Richard Spencer writes:
In 2007, the advocacy group Adversity.net examined the racial hiring practices of Washington’s Executive Departments and Independent Agencies, from the Department of Education to NASA. The group discovered that with a very few exceptions, federal entities dramatically overfulfill their “Diversity” quotas. Indeed, the best agencies at hiring Blacks put the Post Office of lore to shame: the Controlled Substance Ordering System, the Government Printing Office, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, for instance, overhire Blacks at 800, 500, and 400 percent, respectively. Even the “worst” agency for employing African-Americans, über-nerdy NASA, overhires Blacks at a clip of 50 percent.
Spencer thinks this explains why on January 8 the chief of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernake, announced publicly that there would be no Fed-led bailout of state and local governments.
His idea is that they think they need to keep all the money they can in the Federal system, where it can be used to pay off Blacks not to riot.
One problem with the presentation of this theory is that, with the exception of Wisconsin, Spencer failed to provide information on the demographics of the public employees in States which are facing budget problems.
Of course Bernake wouldn't have said what he said just based on the demographics of Wisconsin.
At the same time it's very doubtful to me that any state has employee demographics as slanted toward Blacks as the Federal Government does, much less the average state in need of a federal bailout to avoid layoffs.
So whether it's intentional or not, there is an element of racial favoritism to be found in the Federal Reserve's privileging of Federal Government over State Government.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Richard Spencer writes:
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The website CafeMom reports the chilling news:
Did Bieber Fever just take a turn for the super-scary? Earlier today, Slate joked that Justin Bieber could easily grace the cover of Lisa Simpson's beloved Non-Threatening Boys Magazine, but then Rolling Stone magazine released a bit of a racy interview with the pop sensation, in which he strongly states he doesn't believe in abortion. Whoah. That's no catchy, non-threatening pop song.
What Justin Bieber must not understand is how this anti-choice statement, however nonchalant (and naive) it might have been, is going to travel at lightning speed around the Internet, and all his bazillion teen-aged girl fans are going to ponder it. I don't have a problem with girls pondering this topic, of course. Please ponder it!
However, how do we talk to our teens about abortion after their favorite teen idol makes such a strong statement against it?
Indeed. How will we talk to our children about how wonderful abortion is now that the evil Justin Bieber has poisoned their minds with his regressive worldview?
But as important as this news is, it's still only the second most popular story on Cafemom today. The top rated story is a thought provoking piece entitled: 'Lara Logan Was Right to Put Her Career Before Her Kids'.
After all, what have Lara Logan's kids ever done for anyone? Why should their so called needs encumber the right of their mother to galavant all over dangerous areas of the World for months at a time?
They have a father, for all I know, so what right would they have to complain if their mother was gunned down in a war zone?
Friday, February 11, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
A blogger, The Cold Equations, points out that "nobody sheds a tear for racism's forgotten victims - white drug abusers who go to the ghetto to buy drugs."
It turns out these drug abusers are profiled by police.
But of course The Cold Equations isn't really wording things correctly. Usually when people talk about someone being the "victim of police profiling" they do so in reference a person who lacked illegal intent but was treated with suspicion by authorities for probabilistic reasons.
At least I hope that's what people complain about, as opposed to complaining about the fact that profiling made it harder for this or that criminal to commit his chosen crime.
So racism's real forgotten victims are whites who visit the ghetto for some reason other than to buy drugs, but who are hassled by police due to the stereotype that whites in black ghettos are more likely to be there to buy drugs.
This is similar to the stereotype that Westerners in Thailand are more likely to be there to abuse children than random Thai who are there just because it's where they come from and live.
Both are contexual stereotypes based on the concept of selection bias.
The fact that police are sophisticated enough to use a context dependant stereotype, and in the case of the many police officers who are white to use it against members of their own group, is interesting.
For one thing it shows how foolish it is to think that police profiling is merely an expression of "institutional racism".
It is true that innocent people are sometimes subjected to profiling.
But it's important to understand that the alternative to profiling is not the cessation of this phenomenon, but rather the extension of it to the entirety of the population.
Well, at least in certain situations where the prevention of violence and mayhem is of great monetary importance to large corporations: