Monthly Archives: September 2011

Non-Whites Favored 1494-to-1 over whites in admissions at University of Wisconsin-Madison

The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) has released a startling report showing that non-whites (blacks and mestizos) are favored up to 1,494 to 1 over whites in admissions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison:

(Madison, WI) Two studies released today by the Center for Equal Opportunity reveal severe discrimination based on race and ethnicity in undergraduate and law school admissions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with African Americans and Latinos given preference over whites and Asians.

The studies are based on data supplied by the schools themselves, some of which the university had refused to turn over until a lawsuit was filed by CEO and successfully taken all the way to the state supreme court.

The odds ratio favoring African Americans and Hispanics over whites was 576-to-1 and 504-to-1, respectively, using the SAT and class rank while controlling for other factors. Thus, the median composite SAT score for black admittees was 150 points lower than for whites and Asians, and the Latino median SAT score was 100 points lower. Using the ACT, the odds ratios climbed to 1330-to-1 and 1494-to-1, respectively, for African Americans and Hispanics over whites.

For law school admissions, the racial discrimination found was also severe, with the weight given to ethnicity much greater than given to, for example, Wisconsin residency. Thus, an out-of-state black applicant with grades and LSAT scores at the median for that group would have had a 7 out 10 chance of admission and an out-of-state Hispanic a 1 out of 3 chance—but an in-state Asian with those grades and scores had a 1 out of 6 chance and an in-state white only a 1 out of 10 chance.

CEO chairman Linda Chavez noted: “This is the most severe undergraduate admissions discrimination that CEO has ever found in the dozens of studies it has published over the last 15 years.” Chavez also noted: “The studies show that literally hundreds of students applying as undergrads or to the law school are rejected in favor of students with lower test scores and grades, and the reason is that they have the wrong skin color or their parents came from the wrong countries.”

Roger Clegg added: “The latest census figures have dramatically underscored that America is increasingly multiethnic and multiracial. In such country, is simply untenable for our institutions—including public universities—to engage in politically correct but divisive and unfair discrimination.”

When one considers that Wisconsin is largely white (blacks and Hispanics only constitute about 12% of the population), Wisconsin-Madison must  be engaging in severe discrimination of favoring less qualified out-of-state blacks and Hispanics over more qualified in-state whites.  The anti-white discrimination at UW-Madison is even greater than the nation-wide findings by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford last year:

When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.

It should be noted, however, that while the study by CEO is certainly welcome as it shows the degree to which European Americans are being dispossessed from from the very institutions their ancestors built, Linda Chavez is either confused or dishonest.  It indeed seems absurd that Chavez is bemoaning something (Hispanic affirmative action) which is a direct consequence of something she supports (mass immigration).  Also, mind you, it was Linda Chavez (along with Dinesh D’Souza, et al.) who lobbied the Washington Times to fire Sam Francis (who, at the time, to the distaste of neocons like Chavez and D’Souza, was being too vocal in his criticism of anti-white discrimination).

HT:  DM

Jeffrey Lord Gets Conservatism Wrong Again

My latest is up at Intellectual Conservative. I haven’t posted one there in a while.

Jeffrey Lord is at it again at American Spectator. Apparently the man is a glutton for intellectual punishment. After his last anti-Ron Paul screed generated so many comments they had to be shut down, and after having his sloppy history demolished by luminaries like Thomas Woods, Kevin Gutzman, and Mike Church, you would think that Lord would have sense enough to lie low for awhile, but I guess not.
 
I will give Lord some credit though. He seems to have figured out that writing history off the top of his head is a quick way to make a fool of himself, so this article actually appears to have been researched (and hopefully fact check) a little more thoroughly. Aside from an error* about the origins of the word “paleo-conservative,” and the fact that it is much disputed that Murray Rothbard applauded Khrushchev when the Soviet leader visited the United States, I don’t have a lot of problems with Lord’s retelling of history although I obviously have a problem with his spin.
 
Actually Lord makes the point against his own case without realizing it. His is a history of the “modern conservative movement” not a philosophical treatise on conservatism. One problem with the “modern conservative movement” is that it is hopelessly myopic, and has been from the start. Younger generation movement conservatives act as if they believe the world started in 1980 with the election of Reagan. Older generation movement conservatives act as if history began with the start of the Cold War. But the “modern conservative movement” is not conservatism per se. It is a collection of policy positions (three-legs-of-the-stoolism if you will) that are ideologically held. The association of modern “conservatism” with militancy is, as Lord documents, a historical accident that was heavily influenced by the circumstances of the times and who won an intra-movement battle. Had the (Felix) Morelyites won the debate and the Soviet Union later collapsed under the shear economic dead weight of its flawed system and imperialistic designs, the Jeffrey Lords of the world would today be singing the praises of non-intervention. Murray Rothbard, who is much maligned by Lord in the article, actually made this point at the time. The fear of the Soviet Union by US conservatives was evidence that they didn’t really believe their own economic theories. Somehow the Soviet Union was going to defy the laws of economics and manage to take over the world despite not being able to consistently feed its own population.
 
 
Feel free to comment under the article at IC. (painless registration required) Thanks.
 

How to Report on 9-11 Anniversary

For those of you who were following blogger discussions about journalists sacrificing truth for political correctness when reporting on black flash mobs, here’s another interesting piece of information that might help explain the very PC coverage of the 9-11 anniversary.  Apparently the Society of Professional Journalists has has issued the following (Orwellian) guidelines for journalists to use when discussing 9-11 or Islamic terrorism:

— Portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences;

— Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing Americans mourning those lost in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

— Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing rescue and other public service workers and military personnel.

— Do not represent Arab Americans and Muslims as monolithic groups. Avoid conveying the impression that all Arab Americans and Muslims wear traditional clothing.

— Use photos and features to demystify veils, turbans and other cultural articles and customs.

— Make an extra effort to include olive-complexioned and darker men and women, Sikhs, Muslims and devout religious people of all types in arts, business, society columns and all other news and feature coverage, not just stories about the crisis.

— Seek out experts on military strategies, public safety, diplomacy, economics and other pertinent topics who run the spectrum of race, class, gender and geography.

— When writing about terrorism, remember to include white supremacist, radical anti-abortionists and other groups with a history of such activity.

— Do not imply that kneeling on the floor praying, listening to Arabic music or reciting from the Quran are peculiar activities.

The Onion couldn’t even make up such idiotic guidelines.  It’s  no wonder that nearly everyone now believes that MSM journalists are liars, and it’s unsurprising that more people now turn to independent media or bloggers for the truth.

HT: DM

Awesome Rendition of the National Anthem

This is a video of Jim Cornelison belting out the National Anthem at yesterday’s Falcons vs. Bears game. Unfortunately, my Falcons lost, but this was incredible. His singing isn’t so much well done, although I’m sure it is that (I don’t have a good ear for that kind of thing), as it is loud and exuberant. The crowd claps and cheers the whole way through. This was incredible to watch as it unfolded live.

Front Porch Republic is Having a Conference

Today is the first I have heard of this.

Sounds interesting.

I am all for discussing human scale politics, an important paleo concept, but I often get the same squemish vibe from FPR that I mention about Rob Dreher below.

On a related note, The New Atlantis is talking about FPR. This sentence illustrates my vague unease.

Meanwhile, a small “new right” has begun to emerge: more localist than nationalist, more Burke than Hayek, and fairly amicable with the New Left (many of its members are not Republicans). (emphasis mine)

I certainly don’t have a problem with localism ove nationalism or Burke over Hayek, and I don’t even have a problem with being amicable with the Left or even making common cause with them on certain issues, but I get a feeling that some of this amicableness is the shared tendency to set around and snark at “regular” conservatives. Also, I haven’t got much use for the Republican Party, but I doubt many of the people being referred to here are Constitution Party members.

Rod Dreher is Now Blogging at The American Conservative

This is an interesting development.

I have mixed feeling about Dreher. I think he is often misunderstood by “regular” conservatives as just another moderate RINO, which he isn’t, so I have occasionally found myself defending him. But neither is he willing to embrace full-throated paleoism. So his “crunchy conservatism” often comes off as dissenting from regular conservatism in a way that wins you points from libs and “reasonable” people (criticizing capitalism for example) without risking running afoul of the PC and/or conventional wisdom police.

 

Warrior Reviews Here

I know when you announce ahead of time that you have high hopes for a movie, it makes later praise less credible, but Warrior is fantastic. It is as good as Rise of the Planet of the Apes although ROTPOTA had the additional benefit of being a very pleasant surprise since I wasn’t expecting much.

Without giving too much away, the fight sequence at the end is very well done. Not in a realistic MMA way, but more in a Rocky sort of way. The audience I watched it with, which was pretty small, was cheering and clapping.

It so far has an excellent 8.2 IMDB rating, and it is even getting some love from the critics.

It made 5.61 million, which isn’t much, but it will likely have legs due to word of mouth and critic love.

For those who saw it, post your reviews below. If you haven’t seen it, go.

Dick Cheney and the Radical Center

Conservative Inc. spent the recent recess going on about Dick Cheney and his just published account of the late unpleasantness. In the time honored tradition of reviewing a book that I haven’t nor will read, I doubt it lives up to the expectation that “heads will roll.”

More so then any other character in Party B’s more recent arsenal, Dick Cheney filled the necessary void of a Radical Centrist that could plausibly be sold as a Rightwinger (e.g. McCain failed in that role) in the media.  Indeed, Cheney was the necessary muse.

Most of Big Media has presented the agreed upon storyline that Dick Cheney is a conservative, or even a Far Right Conservative.  The roots were necessary to invent, but it is worth recalling this act did not start with Dick Cheney, but his wife, Lynne Cheney, when she became head of the conservative coveted National Endowment for the Humanities during the Reagan Administration.

Lynne was, I guess, an author.  She had written a Western novel or something a little more risque anyway–(I would queue a Slashot reference, save this is a conservative blog.)  Take a peak if so inclined, anyway.

Dick Cheney, for his part, is an even more elusive “conservative”, ever more elusive as he transitions into ‘centrist’ if maintaining a full set of radical positions.  A wrestling fan can recognize a Turn when he sees one.

His stated positions, pro-gay marriagepro-gays in the military, and, in light of the Obama and Clinton Administration’s Foreign Policy, the consistent strand of supporting the toppling of secular or Christian or friend, in favor of Islamist dominated democracy states, runs without a break in the line.

Further, the man went so far as to say deficits don’t matter.

The lapdog neocons, so far invested, defended the comment.

Cheney stumped for Establishment candidates against “Tea Party” types last cycle—grumblings from Conservative Inc were observed. 

And, nicely timed after fluff from AmSpec (Quin)  and National Review (Lopez)  came and went the past couple weeks, Cheney offers a quote:  Hillary should challenge Obama in2012. 

There remains amongst Conservative Inc., Cheney Deadenders, like the WMD Deadenders (e.g. Rick Santorum), who just haven’t gotten the memo yet, but the ruse is over.

No White After Labor Day?

Back before I got fat … er … I mean before my wife shrunk all my clothes when I actually had a half decent wardrobe I could fit into, I used to concern myself to some degree with the rules of fashion. Gentlemen should not be deliberately foppish, but the proper gentleman should be concerned about his appearance and … well properness. I think also that it is an appropriate conservative concern to be mindful of tradition and custom with regard to attire.

That said, I have always considered the whole Labor Day as marking the end of the summer season an insidious Yankee plot* deliberately designed to make us Southerners chafe. (And I’m not the only one who has notice this outrage.) While this arbitrary line of demarcation may work in Boston, it doesn’t work in the Deep South. Anyone who has every spent any time in Georgia in September knows it is still quite hot. It is ludacris to start donning tweeds, felt hats and earth tones when it’s still 85 degrees outside.

Below a certain point (say south of Orlando) I think this reality has been conceded to. It is possible to wear tropical attire all year in South Florida without invoking a disapproving glance from the fashion informed. But us folks in the non- peninsular Deep to Middle South find ourselves in a fashion no-man’s-land this time every year.

So what to do? In reality, reality ends up trumping the rules. While I wouldn’t be so bold as to sport seersucker and white bucks post Labor Day, I do keep the dirty bucks, the straw hat, the stone colored pants, etc. in the rotation until about Oct. Maybe mid October if it remains hot enough, and I do so with only slight trepidation. The trepidation increases as the season wanes.

I have come to the conclusion that this Yankee inspired Labor Day tyranny must end (as if Lincoln wasn’t enough), and I am going to make it a personal crusade to see that it does. We either need to make the transition point more fluid and dictated by weather, or we need a fixed date that is more realistic. Anyone have any ideas for a more appropriate date? I willing to listen. Who’s with me?

*As much fun as it is to use any possible occasion to bash Yankees, the Easter as transition to Spring rule doesn’t really work up North either, and I’m sure some bitter Northerner has imagined that a cruel Southern act of revenge as well. How often can you wear linen in Boston in April? So a more fluid seasonal transition would benefit our Northern brethren as well. Again I say who’s with me? This vitally important crusade isn’t going to suceed without broad buy in.

Life in wartime just goes on…The meaning of 9-11

So where were you on the morning of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001?  You may well be asked this question come Sunday from friends, acquaintances or family members so I might as well begin…I was, just as I am now, in front of a computer screen trying to figure out what to say. I was trying to put the finishing touches on a column for my newspaper when I first heard over the radio about a plane smashing into the one of the towers of the World Trade Center. “Boy what a disaster!” I thought at the time, but not thinking more about it until I could see on the news later that day or on the Internet after deadline.

It was only when the announcement of the second plane crashing into the second tower came over the radio that the realization took hold something was seriously wrong …“We interrupt this broadcast for special new bulletin”.  I was listening to a rock station and there was no more music played after that. I had a portable TV on my desk I immediately turned on and saw the video footage of the second plane hitting the towers, captured only minutes before on live TV. It was replayed, over and over, for the next 24 hours. Time stopped and the announcement came, made by Tom Brokaw himself as I seem to recall:  America is at war.

And yet I still had a column to finish. But it didn’t matter. Nothing mattered it seemed at the time. The sports world seemed so petty. My brother had just moved to New York City a year and a half before – could he have been in one of the towers or down on the street? What the hell was going on? America was at war, we were attacked. That’s all I knew and I’m sure all anyone of us knew at the time. It was probably the last point of unity we all had at that one moment shared consciousness – We were at war.

Ten years later, perhaps the country is reaching again for a shared point of unity, although we still have a long way to go. And that point is:  Either we are at war or we should stop pretending that we are.

Continue reading

ICE’s new mission requires a new logo

Martin Rodriquez, an illegal alien who blocked traffic in Charlotte during a protest Tuesday, is out of jail, thanks to Obama’s de facto amnesty of illegal aliens. Now Rodriquez is free to agitate for a free education and other spoils from a country whose existing laws say he shouldn’t even be here. Here’s the report from the Winston-Salem Journal:

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officers charged most of them with misdemeanor disorderly conduct and impeding traffic after several protesters sat in the middle of a busy intersection, blocked traffic and shouted chants such as “Education, not deportation!” and “The people united will never be divided!”

Because Rodriguez was one of them, he ran the risk of being deported to Mexico, a country he says he does not remember. However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials opted not to pursue deportation proceedings against him and at least six other immigrants, attorneys handling the case said.

Welcoming Third-World colonization is now clearly the official policy of the central government. So it’s only fitting we modify the logo of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

Submitted for your approval:

Articles for your consideration…

Some good articles in The American Prospect on 9-11 and its meaning 10 years later. Check out “The 9-11 President” and “Same as it Ever Was”

From J.J. Jackson at Liberty Reborn “No Amount of Broken Windows can Save Us.”

From Chuck Baldwin “Government Gunrunners” and “Come Out of Her My People”

From SARTRE at BATR: “Liberty for the Ron Paul Generation”

From Clyde Wilson at Chronicles “A Fatal Blow”

From Jim Antle at TAC  “Grand Old Peaceniks”

and from Lew Rockwell.com, here’s Rick Perry’s campaign them song. Take a listen…

Time to stand up for freedom of speech!

David Yeagley is a conservative activist and writer who happens to be the g-g grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. He has just announced he is suing those who conspired to deny Jared Taylor and his American Renaissance organization a facility for their annual meeting here in Charlotte last January.

In my humble opinion, this is an open-and-shut case. Even the oh-so-politically correct oracles at the Charlotte Observer editorial staff knew it was wrong for Charlotte mayor pro tem Patrick Cannon to use his political power to deny AmRen a conference room.

Even worse, the far-leftists who specialize in bullying opponents into silence held a victory rally which was attended by another public official, Willie Ratchford of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Community Relations Committee:

The people who conspired to deny Jared Taylor’s First Amendment rights need to be taught a lesson. This case deserves our financial and moral support!

The Levin, Church, Woods et al Feud Continued…

More on this feud that won’t seem to go away, just because its fun and I like tweaking Levin.

This article asks if Levin is having a nervous breakdown?

Now after being constantly badgered to debate Tom Woods and/or Jack Hunter, Levin says he won’t debate Woods because it would make him famous. Umm… Mark, I think you’re too late. Woods already has a few New York Times bestsellers to his credit.

What is both irksome and amusing about Levin is that he clearly is angry that non-intervention is even being heard in “conservative” circles. His disproportionate and emotion laden anger strikes me as arising from a sense of entitlement. He isn’t so much angry that someone disagrees with him on the subject. He expects disagreement from a certain type of people. He’s angry that the person who is disagreeing with him is playing in “his” sandbox labeled conservative, instead of the sandbox over there marked liberal.