When being "at-risk" doesn't count

Posted on October 15, 2011 by jewamongyou

It is difficult to open a magazine or newspaper these days without encountering an article telling us how “African Americans are more at risk for this or that disease or misfortune”.  It has gotten to the point where it is almost a cliche’.  But if it is whites who are disproportionately at risk, then those same magazines and newspapers will maintain total silence regarding this fact.
A recent front page Oregonian headline (October 13, 2011) reads:

Taking a stand to prevent suicide

… So far this year, Portland police and firefighters have responded to 55 suicides or attempts – and those are just the cases that play out in public – up from 39 such calls in all of 2010.  Portland police have been called to a total of 70 suicides and 144 attempts, up from 69 suicides and 129 attempts last year.

The pace has shaken the city’s public safety responders…

The number of suicides in Oregon, which has a suicide rate 35 percent higher than the national average, keeps climbing.  The number of calls to Oregon Partnership’s Suicide Lifeline has risen from 11,303 in 2008 to 19,016 in 2010…

The state has issued grants to counties to train adults and youths in suicide intervention skills and to support public awareness campaigns and outreach to at-risk populations, such as elderly and youth…

The article is a fairly long one and it deals with various risk factors – but not once is race or ethnicity mentioned.  In fact, gender is also not specifically mentioned; we must read between the lines, from the context and examples, that males are more at risk than females.

A government website gives us a clearer understanding of who these “at-risk populations” actually are:

Men were 3.7 times more likely to die by suicide than women. The highest suicide rate
occurred among men ages 85 and over (78.4 per 100,000). White males had the highest
suicide rate among all races / ethnicity (25.6 per 100,000). Firearms were the dominant
mechanism of suicide among men (62%)…
Sex, Race / Ethnicity
Men have a greater risk of dying by suicide than women. In each age group, suicide rates
are higher among males than among women (figure 3). Overall men were 3.7 times more
likely to die by suicide than women (figure 4). Among all suicide victims, 97 percent of
the suicides were white. The age-adjusted suicide rate among whites was 15.8 per
100,000, which was almost double the rates observed among populations of other races.
Overall white men had the highest suicide rate. This is mainly due to extremely high
suicide rates among elder white men aged 60 and over. There were not significant
differences in rates between white women and women of other races (Figure 4).

It is interesting that the Oregonian article copies, almost verbatim, a paragraph from the above source that deals with mental disorders, drugs and alcohol use – but completely omits all of the information from previous paragraphs that deal with gender disparities.  As for the government’s explanation of the racial disparity in suicide rates, it must be tempered by the fact that the median age for whites, nationwide, is about 10 years older than the median age for blacks (though I’m not sure what it is in Oregon specifically).  Be it as it may, the suicide rate for whites is over twice that of blacks and Hispanics and three times that of Asians.  If the reverse were true, it would be impossible to imagine that the Oregonian would omit this fact in their story; we would be reminded, over and over again, that “people of color” are more at risk.
When we are told that non-whites are at higher risk for various diseases, it is because the media considers non-whites to be important.  Obviously, whites (as a group) are not important in their eyes.  But normal people feel otherwise.  Aside from the obvious fact that whites suffer more from depression and low self-esteem (for obvious reasons), non self-hating whites deserve answers so that steps can be taken to reduce the risk of suicide*.
*I speak of the “risk of suicide” even though it’s a conscious decision one makes, because the instinct of self-preservation is our strongest instinct and, in my view, something must be wrong with a person if he chooses to take his own life (with certain exceptions of course).

Posted in examples of propaganda, government/corporate discrimination against whites, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 5 Comments

Forbidden Archeology

Posted on October 14, 2011 by jewamongyou

Most of us have been led to believe that modern humans came into being only a hundred thousand years ago more or less.  Some of us have been taught that we were created far more recently.  But a very interesting book claims that modern humans have been around for millions of years.  In Forbidden Archeology, Michael Cremo and Dr. Richard Thompson present hundreds of pieces of evidence to back up this claim.  Much of it dates from the 19th century and has been collecting dust in the back rooms of museums throughout the world.
It has been several years since I read the book but it left a powerful impression upon me to this day.  In the following video, the authors give a brief overview of their case:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nLdeKCTgwo&w=420&h=315]
The scientific establishment has repeatedly dismissed evidence of the presence of modern humans in the distant past.  While I cannot claim that Forbidden Archeology presents a bullet-proof case, it does highlight the need for serious consideration of this evidence.  It also illustrates the fact that the scientific establishment is strongly opposed to the idea of modern humans having existed for millions of years.
Why is this so?  Could it be that such an admission would lead to further questions – questions about the antiquity of the various races of humanity?  Aside from its supporting evidence, the Out of Africa/ Mitochondrial Eve theory is popular because it allows the establishment to claim (not very effectively) that the races of Man are a recent phenomenon and, therefore, of little significance.  The discovery that Mankind is millions of years old would throw a monkey wrench into this schema.
The authors of Forbidden Archeology give no hint of race-realism (not that I can remember) and they seem to believe that the opposition, by the scientific establishment, to their theories is simply a matter of defending the status qu0.  That there is no underlying foundation to this opposition other than that they don’t want to be proven wrong.  But if we look at it from a racial science perspective, then this opposition makes a lot more sense; it has an ideological element that is grounded in politics.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 14 Comments

A nice YouTube series

Posted on October 13, 2011 by jewamongyou

Rather crude and the spelling is atrocious.  Nevertheless, there’s a lot of truth in them and the concept is a good one:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1YzMCrxh-M&w=420&h=315]
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyJFRTJgPbU&w=420&h=315]
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY6EhBzUfSQ&w=420&h=315]
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phowqv6jA3c&w=420&h=315]
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYvPfkz3ks0&w=420&h=315]
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXxckUKVAs&w=420&h=315]

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links | 5 Comments

Playing favorites with kids

Posted on October 12, 2011 by jewamongyou

Time Magazine recently had an article about a study dealing with the favoritism many parents display toward one of their children:

One oft-cited study showed that about 70% of fathers and 65% of mothers exhibit a preference for one child or another. For fathers, it’s most often the youngest girl; for mothers, it’s typically the oldest boy. And remember, the key here is the exhibited preference. Since parents do such a good job of concealing any bias — especially when a scientist is watching — the numbers are almost certainly a good deal higher.
If it’s any consolation for Mom and Dad — to say nothing of the unfavored kids — favoritism is hardwired into our species. Since families, at their evolutionary essence, exist principally as a way to get as many genes as possible into the next generation, we’re programmed to place our bets on the kids who stand the greatest chance of being reproductively successful.

It’s an interesting article, but far more interesting are the comments.  Most of the comments take the “liberal” stance that humans have transcended nature, that only fairness can prevail, that there can be no hierarchy among children because we are all equal.  Here is one example of such a comment:

As a scientist and a mother and whatever we humans are – I can tell you with whatever guarantee you would ask of me – that that is not true, not in terms of love anyway.
Parents love all children equally.  The parents themselves might not even know or think they do but at the deepest level where it counts the most, love is equal.
Now, emotional energy and attention might be unequal.  Families are a mix of personalities and parents can identify with one child more than another or behavioural or medical issues can interfere with relationship dynamics.
I was the “difficult child” in my family.  In my adolescence I did feel less favoured and loved less.  I wasn’t, they loved me so much they were worried about me and it put anxiety into our relationship.
We can talk about relationship and emotional dynamics.  Love is unmeasurable, it is endless, and it is always there.

In typical leftist fashion, and probably unaware she is even doing it, “Red Bess Road” (above) sets up a straw man (love) and then denies the validity of the study based on that.  It never occurred to her that the study had nothing to do with love.  It was about “exhibited favoritism” – as it clearly stated.
There are a few comments that take the “conservative” stance, that humans are part of nature, that we should strive to be fair and just but, at the same time, maintain harmony with the greater natural world.  Here is a comment that represents the “conservative” minority view:

I find the responses just as interesting as the article. Most people want to deny that they have a favorite, even when it is measurable. What many studies find is that we act in ways that we are not really conscious of – and want to not believe that we do. The article also pointed out that favoritism is found in about 70% of cases – which means it is not an absolute for everyone, so just because it may not exist in some people doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, the denial of scientific evidence runs rampant in the population these days – and manifests itself in politics, too.

I’ll point out here that the article does contradict itself, stating at the beginning that favoritism is an “iron-clad” rule of parenting – but then citing a study that found it in only 65%-70% of cases.  But this is just sloppy journalism; it does not undermine the study.  Is Paul McDonald (comment above) a race-realist?  If not, he should be.
The “liberal” position holds that humans (at least white humans) are above nature, that we are akin to gods.  We can significantly alter our planet’s climate, we have the power, and responsibility, to oversee the fate of other species – from lowly snails to whales and elephants.  We can overcome old-age and our destiny is to live for centuries or even forever.  Our own capabilities and proclivities (such as I.Q. and crime) are determined by the choices made by humans (nurture) rather than our own genetic codes (nature).
“Liberals” tend to reject the notion of a traditional god – because they want the position for themselves.  Conservatives tend to have a more humble approach, considering themselves subservient to a higher being – whose will is manifested in nature.  Even if Mankind was given dominion over nature, we do not have the power to replace, or reject, it because we are part of it.
I have already written about this theme elsewhere.  If we pay attention, we can see it played out over and over again in the media.

Posted in nurture vs. nature and I.Q. | 3 Comments

Four murdered in crime spree

Posted on October 11, 2011 by jewamongyou

David Pederson and Holly Grisby are not the type of people most of us admire; they went on a crime spree that claimed the lives of four people.  Pederson started by murdering his own father.  The couple was already wanted in connection with the death of Pederson’s stepmother and 19 year old Cody Myers.
But it so happens that one of the four victims is “African-American”, so The Oregonian tells us:

 Investigators think Clark, who is African American, met the two randomly, O’Neill said. Although both Grigsby and Pedersen have past ties to white supremacist groups, O’Neill said Clark’s death has not been categorized as a hate crime.
“However, we obviously aren’t going to rule out any motives,” he said.

White murderers beware!  If even one out of four of your victims happen to be black, you will be suspected of a hate-crime (assuming you have “past ties to a white supremacist group”).  This is just one more example of how the hostile elite, and the media, inject race into any situation if it helps them portray non-whites as victims.  meanwhile, it seems to me that the “mainstream media” has taken notice of the growing racial awareness on the internet and they are more careful than ever to omit racial details if they portray “people of color” (particularly blacks) negatively.
The odds are fairly high that at least one of the two U.S. soldiers, accused of recent rapes in Korea, is black.  So far, their identities are a closely guarded secret.  A recent Oregonian article, about Oregon school test scores, had no mention of race whatsoever – in contrast to its historical habit of mentioning “the gap” in such articles.  In short, I believe that the “mainstream media” reaction to increased racial consciousness will be increased censorship.  I also predict that the Federal government will cease keeping track of race in crime statistics.  Spokesmen for the FBI, for example, will announce that our nation “needs to move beyond race” – or something to that effect.  The real intention will be to hide the inordinate amount of black on white, and black on Asian, crime.

Posted in crime and violence, examples of propaganda | 7 Comments

Sports discrimination

Posted on October 7, 2011 by jewamongyou

People in the Western world are so bombarded with messages of white guilt that, in a word-association game, the first word that would probably pop into most people’s minds when the word “discrimination” is mentioned, is “racial”.  From infancy to the grave, it is pounded into our heads that racial discrimination is bad.  Of course we are also told that there are other kinds of discrimination (all of which are also bad) such as sex-discrimination, gender-discrimination, religious discrimination and age-discrimination.  Every so often, politicians get it into their heads to pass a new law making yet another type of discrimination illegal.
Most people view discrimination negatively only when the trait in question has no obvious relevance to the job or promotion being sought.  One of the more obvious types of discrimination, which is not yet illegal but can clearly be unjust, is height-discrimination.  Short men arguably suffer far more than official “protected groups” in every area of life.  Though no law can force people to vote for shorter politicians, and no law can force women to date shorter men, at least this type of discrimination is talked about.
One form of discrimination that is hardly ever discussed is “sports-discrimination”.  Back in 1998, Jamie Schlabach wrote:

According to Gordon Allport (1954), it is necessary to categorize people into groups for adaptive functioning. Social categorization reduces the complexity of the social world. We use this idea to put people into categories like Miami University students or Proctor and Gamble employees. A very prominent category that many people belong to is that of a sports fan. Whether a Green Bay Packers fan, a Chicago Bulls fan, or a Miami Redhawk fan, a person fits into a category depending on who they cheer for. Categorizing people into groups by identifying some common attributes or characteristics reduces the amount of information to be dealt with (Hamilton, 1981) Such categorization can represent a sensible and useful strategy to reduce the complexity of the social world. But there are also some consequences that go along with this simplification strategy.
When a person identifies themselves with a group, they perceive themselves and the group members as different from other groups. A Packers fan may work with a Broncos fan, where both of them hold the same position, both love pizza, and both live in the same community. But the Packers fan will view the Bronco fan as being significantly different from himself. If another coworker is also a Packers fan, but lived on the other side of town and hated pizza, he would still be viewed as more similar to the Packers fan then the Broncos fan. A partial explanation for such in-group favoritism is provided by the social identity theory. Categorization can also create a basis for ethnocentrism, or the belief that one’s own group is superior to other groups. People will put themselves into the “in-group” and all other people are in the “out-group.” This leads in-group members to favor their group over the out-group and is called in-group, out-group bias (Devine, 1996). Sports fans of any kind favor their teams fans over the other team’s fans. The fans of the opposing team are not seen as friends or equals, they are the enemy. During a game, fans of each team do not socialize with the opposing fans. The seating arrangement during games is usually segregated, with, for example, the Packers fans on one side of the stadium and Broncos fans on the other. This separation contributes to favoritism of the in-group over the out-group.

Human nature hasn’t changed much since 1998 and, as a person who has worked for avid professional sports fans, I can attest to the fact that it can be a serious distraction, and a nuisance, in a work environment.  Far be it from me to encourage further anti-discrimination laws, but we can (and should) recognize a bad thing for what it is – without calling in the heavy hand of the law.
Most of us have heard of the proverbial “golfing buddy” phenomenon, where he who plays golf with the boss gets the promotion.  I think the reason we hear so much about golf, as opposed to other sports, is that golf is a traditionally higher status/higher income sport.  The promotions, and jobs, we see on T.V., read about in magazines and newspapers and see in movies, are high-paying jobs and high-stakes promotions.  What we don’t hear about is the millions of average-income workers who are passed over for promotion because their bosses are fans of a different team – or even because their bosses are sports fans in general, while the victim is not.  I say “victim” because ideally it is the best-qualified individual who gets the job or promotion.  This is the answer we would get if we were to ask any CEO about his company’s policy.  The employee who worked harder, is more honest, is more dependable and has more experience, is a victim if he is passed over in favor of another employee who happens to like the same sport as the boss.  Sure, he can quit and find another company (maybe), but this doesn’t change the fact that he was unjustly passed over.
What are the code-words for this type of discrimination?  “You don’t seem to have as much rapport with your co-workers”, “your communication skills aren’t as good”, “You don’t command as much respect” would be some possible examples.  The reality might be that the underlying reason for the denial is that the victim lacks common ground with others – due to the fact that he is not a fan of their sport or team.  But this is impossible to prove.  I would imagine that back in the days when it was still legal (but socially unacceptable) to discriminate on the basis of religion, gender or race, the same rationals would have been given.  As a matter of fact, it is legal to discriminate on the basis of race.  It is even required – when the victim is white.  It is also sometimes required to discriminate on the basis of gender – when the victim is male.  In either case, rarely will the victim be told that he was passed over because of his race or gender.  Instead, he will be told nothing at all – or one of the catch-alls I listed above.
There can be little doubt that many have learned to play golf with the intention of establishing a rapport with important people in order to advance their careers.  But how many people have pretended to be baseball, football or basketball fans – or fans of specific teams – in order to advance their careers?  Should those who do not be penalized*?
*Yes, I am aware that “life is not fair”.  I am simply bringing attention to one of life’s unfairnesses that is often overlooked.

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Portland's "hip-hop high school"

Posted on October 5, 2011 by jewamongyou

With the economy booming and a huge surplus of government cash, politicians are looking for ways to spend some of that cash.  “Let’s see”, thought the government bureaucrat, “we’ve already got plenty of funding for cancer research, aid to the homeless, the renovation of infrastructure and prisons…  I know!  We’ll start a hip-hop high school in Portland!”
How much money?  According to The Oregonian, we’re talking about $500,000 in the form of federal grants:

REAL Prep Charter Academy, more than three years in the making, is scheduled to open Monday in Portland’s Pearl District to serve students in grades nine through 12. The school’s designers have spent $500,000 in federal grants to get the school and its curriculum up and running.

Why is it important to have a hip-hop high school?

The school is the brainchild of Erica Jayasuriya, mother of a multiracial son who wanted to attend a compelling, culturally relevant high school. She is backed by a board of directors chaired by Juan McGruder, a photographer and musician.
The plan, approved by the Portland School Board, was to create a school where students could find their voices and culture honored; learn skills from and get credit for hands-on work with artists and recording industry professionals; and where core academic lessons would be laced with hip-hop themes.

The Oregonian makes it sound like black culture is otherwise not honored – which strikes me as rather odd when I look at the front page of the issue of The Oregonian, where this story takes a prominent place.  There are five major stories on that front page (Sept. 9, 2011):  One about President Obama, with a large photo of him (with two white politicians in the background), one is about Portland’s corrupt parking manager (a black man, whose photo is shown), another features two Hispanics and a black woman who had saved a little (white) girl’s life (good for them), another is about a fossil discovered in South Africa and then there’s our story (at the very top, right next to Obama).  Of the five stories, four of them involve blacks – three of them in positive ways.  As for sheer space on the front page, about 70% of it is dedicated to showing blacks in a positive light.  How can this same Oregonian then claim that blacks need to “find their voices”?  They already have their voices – in the pages of The Oregonian.
Do white high school students have a voice as whites?  That was a rhetorical question; of course they don’t – that would be “racist”.  Where are the high schools that are based on classical music?  Would any charter school, whose aim was to cater specifically to white students, have a chance at receiving a federal grant?  That’s another rhetorical question; let us not forget that this same federal government is perfectly okay with “black pride” and “Hispanic pride” but considers “white pride” to be “offensive” and “immoral”.
In the end, the hip-hop high school failed to open this year.  This is all well and good – but I want my $500,000 back!

Posted in examples of propaganda, government/corporate discrimination against whites | 8 Comments

"logical fallacies and patently false claims"

Posted on October 5, 2011 by jewamongyou

I recently posted a critique of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, in which I exposed the author’s double standards, faulty logic, contradictions and bias.  It should come as no surprise, to readers of this blog, that these traits are the rule, not the exception, when it comes to racial egalitarian literature.
Human Stupidity has called my attention to a Wikipedia article on race and crime.  While the article itself is interesting, and we can take issue with some of its conclusions, the most interesting part for me was in the discussion section, where we read:

The 2nd paragraph of IQ theory subsection seems like a bit of a non-sequitar. Saying critics point out that the IQ gap has narrowed over the years due to environmental factors is irrelevant to whether IQ differences explain racial differences in crime rate. The criticism seems to be directed at the hereditarian model of racial IQ differences, but the first paragraph doesn’t have anything to do with hereditarianism at all.–XO^10 (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As one of the people who helped write the current version of the article, I agree with you that these criticisms don’t make a lot of sense. So does Varoon Arya, who wrote more of the article than any other editor, although he’s not active here at the moment. But the fact is that these criticisms appear in the source material, so NPOV policy demands that we include them, regardless of whether they’re actually reasonable and relevant to this topic or not.
Varoon Arya and I discussed an issue similar to this a few months ago here. I’ll quote his own comment about it:
I am in full agreement here. But sadly, these (rather tired and fully insufficient) arguments are the ones left-leaning sociologists and criminologists specialized in the field of Race and Crime Studies are still (as recently as 2009) using to offer at least the show of criticism of the “hard science” claims. To get into any serious criticism of IQ Theory or r/K Theory, we’d have to leave the field of Race and Crime Studies, and I’m not sure if that’s crossing the line into WP:SYNTH. I had to work surprisingly hard to make the critique in many areas not look ridiculous, frankly. Take Mann, for example, whose work is considered by certain parties in Race and Crime Studies to be “seminal”. (And I can quote two who use that very word.) If you run through her list of arguments with even a minimum of critical evaluation, the logical fallacies and patently false claims (not to mention the clear bias) are shocking. Sadly, Gabbidon evidences many of the same weaknesses, though he puts much more effort in trying to at least appear objective, and I trust him more to give a balanced presentation. However, Gabbidon & Greene’s 2-page treatment of “Intelligence, Race, and Crime” is loaded with enough bias to make it impossible to use in the article without heavy filtering. Take the following passage, for example:

By this time [1900’s], however, the notion of intelligence and crime had become accepted. While the notion of intelligence and crime had existed prior to the aforementioned studies, the development of the IQ test gave proponents of the idea a tool to test their beliefs. Fortunately, though, the idea lost its appeal. Curran and Renzetti (2001) noted, however, that the damage had already been done.

It doesn’t get any better than that, and often gets worse. Their critique boils down to exactly what I have in the section. It’s a case of preaching to the choir, really. The leftists have long since rejected the notion of race on moral grounds, and with it their ability to counter hard science claims with anything other than shock and disbelief that anyone could be “racist” enough to investigate the issue with some objectivity. (Wright’s 2009 piece on this subject is a gem, by the way.) But what can we do? I tried to present the critique as it is presented in the current literature. Can I help it if it’s not convincing?

Also interesting is the debate on using “The Color of Crime” as a source.  In the end, the sole reason for excluding it is that it comes from a “fringe group” rather than a “mainstream” source.  Who gets to decide what is “mainstream”?  None other than those who are already considered “mainstream”.  It’s a circular argument that essentially says, “We’ve got the money and power; this makes us mainstream and it gives us the authority to label the rest of you as fringe groups”.  Nice going Wikipedia.  Money/power = Truth.

Posted in examples of propaganda, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 8 Comments

A fine YouTube video on Islam

Posted on October 4, 2011 by jewamongyou

Well folks,  I may have inadvertently offended autistic people in my previous post –  as a matter of fact, it is possible that I suffer from a mild form of autism myself; it’s possible that I have Asperger Syndrome.  But at least if we insult them, they won’t come after us with butcher knives or bombs.
And then there are Muslims – who are known to come after people with butcher knives and bombs for even the mildest insult*.  Anyway, I just found the following excellent video on YouTube.  Enjoy!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpJN7JykKVY&w=560&h=315]
* Though, obviously, not all individual Muslims are like this.

Posted in Muslims | 9 Comments

Affirmative action and bad English

Posted on October 3, 2011 by jewamongyou

Countenance recently linked to a St. Louis Examiner article about the “need” for increased quotas for minority contractors in the Illinois department of transportation.
The author of the above article, Damien Johnson, was fair enough to mention the Civil Rights Institute, which opposes all forms of affirmative action.  But let us take a look at the paragraph in question:

Groups like Civil Rights Institute argue argue against granting preferencial treatment to any group or class of people in and effort to seek color blind society; however, some poeple argue a color blind society is a myth and point to Mayor Parks fight for minority inclusion as proof. Understanding Prejudice.org, a project by the National Sciene Foundation and McGraw-Hill High Education, argue that affrimative action is still needed today because the playing field in not leveled for women and minorities.

How many typos can you find in the above paragraph?  I see at least 9 right off the bat.  The rest of the article is just as bad.  The irony in this, considering the subject matter, is hard to miss.  Here’s Johnson’s profile:

Damien Johnson, a local activist and blogger, is involved with local politics and pays attention to what is going on. He believes that an informed voter is important to our democracy. He encourages people to register to vote. He earned a bachelor’s degree in criminology and criminal justice with a minor in studio art from the University of Missouri at St. Louis. For fun, he plays chess and enjoys attending open mic night and gallery openings. Damien likes to draw graffiti and expressionistic art.

There can be little doubt that his credentials were probably also acquired via affirmative action, which is pervasive in universities throughout the country.  Oh, I’m sure he studied and worked for his degrees, but the gears of his advancement were certainly greased with the lubricant of affirmative action.
When the bar is set so low, and when it is considered acceptable to publish text such as what we see in the above article, it is inevitable that the English of white writers will also become degraded.  Why work hard to write in flawless English when it is no longer demanded or expected?
I’d like to point out that Mr. Johnson, aside from acknowledging the Civil Rights Institute, also took the time to respond to my email, in which I asked him who (if anybody) proofreads the online articles.  His response was that columnists do their own proofreading.  He seemed surprised and concerned about it, so I’ll give him credit for that.  It remains to be seen if he’ll do something about it and take some remedial English courses.

Posted in government/corporate discrimination against whites | 8 Comments