Michelle Malkin has a great one on the blinding insanity held by the left, and rapper Nas in particular, in regards to Fox News Channel. To wit, they want a boycott of FNC due to its supposed racist coverage toward Barack Obama.
Malkin's demolition of their grievances is a beautiful thing.
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Black politicians in Dallas don't know anything about astromony
What other conclusion can we draw from this? Oh yeah, they are also ridiculously sensitive. Maybe the NAACP can just shut down if this is the kind of "racism" that exists nowadays:
A special meeting about Dallas County traffic tickets turned tense and bizarre this afternoon.
County commissioners were discussing problems with the central collections office that is used to process traffic ticket payments and handle other paperwork normally done by the JP Courts.
Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections "has become a black hole" because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.
Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud "Excuse me!" He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a "white hole."
That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.
Mayfield shot back that it was a figure of speech and a science term.
I love how the writer threw this in at the end just to completely humiliate these two clowns and point out to science-dopes what the phrase means:
A black hole, according to Webster's, is perhaps "the invisible remains of a collapsed star, with an intense gravitational field from which neither light nor matter can escape."
A special meeting about Dallas County traffic tickets turned tense and bizarre this afternoon.
County commissioners were discussing problems with the central collections office that is used to process traffic ticket payments and handle other paperwork normally done by the JP Courts.
Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections "has become a black hole" because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.
Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud "Excuse me!" He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a "white hole."
That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.
Mayfield shot back that it was a figure of speech and a science term.
I love how the writer threw this in at the end just to completely humiliate these two clowns and point out to science-dopes what the phrase means:
A black hole, according to Webster's, is perhaps "the invisible remains of a collapsed star, with an intense gravitational field from which neither light nor matter can escape."
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
More, more, more!
Because I find this topic so rife for posting, here is more on Helms, Republicans, Democrats, etc. from Jonah Goldberg (who was not a huge Helms fan):
But here's the thing. The reader who ticked me off yesterday cited no evidence that Helms was a "stain on conservatism," he merely took it as a given. Others cite Helms' opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday and his 1990 ad with the white hands. I don't consider either of these things racist in and of themselves. Indeed, like the Willie Horton ad, I consider them examples that liberals cite over and over again as racist as if doing so will simply make it true. Now, as for other Helm's positions and comments, I think it is very hard indeed to defend the man. In other words, I'm not sure the "stain" spreads nearly so far as the left insists. If having men with racist pasts on your team is, in and of itself, a stain, where are the liberal washerwomen going after Bill Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd or for that matter Jeremiah Wright? In short, these things are more complicated than the simplistic morality tale in which conservatives are evil and liberals are good (hey, I think someone wrote a book about this).
Indeed, I grow weary at the constant liberal browbeating administered to conservatives to not only apologize for the racist skeletons in our closet but the insistence that those skeletons define modern conservatism, particularly when liberals insist that liberalism has no skeletons whatsoever (which is, simply, a Big Lie). That's what I took to be going on in that e-mail. But, again, I was wrong. Or rather, that's not all that was going on.
Still, after thinking about it. I think the conservative celebration of Helms has been too hagiographic, just as I think the left’s demonization has been too two-dimensional. Helms was the product of his times and upbringing, just as Fulbright and Byrd were. The difference is that liberals think it’s childish to point such things out about Democrats, but it’s all you need to know about Helms – and the GOP.
But here's the thing. The reader who ticked me off yesterday cited no evidence that Helms was a "stain on conservatism," he merely took it as a given. Others cite Helms' opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday and his 1990 ad with the white hands. I don't consider either of these things racist in and of themselves. Indeed, like the Willie Horton ad, I consider them examples that liberals cite over and over again as racist as if doing so will simply make it true. Now, as for other Helm's positions and comments, I think it is very hard indeed to defend the man. In other words, I'm not sure the "stain" spreads nearly so far as the left insists. If having men with racist pasts on your team is, in and of itself, a stain, where are the liberal washerwomen going after Bill Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd or for that matter Jeremiah Wright? In short, these things are more complicated than the simplistic morality tale in which conservatives are evil and liberals are good (hey, I think someone wrote a book about this).
Indeed, I grow weary at the constant liberal browbeating administered to conservatives to not only apologize for the racist skeletons in our closet but the insistence that those skeletons define modern conservatism, particularly when liberals insist that liberalism has no skeletons whatsoever (which is, simply, a Big Lie). That's what I took to be going on in that e-mail. But, again, I was wrong. Or rather, that's not all that was going on.
Still, after thinking about it. I think the conservative celebration of Helms has been too hagiographic, just as I think the left’s demonization has been too two-dimensional. Helms was the product of his times and upbringing, just as Fulbright and Byrd were. The difference is that liberals think it’s childish to point such things out about Democrats, but it’s all you need to know about Helms – and the GOP.
Monday, July 7, 2008
More on Helms, Republicans, and civil rights
From an excellent post by Kevin D. Williamson on Nation Review Online:
Helms and Thurmond were contemporaries in that their careers overlapped, but Thurmond had been in the Senate for decades before Helms ever held office, and Thurmond had — again, let's point it out, since the AP surely won't, as a Democrat — staged the longest filibuster in Senate history to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which was proposed by a Republican president, Eisenhower, and passed on Republican support in Congress. How a reporter can write about Helms and Thurmond and the civil rights era without at least noting the institutional hostility of the Democratic party toward these bills is mysterious. (Someday, somebody will figure out that Republicans have been responsible for the most important civil rights actions, starting with the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Klan Act, the 1957 and 1960 acts, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. But this isn't the place for that discussion.) And why isn't Helm's precessor as alleged "standard-bearer for civil rights opponents" Sen. Robert K. Byrd, a Democrat who is still in the Senate and who was launched into his political career by serving as Exhalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan?
The whole post is worth reading to fight through the contemporary spin that Republicans have been traditionally against civil rights. Also note this a little earlier:
On the subject of Helm's life before the Senate, you'd be hard pressed to take away from Margasak's piece anything about Helms's career as a Democratic operative or the role of the Democratic party in trying to block the civil rights acts that were passed, after all, on Republican support. Instead, we get this:
No to civil rights. No to abortion. No to communism. No to the United Nations. No to gay rights. No to arts funding with nakedness. No to school busing. No to the U.S. giving up the Panama Canal. No to a nuclear arms reduction treaty called Salt II.
One of these things is not like the others, no? Helms wasn't even in the Senate until 1973, after the major civil rights legislation had been passed. It is true that Helms worked against those bills — as a supporter of Democrats such as Beverly Lake. On the issues where Helms actually had a Senate vote — the NEA, the abortion, school busing, &c. — Helms's record is pretty good. But Helms was a conservative and a Southerner, so it is essential that he be tarred as an unreconstructed racist.
UPDATE: Here is an interesting counterargument (of sorts) made by a liberal e-mailer to Jonah Goldberg. Here's his conclusion:
Many of us liberals have discussions with conservatives all the time, respect them, and don't assume conservatives are racists, but this circle the wagons defense of Helms is just odd. I realize that times are tough for Republicans at the moment, but I think it is counterproductive to take this line on Helms, as well as intellectually specious, craven even. It wouldn't be throwing him under the bus to make a differentiated argument about the good and bad (from a conservative point of view) that he has done. I'm sorry you don't see that.
Helms and Thurmond were contemporaries in that their careers overlapped, but Thurmond had been in the Senate for decades before Helms ever held office, and Thurmond had — again, let's point it out, since the AP surely won't, as a Democrat — staged the longest filibuster in Senate history to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which was proposed by a Republican president, Eisenhower, and passed on Republican support in Congress. How a reporter can write about Helms and Thurmond and the civil rights era without at least noting the institutional hostility of the Democratic party toward these bills is mysterious. (Someday, somebody will figure out that Republicans have been responsible for the most important civil rights actions, starting with the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Klan Act, the 1957 and 1960 acts, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. But this isn't the place for that discussion.) And why isn't Helm's precessor as alleged "standard-bearer for civil rights opponents" Sen. Robert K. Byrd, a Democrat who is still in the Senate and who was launched into his political career by serving as Exhalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan?
The whole post is worth reading to fight through the contemporary spin that Republicans have been traditionally against civil rights. Also note this a little earlier:
On the subject of Helm's life before the Senate, you'd be hard pressed to take away from Margasak's piece anything about Helms's career as a Democratic operative or the role of the Democratic party in trying to block the civil rights acts that were passed, after all, on Republican support. Instead, we get this:
No to civil rights. No to abortion. No to communism. No to the United Nations. No to gay rights. No to arts funding with nakedness. No to school busing. No to the U.S. giving up the Panama Canal. No to a nuclear arms reduction treaty called Salt II.
One of these things is not like the others, no? Helms wasn't even in the Senate until 1973, after the major civil rights legislation had been passed. It is true that Helms worked against those bills — as a supporter of Democrats such as Beverly Lake. On the issues where Helms actually had a Senate vote — the NEA, the abortion, school busing, &c. — Helms's record is pretty good. But Helms was a conservative and a Southerner, so it is essential that he be tarred as an unreconstructed racist.
UPDATE: Here is an interesting counterargument (of sorts) made by a liberal e-mailer to Jonah Goldberg. Here's his conclusion:
Many of us liberals have discussions with conservatives all the time, respect them, and don't assume conservatives are racists, but this circle the wagons defense of Helms is just odd. I realize that times are tough for Republicans at the moment, but I think it is counterproductive to take this line on Helms, as well as intellectually specious, craven even. It wouldn't be throwing him under the bus to make a differentiated argument about the good and bad (from a conservative point of view) that he has done. I'm sorry you don't see that.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Shakedown King may be nearing the end
Or so we can hope. The IRS is digging very deeply into the finances of Al Sharpton's National Action Network:
News of the fresh subpoenas comes just days after The Post chronicled Sharpton's relationship with some of the country's largest corporations.
Sharpton threatened boycotts or protests against corporations while simultaneously soliciting donations and sponsorships of NAN events, The Post detailed.
Couldn't happen to a better guy.
News of the fresh subpoenas comes just days after The Post chronicled Sharpton's relationship with some of the country's largest corporations.
Sharpton threatened boycotts or protests against corporations while simultaneously soliciting donations and sponsorships of NAN events, The Post detailed.
Couldn't happen to a better guy.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Daily Obama post
Abigail Thernstrom, whose opinions on racial matters I greatly respect, agrees with the commenters around here (and not me). Hmmm:
Rev. Wright, as Obama says, is the product of a certain era — thankfully gone. (As are Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, and most civil-rights icons, he could have added.) Do I wish Senator Obama had walked away from Trinity Church? Sure. I suspect the reasons he did not do so are psychologically complex. In any case, Wright’s Afrocentric, hate-America views, are clearly not those of Obama himself, who lives, as he says, in the only country on Earth in which his story is even possible.
Rev. Wright, as Obama says, is the product of a certain era — thankfully gone. (As are Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, and most civil-rights icons, he could have added.) Do I wish Senator Obama had walked away from Trinity Church? Sure. I suspect the reasons he did not do so are psychologically complex. In any case, Wright’s Afrocentric, hate-America views, are clearly not those of Obama himself, who lives, as he says, in the only country on Earth in which his story is even possible.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
More on my Obama post
I appreciate commenter "Lauren" adding her $0.02. I wasn't going to respond because I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat about this, but Jonathon Last over at the Weekly Standard Blog linked to an article by Jay Cost that asks a very good question of Obama. It's a good way to look at it other than "I don't like guilt-by-association":
My concern with the speech is the following. I am not sure what I think about Obama's claim that he never heard Wright make incendiary comments. I think that hinges on the definition of "incendiary." More importantly, I have always thought this was a moot point. Incendiary comments make for great television--but the bigger concern, especially for somebody as smart as Obama, is the philosophy that undergirds them. . . . .
This philosophy is divisive, and Obama was aware of it even if he had not heard its most extreme articulations. At the same time, this philosophy is clearly not the core mission of Trinity United Church of Christ. Jeremiah Wright does not wake up every morning dedicated to dividing people. However, the antipode of this divisiveness is the core mission of Barack Obama. . . .
Accordingly, this inclines me to ask what Obama did about this profound philosophical error. . . . I must ask whether he worked to persuade Wright and the parishioners who applauded so jubilantly at his divisive words that they were wrong on a matter of existential importance. If he did, what was the consequence of those efforts? Did he succeed in bringing about change at Trinity?
When Obama moved to Chicago some 20 years ago, he could have chosen from any of hundreds of churches in his neighborhood. He chose this one. He then became close to Wright. It's not as though he was raised in the church and thus feels an obligation to stay with it.
So why did he choose this church to begin with? The obvious answer is that he agreed with the pastor. After all, he's the face of the church and the first guy he with know a lot about.
My concern with the speech is the following. I am not sure what I think about Obama's claim that he never heard Wright make incendiary comments. I think that hinges on the definition of "incendiary." More importantly, I have always thought this was a moot point. Incendiary comments make for great television--but the bigger concern, especially for somebody as smart as Obama, is the philosophy that undergirds them. . . . .
This philosophy is divisive, and Obama was aware of it even if he had not heard its most extreme articulations. At the same time, this philosophy is clearly not the core mission of Trinity United Church of Christ. Jeremiah Wright does not wake up every morning dedicated to dividing people. However, the antipode of this divisiveness is the core mission of Barack Obama. . . .
Accordingly, this inclines me to ask what Obama did about this profound philosophical error. . . . I must ask whether he worked to persuade Wright and the parishioners who applauded so jubilantly at his divisive words that they were wrong on a matter of existential importance. If he did, what was the consequence of those efforts? Did he succeed in bringing about change at Trinity?
When Obama moved to Chicago some 20 years ago, he could have chosen from any of hundreds of churches in his neighborhood. He chose this one. He then became close to Wright. It's not as though he was raised in the church and thus feels an obligation to stay with it.
So why did he choose this church to begin with? The obvious answer is that he agreed with the pastor. After all, he's the face of the church and the first guy he with know a lot about.
Obama's speech yesterday
The mainstream media is falling all over themselves to praise Barack Obama's speech yesterday on race in America (or so the media says it was about). And that's sort of true, in that Obama talked mostly about that.
However, everyone seems to be trying to forget that his recent problems stem from the racist and anti-American pastor at his church, Jeremiah Wright. Saying that he made a few goofy statements that he doesn't agree with, then seguing into blaming white people for making blacks think like that, doesn't cut it. Obama knowingly joined that church and has been a member for over 20 years. Obama calls Wright his "spiritual mentor". Wright married the Obamas and baptized their children. There's no doubt that Obama knew about Wright's insane views and did nothing about it.
In the speech he could have denounced Wright, but he clearly did not, regardless of the sugar-coating being done by the mainstream media. Michelle Malkin has lots of actual speech excerpts you can read on your own and decide. In addition, Investors Business Daily has a good editorial on the speech:
But Obama's recent troubles, which this much-hyped speech was supposed to put past him, are not about race relations. They're about one churchman who happens to be black, whose views from the pulpit are repugnant and from whom Obama doesn't seem to have the guts to distance himself.
Reacting to being linked with a bigoted conspiracy theorist by lecturing the nation on race is like disgraced ex-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer responding to his getting caught patronizing an international prostitution ring by giving a speech on the female physique.
The supposed divide between black and white is not the issue here; Obama's longtime association with Jeremiah Wright is.
This is a man who believes the U.S. government formulated the HIV virus to commit genocide against blacks and that it is also responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Yes, Obama claimed in his speech to have "condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy." But he quickly proceeded to equivocate regarding them.
Do you think I am making too much of this? Here's a thought exercise: what if a white Republican attended for 20 years a church where the preacher, during service, regularly said that black people caused all kinds of problems in the world. Don't you think the media would do everything in their power to destroy him? Does Obama get a break because not only he's a Democrat, not only because he's black, but maybe also because the media is so condescending of blacks that they think it's OK for them have these insane ideas (rather than rational ones)?
I'm not bringing up a hypothetical. Let Peter Wehner take you back to the 2000 presidential race:
We actually have an example of how the MSM plays the “guilt by association” card when it comes to certain political and religious figures. In the 2000 campaign George W. Bush spoke once at Bob Jones University; it was an event used to bludgeon Bush with for the rest of the campaign and into his presidency. And, of course, Bush did not attend Bob Jones University, financially support it, or consider Bob Jones to be his spiritual mentor or close friend for 25 years. Yet these things mattered not at all. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University — and so to many in the press, he was joined at the hip with it. The association between Reverend Wright and Senator Obama is far deeper in every respect.
If Obama were truly the post-racial presidential candidate, shouldn't we hold him to the same standards as any other candidate?
UPDATE: I had written earlier about Obama that while I agreed with him on very little, he'd be preferable to Hillary because at least he's a good person. After the last week or so, I no longer think that. I'm not the only one.
However, everyone seems to be trying to forget that his recent problems stem from the racist and anti-American pastor at his church, Jeremiah Wright. Saying that he made a few goofy statements that he doesn't agree with, then seguing into blaming white people for making blacks think like that, doesn't cut it. Obama knowingly joined that church and has been a member for over 20 years. Obama calls Wright his "spiritual mentor". Wright married the Obamas and baptized their children. There's no doubt that Obama knew about Wright's insane views and did nothing about it.
In the speech he could have denounced Wright, but he clearly did not, regardless of the sugar-coating being done by the mainstream media. Michelle Malkin has lots of actual speech excerpts you can read on your own and decide. In addition, Investors Business Daily has a good editorial on the speech:
But Obama's recent troubles, which this much-hyped speech was supposed to put past him, are not about race relations. They're about one churchman who happens to be black, whose views from the pulpit are repugnant and from whom Obama doesn't seem to have the guts to distance himself.
Reacting to being linked with a bigoted conspiracy theorist by lecturing the nation on race is like disgraced ex-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer responding to his getting caught patronizing an international prostitution ring by giving a speech on the female physique.
The supposed divide between black and white is not the issue here; Obama's longtime association with Jeremiah Wright is.
This is a man who believes the U.S. government formulated the HIV virus to commit genocide against blacks and that it is also responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Yes, Obama claimed in his speech to have "condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy." But he quickly proceeded to equivocate regarding them.
Do you think I am making too much of this? Here's a thought exercise: what if a white Republican attended for 20 years a church where the preacher, during service, regularly said that black people caused all kinds of problems in the world. Don't you think the media would do everything in their power to destroy him? Does Obama get a break because not only he's a Democrat, not only because he's black, but maybe also because the media is so condescending of blacks that they think it's OK for them have these insane ideas (rather than rational ones)?
I'm not bringing up a hypothetical. Let Peter Wehner take you back to the 2000 presidential race:
We actually have an example of how the MSM plays the “guilt by association” card when it comes to certain political and religious figures. In the 2000 campaign George W. Bush spoke once at Bob Jones University; it was an event used to bludgeon Bush with for the rest of the campaign and into his presidency. And, of course, Bush did not attend Bob Jones University, financially support it, or consider Bob Jones to be his spiritual mentor or close friend for 25 years. Yet these things mattered not at all. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University — and so to many in the press, he was joined at the hip with it. The association between Reverend Wright and Senator Obama is far deeper in every respect.
If Obama were truly the post-racial presidential candidate, shouldn't we hold him to the same standards as any other candidate?
UPDATE: I had written earlier about Obama that while I agreed with him on very little, he'd be preferable to Hillary because at least he's a good person. After the last week or so, I no longer think that. I'm not the only one.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Where are the reverends when there is ACTUAL racial cleansing of blacks?
Once again, if you don't know, you haven't followed their history. Hispanic gangs targeting blacks in LA? Why, if they can't rail against whitey they are nowhere to be found.
A hidden story in this, of course, is our open borders policy where these gang members pour into our country with impunity.
A hidden story in this, of course, is our open borders policy where these gang members pour into our country with impunity.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Wage disparity between whites and blacks
The Sun-Times has an article this morning regarding a report that came out talking about the anemic wage growth in Illinois over the past few years. I won't go into why this is occurring here (besides, it's dreadfully boring), but the last part of the article really shows how PC thinking and a lack of reasoning skills poison the national debate about race. Here's the money quote, set up by some statistics:
The report found education does not eliminate disparities between whites and minorities. Among whites with a college degree, 51.4 percent earn more than $100,000 per year, compared with 27.7 percent of blacks and 38.2 percent of Hispanics.
...
"The most disturbing trends you see are the continuing disparity between white and African-American wages, employment levels and the fact that those disparities continue on through all levels of education," said Ralph Martire, executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. "I think it clearly indicates there's still discrimination."
This is completely laughable. Let me pose a question: who is going to earn a higher income, someone with a degree in social work or someone with a degree in electrical engineering? The answer is obvious, and that's what is at the heart of the so-called disparities.
I can't find supporting numbers after a brief Google search, but we all know (both anecdotally and from things we've read) that whites, compared to blacks, have disproportionately higher representation among those with college degrees in engineering and the hard sciences, which obviously are going to pay very well. Meanwhile, blacks are much more likely to get a degree is something that's basically easy and useless like education and social work. Those are the areas where there are huge differences; other majors in between those extremes have lesser, though identifiable, differences.
I am not saying blacks are inherently too stupid to major in higher-paying areas (it's mostly due to the terrible public education system that too many of them are trapped in up through grade 12). What I am saying is that anyone, regardless of race, who has a social work degree has virtually no chance to make as much money as someone with a degree in electrical engineering. That explains the disparity, not racism or discrimination. Since this study doesn't control for area of study and experience, the statistics cited above are useless.
Let me pose an additional thought experiment that I alluded to in a clumsy way in a previous post. Suppose there is still rampant discrimination, and all kinds of black engineers and lawyers and actuaries are being paid less money due to it. Wouldn't it make perfect sense for someone to start an engineering firm and hire only blacks? Just think: they could be paid much less and then the company would make craploads of money due to their low labor costs.
So why isn't this happening?
The report found education does not eliminate disparities between whites and minorities. Among whites with a college degree, 51.4 percent earn more than $100,000 per year, compared with 27.7 percent of blacks and 38.2 percent of Hispanics.
...
"The most disturbing trends you see are the continuing disparity between white and African-American wages, employment levels and the fact that those disparities continue on through all levels of education," said Ralph Martire, executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. "I think it clearly indicates there's still discrimination."
This is completely laughable. Let me pose a question: who is going to earn a higher income, someone with a degree in social work or someone with a degree in electrical engineering? The answer is obvious, and that's what is at the heart of the so-called disparities.
I can't find supporting numbers after a brief Google search, but we all know (both anecdotally and from things we've read) that whites, compared to blacks, have disproportionately higher representation among those with college degrees in engineering and the hard sciences, which obviously are going to pay very well. Meanwhile, blacks are much more likely to get a degree is something that's basically easy and useless like education and social work. Those are the areas where there are huge differences; other majors in between those extremes have lesser, though identifiable, differences.
I am not saying blacks are inherently too stupid to major in higher-paying areas (it's mostly due to the terrible public education system that too many of them are trapped in up through grade 12). What I am saying is that anyone, regardless of race, who has a social work degree has virtually no chance to make as much money as someone with a degree in electrical engineering. That explains the disparity, not racism or discrimination. Since this study doesn't control for area of study and experience, the statistics cited above are useless.
Let me pose an additional thought experiment that I alluded to in a clumsy way in a previous post. Suppose there is still rampant discrimination, and all kinds of black engineers and lawyers and actuaries are being paid less money due to it. Wouldn't it make perfect sense for someone to start an engineering firm and hire only blacks? Just think: they could be paid much less and then the company would make craploads of money due to their low labor costs.
So why isn't this happening?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)