Thursday, January 12, 2012

Saving Haiti from Helping Itself

An article at examines the lingering aftermath of the 2010 Haitian earthquake, which killed an estimated 220,000 Haitians and left the country in even more squalid ruins than before. According to Salon, most of the billions in international aid cannot be accounted for and only a trickle had reached the ever-suffering Haitian people.

This is to be expected, of course. There is no greater financial scam in history than the modern spectacle of international aid. Whether directed by any of the myriad United Nation agencies, or by well-intentioned NGO's (non-governmental organizations, to use the lingo of the casino) virtually none of the money committed by mostly Western governments and citizens ever reaches the victims of this or that disaster in the Third World (read: mostly, Africa, the Carribean and parts of Asia Pacific and South America - in short, places with the darkest skin colors). Most of the money magically disappears, lost in accounting snafus, and safely channeled to Swiss or Cayman bank accounts, or misallocated to someone's cousin's construction company, or just vanishing completely into the bureacratic maze like customer funds at MF Global.

Salon, however, points to a particularly pernicious example of how the aid game works - to enrich government do-gooders and their patrons at the expense of the very people the aid is supposed to help. In Haiti, this has to do with rice, which the United States has been sending to the island as relief.

But the economy of rice in Haiti says everything about the condition the country is in. The U.S. government subsidizes and “donates” ton after ton of rice in Haiti and in so doing has through the last several decades completely undercut Haitian rice farmers and left them destitute and migrating into cities where they live in hovels that were destroyed by the quake.

As recently as the early 1980s, Haiti was producing just about all of its own rice. Now more than 60 percent is imported from the U.S., making it the fourth largest recipient of American rice exports in the world. That was before the quake and now with donated rice coming in as well, Haiti is even more awash in rice while American agribusiness makes billions of dollars every year through generous government subsidies.

There is perhaps some bitter irony here that the subsidies were promoted in large part by President Clinton to help his home state of Arkansas, the largest rice producing state in the U.S., thereby crippling a sector of the economy in Haiti where Clinton has worked so tirelessly to help with the recovery.

Some relief! Here Haitians, we Americans will give you food, and in the process destroy your already degenerate economy. Meanwhile, powerful interests in the US end up putting a huge amount of US taxpayer money into their bank accounts - all in the name of charity.

Haiti would be better off if it were to expel the aid workers, the NGOs, foreign missionaries, the UN and Americans "there to help the Haitian people," and deal with their own problems using their own resources, no matter how limited. Haiti has been a basket case since it massacred its French masters 200 years ago, likely because it's level of human capital is so very meager (read: low average IQ), but international aid will do nothing to change that, and indeed, will only make it worse.

So much worse.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Stephen J. Gould was a Big Fat LIAR

The late biologist, Stephen J. Gould, penned the 1981 book, The Mismeasure of Man, as a polemic against IQ science and any findings that discovered physical, but especially mental differences between the races. Such findings ran counter to Gould's Marxist belief in the absolute genetic equality of all people, and the inherent racism of Western, and particularly American society.

Naturally, the book won several awards and was hailed by the leftist intelligencia as the ultimate refutation of IQ research and human biodiversity.

Over the years, however, The Mismeasure of Man has come under serious criticism for faulty scholarship. The most recent critique provides a devastating rebuke, not only of Gould's arguments, but of the manner in which he appears to have deliberately smeared those scientists whose research he disagreed with. The evidence is so convincing even the New York Times had to cover it.

In a 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that [Samuel George] Morton, believing that brain size was a measure of intelligence, had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls to favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones.

But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong.

Nicolas Wade must be the most unpopular person at the Times, since he frequently shreds liberal creationist dogma [the belief that human evolution absolutely ended with the appearance of modern man in Africa] in the pages of the science section. The scientific study in question leaves little room for doubt that Gould twisted his scientific analysis to support his own assumptions - the very thing he accused Morton (and so many others) of doing.

But the Penn team finds Morton’s results were neither fudged nor influenced by his convictions. They identified and remeasured half of the skulls used in his reports, finding that in only 2 percent of cases did Morton’s measurements differ significantly from their own. These errors either were random or gave a larger than accurate volume to African skulls, the reverse of the bias that Dr. Gould imputed to Morton.

“These results falsify the claim that Morton physically mismeasured crania based on his a priori biases,” the Pennsylvania team writes.

Dr. Gould did not measure any of the skulls himself but merely did a paper reanalysis of Morton’s results. He accused Morton of various subterfuges, like leaving out subgroups to manipulate a group’s overall score. When these errors were corrected, Dr. Gould said, “there are no differences to speak of among Morton’s races.”

But Dr. Gould himself omitted subgroups in his own reanalysis, and made various errors in his calculations. When these are corrected, the differences between the racial categories recognized by Morton are as he assigned them. “Ironically, Gould’s own analysis of Morton is likely the stronger example of a bias influencing results,” the Pennsylvania team writes.

Naturally, such revelations won't stop leftists from citing The Mismeasure of Man as a great book. Most won't even consider the evidence - abundand as it is - of racial differences that appears around us every day. But Gould may now be seen as a perfect example of just how far liberal creationists are willing to go - and the intellectual fraud they must engage in - to maintain their delusions.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Another Bias Attack...

In New Square, New York, a man was badly burned during an arson attack on his home. The motivation for the attack appears to have been religious.

A New Square man who was severely burned early Sunday during an attack on his home had been the victim of growing harassment for more than a year because he did not attend the community's main synagogue.

Aron Rottenberg, 43, who suffered third-degree burns to half his body, visited The Journal News office in November to express concerns about his safety.
Rottenberg had been ostracized by the Skver Hasidic sect that runs New Square because he did not worship at the community's main synagogue, headed by Grand Rebbe David Twersky.

The alleged perpetrator of the attack on Mr. Rottenberg, Shaul Spitzer (18), another member of the New Square Hasidic community. has been arrested by police. Local officials, most of whom are members of the Hasidic community - and presumably, followers of the Rebbe, were quick to deny any link between the arson attack and Mr. Rottenberg's claims of intimidation.

Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence said he was assured by New Square Deputy Mayor Israel Spitzer that Sunday's attack was an isolated incident, the result of a private dispute and not part of a campaign of retribution.

Yossi Gestetner, a Monsey-based journalist who works with the Hasidic community, said New Square leaders would never condone such violence.

"Did the rabbinical leadership have issues with Mr. Rottenberg? Yes," Gestetner said. "But to conclude they would sanction violence is wrong."

But other members of the community disagree:

"If you don't follow the rules, this is what happens," said Elbaum, a former New Square resident.

Dirnfeld said he had little faith in local law enforcement because of its ties to New Square. He called for a federal investigation.

"I know there will be retaliation against me for speaking up, but as there is no responsible leadership, someone has to," he wrote.

One New Square woman said she and her friends were waiting for New Square's leadership to condemn Sunday's act and were bitterly disappointed that nothing was said.

"No one has come out to condemn the action of that boy," she said. "The girls went back to school. The boys went back to yeshiva. Nothing. It is against Judaism, against the Torah."

There are a number of Hasidic communities in upstate New York and elsewhere across the US, that are, for all practical purposes, separate nations unto themselves. The local government and law enforcement agencies are composed and controlled the by the congregation and the rules that get enforced are those of the religion. (This is also true for some other religious groups, like Mormons in the Southwest, and various Protestant sects in the south and midwest. Soon it will be true for Muslims in places like Dearborn, MI, too.) Permitting this sort of thing has traditionally had little overall effect for the US, but as the population fragments demographically and religiously, and more strident religious sects - ie Muslims - grow in numbers, we can expect to see a lot more communities like New Square in America's future.

New Square also presents evidence that pretty much any religious group will behave intolerantly toward others once its views are, at least locally, in the supermajority, and few religious leaders will hesitate to use government to squelch dissent if the option is available. Human behavior - and religious group behavior - is consistent, which is why a limited government is best.

Monday, May 09, 2011

Another Racism Hoax

What happens when a student falsely accuses a university of racism?

Well, if the liar happens to be a minority, then the answer is: not much.

Last month, Jonathan Perkins, a black, third year law student at the University of Virginia Law School penned a letter to the Virginia Law Weekly in which he alleged that university security guards had harrassed him while he walked home one night solely because he is black. Perkins went so far as to include comments he recalled security guards making during his encounter with them. He concluded his jermiad with what constitutes an indictment, not merely of the university, but of American society in general:

I am writing this column because it is important for my classmates to hear a real-life anecdote illustrating the myth of equal protection under the law. Incidents like this one are not surprising to me. Sadly, I have even grown to expect them.

Since this sort of thing is the Breakfast of Champions for the politcally correct/multicult crowd, they promptly fed on it like manna from heaven. The Virginia Law Rewiew composed an entire article featuring faculty and students chiming in the endorse Perkins' claims and attest to the racist nature of America and the university. Perkins' testimony was regarded as just one more piece of evidence in the ongoing leftist prosecution of white society.

Prof. Forde-Mazrui echoed these sentiments, saying that this type of conduct is present everywhere – as Perkins notes, this is not the first time he has been subjected to such treatment. Forde-Mazrui added an interesting corollary, pointing to the emails that the student body typically receives after an incident that warrants police attention: “These broad descriptions are troublesome because it makes it possible for officers to investigate anyone.” When a description is of a black male of indeterminate age, it casts such a wide net for police officers to operate with such little guidance, that even well-meaning officers are likely to engage in such interactions. “The fact that it is difficult to know whether the police were acting lawfully is itself part of the problem regarding the law surrounding law enforcement.”

University officials, eager to punish the racist security guards who'd dared to embarrass the school launched an investigation. Very quickly, however, that investigation exonerated the allegedly racist guards and revealed that Perkins' account of harassment was pure fiction. It never happened.

Confronted with the evidence, Perkins publicly recanted his story, explaining that while he'd lied, he'd done so with the best of intentions. His point, he said, was to draw attention to cases of real security police misconduct. By lying.(Remember, this is a third year law student.)

Naturally, the university immediately accepted this explanation and fell all over itself to excuse the liar.

“I am pleased that the student realized what he did was wrong and that he was willing to come forth to acknowledge his mistake,” said Leonard W. Sandridge, the University’s executive vice president and chief operating officer. “We were distressed when we learned of his allegations. We took them very seriously and launched an immediate investigation on his behalf.”

The reason the University provides for not pressing charges is as follows:

“I recognize that police misconduct does occur,” [Michael A. Gibson, University chief of police] said. “Pressing charges in this case might inhibit another individual who experiences real police misconduct from coming forward with a complaint. I want to send the message just how seriously we take such charges and that we will always investigate them with care and diligence.”

Of course. Notice that Gibson apparently doesn't consider the possibility that failing to charge Perkins might actually encourage other potential liars to create their own hoaxes at his department's expense. And what of the security guards, themselves? What if the university hadn't been able to conclusively refute Perkins' story? How many guards would have been disciplined or fired just on the suspicion he was telling the truth? Apparently, the university is perfectly willing to stand by while its guards are defamed and their jobs deliberately endangered by deliverate lies from someone who is studying the law.

Does anyone seriously believe that the university be so lenient toward a white male student who falsely accused black guards or teachers of misconduct and was subsequently exposed as a liar? Not a chance. But Perkins is black, and thus, the rules just don't apply to him.

That is the message the university has sent in this case. Loudly, clearly and intentionally.

More information on the incident can be found at Above the Law.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Bin Laden Dead - Muslims Critical

Last night's announcement that U.S. Special Forces teams had cornered and killed al-Qaeda founder and terrorist frontman INSIDE PAKISTAN, produced spontaneous public expressions of joy across the U.S.

In the Islamic world, however, news of bin Laden's demise produced criticism. The decision of the Obama administration to bury bin Laden's corpse at sea with full Muslim rites provoked the usual outrage from the ever-angry Muslims.

"What was done by the Americans is forbidden by Islam and might provoke some Muslims," said another Islamic scholar from Iraq, Abdul-Sattar al-Janabi, who preaches at Baghdad's famous Abu Hanifa mosque. "It is not acceptable and it is almost a crime to throw the body of a Muslim man into the sea. The body of bin Laden should have been handed over to his family to look for a country or land to bury him."

Prominent Egyptian Islamic analyst and lawyer Montasser el-Zayat said bin Laden's sea burial was designed to prevent his grave from becoming a shrine. But an option was an unmarked grave.

"They don't want to see him become a symbol, but he is already a symbol in people's hearts."

Yes, throwing the body of a Muslim into the sea is "almost a crime," but murdering thousands of civilians is just fine. That is the mentality of Islam: impotent, barbaric and murderous. And people wonder why Muslim nations haven't progressed much since the eleventh century?

The Obama Administration shouldn't have bothered with the niceties of a Muslim burial. Nothing will appease Muslims, or prevent them from waging their eternal jihad against civilized behavior. Disposing of the bullet-riddled corpose so that it couldn't become a shrine was a good idea, however.

More importantly, the Obama Administration should take this opportunity to declare victory and extract the U.S. from the vicious, filthy money-pit that is Afghanistan. Continuing to squander American blood and treasure in that Islamic hell hole bears no justification. Nothing we can do there will transform Afghanistan into a functioning democracy. And even if we could do that, we'd hardly like the results (a desire for liberty is not what burns in every Muslim's heart, George W. Bush's fantasies notwithstanding). The same applies to Iraq, America's greatest mis-step in a generation.

The now explicit evidence that bin Laden was sheltered inside Pakistan amply confirms longstanding suspicions that the Pakistani government is saturated with jihadi sympathizers and is no ally to the US. Indeed, probably the only reason the raid succeeded is that the US wisely opted with withhold any information about it from the Pakistanis. That the US was able to keep such intelligence secret for so many months is an accomplishment in itself.

Pakistan has been the epicenter of Islamic terrorism for some time. Western nations should treat Pakistan as if it contained a lethal disease (which, in an ideological sense, it does). Quarantine the country. No individual or cargo should be allowed into any Western nation, but especially the US, if it originated or spent any period of time inside Pakistan.

Cut the supply line of Islamic terrorism - ie, the movement of Muslims into and out of the West - and the threat of Islamic terrorism inside the West will slowly ebb. No need to invade and occupy other countries, or borrow trillions from China, or have unionized TSA thugs molesting grandmothers at US airports.

Sadly, this is simply too sensible for American politicians to even consider. And, no doubt, it's racist. Everything is.

Friday, October 01, 2010

CNN Host Speaks Truth to Power

Rick Sanchez, CNN's afternoon talking head, was pressed in a radio interview as to why he doesn't like Comedy Central's Jon Stewart. After calling Stewart a bigot, then evading questions about his reasons, Sanchez finally opened up and let it out.

Dominick asked Sanchez again what group Stewart is bigoted against. Said Sanchez, "Anybody who's different than you are, anybody who's not form your frame of reference; anybody who doesn't look and sound exactly like the people that you sound [like] and grew up with. The people that you put on your show, who always reflect somebody who's, 'I'm bringing in to sit around me,' you know, who's very different from me. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this thing that the only people out there who are prejudiced… are the right. There's people that are prejudiced on both sides.:

Sanchez added that Stewart's worldview is "very much a white, liberal establishment point of view… He can't relate to a guy like me. He can't relate to a guy whose dad worked all his life. He can't relate to somebody who grew up poor."

The interviewer thought there might be more to this and pushed Sanchez. After some prodding, the CNN anchor admitted that Stewart was emblematic of something other than just the "white, liberal establishment," of a slightly different establishment whose existence is never to be admitted in public.

Stewart is Jewish, which could be considered a minority, Dominick pointed out. Sanchez laughed off the comparison.

"Very powerless people," he laughed. "He's such a minority, I mean, you know… Please, what are you kidding? … I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they -- the people in this country who are Jewish -- are an oppressed minority? Yeah."

Sanchez has a reputation for making intemperate and occasionally silly remarks, but this may well be the one that sinks him - ironically, because he's correct. Jews are not an oppressed minority in the U.S. To the contrary, they dominate the media, universities, Wall Steet and Beltway politics, but they like to play the role of an oppressed minority always fighting the bigoted White Anglo Saxon Protestants (who are almost always the villains in Hollywood movies). The truth is that American Jews destroyed and supplanted the old WASP establishment decades ago, but they seem to hope that no one will notice this. Thus anyone who acknowledges Jewish power is immediately crushed by it.

It's almost a national joke: How do you know Jews have no power in America? Because anyone who says they do is immediately forced to apologize, or simply disappears from public view.

UPDATE: Well, who didn't see this coming? Just hours after the report of Sanchez's comments made the headline, CNN fired the anchor, issuing a terse statement announcing that Sanchez is "no longer with the company." Yet another bit of evidence that Jews don't dominate the media and silence those who point it out. Perish the thought.

Thursday, September 02, 2010

The Obama Freefall

This isn't how it was supposed to be. This was supposed to be "recovery summer" and Democrats thought they would be sailing under favorable winds toward a November election safely under the mantle of President Obama's popularity. But the idolized leader has proven detached, wooden, and not terribly competent. The economy is in tatters, American soldiers are still dying in the worthless sands of barbaric lands, and the US government continues to hemmorage money. This isn't the hope and change democrats were expecting.

Predictably, the president's A team is beginning to flee, mostly back to academia, from whence many were drawn. His leading economic adviser, Christina Romer, is heading back to Harvard, where she will continue to mislead young minds. Before leaving Washington, she gave a final talk to the press at the National Press Club in Washington. Dana Milbank, a staunchly leftist journalist, covered the event and even he couldn't hide his dismay.

First, Milbank notes that the event had been scaled down, much like Democratic expectations, beforehand.

Romer's farewell luncheon had been scheduled for the club's ballroom, but attendance was light and the event was moved to a smaller room.

Given what she said, the few who came probably wish they hadn't bothered.

She had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be. She still doesn't understand exactly why it was so bad. The response to the collapse was inadequate. And she doesn't have much of an idea about how to fix things.

What she did have was a binder full of scary descriptions and warnings, offered with a perma-smile and singsong delivery: "Terrible recession. . . . Incredibly searing. . . . Dramatically below trend. . . . Suffering terribly. . . . Risk of making high unemployment permanent. . . . Economic nightmare."

Anybody want dessert?

At week's end, Romer will leave the council chairmanship after what surely has been the most dismal tenure anybody in that post has had: a loss of nearly 4 million jobs in a year and a half. That's not Romer's fault; the financial collapse occurred before she, and Obama, took office. But she was the president's top economist during a time when the administration consistently underestimated the depth of the economy's troubles - miscalculations that have caused Americans to lose faith in the president and the Democrats.

Romer had predicted that Obama's stimulus package would keep the unemployment rate at 8 percent or less; it is now 9.5 percent. One of her bosses, Vice President Biden, told Democrats in January that "you're going to see, come the spring, net increase in jobs every month." The economy lost 350,000 jobs in June and July.

So much for the theory that Harvard academics have any idea what they are talking about ... or can run an economy.