This Gallup analysis shows some interesting things about race, religion, and politics. The biggest takeaway for me is that for whites, religion is what determines political affiliation, whereas for blacks and hispanics it’s mostly race.

Definitely check out the findings.

Image from edweek.org

I like the New York Times; I think they produce an overall strong product. But sometimes the PC-bend is simply overwhelming. This piece on the New York Firefighters test is a case in point.

They argue that the firefighter’s test is racist in hidden, sneaky ways–like in requiring people to be good at reading comprehension. And when I say “good”, I mean at the primary school level. Here’s a quote from the NYT article:

On the surface, the tests — versions of which remained in use until 2007, according to the court — do not appear racially biased. Each exam consists of 85 multiple-choice questions about firefighting practices: the order in which a firefighter should don gear in an alarm; what the rear of a building would look like, based on its facade; the right situations in which to say “mayday” rather than “urgent” over the walkie-talkie.

But a closer look shows that the exams also required applicants to read and understand long passages, often containing technical terms, and then answer questions about them.

Seriously? Did you just say that? In print? And put your name on it?

Here’s the “racist” question in its entirety:

Which one of the following portable power saw blades must be put out of service?
A) A carbide tip blade missing nine tips
B) a carbide tip blade with three broken tips;
C) an aluminum oxide blade measuring 12 inches;
D) a yellow silicon carbide blade measuring nine inches.

So, do you know the answer? Right, me neither. But right above the question they had a 250 word piece of text that talked about blade saw safety. You know, kind of helper-text you had when you were learning to read in the sixth grade. That text included the following:

A saw blade must be put out of service (OOS) and sent to the Technical Services Division when the blade becomes worn or damaged. Carbide tip blades must be put OOS when eight or more tips are missing or broken.

Well, holy crap. They encoded the answer in anglo-speak! Well, not really anglo-speak, since Asians and Indians would blow the test out of the water. No, they must have encoded it in anti-NAM-speak. A NAM is a Non-Asian-Minority, which is what PC-types really mean when they use the word minority.

Basically, any sort of text in which NAMs score lower than Whites, Asians, or Indians, is racist. That’s it. That’s the new definition. Or, to put it another way, if Blacks and Hispanics tend not to be able to read a 250 word passage and answer a simple question about it, then the test is biased against Blacks and Hispanics.

This is unspeakably lame.

This is not just an affront to education, it’s a blatant insult against any Black or Hispanic person with an education. In a staggering twist of PC-based irony, the statement that reading comprehension skill requirements constitute a white-leaning bias equates to nothing less than a declaration of intellectual inequality. This type of rhetoric says, in a deafening scream:

“Any test that evaluates someone’s ability to read and understand basic instructions, at the elementary school level, is biased toward Whites, Asians and Indians, because Blacks and Hispanics tend not to be good at that stuff.”

Deplorable.

Fix the fucking problem. Don’t jeopardize the safety of the public because certain groups have cultural values that discourage the pursuit of education. When you take that route all you’re doing is telling those same people you’re trying to help that they’re inferior, when instead you should be encouraging them to embrace the culture that pushed the successful to succeed.

1. Embrace standards.
2. Require that everyone reach them.
3. Find those who can’t, and help them until they can.

That’s the solution–for FDNY and for the country and the world. Lowering the standard helps no one in the long term–least of all those who need the help. ::

Many said during the elections that Obama got to where he is because he is black. They were right in one sense, but they confuse the issue.

Obama race helped him much earlier on than most people think. He was lucky to be picked from a crowd of thousands of lesser political figures who needed to be noteworthy or exceptional in some way. Obama was a black man with the same abilities as the others–so he stood out. So on that point those calling him lucky are correct.

What these people miss, however, is that Obama beat out the final candidates because he is a phenomenal candidate. He defeated them through rhetorical brilliance, a powerfully resonating message, and most of all an intelligent approachability that comes from a personality, not a race. Anyone with those tools has good chances to win.

In short, Obama’s race helped him get noticed early on, but his actually winning was a function of his intelligence and character, not his race. He needed something to get him through the initial vetting that doesn’t focus on deeper qualities, and that was, admittedly, his race. But once he was in public view his actual brilliance took him the rest of the way. ::

I’ve been watching Arrested Development (damn them for cancelling it, by the way) recently and have been thinking about how so many good comedies are created by Jewish people. Curb Your Enthusisam, Seinfeld, etc. Too many to name.

Evidently there’s been an effort to convince people that Hollywood is not predominantly controlled by Jews. I guess I understand that given history’s treatment of the group; so maybe the idea is to stay off the radar to avoid some sort of backlash in the future. Fair enough.

But I hate when the truth is obscured for whatever reason–even (or especially) when the reason has something to do with a sensitive subject. So, yeah, I think it’s true. Jews are extremely influential in Hollywood. In fact, a recent Joel Stein piece in the Los Angeles Times says that all eight of Hollywood’s main film studios are run by Jews. He goes on to give these most excellent quotes:

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish).

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.

Again, so what? The real interesting thing here isn’t the fact that there are so many Jews in Hollywood; the interesting thing is that they’ve found some sort of algorithm for success (and not just in Hollywood, either). We should be spending less time talking about whether this is true and more time commending them and studying how they did it in order to replicate it. ::

This isn’t to focus on race; it’s about double-standards for Republicans vs. anyone else. Example:

What if the black candidate was prayed over by a witch hunter, had unwed pregnant girls, verbally abused his wife, said the economy was sound during a meltdown, and graduated bottom of his class?

Answer: he’d be a nothing. Not even on the radar. Hell, he wouldn’t even be allowed to talk to people who’ve seen the radar.

But it’s McCain/Palin, so they’re “real”, and “down to earth”.

A brilliant piece. It reminds me of a great point I heard the other day:

If Obama and Michelle showed up with a seventeen-year-old unmarried pregnant daughter at the democratic convention, what would the Republicans have said about it? Would they have left the issue alone because it was a ‘personal’ matter?

[ White Privilege | zcommunications.org ]

Image from maxitees.com

Many white people I speak with have a visceral reaction to Obama. Their faces crinkle up when even considering the idea of him being President. Yet when I ask them what policies of his they don’t like, I get the gaze of nothingness. Many of these same people can’t name the three branches of government.

So what’s the real reason for the near-hostile reaction?

Try this thought experiment: What percentage of white people who severely dislike Obama (for whatever reason) would feel comfortable with their daughter, under any circumstances, marrying a black guy?

Let’s be clear: I’m not saying that anyone who doesn’t like Obama is definitely making the entire decision based on race; that’s a severe overextension. What I’m saying is that if:

1. You “really” don’t like Obama, in an emotional sense, and…
2. You’d be highly adverse to having your daughter marry a black guy (regardless of who he is)…

…then you should re-evaluate your thoughts/feelings regarding Obama. In short, if both of the above are true you are likely making a significant portion of your decision based on race—not consciously, but subconsciously.

Don’t feel guilty about it. It’s quite natural to make these sorts of background-process decisions about risk and danger. It’s built into us. But it’s the job of our logic and reason to try and counteract these impulses when they are unfounded.

I ask only that you consider it.: