Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.

African Village

In the winter of 1996, the Coalition for Improved Education in [Chicago’s] South Shore (CIESS) announced that it had received a $200,000 grant from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. That made CIESS an “external partner,” i.e. a community organization linked to a network of schools within the Chicago public system. This network, named the “South Shore African Village Collaborative” was thoroughly “Afrocentric” in orientation. CIESS’s job was to use a combination of teacher-training, curriculum advice, and community involvement to improve academic performance in the schools it worked with. CIESS would continue to receive large Annenberg grants throughout the 1990s.

The South Shore African Village Collaborative (SSAVC) was very much a part of the Afrocentric “rites of passage movement,” a fringe education crusade of the 1990s. SSAVC schools featured “African-Centered” curricula built around “rites of passage” ceremonies inspired by the puberty rites found in many African societies. In and of themselves, these ceremonies were harmless. Yet the philosophy that accompanied them was not. On the contrary, it was a carbon-copy of Jeremiah Wright’s worldview.

Rites of Passage

To learn what the rites of passage movement was all about, we can turn to a sympathetic 1992 study published in the Journal of Negro Education by Nsenga Warfield-Coppock. In that article, Warfield-Coppock bemoans the fact that public education in the United States is shaped by “capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression.” According to Warfield-Coppock, these American values “have confused African American people and oriented them toward American definitions of achievement and success and away from traditional African values.” American socialization has “proven to be dysfuntional and genocidal to the African American community,” Warfield-Coppock tells us. The answer is the adolescent rites of passage movement, designed “to provide African American youth with the cultural information and values they would need to counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.”

The adolescent rites of passage movement that flowered in the 1990s grew out of the “cultural nationalist” or “Pan-African” thinking popular in radical black circles of the 1960s and 1970s. The attempt to create a virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world began to take hold in the mid-1980s in small private schools, which carefully guarded the contents of their controversial curricula. Gradually, through external partners like CIESS, the movement spread to a few public schools. Supporters view these programs as “a social and cultural ‘inoculation’ process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society.”

We know that SSAVC was part of this movement, not only because their Annenberg proposals were filled with Afrocentric themes and references to “rites of passage,” but also because SSAVC’s faculty set up its African-centered curriculum in consultation with some of the most prominent leaders of the “rites of passage movement.” For example, a CIESS teacher conference sponsored a presentation on African-centered curricula by Jacob Carruthers, a particularly controversial Afrocentrist.

Jacob Carruthers

Like other leaders of the rites of passage movement, Carruthers teaches that the true birthplace of world civilization was ancient “Kemet” (Egypt), from which Kemetic philosophy supposedly spread to Africa as a whole. Carruthers and his colleagues believe that the values of Kemetic civilization are far superior to the isolating and oppressive, ancient Greek-based values of European and American civilization. Although academic Egyptologists and anthropologists strongly reject these historical claims, Carruthers dismisses critics as part of a white supremacist conspiracy to hide the truth of African superiority.

Carruthers’s key writings are collected in his book, Intellectual Warfare. Reading it is a wild, anti-American ride. In his book, we learn that Carruthers and his like-minded colleagues have formed an organization called the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations (ASCAC), which takes as its mission the need to “dismantle the European intellectual campaign to commit historicide against African peoples.” Carruthers includes “African-Americans” within a group he would define as simply “African.” When forced to describe a black person as “American,” Carruthers uses quotation marks, thus indicating that no black person can be American in any authentic sense. According to Carruthers, “The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.”

Carruthers’s goal is to use African-centered education to recreate a separatist universe within America, a kind of state-within-a-state. The rites of passage movement is central to the plan. Carruthers sees enemies on every part of the political spectrum, from conservatives, to liberals, to academic leftists, all of whom reject advocates of Kemetic civilization, like himself, as dangerous and academically irresponsible extremists. Carruthers sees all these groups as deluded captives of white supremacist Eurocentric culture. Therefore the only safe place for Africans living in the United States (i.e. American blacks) is outside the mental boundaries of our ineradicably racist Eurocentric civilization. As Carruthers puts it: “...some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture.” The rites of passage movement is a way to teach young Africans in the United States how to reject America and recover their authentic African heritage.

America as Rape

Carruthers admits that Africans living in America have already been shaped by Western culture, yet compares this Americanization process to rape: “We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist....” In other words, American blacks (i.e. Africans) may have been forcibly exposed to American culture, but that doesn’t mean they need to accept it. The better option, says Carruthers, is to separate out and relearn the wisdom of Africa’s original Kemetic culture, embodied in the teachings of the ancient wise man, Ptahhotep (an historical figure traditionally identified as the author of a Fifth Dynasty wisdom book). Anything less than re-Africanization threatens the mental, and even physical, genocide of Africans living in an ineradicably white supremacist United States.

Carruthers is a defender of Leonard Jeffries, professor in the department of black studies at City College in Harlem, infamous for his black supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Jeffries sees whites as oppressive and violent “ice people,” in contrast to peaceful and mutually supportive black “sun people.” The divergence says Jeffries, is attributable to differing levels of melanin in the skin. Jeffries also blames Jews for financing the slave trade. Carruthers defends Jeffries and excoriates the prestigious black academics Carruthers views as traitorous for denouncing their African brother, Jeffries. Carruthers’s vision of the superior and peaceful Kemetic philosophy of Ptahhotep triumphing over Greco-Euro-American-white culture obviously parallels Jeffries’ opposition between ice people and sun people.

More of Carruthers’s education philosophy can be found in his newsletter, The Kemetic Voice. In 1997, for example, at the same time Carruthers was advising SSAVC on how to set up an African-centered curriculum, he praised the decision of New Orleans’ School Board to remove the name of George Washington from an elementary school. Apparently, some officials in New Orleans had decided that nobody who held slaves should have a school named after him. Carruthers touted the name-change as proof that his African-centered perspective was finally having an effect on public policy. At the demise of George Washington School, Carruthers crowed: “These events remind us of how vast the gulf is that separates the Defenders of Western Civilization from the Champions of African Civilization.”

According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers’s training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: “As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey....” These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC’s curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers’s concerns about “menticide” and “genocide” at the hand of America’s white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: “Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us.”

When Jeremiah Wright turned toward African-centered thinking in the late 1980s and early 1990s (the period when, attracted by Wright’s African themes, Barack Obama first became a church member), many prominent thinkers from Carruthers’s Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations were invited to speak at Trinity United Church of Christ, Carruthers himself included. We hear echoes of Carruthers’s work in Wright’s distinction between “right brained” Africans and “left brained” Europeans, in Wright’s fears of U.S. government-sponsored genocide against American blacks, and in Wright’s embittered attacks on America’s indelibly white-supremacist history. In Wright’s Trumpet Newsmagazine, as in Carruthers’s own writings, blacks are often referred to as “Africans living in the diaspora” rather than as Americans.

Asa Hilliard

Chicago Annenberg Challenge records also indicate that SSAVC educators invited Asa Hilliard, a pioneer of African-centered curricula and a close colleague of Carruthers, to offer a keynote address at yet another Annenberg-funded teacher training session. Hilliard’s ties to Wright run still deeper than Carruthers’s. A close Wright mentor and friend, Hilliard died in 2007 while on a trip to Kemet (Egypt) with Wright and members of Wright’s congregation. Hillard was scheduled to deliver several lectures to the congregants, and to speak at a meeting of the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilization, which he co-founded with Carruthers and other “African-centered” scholars. On that last trip, Hilliard accepted an appointment to the board of Wright’s new elementary school, Kwame Nkrumah Academy. Speaking of the need for such a school, Wright had earlier said, “We need to educate our children to the reality of white supremacy.” (For more on Wright’s Afrocentric school, see “Jeremiah Wright’s ‘Trumpet.’”)

Wright delivered the eulogy at Hilliard’s memorial service, with prominent members of ASCAC in the audience. To commemorate Hilliard, a special, two-cover double issue of Wright’s Trumpet Newsmagazine was published, with a picture of Hilliard on one side, and a picture of Louis Farrakhan on the other (in celebration of a 2007 award Farrakhan received from Wright). In short, the ties between Wright and Hilliard could hardly have been closer. Clearly, then, Wright’s own educational philosophy was mirrored at the Annenberg-funded SSAVC, which sought out Hilliard’s and Carruthers’s counsel to construct its curriculum.

Perhaps inadvertently, Wright’s eulogy for Hilliard actually established the fringe nature of his favorite African-centered scholars. In his tribute, Wright stressed how intensely “white Egyptologists recoiled at the very notion of everything Asa taught.” As Wright himself made plain, it seems virtually impossible to find respectable scholars of any political stripe who approve of the extremist anti-American version of Afrocentrism promoted by Hilliard and Carruthers.

Ayers’s Pals

An important exception to the rule is Bill Ayers himself, who not only worked with Obama to fund groups like this at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, but who is still “palling around” with the same folks. Discretely waiting until after the election, Bill Ayers and his wife, and fellow former terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn plan to release a book in 2009 entitled Race Course Against White Supremacy. The book will be published by Third World Press, a press set up by Carruthers and other members of the ASCAC. Representatives of that press were prominently present for Wright’s eulogy at Asa Hilliard’s memorial service. Less than a decade ago, therefore, when it came to education issues, Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright were pretty much on the same page.

Obama’s Knowledge

Given the precedent of his earlier responses on Ayers and Wright, Obama might be inclined to deny personal knowledge of the educational philosophy he was so generously funding. Such a denial would not be convincing. For one thing, we have evidence that in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected “the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation,” a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers. (See “No Liberation.”)

And as noted, Wright had invited Carruthers, Hilliard, and like-minded thinkers to address his Trinity congregants. Wright likes to tick off his connections to these prominent Afrocentrists in sermons, and Obama would surely have heard of them. Reading over SSAVC’s Annenberg proposals, Obama could hardly be ignorant of what they were about. And if by some chance Obama overlooked Hilliard’s or Carruthers’s names, SSAVC’s proposals are filled with references to “rites of passage” and “Ptahhotep,” dead giveaways for the anti-American and separatist ideological concoction favored by SSAVC.

We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed “Collaborative” to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as “awful.” (See “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years,” p. 19.) Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.

As if the content of SSAVC documents wasn’t warning enough, their proposals consistently misspelled “rites of passage” as “rights of passage,” hardly an encouraging sign from a group meant to improve children’s reading skills. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s own evaluators acknowledged that Annenberg-aided schools showed no improvement in achievement scores. Evaluators attributed that failure, in part, to the fact that many of Annenberg’s “external partners” had little educational expertise. A group that puts its efforts into Kwanzaa celebrations and half-baked history certainly fits that bill, and goes a long way toward explaining how Ayers and Obama managed to waste upwards of $150 million without improving student achievement.

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke. It’s time for McCain to say so.

By Stanley Kurtz
Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

-------------------------
Response by Red State Patriot:

Redistribution of any right what-so-ever, or income from any family to any ethnic group, because they are an identifiable ethnic group, by any other name is dhminitude, i.e., cultural and institutional subservience of the victim to the recipient. Arguably, this is the core ideology of black liberation theology. Think not? Read the foundation principles of Obama’s church of 20 years, and Reverend Wright:

About Us
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community. Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Is this what Obama’s voters of European, Latin American and Asian heritage are naively voting to advance? If so, the magnitude of their historical, economic and religious ignorance is greater than the sum-total knowledge of the known universe.

Message to Senator Obama's probable voters: Get off my back. Call a cab.

« Close It

"The Bradley effect may have been an artifact of the country 20 years ago, but I don't think it's a factor now," said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. "Polling has gotten better, but I think, more importantly, the country has changed."

The phenomenon got its name a generation ago, after former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley (D), an African American, lost the 1982 gubernatorial race in California despite leading his white opponent in the polls on the eve of the election. Some experts suspected at the time that a portion of white voters, reluctant to appear biased, had essentially lied to pollsters about which candidate they were supporting. But whether Bradley lost because of hidden racism has never been clear.

A post-election analysis by Mervin Field, whose California Field Poll showed Bradley up seven points in the campaign's final stage, attributed the late shift to an unusually large number of GOP absentee voters, relatively low turnout among nonwhite voters and the coincidence of a handgun initiative on the state ballot.

He also highlighted the role of race, which may have been enough to tip the balance to Bradley's opponent, George Deukmejian (R), but emphasized that that alone would not have been enough to turnaround the Democrat's lead.

Even so, the racial theory gained credibility with a string of elections in the 1980s and '90s in which black candidates eked out victories or were defeated despite seemingly solid leads in pre-election polls. They included David Dinkins's close 1989 win in New York's mayoral contest, L. Douglas Wilder's tight victory that same year to become Virginia's governor and Harold Washington's squeaker when he won the Chicago mayoral race in 1983.

Finding hard evidence for or against a Bradley effect today is difficult, given the relative rarity of black candidates facing a white opponent before a majority-white electorate. Obama's performance in the Democratic primaries does not clarify the issue since he did worse than the polls predicted in some states, including New Hampshire and California, and better than projected in others, such as Virginia and Wisconsin.

Still, some academics -- mainly African Americans -- say the country should not be so quick to dismiss the theory.

"I'm one of those who believe the Bradley effect is alive and well," said Michael Dawson, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago. It may have diminished with time, he contends, but has not disappeared.

There is little doubt that the willingness of white people to vote for a black candidate has grown measurably. A December 2007 Gallup poll found that 5 percent of white respondents said they would not vote for a black candidate for president. In 1958, Gallup determined that 58 percent of whites would not cast a ballot for a black presidential candidate, and as late as 1989, 19 percent said the same.

Black candidates have increasingly won elections outside majority black districts, including the races for lieutenant governor of Colorado, a state with relatively few black people, and for attorney general of Georgia, a state with a troubled racial past.

Improved polling also may have helped produce more accurate predictions in contests such as Harold E. Ford Jr.'s losing race in 2006 for a Tennessee Senate seat and Deval L. Patrick's successful run for Massachusetts governor that year.

Dawson, however, remains skeptical about the willingness of whites to vote for a black candidate -- and the ability of polling to capture that reluctance -- in a high-profile, racially charged presidential election.

"We're talking about different levels," he said. "President is different than mayor of Chicago."

Experts agree that it is often difficult to fully tease out the extent to which race plays a factor in voting decisions. People can be reluctant to talk about their racial attitudes, and plenty of reasons -- party, age, experience, political philosophy -- can explain why voters may support or oppose a black candidate.

Still, there is little reason today, some experts contend, for people answering public opinion polls to hide their true intentions.

"For people to lie, there generally has to be a stigma attached to telling the truth," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. "There is none affiliated with saying, 'I'm voting for Hillary' or 'I'm voting for McCain.' "

Kohut theorizes that polling discrepancies do not come from respondents who lie, but from people who decline to participate in polls. That is a growing problem, with studies showing that as many as half the people contacted for polls refuse to participate. Kohut recently conducted a study in which interviewers spent months repeatedly calling people back until they agreed to talk. He said that helped him see who is often missed in polling.

"Poorer, less-educated whites don't like to do these polls as much as better-educated people do," he said. "The refusals come from the same class of people who tend to be the most racially intolerant."

Anthony Greenwald, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, said he also does not buy that people are lying to pollsters. "What I do buy," he said, "is that there were lots of undecided people who didn't have an answer before the phone rang and were generating one on the spot."

Greenwald, who has studied the primary contest between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said that when people in polls are prodded to answer a question, they know that, unlike in the voting booth, their response will have no consequences. So they may say they are supporting a candidate they have not actually decided on.

Pollsters say they build in controls to account for possible hidden racial feelings that can skew results. Kohut said he tries to elicit more-honest answers by matching the race of the interviewer and the respondent. Others try to push people to test the intensity of their backing of a particular candidate and often toss out whites who express tepid support for black candidates.

But Jon Krosnick, a professor of political science, communication and psychology at Stanford University, noted that black callers tend to get more pro-Obama answers in surveys than white callers do, no matter the race of the respondent.

"We don't have solid evidence that matching increases accuracy," said Krosnick, who does not believe the Bradley effect is real.

Harvard political scientist Daniel J. Hopkins analyzed elections involving African American candidates for governor and the Senate and found there was a Bradley effect when racially charged issues dominated the political discourse in the 1980s and early 1990s. As issues such as crime and welfare faded from the national scene in the mid-1990s, Hopkins wrote, so did the Bradley effect.

That raises the possibility that a return to racial issues could once again cause the phenomenon to reemerge, either nationally or in a key state.

"The most likely circumstance that could bring back the Bradley effect would be a racialized campaign," said Hopkins, a lecturer in Harvard's department of government. "If we spend the next month debating Jeremiah Wright or other racial issues, that would be the thing that would be on people's minds."

A spokesman for Obama said the campaign does not believe race will be much of a factor in voting. "People are more concerned about the state of the economy and our place in the world, and not so much concerned about ethnic or identity politics," said Corey Ealons.

Both those who believe the Bradley effect is a factor and those who dismiss it agree that, given the aura of history surrounding the current campaign, interest in it is high. "At literally every speech I make, I get questions on it," Newhouse said.

They also agree that this presidential election will be a highly visible test of just how real it is.

"If we don't see it now, then it's gone," Dawson said.

By Steven A. Holmes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 12, 2008; A06

Hat tip: Sue Curtin

« Close It

Lynn Browne, who co-authored the 1992 study, was the Boston Fed’s deputy director of research at the time and now serves as its executive vice president in charge of communication. She said co-author Alicia Munnell approached her to do the study because “community activists were complaining that mortgage loans were not being made in minority communities.

“It did not seem satisfying to have to keep responding, ‘We need more data,’ ” Browne said.

Liebowitz, a longtime critic of the study, says it was rife with data errors.

In fact, there were enough critics of the study - and the issue had become so politicized - that, in 1995, Browne and another one of her co-authors published a 26-page article rebutting critics’ arguments.

“My guess is that they were interested in finding a particular result,” Liebowitz said. “Richard Syron was head of the Boston Fed at the time. He went on to be the head of Freddie Mac. They were looking for mortgage discrimination and they found it.”

The Boston Fed study got a lot of attention. It put banks on the defensive against charges of racism and gave community activists and minority groups ammunition in what became a very ideologically driven push to expand homeownership in America.

Once again, the Boston Fed led the way and the Fed’s next step is what, according to Liebowitz, “really opened up Pandora’s box.”

The Fed published a guide in 1993 for banks on equal opportunity lending, with a foreword written by Syron. The guide recommended changes to mortgage underwriting standards and practices that, according to Liebowitz, is where we find the seeds of today’s mortgage meltdown.

The guide says “management should be directed to review existing underwriting standards and practices to ensure that they are valid predictors of risk. Special care should be taken to ensure that standards are appropriate to the economic culture of urban, lower-income, and nontraditional consumers.”

Among the recommendations in the Boston Fed’s 1993 “Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending”:
Special consideration could be given to applicants with relatively high obligation ratios who have demonstrated an ability to cover high housing expenses in the past. Many lower-income households are accustomed to allocating a large percentage of their income toward rent.

Accumulating enough savings to cover the various costs associated with a mortgage loan is often a significant barrier to homeownership by lower-income applicants. Lenders may wish to allow gifts, grants, or loans from relatives, nonprofit organizations or municipal agencies to cover part of these costs.

Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor. Certain cultures encourage people to pay as you go and avoid debt.

Lenders should focus on the applicant’s ability to maintain or increase his or her income level, and not solely on the length of stay in a particular job.

In addition to primary employment income, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accept the following as valid income sources: overtime and part-time work, second jobs (including seasonal work), retirement and Social Security income, alimony, child support, Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, welfare payments and unemployment benefits.

Liebowitz argues that these recommendations - which began as well-intentioned efforts to prevent racial and cultural discrimination in mortgage lending - overreached.

He also says the widely disseminated guidelines were misused or exploited by lenders, some well-meaning and some predatory, and laid the groundwork for abusive practices - such as no-money-down, option adjustable-rate-mortgage and liar loans - that have spiraled into the mortgage meltdown the country is faced with today.

Hat tip: Dave Amos

“What was the impact of this attack on traditional underwriting standards? As you might guess, when government regulators bark, banks jump. Banks began to loosen lending standards. And loosen and loosen and loosen, to the cheers of the politicians, regulators and GSEs (government-sponsored enterprises),” Liebowitz writes in “Anatomy of a Trainwreck: Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown,” a chapter for an upcoming book, which he provided to the Herald.

As for Browne and the Boston Fed, they don’t see how their well-intentioned effort to fight discriminatory lending could have gotten the country into this mortgage mess.

“I think it’s a real stretch,” said Browne last week. “I don’t see much of a connection other than the initial efforts of banks to respond (to the guide) showed that there was a market there. That may have piqued some interest (from predatory lenders).”

Browne said the housing bubble can be blamed more on a big expansion of the broker community, rising house prices and increased demand.

Regulatory changes and lax enforcement also helped accelerate the crisis by allowing Wall Street firms and others to buy more and more of the securities backed by these risky mortgages, experts argue.

“I disagree very strongly with the idea that this (guide) set us on a slippery slope,” Browne said.

Syron left the Boston Fed in 1994 and wound up as CEO and chairman of the Federal Home Loan Corp., or Freddie Mac, in 2003. As head of Freddie Mac, Syron has said he faced increasing pressure to buy up more and more risky mortgages, some of which the Boston Fed’s guide had, in effect, served to legitimize.

When too many of the mortgages went bad, the federal government stepped in last month to take over Freddie Mac and another government-supported enterprise, the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae. Syron and Fannie Mae chief Daniel Mudd were ousted.

Liebowitz says Syron deserves a fair share of the blame for what has happened.

“Richard Syron was most recently head of Freddie Mac where, his total compensation in 2007 was $18.3 million. Nice reward for presiding over unprofessional research behavior, bankrupting Freddie Mac and crippling our financial system, all in the name of politically correct lending,” Liebowitz quipped.

Syron could not be reached for comment.

In defending the Boston Fed’s position, spokesman Joel Werkema said: “The (1993) manual was trying to be helpful. There was a moral imperative and a market that our study found hadn’t been served so well in the past. The message to banks was, think flexibly. Back then, you’ve got to remember, it was pretty hard to get a mortgage.”

By Frank Quaratiello
October 6, 2008

http://www.bostonherald.com | Business & Markets
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1123690

Hat tip: Bob Cusack

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
--------------------------------

Response by: Red State Patriot

" Back then, you’ve got to remember, it was pretty hard to get a mortgage.” Apparently for a reason!

If this is what liberalism and an attempt at socialized housing will do to the markets, imagine what someday will become of socialized medicine and socialized education. Forget that thought - it's already happened.

I hesitate to ask, what's next? Having already read, 'We The Living' by Ayn Rand, I know.

Just yesterday, Bank of America — one of this country’s “strongest” banks — revealed that its earnings plunged 68% in the third quarter. Why? Because the toxic loans in its portfolio made under pressure of political correctness, made to irresponsible demographics, are now imploding. Bank of America is having to pay more than $8 billion to modify (rather than let default) 400,000 troubled mortgages it bought in its acquisition of Countrywide. And because its own credit card customers, a large number of whom are illegal alliens, defaulted on a staggering $1.24 billion in credit card debt in July, August and September alone! If you were wondering, it has only just begun. Can you say Dow Jones Industrials - 6500 or lower?

« Close It

b. Opaque objects that do not reflect specularly (which tend to have rough surfaces) have their color determined by which wavelengths of light they scatter (reflect) more and which they scatter (reflect) less (with the light that is not scattered being absorbed). If objects scatter all wavelengths, they appear white. If they absorb all wavelengths, they appear black.

c. Opaque objects that specularly reflect light of different wavelengths with different efficiencies look like mirrors tinted with colors determined by those differences. An object that reflects some fraction of impinging light and absorbs the rest may look black but also be faintly reflective; examples are black objects coated with layers of enamel or lacquer.

What is the point? If all light were reflected, the color you see would be white. If no colors were reflected, (all wavelengths are absorbed by the object upon which light is falling) the color of the object would appear black.

Again, what is the point? People of “color” appear in the vernacular to be, “white.” People of “little or no color” appear “black.” Why not set the record straight and refer to white (Caucasian) Americans as colored people, and Americans of African Heritage, i.e., black Americans, as people of no color. That’s the physics of the matter.

My apologies to Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) for taking liberal license (plagiarizing portions) of their posted materials to help me to explain the physics.

Thoughts from your Red State Patriot …

« Close It

In Bayou country I lived on boats and in doublewide trailers, and like the rest of the Vietnamese refugees, I shopped at Wal-Mart and ate a lot of rice. When they arrived in Louisiana the refugees had no money (the money that they had was used to bribe their way out of Vietnam and into refugee camps in Thailand), few friends, and a mostly unfriendly and suspicious local population.

They did however have stro ng families, a strong work ethic, and the "Audacity of Hope." Within a generation, with little or no knowledge of English, the Vietnamese had achieved dominance in the fishing industry there and their children were already achieving the top SAT scores in the state

While I had been fishing my new black friend had been working as a prison psychologist in Missouri, and he was pursuing a higher degree in psychology. He was interested in my story, and after about an hour getting to know each other I asked him point blank why these Vietnamese refugees, with no money, friends, or knowledge of the language could be, within a generation, so successful. I also asked him why it was so difficult to convince young black men to abandon the streets and take advantage of the same kinds of opportunities that the Vietnamese had recently embraced.

His answer, only a few words, not only floored me but became sort of a ra zor that has allowed me ever since to slice through all of the rhetoric regarding race relations that Democrats shovel our way during election season:

"We're owed and they aren't."

In short, he concluded, "they're hungry and we think we're owed. It's crushing us, and as long as we think we're owed we're going nowhere."

A good test case for this theory is Katrina. Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and assorted white apologists continue to express anger and outrage over the federal response to the Katrina disaster. But where were the Vietnamese "leaders" expressing their "anger?" The Vietnamese comprise a substantial part of the New Orleans population, and yet are absent was any report claiming that the Vietnamese were "owed" anything. This is not to say that the federal response was an adequate one, but we need to take this as a sign that maybe the problem has very little to do with racism and a lot to with a mindset.

The mindset that one is "owed" something in life has not only affected black mobility in business but black mobility in education as well. Remember Ward Churchill? About fifteen years ago he was my boss. After leaving the fishing boats, I attended graduate school at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I managed to get a job on campus teaching expository writing to minority students who had been accepted provisionally into the university on an affirmative action program. And although I never met him, Ward Churchill, in addition to teaching in the ethnic studies department, helped to develop and organize the minority writing program.

The job paid most of my bills, but what I witnessed there was absolutely horrifying. The students were encouraged to write essays attacking the white establishment from every conceivable angle and in addition to defend affirmative action and other government programs. Of the hundreds of papers that I read, there was not one original contribution to the problem of black mobility that strayed from the party line.

The irony of it all however is that the "white establishment" managed to get them into the college and pay their entire tuition. Instead of being encouraged to study international affairs, classical or modern languages, philosophy or art, most of these students became ethnic studies or sociology majors because it allowed them to remain in disciplines whose orientation justified their existence at the university. In short, it became a vicious cycle.

There was a student there I'll never forget. He was plucked out of the projects in Denver and given a free ride to the university. One day in my office he told me that his mother had said the following to him: "M.J., they owe you this. White people at that university owe you this." M.J.'s experience at the university was a glorious fulfillment of his mother's angst.

There were black student organizations and other clubs that "facilitated" the minority student's experience on the majority white and "racist" campus, in addition to a plethora of faculty members, both white and black, who encouraged the same animus toward the white establishment. While adding to their own bona fides as part of the trendy Left, these "facilitators" supplied M.J. with everything he needed to quench his and his mother's anger, but nothing in the way of advice about how to succeed in college. No one, in short, had told M.J. that he needed to study. But since he was "owed" everything, why put out any effort on his own?

In a fit of despair after failing most of his classes, M.J. wandered into my office one Friday afternoon in the middle of the semester and asked if I could help him out. I asked M.J. abou t his plans that evening, and he told me that he usually attended parties on Friday and Saturday nights. I told him that if he agreed to meet me in front of the university library at 6:00pm I would buy him dinner. At 6pm M.J. showed up, and for the next twenty minutes we wandered silently through the stacks, lounges, and study areas of the library. When we arrived back at the entrance I asked M.J. if he noticed anything interesting. As we headed up the hill to a popular burger joint, M.J. turned to me and said:

"They were all Asian. Everyone in there was Asian, and it was Friday night."

Nothing I could do, say, or show him, however, could match the fire power of his support system favoring anger. I was sad to hear of M.J. dropping out of school the following semester.

During my time teaching in the writing program, I watched Asians get transformed via leftist doublespeak from "minorities" to "model minorities" to "they're not minorities" in precise rhythm to their fortunes in business and education. Asians were "minorities" when they were struggling in this country, but they became "model minorities" when they achieved success. Keep in mind "model minority" did not mean what most of us think it means, i.e., something to emulate. "Model minority" meant that Asians had certain cultural advantages, such as a strong family tradition and a culture of scholarship that the black community lacked.

To suggest that intact families and a philosophy of self-reliance could be the ticket to success would have undermined the entire angst establishment. Because of this it was improper to use Asian success as a model. The contortions the left exercised in order to defend this ridiculous thesis helped to pave the way for the elimination of Asians altogether from the status of "minority."

This whole process took only a few years.

Eric Hoffer said:

"...you do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it will but i nfect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak only by sharing your pride, hope or hatred with them."

We now know that Barack Obama really has no interest in the "audacity of hope." With his race speech, Obama became a peddler of angst, resentment and despair. Too bad he doesn't direct that angst at the liberal establishment that has sold black people a bill of goods since the 1960s. What Obama seems angry about is America itself and what it stands for; the same America that has provided fabulous opportunities for what my black friend called "hungry" minorities. Strong families, self-reliance, and a spirit of entrepreneurship should be held up as ideals for all races to emulate.

In the end, we should be very suspicious about Obama's anger and the recent frothings of his close friend Reverend Wright.

Says Eric Hoffer:

The fact seems to be that we are least open to precise knowledge concerning the things we are most vehement about. Vehemence is the expression of a blind effort to support and uphold something that can never stand on its own. (emphasis added)

By Ed Kaitz
March 20, 2008
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_anger.html

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

When Allen Keyes was running for president, as probably one of the most brilliant candidates we have ever seen, he was ignored by the liberal media and the black community because, as a black Republican, he was deemed either irrelevant or out of touch. I often wondered if he had been the first black Democrat running for office if he would have been treated better, and then I had my answer in Barack Obama.

What is it about this man that has thoughtful, conservative blacks like Armstrong Williams and JC Watts saying they might vote for him? It can't be his left of left politics that makes even Ted Kennedy look conservative. What thinking conservative could actually support a man who is going to raise taxes, increase the size of government, redistribute wealth, burden small businesses and the working class, and play nice with people who want to destroy us? (emphasis added) It can't just be about his skin color otherwise they would have been huge supporters of Allen Keyes when he ran for president, and as I recall, neither were.

Armstrong explains his position by saying, ''I don't necessarily like his [Barack's] policies; I don't like much of what he advocates, but for thefirst time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it.'' JC Watts, former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, who is obviously more blinded by the light of Obama, says he expects Obama to take on issues such as poverty and urban policy, adding ''Republicans often seem indifferent to those things.''

No, JC, Republicans try and deal with these issues in a logical, private sector, community involvement way and they are shut down and called racists. Unless a huge tax bill is attached to every single social ill in this country, liberals think a solution is impossible. When Bush instituted faith-based initiatives to allow the private sector religious and community groups to do what they do best, and partner with them instead of letting bloated bureaucracies handle personal and community problems, they were vilified for not sufficiently extricating church from state.

When welfare reform bills were passed over the vehement objections of Democrats, and then actually worked, guess who stood up and took credit for them . . . Bill Clinton. Of all the billions and billions of dollars through the years that have been thrown at poverty, each person living in poverty today would be a multi-millionaire if the money had just gone directly to them along with a financial advisor to help them keep it growing. But if the government had done that, there would be no need for the huge, bloated, out-of-control leviathan called "government" that is never sated.

And that is the big distinction in this race; those who think higher taxes and bigger governmentare the answer, like Barack Obama, and those who want their liberties back. Unfortunately, the later group has no candidate this term. If they did, I am sure people like Armstrong Williams and JC Watts would not be doing the two-step with Barack because they would see a clear distinction in the candidates, beyond race, and vote accordingly.

This news should be a shot across the bow to the tone deaf McCain campaign that has adopted a fortress mentality while killing the peasants inside the walls. They still believe they can win without their base, and think their base is a handful of disgruntled Hillary voters and disillusioned moderates who are dissatisfied with the lack of leadership from both parties. Why would they vote for (either of these) two candidates who represent exactly why they are disgruntled and dissatisfied with politics in general?

It is too bad that neither Armstrong nor JC saw our movie, "Emancipation Revelation Revolution," even though Armstrong is actually in it. They would understand that this "historic" thing that they are expecting to happen was actually prevented from happening over 100 years ago by the very party that Barack so proudly hails from. This is not a white vs. black issue that has its roots in slavery, because there were too many white men and women who gave their lives trying to end the practice of slavery and Jim Crow.

It is time to transcend past injustices, stop wearing counterfeit grievances on our sleeves, and work to fulfill the simplicity and sincerity of the American creed. The battle to end slavery was fought by whites, against whites. It was not black vs. white. The battle to keep blacks from integrating fully into society, have a place at the economic and political tables, were battles that pitted the racist white society against huge segments of the white population who supported equal rights, and many gave their lives in that battle.

The Republican Party was actually founded by white abolitionists who were reviled and ridiculed, much like pro-life advocates are today. But thankfully they clung to their principles and ended slavery at great personal cost including for many, the loss of life. Republicans today are clueless about their history; they don't think it matters, or they have taken a permanent powder.

Who are these people anyway? I used to think I knew. I switched parties years ago when I became ashamed to be a part of a political party that elected racist governors who would keep young black kids from attending white schools. I was ashamed of a party where all the Democrats were happy racists and to oppose them was dangerous. I now find myself ashamed of the Republican Party for a myriad of reasons, but unlike 30 years ago, I have no party to turn to now. And neither do millions and millions of disgruntled, disenfranchised, marginalized conservatives who see two giant parties pressing in on them from both sides.

The Republican Party today is "Democrat-lite," and reminds you of the nerd in school who wants so desperately to be cool and does all the cool things that are so pitiful it actually pains you to see how ridiculous he looks. That is this party today. They want so much to be hip and cool, and with it, and tolerant and popular and generous with your money, and accommodating to every stupid, costly idea that comes down the pike. There is no leadership in the party and it is a very pale, faded image of a party that was formed to champion the cause of freedom and liberty for those enslaved.

That entire conflict and portion of our history is written in the blood of innocent victims, by the hand of a small group of power hungry people who are motivated by greed and control of others. They are the very same people who today, have elevated a man who talks in the grand sweeping phrases of third world dictators who rise out of the dust to throw pedals of empty platitudes at the feet of the adoring crowds.

To see men of the stature of Armstrong Williams and JC Watts, fall for the con of a party using a divisive symbol to intimidate the country into following a path of virtual slavery to government is appalling and quite sad. If more women in 1984 were as gullible and easily swayed as these two male leaders are, Geraldine Ferraro would have easily become the first woman vice president. But we resisted the temptation to indulge our fantasies of feigned oppression. She would have only been a symbolic success to those who agreed with her policies and would have been a dismal failure for everyonewho opposed them. Would that have been a reflection on her ability to lead as a woman? No, no more than Margaret Thatcher was a raging success by those who approved of her every policy.

If Armstrong and JC want true leadership and pigment is that important, and like millions, are totally dissatisfied with the idea of a McCain presidency, then I challenge them to do something really courageous without selling their souls. They can write-in someone like Michael Steel as an alternative choice who, in my opinion is better than both the choices we have now. If color is what they want great . . . let's do it. If conservative is what they claim they want, then, he's the person for that too.

I challenge the country to stop whining and take control of this situation before it totally controls them and they wake up one day without choices. If you don't like either candidate, settle on a write-in and just do it. That actually might be the only way to get McCain's attention, and the only way to break this Obama spell off of people who usually have more sense than this.

Hey JC, Armstrong, and others who are being seduced by pigment; if young women, 20 years ago, could resist the feminist seduction of Gloria, Phil and Geraldine, then surely, you can resist the siren's call to socialism.

By Nina May
June 22,2008

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/NinaMay/2008/06/22/conservative_blacks_choose_pigment_over_principle

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites. In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.

This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used "to keep minorities in their ghettos." It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School's advanced placement courses because their "white teachers" do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead. It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization. It was taught that the Southwest is "Atzlan," the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants - to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.

As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America's civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty. When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a "racist," despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for "sellout."

The culmination of my challenge to the department's curriculum was my removal from that particular class. The Raza studies department and its district-level allies pressured the Tucson High administration to silence my concerns through reassignment to another class during that one period. The Raza studies department used the "racist" card, which is probably the most worn-out and desperate maneuver used to silence competing perspectives. It is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it immediately stops debate by threatening to destroy the reputation of those who would provide counter arguments. Unfortunately, I am not the only one to have been intimidated by the Raza studies department in this way.

The diplomatic and flattering language that the department and its proponents use to describe the Raza studies program is an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When necessary, the department invokes terms such as "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" to diminish the validity of whatever public scrutiny it does get. The proponents of this program may conceal its reality to the public. But as a former teacher in the program, I am witness to its ugly underbelly.

Arizona taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should pay for the messages engendered in these classrooms with their hard-earned tax dollars.

The Raza studies department has powerful allies in TUSD, on its governing board and in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus operates with much impunity.

Occasionally there are minor irritations from the state superintendent of public instruction and the Legislature.

Ultimately, Arizona taxpayers own TUSD and have the right to change it. The change will have to come from replacing the board if its members refuse to make the Raza studies department respect the public trust.

John A. Ward is a former teacher at Tucson High Magnet School.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/85853.php

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

The novelty of Barack Obama is more his cross-racial appeal than his talent. Jesse Jackson displayed considerable political talent in his presidential runs back in the 1980s. But there was a distinct limit to his white support. Mr. Obama's broad appeal to whites makes him the first plausible black presidential candidate in American history. And it was Mr. Obama's genius to understand this. Though he likes to claim that his race was a liability to be overcome, he also surely knew that his race could give him just the edge he needed -- an edge that would never be available to a white, not even a white woman.

How to turn one's blackness to advantage?

The answer is that one "bargains." Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence. This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong.

Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence. His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by "change" or "hope" or "the future." And he has failed to say how he would actually be a "unifier." By the evidence of his slight political record (130 "present" votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.

Race helps Mr. Obama in another way -- it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another? Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny.

For many Americans -- black and white -- Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny. And yet, in the end, Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance.

Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were "challengers," not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin. But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."

Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America"). How does one "transcend" race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol? What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background.

And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real? But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred. No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.

By SHELBY STEELE
March 18, 2008

URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html

Mr. Steele, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Before anyone waxes stupid, please don't tell me that all generalizations are invalid because not every member of the given group will conform to a generalization. Intelligent people understand that legitimate generalizations are statements about a group's general characteristics, not individuals' specific ones. For example, if I say that men are taller than women, I don't mean that every man towers over every woman; nevertheless, it is an accurate relation of a general difference between the groups.

This brings us to an important point: While we must judge everyone as an individual, there are differences within groups but also differences among them. Thus, it makes no more sense to paint every group with the same brush than it does to pain every individual with the same brush.

My response to those who cannot or will not accept this is that if they can't understand commentary written for adults, they shouldn't read it. Besides, not all generalizations can be invalid simply because the statement that all generalizations are invalid is itself is a generalization.

Modern dogma holds that diversity is one of the greatest qualities a society can enjoy, that it bestows many advantages. But what does this imply? Well, by definition "diversity" refers to differences among groups. Now, not only is it illogical to assume that every one of these differences will be flattering, the supposition that diversity is beneficial implies otherwise. After all, if diversity is beneficial, it is only because certain groups bring qualities or strengths to the table that others do not. And, if a given group possesses a certain unique strength, then other groups are wanting in that area relative to it.

Any which way you care to slice it, this is a corollary of diversity dogma.

So, ironically, despite the fact that the diversity dogmatists would eschew stereotyping, a version of it imbues their ideology. So it's not that they don't have biases relating to generalizations, only that their understanding of group differences is clumsy and primitive, sort of like Archie Bunker but with advanced degrees, the illusion of intellectualism and the inability to be honest with themselves and others. So let's be honest now.

Stereotypes often arise because they have a basis in reality.


For example, often it has been remarked that Irishmen liked to drink. Once again, intelligent people know this doesn't mean that every Irishman is a drunkard, but informed people might know something else: Ireland ranks number two in the world in per capita alcohol consumption next to Luxemburg.

Another difference among groups is that some are more patriarchal than others. We know that Moslem societies are quite so, as women are usually afforded fewer legal rights. In fact, Westerners will often emphasize and lament this difference as a way to burnish their credentials as believers in women's liberation.

In light of this, let's now analyze the MSP's statement that "Hispanic males are raised to be MACHO and brave, while females are raised to be subservient." Since some groups are more patriarchal than others, this can be true; and I venture to say that anyone who has had great contact with Hispanic people and possesses eyes and common sense will know it's often enough true compared to, say, Swedes

As to these matters, Raul Caetano, Catherine L. Clark and Tammy Tam, three Ph.Ds who received a government grant to study common sense, implicitly vindicate two of the MSP's assertions. They write in their paper, Alcohol Consumption Among Racial/Ethnic Minorities:

"One traditional explanation for heavy drinking patterns among Hispanic men, particularly Mexican-Americans, is the concept of ‘exaggerated machismo.'"

While these researchers didn't accept or reject this explanation, they didn't question the suppositions that Hispanic men drink too much and are "macho." So then why are the Maryland State Police probably going to have to pay money for saying what these academics got paid money to say? Well, it neither serves the left's agenda to sue a few eggheads nor can cash be extracted from them.

Besides, there is another factor: If a truth hurts, since you can't destroy the Truth, you destroy the truth-teller.

And here is another truth. I have only one thing to say about the idea that Hispanics are reluctant to learn English: I've never been asked if I wanted to press two for German.

Stereotypes aren't just woven into flawed leftist ideology (please forgive the redundancy) and million-dollar research substitutes for common sense; they also appear in entertainment. Just think about all the times that whites are characterized as nerdy, lacking rhythm or liking mayonnaise (as to this, watch the movie Undercover Brother or Al Yankovic's music video "White & Nerdy"). Yet, golfer Fuzzy Zoeller was practically clubbed to death for quipping that Tiger Woods shouldn't request fried chicken or collard greens after the latter's record-setting performance at the 1997 Masters tournament. (I was "startled" myself; since Woods' mother hails from Thailand, I would have thrown in phat gapow). Seriously, though -- or almost seriously -- if whites can be smeared with mayonnaise, other groups can be coddled with their cuisines.

This isn't to say that every stereotype or generalization -- or what is known as a "profile" in the realm of law enforcement -- is completely accurate. But when one is found wanting, it simply warrants the alteration of its flawed elements, not the throwing out of the baby with the bath water. If a difference is frivolous and fun, it should be a source of mirth; if it indicates greater ability, it should be applauded; and if the difference is damning, remedy should be sought.

But this standard won't be embraced until we accept what is perhaps the most valid generalization of all: The leftist thought police are a menace to civilization and free speech. They are turning us into an ideological state, a place where ideology isn't rejected when it departs from truth but truth is rejected when it departs from ideology.

As for remedy, the best antidote to political correctness is its opposite. We don't have to speak and joke and talk and think in a way that pleases those who prove that infantilism doesn't always peak in infancy. Instead, we should stand up for truth - be it in the form of wit, policy or paradigm - and those who speak it. Do this en masse and "startle" those thought police enough, and we just might be rid of them after all. That is, if they actually do have hearts.

by Selwyn Duke
November 13, 2007

Selwyn Duke may be contacted at selwynduke@optonline.net

From: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/stereotyping_101.html

« Close It

Don Imus has been paid by his suited CBS network zoo-keepers to be controversial, outrageous and insulting for more years than anyone can count – arguably since before dirt. Nothing has changed and nothing is new. Don Imus has legions of fans that for some inexplicable reason gravitate toward his lack of civility. The most notable of Don Imus' achievement swas that he was the only liberal radio talk-show host remaining on the air. The Don Imus media persona was created to fill a market niche. In the racial malestorm that began on April 4th, it shouldn't be lost on anyone that the liberal corporate suits at CBS Radio were willing to ignore Don Imus' inflamatory rhetoric - for years - for profits.

Don Imus’ firing was the probable result of two factors. First, the corporate suits wanted to make absolutely sure that responsibility for their choice of tasteless shock-jock, and politically incorrect “jokes,” wouldn’t accrue to them. Secondly, hidden in the shadows, in wouldn't come as a surprise to learn that the Democratic Party's paid operatives (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) went after Don Imus with incredible venom because of Don Imus' unrelenting on-air criticism of Hillary Clinton. As for the liberal suits at CBS Radio, a new oxymoron has been coined to describe their actions, “socially responsible cowardliness," but that doesn't change the probable reality that Don Imus was politically assasinated.

In the real world, those who disapprove of Don Imus don’t listen. The same can be said for detractors of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Those who disapprove of Al Sharpton also do their best to ignore him in order to avoid involuntary projectile vomiting. Arguably Al Sharpton, with his history of racial epithets, combined with those of Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, have inflicted more harm to American culture than the Crusades did to all of Europe and Asia. Those who disapprove of the Dixie Chicks and Nancy Pelosi go about their lives. The same can be said with those who dislike the international beacons of virtue, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Madonna. But not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, our nation’s premier rap culture aficionados and defenders of debasement and degradation.

Notice that Don Imus’ only sin was that his remarks lacked “racial sensitivity” and “political correctness.” How dare Don Imus make critical remarks! Who does that old white man think he is? Ok, so what? Al Sharpton, and his misguided followers, would do well to get their proverbial thumb out of their mouth.

Americans would also do well to remember that any man or woman, who feels the need to be politically correct in their speech, cannot by definition be telling the truth. Whether Al Sharpton and his ilk like the truth or want to hear the truth is the entire basis for political correctness.

Who will be next to be Nifong’ed? Ann Coulter? Make no mistake, the Don Imus imbroglio (an embarrassing personal or political misunderstanding often bitter in nature) is but the opening salvo in an ongoing culture war to silence conservatives in general and talk radio in particular using the subject of race as a sharp-edged weapon.

Until the day that Americans of African heritage pull rap music off the record stands, blackball movies depicting African-American themes of feminine degeneracy, repudiate sports figures whose rap sheet is longer than most resumes, and widely support ending institutionalized discrimination, the rest of the United States should concentrate on reality. The reality is that it was not the rest of America that created this culture that mere mention of which caused Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to go into offensive overload.

How much will CBS quietly have to “pay” Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to stop creating an ongoing public spectacle? When the day comes that there are enough dollars in Al Sharpton’s pockets attributable to only the latest in a string of manufactured racial incidents, he will publicly and reluctantly extend feigned forgiveness to Don Imus.

If all men and women were truly created equal in this wonderful nation, why are so many still on welfare? Why are so many of Don Imus’ vocal detractors intentionally illiterate, systemically unemployable, terminally irresponsible and pathologically degenerate? In stark contrast, both Rutgers University and the Rutgers basketball team members seem to have retained a remarkable semblance of class and reasoned awareness. They chose not to be victims!

A non-scientific poll Internet poll of more than 110,000 people by NewsMax concluded that 91 percent believed Don Imus’ comments about the Rutgers basketball team was bad humor as opposed to racism, 88 percent thought MSNBC overreacted, 89 percent thought Don Imus should not have been fired, and 95 percent believed Al Sharpton had no credibility in personally attacking Don Imus.

It seems that we’re left to wonder if Al Sharpton has a moral compass. Is Al Sharpton simply the nation’s biggest and most outrageous racist profiteer, the African American’s cultural equivalent of David Duke? If Al Sharpton is the role model for the African American gene pool, it is no wonder that Don Imus’ criticism is perceived by African Americans as stinging.

Don Imus is obviously not afraid to tell the King that he has no clothes. If only Al Sharpton cared about cleaning up his own “house,” he wouldn’t have to worry about what others think of the condition of his “house,” or endure their criticism. Al Sharpton has made a career out of attacking the messenger of cultural criticism, while defiantly refusing to address the fact that too many in his “house” are neither free men and women nor wearing clothes.

Unless the United States has transformed itself into the Union of American Socialist Republics, Don Imus’ freedom of thought, opinion, and speech remains his inalienable right. Those who would willfully deny him the right to free speech are the same ones who work tirelessly to deny all private property rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. Yes, Toto, every one of the Bill of Rights is a form of private property rights.

Mr. Imus, we support your right to be tactful or offensive, according to your choice, and we support the concept that the free market (not CBS Radio) should determine if you remain viable as a talk-show host. Yes, your employer has the right to fire your sorry ass for statements unbefitting their standards of broadcast decency, but for CBS Radio to claim standards of decency, after having ignored any and all standards of decency for years until it served their purposes, the behavior of the suits at CBS Radio is far worse than your verbal transgressions.

Hang in there Don Imus! You are in the right and it is your Right.

Red State Patriot

« Close It