A Tale of Two Men

It's been utterly bizarre to see the riots ripping across Ferguson, the massive protests, and general mayhem all around. I grew up in the St. Louis area. These are the sorts of things that happen elsewhere. St. Louis has its problems, but it's always seemed like a rational place, a safe place. Perhaps that was naivete on the part of a sheltered youth.

Nevertheless, the firestorm all began because of the actions and death of a man, Michael Brown. At this time, here's what we can say with certainty: On August 9th, Brown stole cigars from a convenience store, using his imposing figure to intimidate the proprietor, even shoving him around. A few minutes later, he was stopped by a police officer, Darren Wilson, leading to a confrontation that prompted Wilson to fatally shoot Brown. We learn more about that confrontation as the days go on; a lot of people have already reached conclusions as to whether the shooting was justified or not. My point actually has little to do with that.
(See the rest below the fold.)

Hiring Practices

Sometimes I really have to disabuse myself of this notion that I'm a "reasonably intelligent person." I say this because I usually have something cogent and illuminating to add to any philosophical/political discussion . . . about an hour after it's finished.

Yesterday during our monthly "research ethics" course, we were talking about hiring practices. It was commonly accepted around the table that a physics department was more than justified in passing over the most qualified applicants for a position in order to hire a woman. After all, she brings benefits that you don't find on the resume, and it helps to have women there to help other women keep from getting lost in the milieu.

First things first, I don't find that diversity, in and of itself, has any inherent value. At least, not from a scientific perspective. If they're trying to hire someone, they should hire the person who brings the most to the department, and this should be regardless of what the applicants have dangling (or not) between their legs.

Ah, but the counter-argument is that "diverse " people bring other benefits to the table. Benefits you can't put on a resume. Benefits that only they can provide, with their gender/skin color. Benefits that students of the same gender/skin color require to succeed in this field.

I've never heard these benefits explained or defined. I think it's important to answer this question: To what extent to these "benefits of diversity" match or exceed the gap between the standard credentials on a resume? Normal resume differences can be quantified in a situation such as this: Length of experience, number of publications, number of high profile publications, research grant money, etc. How does a department quantify that? How many research grants are two X chromosomes worth? How many Nature or Science papers is being black worth?

Finally, it's always gets back, for me, to the "What would happen if this went the other direction?" argument. By hiring a "diverse" candidate simply for their "diversity," that physics department is saying, "We only hired you because you're a woman, and we need more women around here." The corollary to this is that they're telling the most qualified applicant, "We're not hiring you because you're a man. Sorry, we don't need any more men around here."

Now imagine how this might work in the opposite direction. "Sorry, we've decided to hire someone else. Yes, you're the most qualified, but you're black, and we don't need any more black people around here." Good lord, can you imagine the lawsuits? I find it worth pointing out that people have sued for similar situations (that is, white male applicants passed over for "diverse" candidates) and won.

If you disagree, do try to articulate your opposition in a meaningful sense; the problem I have with these arguments is that I've never heard them explained in a cogent sense. Now if only I could do the same in a timely manner. I really hate that, by sitting at the discussion and not objecting, people think that I'm okay with such discrimination.

I guess Firefox is for whites

That's the only conclusion I can reach, and it sounds like someone reached the same conclusion.

Some things are just beyond parody. Seriously, do I even need to tell you why this is stupid?

Bad genes are racist?

I'll admit that I'm pretty hard on college-age liberals. It's been my experience, by and large, that they're driven largely by passion. This gives them the illusion of legitimacy, but results in people who end up throwing their brains out the window at the behest of their "passions."

Like I said, sometimes I think I ought to give them the benefit of the doubt. Then I read stories like this:

OTTAWA - The Carleton University Students' Association has voted to drop a cystic fibrosis charity as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, supporting a motion that argued the disease is not "inclusive" enough.

Cystic fibrosis "has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men" said the motion read Monday night to student councillors, who voted almost unanimously in favour of it. The decision caused heated reaction and left at least one member of council calling for a new vote.

Every year near the beginning of fall classes, during university orientation for new arrivals, students fan out across the city and seek donations from passersby. According to the motion, "all orientees and volunteers should feel like their fundraising efforts will serve their (sic) diverse communities."

I'm not sure I can accurately describe just how flabbergasted this leaves me. If you are so wrapped up in identity politics that you're willing to declare that "white" diseases unworthy of your dime, then perhaps we need to revisit the concept of "racism."

Yeesh. This is exactly why I don't like discussing politics on university campuses.

The One's Biggest Fan

Hanging out at the student center, I just heard CNN interviewing Oprah about Obama ("The One")'s election. She was near tears. I just had to laugh, though.

When asked how she felt, she choked back and told the reporter, "I just feel . . . like anything is possible, now."

Really? You have what is likely the highest rated afternoon talk show in the world, not to mention being a multimillionaire yourself, and it's this that makes you feel like anything is possible?

Some people lack perspective. Or a sense of irony. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

Post Election Hangover

A lot of people think that we only end up with the government that we deserve. I typically hope that doesn't end up being the case.

While I'm severely disappointed that Obama ended up winning the election, I at least have a few good things to look forward to. Chief among them, I suspect President Obama will give me endless material to blog about.

Most importantly, though, I think a lot of people are going to have something of an "awakening," maybe even within the first year of Obama's term. Obama walked into office by telling each audience what he thought they wanted to hear, the only constant being his vapid and transparent appeals to "hope and change." Once he's in office, though, he actually has to get around to doing something. I suspect he'll attempt to pull off the radically liberal agenda he affirmed to some audiences and then denied to others. Whether he gets them past Congress is another matter, but mandating taxpayer-funded abortions and bankrupting coal-fired power plants may certainly raise a few eyebrows. If nothing else, he'll never live up to the promise that so many of his followers saw in him, and this will lead to disllusionment and anger. People will either feel that they were sold a socialist in centrists' clothing, or a centrist in socialists' clothing, but either way someone is going to have buyer's remorse.

One thing I especially want to hit on, though, is this hype about how "historical" it is that we've elected our first black President. Let's skip past the obvious line about judging someone by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Will the election of a black President change anything?

I could see it go either way. Perhaps those black nationalists that Obama associated himself with all these years will see a black man in the highest position of power in the country, see little change, and realize that perhaps the paranoid conspiracy theories about the government concocting AIDS to kill black people (among silly beliefs) are nothing but that. Perhaps they'll realize that things really have changed in the last few decades, and now it is more incumbent on people themselves to lift themselves up, rather than blame all their troubles on the malice of others.

Unfortunately, I find it just as likely that these people will be racist nutters no matter what happens. When President Obama doesn't immediately release the super-secret government cure for AIDS, spend government money to pay for all of their bills, and release every black man from prison, they'll conclude he's just another "Uncle Tom" and wait for a "real" black politician to step up and lead them to the promised land. Whatever that might be.

I don't know what the next few years will bring. I can only hope that we'll avoid lasting damage to this country and in the world at large before it's all over.

Making things Wright

Today's issue of the Chicago Tribune had a lot of articles about the relationship between Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama. Of course, the paper officially defended Sen. Obama and continued to promote his campaign for President. However, after reading so many articles about the matter, I've come to one conclusion: Nobody writing for this newspaper either understands, or chooses to acknowledge, the real reason Rev. Wright is such an issue.

The constant refrain is that things Rev. Wright says "may be considered 'controversial,'" as if he were just guilty of saying things people didn't want to hear. Others tried to make the problem about Wright's "lack of patriotism," and his "God d**m America" statements, particularly in attributing them to Obama. That is, of course, a problem, but it's not the heart of the situation.

The real problem is that Rev. Wright buys into the most outlandish of paranoid conspiracy mongering regarding the US government, and preached it from his pulpit. This includes examples such as his declaration that the US government created AIDS in order to commit genocide against minorities, or that it gives crack and other drugs to inner city minorities in order to . . . well, does it matter why? In addition to all of this, Wright is part of a movement of theologians who are essentially the black version of the KKK, at least philosophically. When you credit theologians who declare that the only God they can believe in is one who is only for blacks, and that this God must always be seeking to destroy the white oppressor . . . that is a severe problem. This isn't even going anywhere near the offense Christians ought to be taking at such a perversion of their beliefs.

Here is where it starts to get slippery: So many people will acknowledge at least the most venial of Wright's sins, but then question how it has any relevance to Obama and his campaign. I must state unequivocally that this association completely disqualifies Obama for being President of the United States.

There's an old saying (I don't recall the source anymore) that once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, but three times is enemy action. Barack Obama sought out Wright. He has sat in the man's church for twenty years, and has referred to him as a mentor and a spiritual guide. Everything about this relationship indicates that it is more than just a casual acquaintance. What does this say about the judgment of a man who has been running on exactly that? I find it impossible that this kind of talk only recently cropped up at Trinity UCC, or that Obama never heard anything of the sort in twenty years of church membership. That kind of cop-out just strains credulity in a silly way. It either means that Obama's church membership was always a political expediency, or that he didn't care about such insanity from the pulpit. Either way, it reflects poorly on him, and makes his two very different speeches about Wright very opportunistic. It shows him to be just another weaselly politician willing to say whatever sounds right at the time to get elected.

That is why Rev. Wright matters. That is why Barack Obama is unfit to be our next President. It is just a tragedy that people are either unable or unwilling to accept it.

Obama's Pastor

There's been a lot of fuss in the news lately over one Pastor Wright, a man Barack Obama brought into his campaign. Apparently the man had been Obama's spiritual leader for something like twenty years, so the philosophical links between the two are decidedly significant.

Obama will be making a speech sometime today about this because Wright has drawn a lot of fire. It seems that his preaching style is largely incendiary, focusing on racial grievance mongering such as claiming that the CIA created AIDS and gives crack to inner city blacks.

While this is damaging politically, I'm especially saddened by this man's cruel bastardization of his role as a minister of the gospel. His duty is to guide his flock, teaching them on the Bible and spreading the word of Christ. He has chosen instead to use his pulpit as a channel for radical political stumping. He ought to be ashamed for abusing his position so terribly, but so far has shown only stubbornness in his perceived authority to do so.

Politics is worse for men like him, but the gospel suffers most of all.

The longer you work here, diverse it gets

Okay, maybe there's time for one news article. The Current is UMSL's weekly student newspaper, and this week's issue is a doozy. I've been critical of campus papers for being sophomoric, uninformative, or (in the opinions) downright nonsensical. This is an actual news article, but I'd challenge you to tell me what it's actually about.

"We live in a global society," said Malaika Horne, chair of the Chancellor's Diversity Initiative. "How can you interact with different nations if you can't interact with different ethnic groups in your own country?"

The Chancellor's Diversity Initiative, previously known as the Task Force on Diversity calls itself "cultural diversity in action."

According to Horne, they want to first enhance diversity on campus. Then, identify what is already occurring, find the gaps that exist, then take diversity to the next level.

The initiative is actively taking a role in shaping the acceptance of a diverse population at UM-St. Louis.

"We're walking the walk," said Gerda Ray, Associate Professor of History. "We make sure the initiative is diverse, including faculty, staff and students." Ray has been a member of the initiative since it was started in 2004, when it was started as a task force.

Okay, so what is this "diversity initiative?" No idea. The article does little to say, beyond quoting lots of diversity claptrap from members of the task force (or whatever it is). What does this group do? Sit around and talk about the diversity on campus and its diverse groups. What does that mean? They never say. It's probably the standard, "ethnic/minority/sexuality student groups" and so forth. I always feel a little left out when people go on about diversity without mentioning me. When do I get my White Student Union or the Straight Student Alliance? (By the way, if you can't read sarcasm, you're best bet is to go up to that "back" button on your browser and start clicking for all you're worth)

But why on earth was this article, with about 12 paragraphs of sloppy boot-licking, even written? Well, from what I can tell, the "initiative" wants to change the photographs representing the school, so that more "diversity" is represented therein. In other words, there's too many white people in the pictures. They don't say it, but I'm willing to bet that's the end result. Is it a legitimate grievance? No idea.

My main gripe here is the utter incomprehensibility of the article, the density and silliness of the quotes, and the paucity of actual news to be reported. What was the point of all of this? And why do these people get paid to sit around and slaver about diversity? Remember when universities were actually concerned with educating students?

All The News That's Fit To Print

Slublog has an excellent point over at his blog:

Think about how much coverage the non-rape in Duke received. Imagine the amount of coverage this story would have gotten if the races had been reversed - if it had been a young African-American couple who were kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered by four white men.

We'd never hear the end of it.

It's no secret that America has a problem with race. That problem is not helped when the media intently focuses on race in one crime, but completely ignores it in another. There are times when race is central to a crime, but viewing all crime through the prism of race is not always appropriate.

I hate to say it, though, but part of the reason this sells is it's "titillating." It's the kind of "man bites dog" story the media loves and our culture loves, too. It's an opportunity for the race-baiters and the PC-blabbermouths to cry from the roof tops about the evils of white men and so forth.

Take this an as example: The next time a white, non-Islamic person attempts to commit an act of terrorism in the US, watch the media reaction. I guarantee you'll see much of the same type of coverage as you did with the Duke case.

The Chief Has Left the Building

Well, it finally happened. UIUC is finally getting rid of Chief Illiniwek as their mascot.

And it's about time, I say. Native Americans will never have the dignity and respect they deserve until we can completely forget that they ever existed.

Law-Breaking Christians

LaShawn Barber points out two very interesting articles from the Washington Post. The issue seems to be that in some changing (i.e. gentrifying) neighborhoods of DC, black church-goers have been double parking like crazy for a long time, with the police looking the otherway. Now, with white people moving into the neighborhoods, complaints are arising about the double parking and the black church-goers are upset about that. They're even treating this as a religious freedom issue.

Which is really stupid.

Hey guys, being a Christian doesn't give you license to do whatever you want. The biblical rule on this is that unless a rule forbids you from practicing the faith or mandates you violate the faith, you're supposed to obey the laws of the land. Laws against double parking do not prevent you from being a Christian. I don't think Paul ever stipulated that you have to park within 200 yards of the church or else you don't get to take communion.

C'mon, folks, this isn't hard. You're focusing on something really stupid when you could be spending your time and energy on worthwhile issues, and you're making all of us look bad in the process.

Does it, or doesn't it?

Something's been bothering me about the punditry surrounding the race this year.

I mean, besides all of it.

There's been a lot of talk about black Republicans running for office, how they're labeled "race traitors," how people expect blacks to vote lock-step with the Democrats, blah blah blah.

Here's the thing that I find funny. There's this wide-spread attitude that black people are going to vote for the black politician, no matter what. I find it strange and bothersome.

If a black person votes only for the black politician because he is black, then we're right back to the identity politics, regardless of the party affiliation. For Republicans like Michael Steele, it's a travesty that they'd stoop to such pandering.

But if a black person votes only for the Democratic politician because he's a Democrat, is he being true to his ideals or is it a sign of the "Who else will you turn to?" style of politicking Democrats do with black voters?

I can't say either way. But for black voters, it's an ugly situation. You're a race traitor if you vote for the Republican . . . unless he's black . . . but then it's hard to say . . . but you're too stupid to show ID at the polls, so you may as well vote for both and spare your conscience, right?

Ugh. How soon to Wednesday?

Obama "open" to a Presidential bid

If you haven't heard it in the news, Barack Obama has been telling the media, in between the warm cocoa butter massages, that he's open to the possibility of a Presidential bid.

The conventional wisdom is that he's so popular now, so why not take advantage of it and just run for President.

I hear more from the arguments that Senators haven't made popular Presidential material in the last several decades because they have little to no executive experience. Still, I'm more convinced that he's too politically undeveloped to consider a Presidential bid. He's two years into his first term in the Senate. I won't discount that he was qualified to be a Senator, but also recall that his competition for the position was Alan Keyes.

Anyhow, most of the coverage the blogs are giving to this is divided between expressing why that would be a bad idea and lamenting the loving tongue baths the media seems to be stroking his ego with. Myself, I'm wondering whether or not the public at large would go for electing a political neophyte to office.

And of course, the requisite questions arise: Do they like him because he's black? Would he be elected just because he was black?

Derbyshire on Race

John Derbyshire has a great, though long, article on race and conservatism over at the New English Review. It's worth a read.

An excerpt:

They, we, all assumed that if the shackles of legal discrimination were removed, black Americans would swiftly distribute themselves across America’s class, income, and status structure in the same proportions as their white fellow-citizens. Why should they not? Human beings form a single biological species. Given a level playing field, any group should perform as well as any other, in any kind of endeavor, shouldn’t it? . . .

Yet the numbers did not come out right, not at all. With black people at thirteen percent of our population, we should, if the dreams of the Civil Rights Movement had come true, find that thirteen percent of our engineers and airline pilots, thirteen percent of our storekeepers, contractors, and entrepreneurs, thirteen percent of our prisoners and unwed mothers, are black. This is not, of course, what we find; and the numerical discrepancies are not of the kind called “statistically insignificant.” Not at all. Not at all.

And this just seems related: