presented as incontrovertible.

Unsatisfied with baseless assumptions, Heather MacDonald wrote about a study that actually relies on data, not racialism. Summary follows:

The elegant study, designed by the Public Service Research Institute in Maryland had taken photos with high speed camera equipment and a radar gun of forty thousand turnpike drivers. The photos were shown to a team of evaluators who identified the race of the driver. The evaluators had no idea if the drivers in the photos had been speeding.

The study determined that blacks comprised 16% of drivers and 25% of violators; that blacks speed twice as much as whites; and blacks were actually stopped less than their speeding would indicate they should be.

But the institutional racism myth persists. The power of institutional racism lies in its stealthiness. Unlike official segregation and Archie Bunker, racism of this type seemingly appears only to the most nuanced minds. Actually, some people can't even notice it all, a fact surprisingly also explained by institutional racism (/sarcasm). This "phenomenon" constitutes obfuscation and an appeal to white guilt, using our PC culture as protection against challenge.

In the paradigm, they define structural racism as implicit, ambiguous, and caused by the internalization of bias. They keep the message and mechanisms vague so as to avoid actual examination. Subjective interpretations and pompous proclamations fill their arguments. By creating a situation that doesn't exist, then refusing to comprehensively define it, these people control the discussion of anything pertaining to this phenomenon.

It's similar to a child's imaginary friend. The parent can never confront the "friend" because he only speaks through the child's imagination. Similarly, whites are apparently unable to comment due to the supposed presence of "white privilege" and a lack of relevant experience.

Ironically, it is only the perspicacious, black African-American Studies professor who has the necessary tools to dissect our society. Associating with the "black experience" protects discourse from polite white critique. Besides mendacious interpretation, they use easily explained "data" like President Obama does as evidence of bias. Data such as disparities in education, wealth, and crime are all used for these purposes. Yet these inequities are caused by structures internal to the black community, not a mysterious, hidden force only noticeable to a ideologically motivated group.

For EXACTLY what I'm talking about, see this article from the Philadelphia Daily News. I'm surprised (OK not really) that they even allowed a forum to such radical views. The article is full of great quotes like these:

America has not embarked upon a post-racial course. This country is still racist, and racism is more then a disease, it's an industry that profits the ruling class and disadvantages others.

To suggest we've achieved parity is ridiculous when confronted with the hard-core reality of the failures that are deeply rooted in the black experience.

BUT A POST-racial America can emerge only when white racial consciousness, white supremacy, black victimization, black internalized oppression and equality for all emerge. Until then, any suggestion of post-racialism merely serves the purposes of the racists and apologists in society, not the victims of racism.

And if we're a post-racial society, how did we get there? When did white privilege, black victimization, educational apartheid, institutional racism, structural inequality, mass incarceration of black and brown people and all forms of marginalization and oppression cease to exist?

What is "Dumb"?

According to liberals and many conservatives, Sarah Palin is just plain dumb. Here's a Google search of "Palin is dumb" and here's a bumper sticker. Palin detractors don't mince words in assessing her lack of mental ability. Adjectives used include moron, dumb, idiot, dumbass, ignorant, and stupid.

I estimated Palin's IQ to be 105, while HalfSigma suggested 103. I'll defer to Sigma's judgment here. Note HalfSigma's opinion of Palin is negative and if any bias affected his guess, it was underestimating her intelligence. Thus, according to liberals, anyone who has an IQ below 103 is "a fricking idiot". This conflicts with the educational romanticism dominating our culture. It also doesn't reflect positively on blacks:

Percent of Asians below "Palin Line": 44% (Avg: 105, STDV: 14)
Percent of whites below "Palin line": 58% (Avg: 100, STDV: 15)
Percent of blacks below "Palin line": 90% (Avg: 85, STDV: 14)

Einstein and the Lake Wobegon Effect

I've come across this popular billboard made by The Foundation for a Better Life.

Here's the Foundation's page relaying Einstein's childhood and containing reactions to the billboard. This campaign actively champions the Einstein flunking myth, stating "he later credited his development of the theory of relativity to this slowness". Unsurprisingly, Einstein's particular genius was evident at any early age.

“Before I was fifteen I had mastered differential and integral calculus.” In primary school, he was at the top of his class and “far above the school requirements” in math.

His parents bought him the [algebra and geometry] textbooks in advance so that he could master them over summer vacation.

The distorted history of Einstein reflects the educational romanticism behind profligate educational spending and our PC/"everyone is special" culture. However, the implied message isn't lost on the gullible:

Wonder which resource room our public schools would have tried to stick Albert Einsein into since he couldn't be pigeon-holed with typically developing kids. How many kids do we "lose" every year because educators can't see past their system?

This needs to be in every school in the world! Kids need to believe!

Confidence is the main ingredient of success.

A recurring theme is consistent amongst the commenters: believing is achieving! This wishful thinking ignores even the existence of innate ability, an undeniable cause of Einstein's brilliance. Our society avoids acknowledging the distribution of any ability, especially that of intelligence. By misrepresenting the smartest man ever (though I prefer Newton and Gauss), educational romantics contend that all students are above average. They suggest underachievement isn't the result of cognitive deficiency, but the result of poor teaching methods and lack of motivation.

No matter the obviousness of innate intelligence, flat-curve parents and teachers will "discover" some environmental stimulus that impedes their child's progress. After all, popular conception of intelligence holds that within every struggling kid lives an Einstein.

Chris Brown Apology and Feminist Value Judgments

A few days ago, Chris Brown posted this video apologizing for beating his girlfriend, Rihanna. His groveling apology and cowering demeanor reflect the supposed gravity of the situation. The repeated pleas for forgiveness and mentions of rehabilitation are more appropriate for child molestation than an impetuous violent act. A few of the representative quotes:

My mother and my spiritual teachers have taught me way better than that. I have told Rihanna countless times, and I'm telling you today that I am truly, truly sorry

I have done a lot of soul-searching, and over the past several months I've talked with my minister and my mother, and I spent a lot of time trying to understand what happened and why.

As I sit here today I can tell you that I will do everything in my power to make sure that it never happens again, and I promise that. What I did was unacceptable, 100 percent. I can only ask and pray that you forgive me, please.

Did he kill someone? Did he molest someone? Did he ruin someone's life? No, he was aggressively provoked, involved in an emotionally intense situation, and he reacted with physical violence. His behavior was clearly wrong, but in regards to harm, it does not compare to offenses like drunk driving, molestation, or having your pension stolen. Yet the resulting outcry, depicting this act as worse than the above, surpasses the justified response.

For example, a number of radio stations and two of his sponsors dropped him indefinitely. Yet, following DUI arrests of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, the media failed to mention the potential tragedy caused by such unscrupulous decision-making. The media also did not attack DUI celebs with the same vitriol Brown has endured. The Chris Brown case and subsequent outrage over it illustrates that feminists place the highest value on women.

A man fighting with a close male friend of significantly smaller stature constitutes a commensurate situation to Brown's. Yet, while the physical effects and potential embarrassment correspond, the replacement of a male victim no longer puts the two situations on equal moral ground. Feminists define women as having greater value than men. Violence against women is an unforgivable sin while drunk driving is a trivial offense. Additionally, I often hear the phrase "respect for women", yet no male counterpart exists. Feminists couch the abortion argument in terms of a woman's choice instead of the more relevant "definition of life" problem. This framing implies merely the choice of a woman holds higher value than a potential life. Feminists describe male patriarchal systems as rigid, anachronistic, and inefficient while contending female dominated structures are simply better.

Feminists define the highest value as the characteristics and structures belonging to women. Thus, any aggression directed at those structures, such as domestic abuse, scurrilous rap videos, or hypothesizing different intellectual variances, is considered blasphemy. These challenges are considered the ultimate evil because it challenges the ultimate good: the female.

Women's and feminist groups responded according to these ideals. Note the trivialization of Hilton's drunk driving and that "protection of a woman" supersedes common law.

"Even Paris Hilton got more jail time!" said NOW President Kim Gandy. "Young girls and boys watching this unfold on TV will see that men who commit violence against women practically go scot-free."

The LAPD spy also reveals that the department is investigating claims that the [death] threats on Chris’ life could be from an organization called the Women’s Protection Action League.

This is a post decrying feminism and its impact on society's value hierarchy. However, I do not support Chris Brown's actions nor domestic abuse in general. And while I think feminism is a destructive, grievance and collectivist based ideology, I'm not a "man's rights" advocate either.

NEW LOOK

I adopted a new template. Changed almost the entire site, color scheme, header graphic, layout, etc.

Enjoy.

Tecumseh Mentioned, but not Ben Franklin

Milestone Documents of American Leaders is an award winning, four-volume set offering a history of the United States through primary sources. Schools use it as reference material. I came across the set a few days ago. Each volume has the same three pictures on the front and the same three pictures on the back. In essence, the authors chose six individuals as representative of our country.

• Front: Martin Luther King, Jr., Sandra Day O'Connor, Abe Lincoln
  
• Back: Frederick Douglass, Eleanor Roosevelt, George Washington

And let's be honest, including Lincoln is cheating. He's best known as "the man who freed the slaves!" Their website describes the text:

Among the people included in the set are noteworthy presidents such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush; Supreme Court justices from John Marshall to Thurgood Marshall to Sandra Day O'Connor; important political figures including Henry Clay, Tecumseh, and Condoleezza Rice; and other influential people such as Abigail Adams, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Susan B. Anthony.

Did Howard Zinn write this text as well?

American IQ Estimate for 2050

I recently blogged about the impact of dsygenic fertility on America's future. Hernstein had a despondent outlook on this country's intellectual future. Others in the Steveosphere, including Guy White and Mangan, discussed the issue as well. Given the higher birth rates of low-IQ groups and persistent NAM immigration, the future doesn't look promising.

I decided to test this hypothesis by estimating American IQ in 2050. At that time, or more precisely in 2042, whites will no longer constitute the majority. While liberals celebrate the "beiging" of America, HBDers apprehensively await lower average intelligence and more potent racialism. Eugenics being a popular HBD topic, I decided to estimate the IQ impact of such initiatives, like sterilization of welfare recipients and criminals.

First, I used recent predictions from the US Census Bureau to estimate future IQ. I will use this value as a baseline to compare my estimates. From the 2050 Census predictions, where Hispanics comprise 30% of the population, the average IQ will be approximately 95.9. However, this doesn't account for dsygenic trends because the predictions, obviously, don't break up birth cohorts by intelligence. Nonetheless, it provides a reasonable standard. I calculated a simple weighted average to obtain the number, assuming the standard 85, 92, 100, 104 IQ averages.

Next, I found the birth and death rates for non-Hispanic whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. The relevant data can be found here and here. Death rate data is from here and here. I assumed birth and death rates are constant until 2050. Applying a recursive formula, I obtained these approximate racial demographics of 2050, with Census predictions in parantheses:

• Non-Hispanic Whites: 53% (46)
• Blacks: 13.5% (15)
• Asians: 6.7% (9)
  
• Hispanics: 27% (30)
  

In doing so, I made a couple assumptions to reflect eugenic measures. First, I added no Hispanic immigration to the 2050 total. Second, about 1/10 black men in the fertility range are incarcerated. Also, about 800,000 black women are on welfare. To approximate sterilizing these individuals, I lowered the black birth rate by a factor of 1/10.

My algorithm predicts a US 2050 population of 406 million, close to the 439 million stated by the Census Bureau. Of course, theirs would include immigration and possibly other subtle variables.

Using the same weighted average and an Asian IQ of 105 (due to my suggestion of allowing only high-IQ Asian immigration), I obtained an approximation of America's 2050 IQ. I estimate America's 2050 IQ will be 96.2, given the enactment of moderate eugenic measures and Hispanic-origin immigration restrictions. This is almost identical to the 95.9 value gauged from the Census Bureau data.

What was the main driving force behind these results? It's not blacks or immigration of low-IQ Mexicans. The problem is already upon us, a rapidly growing Hispanic population currently residing here. Hispanics have a fertility rate of 2.3, while no other racial group has fertility rates above 2, the bar to increase population. Due to this boon of American-born Hispanic babies, they will make up about 27% of the population, even without large scale immigration. Also, recall that my estimates don't include the dsygenic effects of IQ redistribution. This makes the situation more bleak.

It seems as though the eugenic measures estimated here, including halting Hispanic immigration, sterilization of criminals and welfare queens, and importing high-IQ Asians, do little to counterbalance Hispanic fecundity. Will we do anything about it? Human biodiversity and racial intelligence differences must become mainstream to support any intervention schemes. Advances in genetic engineering may be the best solution. And please don't suggest we just sterilize all the Mexicans.

However, I found a much lower dsygenic trend than I had thought. The decrease in average IQ is on the order of about 1 to 2 points. This will have important implications for the upper tail, but not the apocalyptic scenario many predict. In my opinion, the far greater effect will be political and social enmity, resulting from racial power structures and genetically-derived cultural differences.

Note: Flynn effect hasn't been observed since the early 1990's in developed countries, so that's not going to help.

Harvard Prof Henry Louis Gates Jr. Arrested

Update: "Anonymous" provides a link to the police report of Gates' arrest.

Last Thursday, "renowned" Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested.

Gates apparently arrived home from China last Thursday to find his front door so damaged he couldn't open it, said his Harvard colleague.

When Gates and his driver tried to get in through the back door they set off the alarm and a white [obvious implication being she's racist] neighbor who saw them called the cops.

I'd say notifying the police was not unjustified. Dr. Gates disagrees.

"Why because I'm a black man in America?"Gates, 58, demanded.

"I warned Gates to calm down, but Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell at me," Sgt James Crowley wrote. "I was quite surprised and confused by the behavior he exhibited toward me."

Despite not being present, Gates' Harvard colleagues know what happened anyway. I'm ignoring Al Sharpton's comments on principle.

Harvard colleagues called the arrest a case of racial profiling. "We do not believe this arrest would have happened if professor Gates was white."

So, two men, including a driver, approach a noticeably damaged front door. Initially, they probably fidgeted with the front door, then proceeded to the back. At this point, an alarm was sounded. Is it unreasonable to assume the two men were doing something wrong?

Later, the police arrived. While most homeowners would calmly explain the confusion and provide proper identification, Gates immediately spews racism accusations. He continues to berate the police officer, using this situation as a platform for unjustified racialist whining.

[Crowley] claims the scholar told him, "Ya, I'll speak to your momma outside," and "you don't know who you're messing with!"

Should such behavior be expected, even from a Harvard professor? Yes, he has spent his entire career pigeonholing every fact into "evidence" for white racism. Frankly, I'm only surprised it wasn't Cornel West.

Analysis of Obama's NAACP Speech

Obama gave this speech at the NAACP 100th anniversary this weekend. I provide analysis below in bold. Click here or link at bottom to see the entire speech analyzed.

______________________________________________

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. What an extraordinary night, capping off an extraordinary week, capping off an extraordinary 100 years at the NAACP. (Applause.)

So Chairman Bond, Brother Justice, I am so grateful to all of you for being here. It's just good to be among friends. (Applause.) [I wonder if Reverend Wright was in attendance.]

It is an extraordinary honor to be here, in the city where the NAACP was formed, to mark its centennial. What we celebrate tonight is not simply the journey the NAACP has traveled, but the journey that we, as Americans, have traveled over the past 100 years. (Applause.) [Were these people alive 100 years ago?]

It's a journey that takes us back to a time before most of us were born, long before the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act, Brown v. Board of Education; back to an America just a generation past slavery. It was a time when Jim Crow was a way of life; when lynchings were all too common; when race riots were shaking cities across a segregated land.

It was in this America where an Atlanta scholar named W.E.B. Du Bois -- (applause) -- a man of towering intellect and a fierce passion for justice, sparked what became known as the Niagara movement; where reformers united, not by color, but by cause; where an association was born that would, as its charter says, promote equality and eradicate prejudice among citizens of the United States. [Well, until the "diversity programs" started to discriminate against whites and Asians.]

From the beginning, these founders understood how change would come -- just as King and all the civil rights giants did later. They understood that unjust laws needed to be overturned; that legislation needed to be passed; and that Presidents needed to be pressured into action. They knew that the stain of slavery and the sin of segregation had to be lifted in the courtroom, and in the legislature, and in the hearts and the minds of Americans. [Has the "stain" been lifted yet, Mr. President?]

They also knew that here, in America, change would have to come from the people. It would come from people protesting lynchings, rallying against violence, all those women who decided to walk instead of taking the bus, even though they were tired after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children. (Applause.) It would come from men and women of every age and faith, and every race and region -- taking Greyhounds on Freedom Rides; sitting down at Greensboro lunch counters; registering voters in rural Mississippi, knowing they would be harassed, knowing they would be beaten, knowing that some of them might never return. [These brave men deserve commendation.]

Because of what they did, we are a more perfect union. Because Jim Crow laws were overturned, black CEOs today run Fortune 500 companies. (Applause.) Because civil rights laws were passed, black mayors, black governors, and members of Congress served in places [Gerrymandering and white guilt probably helps.] where they might once have been able [sic] not just to vote but even take a sip of water. And because ordinary people did such extraordinary things, because they made the civil rights movement their own, even though there may not be a plaque or their names might not be in the history books -- because of their efforts I made a little trip to Springfield, Illinois, a couple years ago -- (applause) -- where Lincoln once lived, and race riots once raged -- and began the journey that has led me to be here tonight as the 44th President of the United States of America. (Applause.)

Because of them I stand here tonight, on the shoulders of giants. And I'm here to say thank you to those pioneers and thank you to the NAACP. (Applause.)

And yet, even as we celebrate the remarkable achievements of the past 100 years; even as we inherit extraordinary progress that cannot be denied; even as we marvel at the courage and determination of so many plain folk ["Plain folk": is that a Hawaiian expression?] -- we know that too many barriers still remain.

We know that even as our economic crisis batters Americans of all races, African Americans are out of work more than just about anybody else ["Diversity Recession"] -- a gap that's widening here in New York City, as a detailed report this week by Comptroller Bill Thompson laid out. (Applause.)

We know that even as spiraling health care costs crush families of all races, African Americans are more likely to suffer from a host of diseases but less likely to own health insurance than just about anybody else. [Blacks have lower future time orientation, higher incidences of drug abuse, and are the poorest racial group.]

We know that even as we imprison more people of all races than any nation in the world, an African American child is roughly five times as likely as a white child to see the inside of a prison.[Maybe because they commit more crimes?]

We know that even as the scourge of HIV/AIDS devastates nations abroad, particularly in Africa, it is devastating the African American community here at home with disproportionate force. We know these things. (Applause.) [Lower IQ leads to lower future time orientation and worse judgment.]

These are some of the barriers of our time. They're very different from the barriers faced by earlier generations. They're very different from the ones faced when fire hoses and dogs were being turned on young marchers; when Charles Hamilton Houston and a group of young Howard lawyers were dismantling segregation case by case across the land. [Yes they're different because they're self-inflicted.]

But what's required today -- what's required to overcome today's barriers is the same as what was needed then. The same commitment. The same sense of urgency. The same sense of sacrifice. The same sense of community. The same willingness to do our part for ourselves and one another that has always defined America at its best and the African American experience at its best. (Applause.)

And so the question is, where do we direct our efforts? What steps do we take to overcome these barriers? How do we move forward in the next 100 years?

The first thing we need to do is make real the words of the NAACP charter and eradicate prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination among citizens of the United States. (Applause.) I understand there may be a temptation among some to think that discrimination is no longer a problem in 2009. And I believe that overall, there probably has never been less discrimination in America than there is today. I think we can say that.

But make no mistake: The pain of discrimination is still felt in America. (Applause.) By African American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and a different gender. (Laughter.) By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. (Applause.) By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion simply because they kneel down to pray to their God. (Applause.) By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights. (Applause.) [More pandering and specious claims of institutional bias. See here for refutation.]

On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination cannot stand -- not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America. That's what the NAACP stands for. That's what the NAACP will continue to fight for as long as it takes. (Applause.)

But we also know that prejudice and discrimination -- at least the most blatant types of prejudice and discrimination -- are not even the steepest barriers to opportunity today. The most difficult barriers include structural inequalities that our nation's legacy of discrimination has left behind; inequalities still plaguing too many communities and too often the object of national neglect. [Have any liberals heard of Asians, Jews, Italians, and East Indians? They seem to be fine without "old money" and a history of exclusion.]

These are barriers we are beginning to tear down one by one -- by rewarding work with an expanded tax credit; by making housing more affordable; by giving ex-offenders a second chance. (Applause.) These are barriers we're targeting through our White House Office on Urban Affairs, through programs like Promise Neighborhoods that builds on Geoffrey Canada's success with the Harlem Children's Zone -- (applause) -- that foster a comprehensive approach to ending poverty by putting all children on a pathway to college, and giving them the schooling and after-school support that they need to get there. (Applause.) ["These are barriers we are beginning to tear down" by gaming the system through minority handouts.]

I think all of us understand that our task of reducing these structural inequalities has been made more difficult by the state and structure of our broader economy; an economy that for the last decade has been fueled by a cycle of boom and bust; an economy where the rich got really, really rich, but ordinary folks didn't see their incomes or their wages go up; an economy built on credit cards, shady mortgage loans; an economy built not on a rock, but on sand.

That's why my administration is working so hard not only to create and save jobs in the short-term, not only to extend unemployment insurance and help for people who have lost their health care in this crisis, not just to stem the immediate economic wreckage, but to lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity that will put opportunity within the reach of not just African Americans, but all Americans. All Americans. (Applause.) Of every race. Of every creed. From every region of the country. (Applause.) We want everybody to participate in the American Dream. That's what the NAACP is all about. (Applause.) [Good rhetoric, but is it working?]

Now, one pillar of this new foundation is health insurance for everybody. (Applause.) Health insurance reform that cuts costs and makes quality health coverage affordable for all, and it closes health care disparities in the process. Another pillar is energy reform that makes clean energy profitable, freeing America from the grip of foreign oil; putting young people to work upgrading low-income homes, weatherizing, and creating jobs that can't be outsourced. Another pillar is financial reform with consumer protections to crackdown on mortgage fraud and stop predatory lenders from targeting black and Latino communities all across the country. (Applause.) [Let me guess: government spending will fix these problems.]

All these things will make America stronger and more competitive. They will drive innovation, they will create jobs, they will provide families with more security. And yet, even if we do all that, the African American community will still fall behind in the United States and the United States will fall behind in the world unless we do a far better job than we have been doing of educating our sons and daughters. (Applause.)

I hope you don't mind -- I want to go into a little detail here about education. (Applause.) In the 21st century -- when so many jobs will require a bachelor's degree or more, when countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow -- a world-class education is a prerequisite for success. [And now, musings on educational romanticism.]

There's no two ways about it. There's no way to avoid it. You know what I'm talking about. There's a reason the story of the civil rights movement was written in our schools. There's a reason Thurgood Marshall took up the cause of Linda Brown. There's a reason why the Little Rock Nine defied a governor and a mob. It's because there is no stronger weapon against inequality and no better path to opportunity than an education that can unlock a child's God-given potential. (Applause.)

And yet, more than half a century after Brown v. Board, the dream of a world-class education is still being deferred all across the country. African American students are lagging behind white classmates in reading and math -- an achievement gap that is growing in states that once led the way in the civil rights movement. [IQ gap isn't going anywhere.] Over half of all African American students are dropping out of school in some places. There are overcrowded classrooms, and crumbling schools, and corridors of shame in America filled with poor children -- not just black children, brown and white children as well.

The state of our schools is not an African American problem; it is an American problem. (Applause.) Because if black and brown children cannot compete, then America cannot compete. [Really? Asia and Europe seem to be doing fine.] (Applause.) And let me say this, if Al Sharpton, Mike Bloomberg, and Newt Gingrich can agree that we need to solve the education problem, then that's something all of America can agree we can solve. (Applause.) Those guys came into my office. (Laughter.) Just sitting in the Oval Office -- I kept on doing a double-take. (Laughter and applause.) So that's a sign of progress and it is a sign of the urgency of the education problem. (Applause.) All of us can agree that we need to offer every child in this country -- every child --

AUDIENCE: Amen!

THE PRESIDENT: Got an "Amen corner" back there -- (applause) -- every child -- every child in this country the best education the world has to offer from cradle through a career.

That's our responsibility as leaders. That's the responsibility of the United States of America. And we, all of us in government, have to work to do our part by not only offering more resources, but also demanding more reform. Because when it comes to education, we got to get past this whole paradigm, this outdated notion that somehow it's just money; or somehow it's just reform, but no money -- and embrace what Dr. King called the "both-and" philosophy. We need more money and we need more reform. (Applause.) ["Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” -Einstein]

When it comes to higher education we're making college and advanced training more affordable, and strengthening community colleges that are the gateway to so many with an initiative -- (applause) -- that will prepare students not only to earn a degree, but to find a job when they graduate; an initiative that will help us meet the goal I have set of leading the world in college degrees by 2020. We used to rank number one in college graduates. Now we are in the middle of the pack. And since we are seeing more and more African American and Latino youth in our population, if we are leaving them behind we cannot achieve our goal, and America will fall further behind -- and that is not a future that I accept and that is not a future that the NAACP is willing to accept. (Applause.)

We're creating a Race to the Top fund that will reward states and public school districts that adopt 21st century standards and assessments. We're creating incentives for states to promote excellent teachers and replace bad ones -- (applause) -- because the job of a teacher is too important for us to accept anything less than the best. (Applause.)

We also have to explore innovative approaches such as those being pursued here in New York City; innovations like Bard High School Early College and Medgar Evers College Preparatory School that are challenging students to complete high school and earn a free associate's degree or college credit in just four years. (Applause.)

And we should raise the bar when it comes to early learning programs. It's not enough just to have a babysitter. We need our young people stimulated and engaged and involved. (Applause.) We need our -- our folks involved in child development to understand the latest science. Today, some early learning programs are excellent. Some are mediocre. And some are wasting what studies show are by far a child's most formative years. [It's not the programs and teachers, it's the kids.]

That's why I've issued a challenge to America's governors: If you match the success of states like Pennsylvania and develop an effective model for early learning; if you focus reform on standards and results in early learning programs; if you demonstrate how you will prepare the lowest income children to meet the highest standards of success -- then you can compete for an Early Learning Challenge Grant that will help prepare all our children to enter kindergarten all ready to learn. (Applause.) [Didn't the failed Head Start program aim to do this?]

So these are some of the laws we're passing. These are some of the policies we are enacting. We are busy in Washington. Folks in Congress are getting a little tuckered out. (Laughter.) But I'm telling them -- I'm telling them we can't rest, we've got a lot of work to do. The American people are counting on us. (Applause.) These are some of the ways we're doing our part in government to overcome the inequities, the injustices, the barriers that still exist in our country.

But all these innovative programs and expanded opportunities will not, in and of themselves, make a difference if each of us, as parents and as community leaders, fail to do our part by encouraging excellence in our children. (Applause.) Government programs alone won't get our children to the Promised Land. We need a new mind set, a new set of attitudes -- because one of the most durable and destructive legacies of discrimination is the way we've internalized a sense of limitation; how so many in our community have come to expect so little from the world and from themselves.

We've got to say to our children, yes, if you're African American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher. Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that somebody in a wealthy suburb does not have to face. But that's not a reason to get bad grades -- (applause) -- that's not a reason to cut class -- (applause) -- that's not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. (Applause.) No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands -- you cannot forget that. That's what we have to teach all of our children. No excuses. (Applause.) No excuses. [I like this, but is it actually going to happen. I've shown this is unlikely.]

You get that education, all those hardships will just make you stronger, better able to compete. Yes we can. (Applause.)

To parents -- to parents, we can't tell our kids to do well in school and then fail to support them when they get home. (Applause.) You can't just contract out parenting. For our kids to excel, we have to accept our responsibility to help them learn. That means putting away the Xbox -- (applause) -- putting our kids to bed at a reasonable hour. (Applause.) It means attending those parent-teacher conferences and reading to our children and helping them with their homework. (Applause.) [This surely can't hurt.]

And by the way, it means we need to be there for our neighbor's sons and daughters. (Applause.) We need to go back to the time, back to the day when we parents saw somebody, saw some kid fooling around and -- it wasn't your child, but they'll whup you anyway. (Laughter and applause.) Or at least they'll tell your parents -- the parents will. You know. (Laughter.) That's the meaning of community. That's how we can reclaim the strength and the determination and the hopefulness that helped us come so far; helped us make a way out of no way. [Because Obama is so well-versed in the black community.]

It also means pushing our children to set their sights a little bit higher. They might think they've got a pretty good jump shot or a pretty good flow, but our kids can't all aspire to be LeBron or Lil Wayne. (Applause.) I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers -- (applause) -- doctors and teachers -- (applause) -- not just ballers and rappers. I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court Justice. (Applause.) I want them aspiring to be the President of the United States of America. (Applause.)

I want their horizons to be limitless. I don't -- don't tell them they can't do something. Don't feed our children with a sense of -- that somehow because of their race that they cannot achieve. [They get the exact opposite message reading about Harriet Tubman.]

Yes, government must be a force for opportunity. Yes, government must be a force for equality. But ultimately, if we are to be true to our past, then we also have to seize our own future, each and every day. [I agree, government isn't the ultimate answer.]

And that's what the NAACP is all about. The NAACP was not founded in search of a handout. The NAACP was not founded in search of favors. The NAACP was founded on a firm notion of justice; to cash the promissory note of America that says all of our children, all God's children, deserve a fair chance in the race of life. (Applause.) [Well said.]

It's a simple dream, and yet one that all too often has been denied -- and is still being denied to so many Americans. It's a painful thing, seeing that dream denied. I remember visiting a Chicago school in a rough neighborhood when I was a community organizer, and some of the children gathered 'round me. And I remember thinking how remarkable it was that all of these children seemed so full of hope, despite being born into poverty, despite being delivered, in some cases, into addiction, despite all the obstacles they were already facing -- you could see that spark in their eyes. They were the equal of children anywhere. [Others have had different experiences.]

And I remember the principal of the school telling me that soon that sparkle would begin to dim, that things would begin to change; that soon, the laughter in their eyes would begin to fade; that soon, something would shut off inside, as it sunk in -- because kids are smarter than we give them credit for -- as it sunk in that their hopes would not come to pass -- not because they weren't smart enough, not because they weren't talented enough, not because of anything about them inherently, but because, by accident of birth, they had not received a fair chance in life.

I know what can happen to a child who doesn't have that chance. But I also know what can happen to a child that does. I was raised by a single mom. I didn't come from a lot of wealth. I got into my share of trouble as a child. My life could have easily taken a turn for the worse. When I drive through Harlem or I drive through the South Side of Chicago and I see young men on the corners, I say, there but for the grace of God go I. (Applause.) They're no less gifted than me. They're no less talented than me. [Actually, they probably are.]

But I had some breaks. That mother of mine, she gave me love; she pushed me, she cared about my education; she took no lip; she taught me right from wrong. Because of her, I had a chance to make the most of my abilities. I had the chance to make the most of my opportunities. I had the chance to make the most of life.

The same story holds true for Michelle. The same story holds true for so many of you. And I want all the other Barack Obamas out there, and all the other Michelle Obamas out there -- (applause) -- to have the same chance -- the chance that my mother gave me; that my education gave me; that the United States of America has given me. That's how our union will be perfected and our economy rebuilt. That is how America will move forward in the next 100 years.

And we will move forward. This I know -- for I know how far we have come. Some, you saw, last week in Ghana, Michelle and I took Malia and Sasha and my mother-in-law to Cape Coast Castle, in Ghana. Some of you may have been there. This is where captives were once imprisoned before being auctioned; where, across an ocean, so much of the African American experience began.

We went down into the dungeons where the captives were held. There was a church above one of the dungeons -- which tells you something about saying one thing and doing another. (Applause.) I was -- we walked through the "Door Of No Return." I was reminded of all the pain and all the hardships, all the injustices and all the indignities on the voyage from slavery to freedom.

But I was reminded of something else. I was reminded that no matter how bitter the rod, how stony the road, we have always persevered. (Applause.) We have not faltered, nor have we grown weary. As Americans, we have demanded, and strived for, and shaped a better destiny. And that is what we are called on to do once more. NAACP, it will not be easy. It will take time. Doubts may rise and hopes may recede.

But if John Lewis could brave Billy clubs to cross a bridge -- (applause) -- then I know young people today can do their part and lift up our community. (Applause.)

If Emmet Till's uncle, Mose Wright, could summon the courage to testify against the men who killed his nephew, I know we can be better fathers and better brothers and better mothers and sisters in our own families. (Applause.)

If three civil rights workers in Mississippi -- black, white, Christian and Jew, city-born and country-bred -- could lay down their lives in freedom's cause, I know we can come together to face down the challenges of our own time. (Applause.) We can fix our schools -- (applause) -- we can heal our sick, we can rescue our youth from violence and despair. (Applause.) [Inspiring portion, but again, will it actually do anything?]

And 100 years from now, on the 200th anniversary of the NAACP -- (applause) -- let it be said that this generation did its part; that we too ran the race; that full of faith that our dark past has taught us, full of the hope that the present has brought us -- (applause) -- we faced, in our lives and all across this nation, the rising sun of a new day begun. (Applause.)

Thank you, God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END

SWPL: Swimming in a Dumpster

Add it to hummus and hating corporations. New York SWPLs are now swimming in dumpsters. Apparently, it's very profound.

To be surrounded by this landscape and to be in the water is a very incongrous experience. It makes you wonder, as so many things in New York do, what’s behind every wall that you can’t see past.

She's an "artist". A clearly homosexual musician follows:

Ya know it's funny, I was just in Switzerland in May and urban swimming is very developed there... People were swimming all along it right in the heart of the city.

Here's Christian Lander on "studying abroad" (note the parallels): "When I used to live in [insert country], I would always ride the train to school. The people I’d see were inspiring." Here's the ultimate goal:

Macro-Sea itself is using the project as a template for a larger idea: turning eyesore strip malls into artsy community destinations, with Dumpster pools and other indie attractions.

Finally, they're asked about the secrecy. Like indie rock bands none of their friends know, that's a huge part of the appeal. And I'm sure the New York Times isn't fawning over such garbage, right?

And the only thing cooler than that, as a few enterprising developers recently discovered, is a secret pool party in a pool made out of a Dumpster on the banks of the Gowanus Canal in industrial Brooklyn.

Barack Obama: 100 Greatest Americans

I was perusing through Half Sigma's archives and found this amusing post from May 2005:

Professor Bainbridge says that Barack Obama doesn’t belong on the list of 100 greatest Americans.

I give the professor credit for even knowing who he is. Barack who? I never heard of the guy.

If only it had stayed that way. But, how did he make the list anyway? He had been a Senator for four months when it came out.

Anarcho-Capitalists Don't Understand People

There's a strain of libertarianism that decries any government intervention. I enthusiastically support a free-market economy, but one without any authority would be disastrous.

An anarchy would only operate efficiently and safely if individuals were constrained by collectivist ethics (ironic, I know). Individuals are motivated by personal incentives, like profits in business, and not concern for their fellow man. The most obvious problems would result from companies avoiding safety precautions and preliminary testing in order to reduce costs and development time. Even under government regulation, cutting corners and hastily advancing unsafe products is common.

Anarcho-capitalists contend the free market fixes this because consumers will note problems and go to a competitor. But what of those original consumers who suffered the effects of a company's impetuous decisions? The company puts out a crap product, reaps the rewards of an intense advertising campaign, dispassionately ignores subsequent problems, then gets out of the business before profits fall. Or should the consumers have exercised personal responsibility by knowing what they were purchasing? OK, I imagine when someone starts a new drug they should use their household chemistry kit to assure it's safe.

These individuals so aggressively oppose statism that they pick the direct opposite system. Unfortunately, it fails similarly because it ignores basic human behavior.

Why People Believe in UFOs

Update (7/23/09): Click on "ability" for the joke.

I've watched many alien-themed movies like Independence Day, Men in Black, The Day the Earth Stood Still (2009, blatant Gaiaist propaganda), War of the Worlds (2005), and Contact. While I believe intelligent life abounds in the universe, I sincerely doubt they have visited yet. Despite the seemingly rational explanations for UFOs, like weather phenomenon, optical illusions, or outright frauds, belief in them is quite common and reaches even the highest levels of cognitive ability.

If UFO sightings are easily explained, how does the belief encompass a wide swath of the population? Unsurprisingly, belief in UFOs and the paranormal is correlated with lower intelligence and increased emotionality:

The survey also revealed that theological liberals are more apt to believe in the paranormal [includes UFOs] and the occult than do conservatives. Women (35 percent), blacks (41 percent), those younger than 30 (40 percent), Democrats (40 percent) and singles who are cohabitating (49 percent) were more likely to believe

It seems the occult offers something usually found in religion, which would explain why theological liberals and Democrats have higher incidences of belief. What religion offers is a divorce from our mundane, nihilistic existence. UFOs provide evidence of something greater than ourselves and that our seemingly insignificant lives on a "pale blue dot" resonate farther than those around us. Carl Sagan attempted to use actual astronomy as a means for profound existence, but the erudite nature of his discussion made that palatable only to a select few.

The idea of little green men in superfast spaceships is more concrete and understandable to a credulous public eager for meaning. It piques the imagination and one's rational mind is silenced by the excitement of such an immense discovery. Emotion often supercedes skepticism when confronting the most incredible of circumstances.

The grandeur of space and its unending mystery would seem accessible if UFO visits were the stuff of fact and not fiction. For believers, these sightings shrink the vast darkness and offer hope, a chance at connecting with something outside the tangible, everyday stuff. I honestly don't blame these individuals for desiring UFOs to be real. But I'll stick to movies.

Note: There's a semi-hidden joke in this post. If you find it, please don't post what it is in the comments. If you're desperate to figure it out, you can e-mail me. I will "reveal" at some later time.

Shorter Posts

I don't know if I can stick to this, but I'm going to try including some quick, easy to read posts with interesting links or pithy observations.

How to Act in College Classes

As I discussed before, the modern American university is a bastion of politically correct propaganda. For non-liberals, one's politics could cause negative grading bias. Here's a story from David Horowitz's "Students For Academic Freedom":

This professor repeatedly used the class time to express her personal opinions and political preferences as fact, and was very derogatory towards those students who have expressed views that did not concur with hers

When asked why I was going to D.C., I replied, “to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference”.The professor responded, “Well you’re just going to fail my class.”

My first test was returned and I received a failing grade.

Having been told on the first day of class that I was “just going to fail [her] class,” it was obviously very disconcerting to receive a failing grade on a subjective essay test.

My suggestion for breaking the liberal monopoly on higher education: for any course that presents contentious, liberally biased material, like the social aspects of science or race in America, take the course pass/fail. While the above anecdote provides a counterexample, almost every student who adequately completes the assignments passes. The pass/fail option allows one freedom in espousing uncommon viewpoints, like anti-environmentalism, anti-white guilt, or even HBD. If some evidence is offered, even a distinctly conservative essay will receive a passing grade.

This is especially appropriate for engineering and science majors who have this option for liberal arts electives. Use essays and class discussion as a forum for HBD, anti low-IQ immigration, and other related topics. I took a course on the Social Studies of Science, which included excerpts from Mismeasure of Man. At that point, I wasn't an HBDer, but still a staunch anti-liberal. In recitation, I accused one classmate of anti-capitalist Gaiaism for avoiding genetically engineered foods, asserted almost the entire public was too stupid to understand science and rationality, stated defense spending was perfectly acceptable, and argued that Muslims hate us because we're better than them.

This type of engagement is actually enjoyable and justified merely due to the stunned reactions. It will also mitigate the high degree of leftist rhetoric and HBD-denialism.

Bunch of Steveosphere/Race Links

Here's a random assortment of interesting posts:

-In Mala Fide is a brand new blog that looks very promising.
-All-in-All doesn't blog about HBD, but her thoughts on economics are quite insightful.
-Geoffrey Falk is the Stevosphere ombudsman and something of a polymath. Very inspired, thoughtful, and comprehensive posts where he doesn't hold back on NAMs, immigrants, and white proles. The only downside: horrid white text on black background.
-Great summary of race and intelligence.
-Juno sucked. It's overrated. Udolpho discusses it.
-Here's two black men refusing to play the identity politics game: Reverand Manning (below) and Harry Alford. In Alford video, note the blatant patronization Boxer directs at Alford.

Affirmative Action and Economic Mobility

A recent iSteve post discusses the oddity of allowing disparate impact in academia, but not business. Sailer concludes that universities perform the evaluation of potential employees instead of actual businesses. Like Charles Murray, Sailer bemoans the implications of this convoluted system:

It exacerbates the tendency toward credentialism in American life.

Despite the criticism, credentialism isn't the worst screening method for lazy employers. While a college degree usually holds little value for occupational skills, a diploma often implies one exhibits persistence, diligence, and a modicum of intelligence. Nonetheless, there exist more rigorous, and equitable, means to choosing qualified employees. Unfortunately, given the preponderance of "diversity initiatives", these methods are frequently replaced by processes intended for social engineering.

Affirmative action was originally instituted as retribution for discrimination. This initial objective has become secondary to providing institutional "diversity". What does this "diversity" entail, how can one know it's successfully achieved, and how does cultivating diversity affect hiring or admissions decisions? Advocates of affirmative action often shirk direct answers to these questions. As a result, the hiring or admissions process becomes an amorphous collage of objective standards like test scores and subjective standards having arbitrary value. By defining "diversity" as a primary goal, employers muddle up the hiring process with subjective or irrelevant metrics like "attitude" or race.

Employers are cognizant of the black-white testing gap and must downgrade the importance of objective metrics to justify accepting below standard minorities. In the Ricci case, the city attempted this by overemphasizing the oral portion over the more rigorous written examination. By diminishing objective testing scores like LSAT or SAT, employers and admissions committees make decisions based on affirmative action ideals (for minorities) or proxies for intelligence examinations (like GPA or school quality). These are imperfect and easily manipulated aspects of an individual's resume. By focusing on subjective factors, employers disadvantage applicants who don't have these "hooks", such as a degree from an Ivy League school, networking from one's family connections, or racial/gender status.

Generally, those most hurt by affirmative action are highly qualified, poor whites and Asians. While liberals grouse about the poor/rich gap, their support of affirmative action most intensely harms the poor. Poor whites and Asians need objective standards to attain economic mobility. For many individuals, the credentials entrenched in the hiring process are unavailable. Those of the lower economic classes can not finance an Ivy League education, lack networks for internships, and can not afford expensive extracurriculars for college admissions.

For a poor person, the only available evaluation standard is objective test scores, the metric that cares little about skin color, garrulousness, or family connections. Individuals who hold a state school degree can compete in the job marketplace with Ivy League grads by acing the GRE or LSAT. By devaluing or outright dismissing this avenue, elite liberals rob poor whites and Asians of their rightful pursuit of success.

Liberals, desperate to gerrymander the evaluation system, institute a policy that is downright anti-American. Affirmative action and its related subjectivity undermines a central American right: the freedom to attain success off of one's hard work and merit.