Archive for February, 2010

Those Crazy Black Farmers in their Flying Diversity Machines!

February 27, 2010

The Council of Conservative Citizens takes on what is now being known as “Pigford II,” the second lawsuit by black farmers (the ones who were too lazy to file for the first giveaway) against the U.S. Government for “discrimination,” which the Obama administration has agreed to “settle” for $1.25 billion.

Here’s my take:

Basically, these lawsuits are reparations by another name, and they will become more frequent in the future.  Obama and his allies want to give free money to blacks (reparations), but the public, and probably even Congress, would never go for it.  So the trick is to have minorities sue in large numbers in some class action lawsuit for “discrimination,” and then the government, rather than making them go to trial and prove it, just agrees to “settle,” and pay out some huge sum to just about anybody that fills out some paper work.

I wrote:

” “but tens of thousands of claims were denied for missing the filing deadline.”  Another way of wording this would be “but tens of thousands of black farmers failed to file before the deadline.”  Tens of thousands?!?!  How many black farmers are there?!?! ”

Looks like I got an answer.  From CofCC:

To highlight what a total scam this is. The US Census puts the number of black farmers at 18,500. During the first black farmer bailout, 100,000 blacks filed claims. Over five times the total number of black farmers. Yet the Clinton controlled justice department dished out over a billion. This “Harvest of Lies” is nothing less than taking from the white man to give to the black man.”

…And here I thought all that greenery growing in the abandoned row houses of West Baltimore was just weeds, instead of crops.

This is only the beginning.  In the near future, expect a black janitors’ lawsuit, a black pipefitters’ lawsuit, and a black barrista lawsuit, from the blacks who make coffee in government facilities.   I’m sure they’ll all have some outlandish tales…”the U.S. government ordered dairy creamer with a Confederate flag on the carton and made me make coffee with it.”  Hey…it’s not like they’ll have to prove it or anything!

The quotations around “Harvest of Lies,” refer to the title of this book on the original black farmers’ lawsuit.  Sounds like it might be worth reading.

Advertisements

Unrelated: The Blind Leading the High-IQ’d

February 27, 2010

Richard Hoste has a series of interesting posts up at his site.  He believes that white liberals tend to be more intelligent than white conservatives, and that the reason for this is that whites with high IQ’s are more easily taken in (“brainwashed”) by ideologies such as multiculturalism, Marxism, and feminism, than are those with average or below average intelligence.  I think he’s probably right about white liberals having higher IQ’s than white conservatives.  And he does have a pretty good line of reasoning for why this may be.  But if I could add my own two cents, there’s probably another factor that would explain some of this additionally.  That factor is the increased stratification and segregation of our society based on IQ over the last several decades.  Murray and Hernstein famously described the “rise of the cognitive elite” in their amazing book The Bell Curve.  Long story short, their anecdote is something along the lines of:  where once the factory manager lived on the same street, but in a bigger house, than the manufacturing worker that he supervised, they now live in entirely separate neighborhoods, with the manager living in a gated community, and the manufacturing worker living in a working class semi-slum.  Basically, high-IQ people now, unlike in the past, live and socialize predominantly with each other only, likewise for those with average IQ’s, and likewise for those with lower IQ’s.  One of the main reasons that I have never bought into any of the three mentioned ideologies is that I believe my own lying eyes.  I went to a high school with a significant black population.  I’ve been around blacks frequently at work and in life.  There are so many reasons why I will never ascribe to any form of egalitarian thought, the memory of two black girls (taking advantage of the free breakfast program) getting into a fist fight over the last carton of chocolate milk in our high school cafeteria one morning just being among the most prominent.  Just seeing the appearance of group differences with your own eyes leads most to the conclusion that they are real.  As a micro-trend, this wouldn’t explain much.  The factory manager, who used to live next to his lower-IQ neighbors, won’t forget their behaviors when he moves down the road to the gated community.  But as a macro-trend…well…his daughter never lived in the old house…she doesn’t have those memories.  Since IQ is largely heritable, the white high-IQ factory manager’s daughter is likely to be the next generation’s white high-IQ equivalent.  But she didn’t have the same experiences as her father.  To understand the liberalism of today’s average high-IQ white woman in her mid-20’s to mid-30’s, you have to understand where she’s come from.  She grew up in a nice upper-middle-class neighborhood, surrounded by other high-IQ whites and their families.  She doesn’t understand racial differences in criminality because there was no crime or minorities in her neighborhood.  The students at her school were mostly the children of her high-IQ neighbors and had at least above average IQ’s.  She didn’t get much exposure to the few who didn’t fit that profile, as they weren’t in her Advanced Placement classes.  Everyone she grew up with could learn algebra, so if black children in Detroit are failing to learn basic addition…well that’s just a failure on the part of society (read: Whites). With regards to feminism, she doesn’t understand the destruction that fatherlessness has unleashed on the American family.  All of the divorced women she was exposed to (picture The Real Housewives of Wherever) had lives that were just fine.  Of course this is because they could use their Bachelor’s degree in Psychology to get some high five-figure salaried make-work job with the county as a “personal enrichment consultant,” their ex-husbands could afford large alimony checks, and they could pay a nanny to keep an eye on their “exhausting” children.  She never lived next door to a struggling single-mother in a working class neighborhood whose children developed social pathologies.  Men just aren’t really that necessary to family life and successful childhood development in her eyes.  It’s a similar story with economics.  The fundamental concept of Marxism is that everyone can receive resources greater than they value of which they have created.  From the day she is born until she graduates from college with a B.A. in “Creative Expression,” after 6 years of study, at the age of 24, everything has been given to her.  Her every needs were provided for as a child.  As a teenager, every luxury item she desired, from designer clothes to a brand new sports car, was provided by her parents.  They paid for her college.  They paid for an apartment so she wouldn’t have to live in the dorm.  They gave her spending money so that a part-time job wouldn’t interfere with her studies.  The link between effort (and the value that it creates) and wealth, simply does not exist in her mind.  Neoconservatives have famously been referred to as “liberals who were mugged by reality.”  While I think that’s being too charitable to the wildly idealistic (and plainly horrible) neocons, there is a kernel of truth here.  A significant portion of high-IQ twenty-something and thirty-something whites are liberal because IQ-based social stratification and the heritability of intelligence have allowed them to escape the realities of human nature and differences for a significant portion of their lives, most importantly, during their formative years.

“Disparate Protection” is not a myth…for I have seen it!

February 27, 2010

Yesterday I contrasted the responses of law enforcement to two different threats of death and violence.  One was a vague threat against black students scribbled on a bathroom wall at Hocking College in Ohio.  The other incident involved telephoned death threats made against employees of several different hotels who were scheduled to host American Renaissance’s annual conference.  Predictably, the AmRen threats were largely, if not entirely, ignored, while the simple grafitti at  Hocking was responded to with a virtual blitzkreig of three-lettered federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.  I wrote:

“Anyway, back to the two different threats.  Granted, they occurred in different jurisdictions, but it sure sounds like a case of the police offering “disparate” protection to citizens, on racial grounds, to me.  The 14th Amendment guarantees “the equal protection of the laws” by the states.  If white students at Hocking College ever get threatened in the future, and Hocking College doesn’t call out its version of the SWAT team, then I think they should sue.  I don’t know if they would have a case.  Any lawyers out there, please feel free to contact me and let me know.”

These two incidents happened in different jurisdictions, with different local law enforcment agencies, so you couldn’t entirely measure them against each other.  Maybe the Hocking College Police Department(?) is just really on the ball.  Maybe D.C. and Northern Virginia local law enforcement is just really lazy, and would have responded as haphazardly if the threats had been made against blacks instead.  Well, we no longer have to speculate.  “Disparate Protection” is real!

From James Edwards at The Political Cesspool:

“All the whites will die tonight…that’s what a Hispanic woman, Miriam Leticia Malave, yelled as she and three Hispanic men began attacking white patrons in the M&T Bar in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania last week. Malave attacked a female bartender Melissa Elrod, with a baseball bat.”

He continues:

“Plus, in 2006, Malave and “three Hispanic men” tried to attack white people with baseball bats. When the would be victims escaped, they instead began smashing their cars with the bats.”

Followed by:

“The prosecutor hasn’t filed hate crime charges this time either! In fact, none of the three Hispanic men who beat the whites in the bar have even been arrested!”

And then a rhetorical question:

“Do you think if four whites had chased a bunch of Mexicans with baseball bats and then smashed their cars up they would have gotten off with disorderly conduct charges, and without a hate crimes charge?”

Actually James, I can field that one with complete certainty.  The answer is NO! 

I knew Shenandoah, Pennsylvania sounded familiar, so I looked it up, and now I remember why.  Back in 2008, a couple of white teens beat a Hispanic man to death in…where else…Shenandoah, Pennsylvania!  I vaguely remembered it because CNN ran something along the lines of a million stories on it, and I think it was the lead story on their website for about a year.  I’m sure when they get tired of their 24/7 coverage of stupid white couples adopting Haitian orphans, they’ll probably go back to this old standby.  Anyways…guess what…the white teens were charged with hate crimes!

This is the two-tiered legal system that whites face.  Any crime committed by whites against a minority will result in additional charges/prison time.  Any crime committed against whites by minorities will be met with the bare minimum of charges/prison time…if that.  Almost makes you want to turn on Fox News, salute the flag, and read the latest piece of crap Sean Hannity book.  Since they can’t count on the protection of the local government, maybe the M&T Bar should hire some private security.

A Tale of Two Death Threats/Liars with Low IQ’s

February 26, 2010

By now, I think everyone knows of the ordeal that American Renaissance, a leading publication of race realism, faced while trying to hold their annual conference this year.

Long story short, they made reservations with about 4 different hotels, all of which were subsequently cancelled after each hotel received threats of violence and death.  Local law enforcement in the D.C. metropolitan area, if they even investigated these incidents, didn’t seem to take the matter too seriously.

I wonder what would have happened if these threats had been made against minorities, instead of the much-loathed whites of AmRen.

Fortunately I don’t have to speculate.  Last month a threat was made against black students at Hocking College in Ohio.  Let’s see how it was handled by school and local law enforcement officials.

From an Associated Press article at Cleveland.com:

“An attacker could find many places to hide at Hocking College, a campus carved into a forest in the Appalachian foothills. And with the threat of a mass killing looming over black students at the community college, Allen Edwards is steering clear of the trees.”

Not just any foothills, Appalachian foothills…you know what kind of people we’re talking about.  I think I stopped fearing trees and forests when I was around the age of 7.

“ “I don’t feel too safe walking by the woods,” said Edwards, a 19-year-old black student from Canton. “There’s woods everywhere. And somebody could be out in them, and I don’t know.””

Somebody could also be hiding under your bed Allen…like the boogeyman.

“The FBI is investigating a threat scrawled last week on a bathroom wall warning that black students would be killed Feb. 2. It bore the trademarks of just another casual — though chilling — threat of violence on a college campus, but students here aren’t taking any chances.”

The FBI?  Glad to know we called in the big guns for a case of bathroom graffiti.  I wonder if their Sex Crimes Unit will investigate the “For a good time, call 123-456-7890” message scribbled on the door of the next stall.  If the FBI has the resources available to investigate something this minor, in the face of our trillion dollar deficits, then I think I found a place for some budget cuts.

“At least two black students have withdrawn permanently from school out of fear for their safety, and another dozen have moved out of the dorm where the threat was found”

Really?!?!  Maybe I should drop a Pat Buchanan book in the common area and just clear out the whole building?  If blacks are supposed to fear for their lives from graffiti, then apparently the residents of West Baltimore, East St. Louis, Detroit, etc. never got the memo. 

“The college has provided temporary housing for students who are too scared to stay in Hocking Heights, the dorm where the threats were found. And for those wary of venturing outside until after Feb. 2, teachers are making allowances for missed classwork.”

I don’t even know what to say about that.

“Since the first threat was discovered Friday, the school has installed more security cameras in dorms and beefed up foot patrols. A $5,000 reward is being offered, and extra counselors are on hand…short of stationing police officers in the woods — which Hocking lacks the manpower to do — officials there say vigilance remains the best defense.”

“Short of stationing police officers in the woods”…they seriously considered that?!?!  Security cameras, increased patrols, a $5,000 reward…short of trip wires, continuous Predator drone overflights, and having Force Reconnaissance teams set up ambushes in the woods, what else could they do?

At least the AP has the journalistic integrity to mention the history of fake racial threats at American colleges:

“It’s not the first time racial threats — usually found to be hollow — have interrupted life at a college. Officials at St. Xavier University in Chicago shut down the campus in 2008 when threatening messages were found scrawled in the bathroom of a freshman dorm, and in 2006 a black woman pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after threatening letters to minorities at her former college led officials to move dozens of students for a night.”

The article also features this little gem…Hocking College quota-fill Amelinda Marengo detailing the horrors of “hate” that she’s experienced at this small school.

“Marengo, who is half Puerto Rican, said she and her black roommate endured racist taunts in the cafeteria on several occasions last year. Her roommate declined to be interviewed.

“We’d be sitting at a lunch table and some guys would be sitting across the room, and they’d be screaming, like, ‘n—– lover’ across the table,” Marengo said. “I had enough of it one day and I got up and I just started yelling at them and telling them, like, ‘There is no reason for you to treat someone like that.'””

Does this sound even remotely plausible?!?!  This incident really occurred…at a modern American University…in this day and age?  I don’t know, maybe it did…but I’ll wait for the proof.  Wonder why the roommate didn’t want to be interviewed about the incident?  But wait…she’s not done…

“About a year ago, Marengo said, a male friend led her into the second-floor men’s bathroom and showed her racist comments on the wall, including a drawing of what she called a “hangman.””

In what context did this incident occur?  What, her and this friend were just sitting around discussing “white male privilege,” and he said “oh, speaking of which, let me show you these racist comments and drawing of a hangman in the men’s bathroom.”?

Getting off topic, I’m reminded of an incident that occurred at a place where I used to work.  The workforce consisted primarily of whites, of both genders, and black women.  For some reason, hardly any black men worked there.  Anyway, one day we had small group meetings discussing diversity (What else?), and the manager leading the discussion asked if anyone had experienced racism in the workplace.  Only one person, a black woman, raised her hand.  When asked by the manager to describe the incident, she explained that a customer had called her by a racial slur over the phone.   The manager then asked her if that was the only incident she had experienced, and she replied that it was.  Then, when the group was asked again to raise their hands if they had experienced racism, a different black woman put hers up.  She told a tale of woe and sorrow about how she was speaking to a white customer, who thought she was white also, on the phone, and he began complaining about black people to her in a very descriptive manner, filled with all kinds of non-politically correct terms for “African-American.”  The manager then asked again if anyone else had experienced a racist incident.  Amazingly, about 8 out of the 10 black women present raised their hands, and absolutely every one of them described a similar incident, where they were mistaken for being a white woman, and a white customer on the phone began describing black people in an unpleasant manner on the phone to them.  This includes the original black hand-raiser who, 5 minutes ago, said that her first described experience was her only one!  I sound unmistakably white (I even have a bit of a drawl sometimes), and out of literally thousands of phone calls from customers, absolutely none began having racial discussions with me.  Most of these black women sounded like…well…black women.  Who calls a company to discuss business and just effortlessly transitions to complaining about minorities?!?!

My own little personal observation about people with low-IQ’s and lying is that when they lie, they tend to:

1)      Lie poorly (Claim events took place that are either easily disprovable, highly implausible, or are clearly in conflict with known facts and details) and,

2)      Lie fantastically (“Remember” minute details of an event that the average person, in a similar situation, would not recall, “Remember” details of events that are so outside of the norm of the events, sensory details, and human behavior experienced by the average person, so as to be immediately conspicuous to the average person).

Think Tawana Brawley, Crystal Gail Mangum, and this one.  Tawana Brawley wasn’t just raped…she was raped by badge-carrying police officers who covered her in dog feces.

If I had been a juror at Harrison Ford’s trial in The Fugitive, I probably would have voted “not guilty.”  A one-armed man?   A doctor can’t be stupid enough to make something like that up.   If I had been a juror at the trial of an inner-city man accused of murder, who gave the same alibi, I probably would have voted “guilty.”  Of course his one-armed man would have had a hook on the end of the prosthetic limb and been 7’2” tall, 230 lbs. of solid muscle, with gold-plated cowboy boots, a belt-fed machine gun, and KKK tattooed on his forehead. 

I bet if you asked 100 doctors, who had murdered their wives and were trying to get away with it, what had happened, probably 99 would either say that she was dead when they got home, or claim to have seen a murderer fleeing after the fact, but not with enough detail to be able to identify him.  If you asked 100 housing project residents… Well…probably 99 would have seen the murder committed, and could list every detail about the murderer (all of them out of the ordinary) down to the brand and size of his shoes…$300 designer leather wingtips in size 17 wide of course.  Most of the details would change every time the story was told…but they would always be jaw-dropping and would usually involve some act of overt racism.

It just goes to show you how pervasive political correctness is in America these days, and how thoroughly the good/perfect/without fault – bad/evil/without redemption dichotomy has infested the thinking of even above-average IQ whites like lawyers, school administrators, and police supervisors.  If a white woman had come to police with the same story as Tawana Brawley, they would have dismissed it immediately.  Likewise, if she had accused black men, instead of white men, of the same offenses, again, police would have dismissed it immediately as ludicrous.  But black is good/perfect, and we all know that whites are evil/capable of anything, so who knows…it’s just crazy enough to be true.

Anyway, back to the two different threats.  Granted, they occurred in different jurisdictions, but it sure sounds like a case of the police offering “disparate” protection to citizens, on racial grounds, to me.  The 14th Amendment guarantees “the equal protection of the laws” by the states.  If white students at Hocking College ever get threatened in the future, and Hocking College doesn’t call out its version of the SWAT team, then I think they should sue.  I don’t know if they would have a case.  Any lawyers out there, please feel free to contact me and let me know.

Unrelated: Who are these Idiots?

February 25, 2010

Admittedly this doesn’t have anything to do with the main purpose of this blog, hence “unrelated,” but I felt like posting it anyway.

Via CNN:

“Folklore says that George Washington was known for never telling a lie.  But as the United States marks its first president’s birthday, a new poll indicates that 74 percent of the public thinks the father of our country did lie to the public while he served as president…”

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland explains the results:

“Part of it may be the recognition that, however much we revere them today, both men were politicians, and Americans are always a little cynical about people seeking office.”

Cynical?!?!…Almost 1 out of 4 (22%) Americans believes that a POLITICIAN, no matter how honorable he may have been (don’t get me wrong…I like George Washington), went 8 years without lying to the public?  If these results are true, and they probably are, then the American people aren’t cynical…they’re naïve.  Think about it…have you ever gone even 1 year without lying to anyone?  I don’t consider myself a particularly dishonest person, but I know I haven’t.  I don’t even think I’ve gone a full year without telling at least one little untruth to at least one of the people that I really care about.  The remaining respondents had “no opinion.”  Exactly WHO are these morons that comprise the 26% of Americans who believe that a POLITICIAN went 8 years without lying to at least some of his constituents?  If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that a non-trivial amount are Hannity-listeners.  America…as the geographic landmass that falls within the boundaries of an arbitrary set of map-points, and the people that reside within (with no genetic basis), and a series of political beliefs – only occasionally enforced when they happen to coincide with the interests of our ruling class…are great…so anybody prominently associated with that abstract “country” is great.  And great means perfect…never wrong…UNABLE to “tell a lie.”   Good is flawless, bad is pure unadulterated evil without a single redeeming quality.  This is the way a child looks at the world.  Regardless of whether or not you support the abstract entity recognized as “America” today, our government does things wrong all the time…it always has, like every other government…it always will.  I’m sure this 26% is mostly white and “patriotic.”  They probably just aren’t able to accept for themselves the fact that the U.S. government, and almost all American institutions, do not exist for their well being, and in fact, actively oppose them and seek to displace them.  There is no shame in paying your taxes because you don’t want to go to jail.  There is nothing wrong with being tricked into fighting a war that is of no benefit to you.  There isn’t even anything wrong with doing a cost-benefit analysis and coming to the conclusion that American institutions today, for all their faults, benefit you more individually than they harm you.  Fear, being deceived, and making trade-offs are life occurrences that most experience.  But how do you get to the point where you convince yourself that a man went 8 years without lying to at least one of several million people.  Pride in the institutions of the government that rules you, no matter how flawed, is one thing…but this is just unhealthy.  Taking pride in the quality of the involuntary service that you provide is the mark of a true slave.  Attributing implausible virtues to the former leader of an organization that seeks to displace you isn’t far off.

Half a Cheer for Bob McDonnell

February 25, 2010

Via HBD Books:

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) recently signed an executive order dealing with “discrimination” in state employment.

Here’s another article:

“McDonnell (R) on Feb. 5 signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination “on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities,” as well as veterans.

It rescinds the order that Gov. Tim Kaine signed Jan. 14, 2006 as one of his first actions. After promising a “fair and inclusive” administration in his inaugural address, Kaine (D) added veterans to the non-discrimination policy – and sexual orientation.”

By continuing to ban discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, and disabilities, McDonnell isn’t really giving anything away, as these practices are already banned by federal law.  McDonnell does take a positive step though in removing “sexual orientation” from the list of protected classes.  Don’t get too excited though…he’s backing McCain (or McQuota as I prefer to call him) for re-election.  I always say this is the last time I’ll vote for the lesser of two evils.  I always end up doing it at least one more time.  Oh well, at least I can honestly say that I’ve never sold out enough to actually vote for McCain.

Arbitration Clauses: Protection for White Employers?

February 24, 2010

Arbitration Clauses:  Protection for White Employers?

I was recently reading through Fundamentals of Business Law:  Summarized Cases, 7th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller and Gaylord A. Jentz.  The subject of arbitration in employment disputes came up.  Arbitration is where, rather than one party formally suing another in court, the two parties take their issue to a neutral and private, jointly agreed upon, 3rd party who hears both sides, and renders a legally binding (in most cases) decision. One option that employers have at their disposal is to include arbitration clauses in employment contracts.  For the most part, these are agreements that if either the employer or the employee have a non-criminal legal dispute arise between the two, they will have it settled by a private arbiter rather than a court of law.  So if an arbitration clause exists in a contract, yet one party still tries to sue in court, will the courts refuse to hear the case?  Obviously exceptions exist, such as if the clause appears to be too one sided (“unconscionable”), but by in large, the answer appears to be Yes.  But what about “discrimination” lawsuits, those legal magic bullets that seem to turn the Constitution and hundreds of years of accepted principles of jurisprudence on their heads. Wikipedia reports that “the Federal Arbitration Act requires that where the parties have agreed to arbitrate, they must do so in lieu of going to court, provided that the proceeding is fundamentally fair — that is, equivalent in fairness to the public courts.”  Fundamentals of Business Law seems to concur.  The book even lists a case, Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, where an employee with an arbitration clause tried to sue his employer for discrimination in state court, and the Supreme Court found that the arbitration clause was valid, and that the suit should not be heard.  One acknowledged exception to arbitration clauses is to contracts involving interstate transportation workers.  According to the book, “arbitration is normally simpler, speedier, and less costly than litigation.”  I checked the website of Grand Valley State University, which tracks some employment arbitration cases.  Of their non-union arbitration cases listed, dealing with the topic of various types of employment discrimination, the arbiters seemed to side overwhelmingly with the employers.  Although some arbiters found that the employer did not have just cause to terminate an employee, with the question of whether or not discrimination occurred, the results seemed to go something like 16 to 1 in favor of the employer.  I’ll admit that I don’t know how representative this sample is, but it doesn’t seem entirely implausible that it mirrors national results.  In contrast, when such suits are brought into court, depending on the race of the judge, a ratio of only about between 1 to 1  and 4 to 1 cases ended in favor of the employer.  So arbitration clauses seem to be generally enforceable, and are more likely to result in quicker, less expensive, more favorable outcomes for employers accused of discrimination.  My suggestion to white employers:  Obviously, consult a lawyer first…but if they see no problem with it, make all employees sign employment contracts, and include arbitration clauses in them that require all discrimination disputes to be brought before a private arbiter.  This seems like a fairly effective way to minimize exposure to the Reverend Al and his bunch, so at first I was surprised that not more employers choose to take this route.  Then I remembered…almost all hiring/employment considerations at large institutions fall under the control of the “human resources”-diversity-industrial complex these days.  The black woman in charge of HR at your company doesn’t want to minimize the organization’s exposure to legal liability.  She just wants to help wage her little piece of the race war.  Not including arbitration clauses in employment contracts is a good way of sandbagging her enemy’s defenses.  Not that her superiors really care.  Remember the first law of workplace diversity in Corporate America…given a choice between diversity (and accompanying bankruptcy) and efficiency, Corporate America will choose bankruptcy every time.

Ricci Redux?

February 23, 2010

Steve Sailer (no surprise there) writing at Vdare.com (again, not surprising) is all over another entrance exam for firefighters challenged as being “discriminatory.”  This one is in Chicago.  Apparently Chicago gave an entrance exam for prospective firefighters. 

“Anyone who scored 64 or below was deemed not qualified. But the city set a second cutoff score of 89 points. Officials told applicants who scored below 89 but above 64 that although they passed the test, they likely would not be hired because of the large number of people who scored 89 or above. The majority of those in the top-scoring group were white; only 11 percent were black.”

Well, blacks do appear to make up about 34% of Chicago residents, but what was their proportion of the test-takers…you know…the percentage that would actually show how different the actual results were from the results that would be expected assuming no group differences in ability. 

The Supreme Court isn’t determining whether or not illegal discrimination actually took place, but whether or not the black applicants can still sue.  Apparently under law, “people are supposed to sue within 300 days after an employment action they seek to challenge.”  However, “the first lawsuit in the case was filed on March 31, 1997, 430 days after the city announced the results.”

Every possible effort is made to hand the world to blacks on a silver platter.  All they have to do is just show up to the hand-out line within 300! days, and they still can’t even manage that.  Again, the Richard Hoste joke…nay…soon to be proven prophecy…that pretty soon we’re going to have to start “paying state workers to put dollar bills under the pillows of blacks while they’re sleeping.”

The black applicants’ argument seems to be that every time a white firefighter was hired instead of a black, between 1996 and 2001, “a new act of discrimination” occurred, and the 300 day limitation started over again.  The article states that “the court is expected to make a decision before fall.”  It sounds like they’re going to fold.  The article also stated that “the Supreme Court on Monday seemed willing to let a group of African Americans sue Chicago.”

No surprise here, but Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both quoted as favoring the black applicants.  The AP article also had this little passage:

“Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued that if the court allows the city of Chicago to hire using its flawed method, that will tell employers they can get away with a discriminatory test if they manage to avoid a lawsuit within the 300-day limit .”

I’ll give them credit, the Obama Administration sure is active in supporting quotas.  Do you really think a McCain administration would have been as active…or active in any way…in opposing them?  I checked on Neal Katyal.  Apparently this guy is a young minority legal “wunderkid,” “who successfully [defended] Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s chaffeur, before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006.”  He was also a Georgetown Law professor at age 27.  So basically, this guy could punch his own ticket anywhere in the legal profession, and probably make millions of dollars.  Why take a second-string civil service position?  Probably for the ability to work on anti-white cases like this.  Call it a labor of love.  According to the Department of Justice’s website, “the Office of the Solicitor General is tasked to conduct all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court, and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts.”  So why was the Solicitor General’s office getting involved in this anyway?…The U.S. Government wasn’t being sued?  Probably because the Solicitor General is Elena Kagan.  Again, former Dean of Harvard Law, tons of accolades, she could definitely do better than this position in terms of wealth, glory, or prestige.  Why take it if not to harm whites?

Sailer asks:

“Will anybody nationally come to the defense of the Chicago firemen most qualified to save lives?”

Yeah…I’m sure National Review’s working on a cover story for this right now!  Actually, I don’t know…this Katyal guy defended Bin Laden’s driver…and “terrorism” seems to be the sole concern of the modern “conservative” movement…maybe we could use that.  You really think help is on the way?

Sotomayor, Bader Ginsburg, Katyal, Kagan…the best legal minds of the non-White-gentile world take pay cuts to advance their hatred of us.  The best and the brightest of the White-gentile legal world stay awake at night dreaming up legal justifications for torturing Israel’s enemies.  Yep…”the future’s so bright I gotta wear shades.” (Timbuk3)

Mitigating Damage: Corporate America’s 5 Folkways of Promoting Unqualified Minorities

February 21, 2010

So I was recently having a conversation with a friend.  Somehow the subject came up about a recent occurrence at his work place.  Apparently, the head of his workplace’s Human Resources department, who supervised about five other people, got “promoted” from “Manager of Human Resources” to…wait for it… “Director of Human Resources.”  Apparently at his place of employment, “Directors” typically supervise divisions of about 20+ employees, while “Managers” are subordinates of Directors, and supervise smaller, more job-specific, units of about…oh…say 5-10 employees.  So “Manager of Human Resources” would seem like an appropriate title right?  Why the fancy new business card with accompanying higher salary and extra perks when no additional responsibility was added.  Well, the head of Human Resources (where else would such inefficiency take place?) was a woman, and apparently there weren’t enough non-white male “Directors” to serve the needs of diversity, so a new Director position was created to alleviate the hard bigotry of meritocracy.  What I just described is what’s commonly referred to as a “promotion in place.”  It’s one method at Corporate America’s disposal to satisfy the conflicting goals of having minorities in high positions and efficient organizational performance.  So let’s say that you’re a corporate executive, and you’ve been told that you need more non-white males in positions of leadership.  But, the reason you don’t have more non-white males in leadership positions is that none are qualified, and…you are still responsible for the efficient functioning of your department!  What do you do? Here are five commonly-used techniques for dealing with these conflicting goals:

1) The “Promotion-in-Place”

As described above, the unqualified minority is kept in the same job with the same functions and responsibilities…the only thing that changes is the title of the job…and the accompanying salary and benefits (an increase of course).  Example – An unqualified minority (UQM) was the sole sales representative for the Northeast Region, with a title of “Northeast Regional Sales Representative,” and he, along with the other regional sales representatives, reported to the “National Sales Manager.”  The UQM is now “Northeast Regional Sales Manager”…still the sole sales person for the Northeast region…with no subordinates or increased responsibilities…who still reports to the “National Sales Manager”…but with a better sounding title and a pay raise.  The assault on fairness and squandered resources (in the form of an undeserved salary increase) are the main drawbacks here…but hell…those are drawbacks to all of these.  On the plus side, the UQM stays at a position he is probably competent at, and doesn’t have any (more?) responsibilities added to his portfolio that he cannot meet.

2) The “In Charge of Nothing”

I remember reading the assigned textbook for some horrible “Principles of Management” course I was forced to take.  There were several different blurbs and short interviews highlighting different managers from different organizations, and their techniques/”words of wisdom.”  What struck me was that the managers with names that would imply that they were white males, like “John Smith,” had titles like “Director of Marketing,” “Research and Development Manager,” and “Head of Accounting.”  Managers with names that would imply that they were not white males, like “Taikeesha Jackson,” had positions like “Director of Parking Lot Operations”…one woman was the “Director of Facilities,” and went on about how the decisions she made, such as whether or not to put a coy pond in the lobby, were vital to the performance of the organization.  This is an example of the “In Charge of Nothing” a.k.a the I.C.O.N.  Here, the unqualified minority is given a newly created position “in charge of” some minor function of no real necessity to the operations of the organization, like making sure that all multi-page reports are stapled at the top left corner of the page.  In the “con” column, in addition to the wasted resources of the salary/benefits increase, you will also probably have to give them some kind of operating budget for their imaginary “department.”  Additionally, they may begin to take their new “job” seriously, and this could have a negative effect on company operations.  Picture Taikeesha Jackson getting upset about people parking crooked, and calling all employees into the conference room for a 4-hour incoherent rant about “respect.”  That’s four hours of wasted productivity…but hey…you have to let her go ahead with the meeting and maintain the veil of authority.  On the plus side, you didn’t put her in charge of anything that ACTUALLY MATTERS.  At least she isn’t in charge of Sales…and losing accounts because she keeps accusing clients of racism.  This way, the damage that she can cause is only minimal…like catching the parking lot on fire!  In this particular situation, concrete isn’t likely to burn, so I would go with the I.C.O.N!

3) The “One-for-the-Price-of-Two”

The “One-for-the-Price-of-Two” occurs when a UQM is promoted to a newly created position, the responsibilities of which are already covered by a current existing position.  For example, the 6-person Marketing Department reports to the Director of Marketing.  A UQM marketing employee is now promoted to the newly-created position of “Director of Electronic Marketing.”  From this point onward, he will oversee all e-marketing activities, while the Director of Marketing oversees all marketing activities, including e-marketing if need be.  A benefit of this method is that it has the potential to avoid many hard feelings.  After all, the Director of Marketing is not actually being replaced by the undeserving minority, but instead just giving up some of his responsibilities to the unqualified quota-hire.  So while he may be peeved that the quota-hire has the same pay, benefits, and perks, with less responsibility, he can’t be too upset…his work load just got lighter…at least in theory.  The drawback is that you are now basically throwing away whatever the UQM’s salary is and getting absolutely nothing in return, as the job duties were already covered.

4) The “Bump-and-Assist”

The “Bump-and-Assist” may be the most desirable of these options.  Here, a UQM is promoted to a leadership position, and at the same time, a white employee is promoted to a newly-created assistant-leadership position, in order to provide some level of effective leadership, while still allowing the UQM to appear in charge.  For example, the Customer Service Manager previously supervised 6 Customer Service Representatives.  Now that the position has been filled by a UQM, the position of Assistant Manager of Customer Service has been created, and filled with a competent white employee, who the Customer Service Representatives can turn to when they need help, and who can sweep some of the UQM’s bad decisions under the carpet when he/she isn’t looking.  Allowing the UQM to maintain the illusion of control is vital to the successful implementation of this plan.  The drawback, as with the “One-for-the-Price-of-Two,” is that you are now basically throwing away whatever the UQM’s salary is and getting absolutely nothing in return, as the job duties are now really being handled by the white assistant-manager.  But on the plus side, organizational harmony should remain largely in tact.  The qualified white will still get something of a promotion, so feelings won’t be hurt as much as they could have been.

5) The “Hail Mary”

This is, without a doubt, the least desirable of all options.  This is where the powers-that-be, for whatever reason…maybe they believe their own press releases…, actually believe that the UQM is capable of running a large and important division…or even a cash register…and promote/hire them without any hidden support structure.  Big mistake.  This won’t end well.  For an example, just Google “Carly Fiorina Hewlett Packard.” 

You might think that maybe, given such unappealing options, at least some individuals/entities in Corporate America might instead choose to hire a competent white (maybe a…gasp…white male) employee, and just fight any lawsuits that may happen to arise.  You would be wrong.  You obviously have no idea how entrenched political correctness is in Corporate America.  Discrimination lawsuits aren’t the motivation for discriminating against whites…they’re just the excuse given for doing so.  For those big-business shills who always babble about the almighty “Market” and its efficiency, just remember this…given a choice between diversity (and accompanying bankruptcy) and efficiency, Corporate America will choose bankruptcy every time.

Reparations by Another Name: Black Farmers’ Lawsuit

February 19, 2010

Via AmRen:

Black Farmers Win $1.25 Billion in Discrimination Suit

Actually, a more appropriate headline would be “U.S. Government agrees to give black farmers $1.25 billion for no reason under the guise of a lawsuit ‘settlement’.”

The headline, as it exists now, makes it sound like these black farmers successfully proved to the satisfaction of a court that they were discriminated against.  In reality, the U.S. Government (which I’m supposed to feel some sort of bond with according to Sean Hannity and Fox News) just agreed to hand over this large sum after they got sued.  These “settlements” of discriminations lawsuits are just reparations under another name.  Congress and Obama know that there is no way that the American public would stand for reparations being voted on and appropriated in the open, yet that is one of their fondest desires.  So they found a way around that.  Just encourage blacks to sue for discrimination, agree to “settle” by paying them some ridiculously large amount no matter how weak their case is, and then have Congress approve money for paying off a legitimate sounding budget item like a “legal settlement.” 

From the article:

“The original Pigford case, named after North Carolina farmer Timothy Pigford, ended in 1999 after the government agreed to compensate black farmers left out of USDA loan and assistance programs due to racism.

Farmers able to provide proof of their claims of discrimination were awarded $50,000, but tens of thousands of claims were denied for missing the filing deadline.”

“but tens of thousands of claims were denied for missing the filing deadline.”  Another way of wording this would be “but tens of thousands of black farmers failed to file before the deadline.”  Tens of thousands?!?!  How many black farmers are there?!?! 

“The settlement of the case, known as Pigford II,”…”would allow these farmers to again make their claims.”  So $50,000 in free cash was being handed out for nothing…all you had to do was fill out some paperwork…and these black farmers were too lazy to fill out a couple of forms…when they had a whole DECADE to do it?!?!  Maybe Richard Hoste’s tongue-in-cheek quip will turn out to be true, and we’ll actually have to start “paying state workers to put dollar bills under the pillows of blacks while they’re sleeping.”