NYT: For Michelle Obama, Talking About Race and Achievement, and Making It Personal

Peter Baker writes for the New York Times:

CHICAGO — She looked around and saw herself three decades ago, young and uncertain, from a part of town where success is a struggle, not a birthright. She knew what they had been through, what it was like to take the long way home to avoid gangs, what it was like when the family strained to make ends meet.

For Michelle Obama on Tuesday night, addressing a graduating high school class from the South Side near where she grew up summoned memories and offered a chance to draw lessons from her own upbringing: Never be afraid to ask for help, she told them. Instead of being discouraged by hardship, reach higher.

Michelle Obama spoke at graduation at King College Prep High School in Chicago on Tuesday.Michelle Obama Urges Chicago Graduates to Transcend a TragedyJUNE 9, 2015
At a time of roiling debate over the issues of race and opportunity, punctuated by the events of Ferguson, Staten Island and Baltimore, the nation’s first African-American first lady has added her voice. It is not a new message for her, but one that has taken on special resonance and one delivered with bracing candor in recent speeches. Along the way, Mrs. Obama has opened a window into her own life, not just in Chicago but also in the White House.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Standardized testing must be sheer psychological hell for negroes generally and especially for the “talented tenth” among them. Imagine growing up in a community where you are indeed much smarter than everyone around you. Imagine having also the negro’s innate unwarranted self-aggrandizing braggadocio. Everything confirms your enormously inflated self-esteem except those State mandated standardized tests which consistently place you at or below grade level. Surely those white man tests are part of a racist conspiracy to hold you down – how could it be otherwise? So you apply to a premier university and, since you checked the box for “African American” and wrote an unintelligible essay about blackness, you are admitted despite an SAT score more appropriate to a local junior college. Your college career is a mixed bag with great grades in your chosen major, blackness, but poor grades in every other class. You can’t help but notice, in those other classes, that white and Asian students appear to have some mysterious advantage – almost as it they’re given the answers to classroom and test questions.

In the end, your college career instills in you a sense that you can only retain your smug superior self-esteem among other negroes and that among whites and Asians who are either much smarter or cheaters, you feel only rage.

Of course the other possibility is that you realize upon exposure to white and Asian students that negroes really are cognitively deficient and this leads to a whole new worldview. But obviously this is the exception and not the rule. What I wonder is what leads to this path rather than the more common path of rage against whitey. Why do a small number of negroes become Thomas Sowell instead of the usual Barry Obola (I do think Sowell is much much smarter, but assuming they were the same IQ, is there a single point of departure for the diametrically opposite viewpoints)?

* My favorite statement on Michelle Obama was by Christopher Hitchens:

“I direct your attention to Mrs. Obama’s 1985 thesis at Princeton University. Its title (rather limited in scope, given the author and the campus) is “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be “read” at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn’t written in any known language.”

Apparently, it’s a language known to Sonia Sotomayor. She is equally “fluent” in it.

* I think we need a neologism. Along the lines of “mansplaining, it would be “blacksplaining” and would refer to the fact that so many blacks like to use their time in the spotlight to complain about everything. Most people regard it as undignified and annoying to complain too much, but prominent blacks feel their endlessly repeated grievances are fascinating and of great importance.

* During my time in a certain big city DA’s office, always loved when our African-American colleagues got a drunk week in a resort hotel to go to the national conference of black prosecutors’ convention to party on the office’s time and dime while the rest of we typical white people went to actually work. Imagine that’s sadly a pretty common in government and big business. Basically every industry and profession has a black bitch fest/party/vacation along with the “diversity coordinator” in order to cover their legal asses. As colossal a waste of time and money as there is, but exactly the place the likes of Michelle Obama got the balls (since Barack has none, but I digress) to spew her whiny nonsense.

* Michelle “WideLoad” Obama is one of those blacks who is blackety, black, black, black all the time 24/7. Most of what I hear from her is about being black in America and her being black in America. Oh how she has suffered, getting into Princeton on what I’ll bet was free ride. And via affirmative action.

* The Obama’s are extremely socially skilled. The must know the type of reaction that many whites and blacks are going to have to these comments. It is clear to me that they are deliberately trying to stoke the flames of racial tensions. Don’t fall for these obvious provocations.

* A black woman is first lady, lives in the white house, flies around the world, etc., and she is still a victim. What will it take for her to not be a victim?

Steve Sailer wrote in 2008:

Princeton won’t let you read the senior thesis written by Mrs. Michelle Obama, a Sociology major / African American Studies minor, until after we’ve made her First Lady:

Robinson, Michelle LaVaughn (1985): Princeton Educated Blacks and the Black Community [Restricted until November 5, 2008].

But, a Newhouse News reporter apparently wrote it up last year before the curtain came down [via Allah Pundit at Hot Air]:

In her 1985 Princeton senior thesis, “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,” Michelle LaVaughn Robinson lamented that white professors and classmates always saw her as “Black first and a student second.”

She had surveyed alumni to see whether they sacrificed their commitment to other blacks on the altar of success, and foresaw for herself an uneasy future: “further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”…

As Michelle Obama wrote in her thesis introduction, “My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘Blackness’ than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong.”…

Michelle Obama was guided in her choice of thesis topic by a consuming concern that her success might compromise her black identity. As she wrote in her conclusion:

“I wondered whether or not my education at Princeton would affect my identification with the Black community. I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with Whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that Black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.”…

Michelle Obama’s fears of losing touch with her roots without ever being embraced into the mainstream led her to promise, in her thesis introduction, “to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community.”

Okay, it’s schoolgirlish in style, especially compared to her husband’s sonorous mature prose, but she was only 21 when she wrote it. The important thing, though, is that the artlessness of her writing allows the meaning to shine through more obviously than in Dreams From My Father — but it’s the same Story of Race and Inheritance.

That doesn’t mean Mr. and Mrs. Obama still feel the way about race as they did in 1995, when Sen. Obama wrote his autobiography. Maybe they’ve changed their minds over the last 13 years? But shouldn’t somebody ask them about it? I realize a lot of people think it would be an invasion of their privacy, but they are running for the White House.

Senator and Mrs. Obama, clearly, you both had big racial chips on your shoulders when you were younger. Are you still like that? You changed? When? Why? Would you advise other blacks to stop being so resentful?

When I read Obama’s autobiography a year ago and said that Obama is not who you think he is, a lot of people said I was crazy and evil. Well, it’s slowly playing out along the lines I sketched out back then.

– By the way, if Barack serves eight years as President, that would give Michelle eight years to parachute into some random state to be Senator so that she could run for President herself in 2024 at the exact same age Hillary is now.

– My wife says that if Obama gets the nomination and McCain picks Secretary of State Rice as his running mate, either Condi or Michelle is going to have to get a new hair-do or it’s going to be a very confusing fall for television news shows. My wife feels Michelle has the elegant bone structure to go with the old Diahann Carrol-look of just pulling her hair straight back tight. (I think Lena Horne did the same thing.) That also gets around all the race minefields about why she is relaxing her hair (which I imagine Michelle has thought a lot about.)

– Although Newsweek says Mrs. Obama didn’t graduate at the top of her high school class, keep in mind that she did go to Whitney Young, a big public school that only admits students via entrance exam (like Stuyvesant in NYC). On the other hand, if her teachers told her she didn’t have the grades and test scores to get into the Princeton, they’d know, because Whitney Young has sent lots of grads to the Ivy League. So, she probably needed the double whammy of both affirmative action and being the legacy sister of her much-liked two-year-older brother Craig Robinson, who was on Princeton’s famously scrappy underdog basketball team and is now the head coach at Brown. Michelle always saw him as the smart one in the family, so she was already sensitive about her intelligence before she got to Princeton.

– Toss in the class difference — Princeton has always been very upper crusty, while she comes from solid but very lower middle class family — and the usual teenage self-consciousness, and it’s hardly surprising that Michelle was perpetually peeved at Princeton. Unfortunately, it sounds like she blamed all her inevitable adolescent angst on whites, a common response aggravated by the side effects of affirmative action, as I pointed out way back in 1991.

Steve Sailer wrote in 2008:

The Obama camp has now released Michelle Obama’s senior thesis at Princeton. So far, I’ve read the Dedication and the first couple of pages of the Introduction, and that’s plenty. You’ve got to be impressed with how ruthless Senator Obama is — he’ll humiliate his poor wife by releasing her semi-literate college graduation maunderings just so he can say, “Let’s move on.”

DEDICATION

To Mom, Dad, Craig [her brother], and all of my special friends:

Thank-you for loving me and always making me feel good about myself.

And here’s part of her creatively punctuated Introduction:

“The purpose of this study is to examine various attitudes of Black Princeton alumni in their present state and as they are perceived by the alumni to have changed over time. …

“These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant. This realization has presently, made my goals to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community more desirable.”

Well, thank-you. You have presently, made my day; never having a better one.

(I originally figured this 1985 thesis was created on a typewriter, which would have made it harder to fix typos, but the columns are justified, so it was done on some sort of word processor. Still, Princeton grads are supposed to know that there is no hyphen in “thank you” …)

So, it looks like Barack has had his vengeance on Michelle for calling him “stinky” and “snore-y.

Okay, it’s schoolgirlish in style, especially compared to her husband’s sonorous mature prose, but she was only 21 when she wrote it. The important thing, though, is that the artlessness of her writing allows the meaning to shine through more obviously than in Dreams From My Father — but it’s the same Story of Race and Inheritance.

And she sure has some self-esteem issues, doesn’t she? I think that’s part of her appeal to the Oprah audience: her inflated but fragile ego. Oprah’s fans can identify with Mrs. Obama. People were always telling them that they weren’t smart enough either; and, yet, here they are, sitting around watching daytime TV. Who’s laughing now?

For some reason, Mrs. Obama’s psyche always reminds me of Steve Martin’s climactic speech in “Three Amigos:”

“In a way, each of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a big, dangerous man who wants to kill us. But as sure as my name is Lucky Day, the people of Santa Poco can conquer their own personal El Guapo, who also happens to be *the actual* El Guapo!”

Keep in mind that Mrs. Obama not only got into Princeton, but then got into Harvard Law School, graduated, and even passed the Illinois bar exam. So, maybe, prose just isn’t her strong suit.

A reader comments:

The Illinois Supreme Court website says Michelle Obama was admitted to the bar on May 12, 1989 and voluntarily went inactive in 1993.

Barak Obama was admitted December 17, 1991 and went inactive this year.

A reader who is an attorney in Illinois explains:

The May admission to the bar is for those who took the Winter (March I think) bar exam. Most take the July bar exam, and I think were admitted in October, so I don’t understand Obama’s date of admission. Not everyone who graduates in May takes the July exam, but in Mrs. Obama’s case she was already at Sidley and Austin, so I’d guess her main job would’ve been studying for the bar exam. So, the guess would be she didn’t pass the July exam and did pass the winter exam, what with over half a year of studying for it. Now, many folks who attend schools like Harvard aren’t really taught the things that are on bar exams, if only because many of their profs don’t want to teach it (too boring).

Comments to Steve Sailer in 2008:

* Wow, and this illiterate made it into Harvard Law School? That’s just sick and outrageous.

Hopefully, a lot of people, including the talk radio hacks, will jump on this. But I doubt it. Issues of comparative black intelligence are just too touchy. Maybe they always will be.

Also, our culture is probably not literate enough for many people to care. I frequently notice public figures misusing and mispronouncing words.

Anyway, I could write better than this when I was twelve. She seems to have graduated from Princeton and went on to Harvard Law without having grasped the basics of punctuation. Not only is “Thank-you” a howler, but what about the semicolon before “never becoming” that should be a comma. And the comma after “presently” which makes no sense and shouldn’t be there at all?

* A shrewd move by Obama.

It makes his wife look like a dope for the few who care, but no one will mention this fact in polite public company.

Instead the uncritical MSM Obamanics will just note the fact that the mere lifting of the veil proves there is nothing to see (without actually reading or commenting on the actual paper).

* I thought the comma after “presently” was kind of cute. Read it out loud and pause there for a moment. It’s a drunken English barrister effect.

* Oh, come on, you guys. She seems to have commanded a good vocabulary. Princeton wasn’t going to teach her standard English punctuation (in the mid-1980’s) if she hadn’t learned it in high school (especially because she was black, so her work was exempt from all criticism by TA’s or professors).

As for the unsophisticated quality of her ideas, well, she was a Sociology and [race] Studies major.

Obviously her HLS admission was pure AA, but I don’t think her thesis looks so bad.

* She also misuses a semi-colon, in a place where a comma would have been correct. The desire to shoe-horn semi-colons where they don’t belong is often a sign of intellectual insecurity.

* I read the first 25 pages at politico.com…

My Struggle would be a catchier title for this work. I’m only half-joking.

It reads like an emotional personal diary entry gussied up as “thesis”.

This is a totally race-obsessed individual. She and Obama must have been two peas in a pod back in the day. It is no surprise that they ended up at the African identity church.

* Thank-you Steve; for your kind work. And also for understanding that Michelle. Obama. Is laboring under the oppressive White power structure that gave her a free, ride at Princeton. How horrible.

* Lots of comments on the writing style and its relative lack of sophistication, but why isn’t anyone more explicitly noting the incredibly simplistic nature of the investigation itself? This is nothing but a survey that I’d expect out of a first year community college student. There is absolutely no inferential statistics at all, nor any attempt to test her various hypotheses using them. Didn’t they require Sociology majors to take Stats at Princeton?

* Her writing is terrible. She has considerable reason to be insecure. She didn’t belong at Princeton. She certainly didn’t belong at Harvard Law. I wouldn’t say her intellectual shortcomings should disqualify her from being First Lady, but her hatred of America, that’s a different story.

On an another note, I haven’t seen you ever mention LA mayor Villaraigosa’s education before. He attended literally one of the worst law schools in the entire country, People’s College of Law, which is not accredited by the ABA or the state of California. He failed the bar exam four times before giving up. The future looks bright, doesn’t it?

STEVE SAILER WROTE IN 2008:

Newsweek has a long article on the wonderfulness of Mrs. Obama, but she sounds like she’s got a log-sized chip on her shoulder from lucking into Princeton due to affirmative action. For predictable reasons, being admitted into one of the Big Four super colleges and being given lots of financial aid didn’t instill in her a feeling of gratitude toward the benevolence of white people. Instead, it just fed her adolescent self-consciousness and racial paranoia. The bad news is that she doesn’t seem to have gotten over it yet. (She’s 44).

She did well in school (she skipped second grade), but she was not at the top of her class. She didn’t get the attention of the school’s college counselors, who helped the brightest students find spots at prestigious universities. “Princeton, the Ivy Leagues swoop up kids” like [her brother] Craig, Michelle says. “A black kid from the South Side of Chicago that plays basketball and is smart. He was getting in everywhere. But I knew him, and I knew his study habits, and I was, like, ‘I can do that too’.” Some of her teachers told her she didn’t have the grades or test scores to make it to the Ivies. But she applied to Princeton and was accepted.

Overwhelmingly white and privileged, Princeton was not an easy place for a young black woman from the inner city. There weren’t formal racial barriers and black students weren’t officially excluded. But many of the white students couldn’t hide that they regarded their African- American classmates as affirmative-action recipients who didn’t really deserve to be there.

Angela Acree, a close friend who attended Princeton with Michelle, says the university didn’t help dispel that idea. Black and Hispanic students were invited to attend special classes a few weeks before the beginning of freshman semester, which the school said were intended to help kids who might need assistance adjusting to Princeton’s campus. Acree couldn’t see why. She had come from an East Coast prep school; Michelle had earned good grades in Chicago. “We weren’t sure whether they thought we needed an extra start or they just said, ‘Let’s bring all the black kids together’.”

Obviously, this program wasn’t put together by the Princeton klavern of the Ku Klux Klan, it was planned by the Princeton diversity sensitivity outreach nook. One reason diversicrats want to bring all the black freshmen to campus before everybody else is so they’ll bond to each other, not to random whites and Asians during the regular orientation week. During the first few days of a new phase of life, you are very emotionally open to bonding with the other people who are going through the experience with you. So, the diversicrats can build a constituency by holding special pre-orientations for blacks.

Acree, Michelle and another black student, Suzanne Alele, became inseparable companions.

Exactly as planned.

The three of them talked often about the racial divide on campus—especially how white students they knew from class would pass them on the green and pretend not to see them. “It was, like, here comes a black kid,” says Acree. The black students tended to hang out together at the Third World Center, a social club on campus, while the white party scene revolved around Princeton’s eating clubs.

Michelle felt the tension acutely enough that she made it the subject of her senior sociology thesis, titled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” The paper is now under lock and key, but according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Michelle wrote that Princeton “made me far more aware of my ‘blackness’ than ever before.” She wrote that she felt like a visitor on the supposedly open-minded campus. “Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with Whites at Princeton,” she wrote, “it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.” (Today, Michelle says, not quite convincingly, that she can’t remember what was in her thesis.)

If she’d gone to, say, the University of Illinois or wherever she would have gotten in without affirmative action, she wouldn’t have spent four years knowing that she was below the student body average in intelligence; she wouldn’t have spent four years worrying that everybody else was noticing she wasn’t as smart as the average; and she wouldn’t have spend four years, plus the next 22, hating them for noticing it.

Steve Sailer wrote in 2008:

For a year now, I`ve been pointing out that, while Sen. Barack Obama`s brain may be in the center, his heart is on the far left. So it might be of some interest to find out more about whether his head or his heart is likely to prevail if he becomes President.

Curiously, the Main Stream Media has shown little appetite for this task.

Obama himself may not know the answer. As he has bragged (or warned, depending upon your point of view): “What I am constantly trying to do … is balance a hard head with a big heart.”

We`re not accustomed to politicians as smart as Obama. White voters would likely find his supple intelligence too elitist in a white candidate. But they are so desperate for a positive role model for blacks that many of them have embraced Obama without knowing much about what he wants to do with all that brainpower.

Two weeks ago, I noted:

“Now, Obama is a smooth operator. But the two people who have had the greatest influence on his adult life—his wife Michelle and his spiritual advisor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.—are not. They feel a deep racial anger and are not terribly good at hiding it.”

Right on cue, Michelle Obama has now begun attracting skeptical attention for the first time after making hundreds of speeches on her husband`s behalf. In Milwaukee last week, she proclaimed:

“Hope is making a comeback, and let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.”

It`s not so much that Michelle has a tin ear for rhetoric as that her husband`s ear could be made out of the same mimetic poly-alloy as the liquid metal shape-shifting cyborg from the future in Terminator 2. Like most human beings, however, Michelle is prone to the occasional gaffe in which she lets us know what`s really on her mind.

For example, in an early February speech she let herself sound like the Khmer Rouge Minister of Propaganda. While this excerpt may resemble an old Dead Kennedys punk rock parody of leftist authoritarianism, such as Holiday in Cambodia or California Uber Alles, she was serious:

“And Barack Obama will require you to work.

He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better, and that you engage.

Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed…”

More people are beginning to notice that the candidate`s superbly crafted image as the postracial uniter doesn`t quite add up. He is supposed to bring us together to overcome our tragic history of racial enmity, etc. Yet his role-model magic doesn`t seem to have worked on his own wife, who continues to vent her anger over the racial indignities she feels she endured more than two decades ago at ultra-liberal Princeton and Harvard Law School. She remains perennially peeved by her relatively poor performance on standardized tests.

Or, perhaps, what he tells her in private isn`t what he tells us in public?

It`s not VDARE.com`s job to endorse political candidates. And I certainly don`t have a dog in what`s left of this fight.

But it is our job to help educate the public on crucial topics where the MainStream Media won`t. I have little to add to the discussion of such shopworn old pols as Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

In contrast, I believe I understand Obama better than most pundits because the mixed-race candidate has been brooding for 35 years about “race and inheritance,” to quote the subtitle of his autobiography.

Mrs. Obama`s attitudes about race are significant for multiple reasons.

First, Mr. Obama says she`s important to him. Newsweek`s gushing 2/25/08 cover story on Michelle, Barack`s Rock by Richard Wolffe, reports:
“Onstage, Obama has introduced Michelle as `my rock`—the person who keeps him focused and grounded. In her words, she is just making sure he is `keeping it real.`”

Second, because Michelle Obama lacks her husband`s remarkable verbal facility, she provides a keyhole into how the stealth candidate actually thinks and feels on those rare occasions when he can be himself. She`s more of a regular person with a normal human desire to be understood.
Third, she`s a classic example of what affirmative action, which her husband promises to give us more of, does both for and to blacks.
She is a hard worker and is of above-average intelligence, but racial preferences have repeatedly lifted her out of her intellectual league, with traumatic psychological consequences. All the breaks she received from white people merely stoked what Ellis Cose of Time calls The Rage of a Privileged Class.

Early in the New Journalism classic Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Dr. Gonzo, Hunter S. Thompson`s “300-pound Samoan attorney,” questions whether Sports Illustrated would actually be so trusting as to provide them with “unlimited credit” for a trip to Sin City, which they will obviously squander in a drug debauch. Thompson answers:

“`You Samoans are all the same,` I told him. `You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man`s culture.`”

Few individuals have enjoyed more palpable and repeated evidence of the essential decency of the white man`s culture than Michelle Obama.

She was educated at the top public high school in Chicago, Whitney Young, which only accepted the highest scoring applicants on the entrance exam—within each race. Time reported in 1975:

“… the $30 million Whitney M. Young Jr. High School will open as a magnet in the fall with—among other things—an Olympic-sized swimming pool, a special center for the performing arts and a separate curriculum for medical studies. Whitney Young also has a strict admissions quota: 40% white, 40% black, 10% Latin, 5% other minorities and 5% at the discretion of the principal.”

Michelle was overshadowed by her smart and athletic older brother Craig Robinson, who is now the head basketball coach at Brown University of the Ivy League. Newsweek`s cover story recounts:

“For Michelle, Craig`s easy success was intimidating. `She was disappointed in herself,` her mother tells NEWSWEEK. `She used to have a little bit of trouble with tests …`”

Her poor performance on tests remains a sore point with Michelle, who brings it up in odd contexts, such as when discussing her husband`s standing in the polls last November:

“You know, [I`ve] always been told by somebody that I`m not ready, that I can`t do something, my scores weren`t high enough.”

Newsweek describes her career at Whitney Young:

“… but she was not at the top of her class. She didn`t get the attention of the school`s college counselors, who helped the brightest students find spots at prestigious universities. … Some of her teachers told her she didn`t have the grades or test scores to make it to the Ivies. But she applied to Princeton and was accepted.”

Not surprisingly, just as Thomas Sowell would have predicted, four years spent in over her head among white liberal elitists who see themselves as better than the rest of America because

(A) they loudly proclaim their belief in equality; and

(B) they have above average IQs

left Michelle`s sizable but fragile self-esteem in tatters. Suffering the self-consciousness common to the young, she felt that everybody was secretly putting her down for her intellectual shortcomings, and focused her anger on whites. Newsweek says:

“There weren`t formal racial barriers and black students weren`t officially excluded. But many of the white students couldn`t hide that they regarded their African- American classmates as affirmative-action recipients who didn`t really deserve to be there.”

Ironically but inevitably, Princeton`s diversity sensitivity programs just exacerbated Michelle`s racial paranoia:

“Angela Acree, a close friend who attended Princeton with Michelle, says the university didn`t help dispel that idea. Black and Hispanic students were invited to attend special classes a few weeks before the beginning of freshman semester, which the school said were intended to help kids who might need assistance adjusting to Princeton`s campus. Acree couldn`t see why. She had come from an East Coast prep school; Michelle had earned good grades in Chicago. “We weren`t sure whether they thought we needed an extra start or they just said, `Let`s bring all the black kids together`.”

Princeton racialized Michelle`s consciousness. She majored in Sociology and minored in African-American Studies. Newsweek says:

“Michelle felt the [racial] tension acutely enough that she made it the subject of her senior sociology thesis, titled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” The paper is now under lock and key … (Today, Michelle says, not quite convincingly, that she can`t remember what was in her thesis.)”

Hilariously, the Princeton website where all her classmates` senior theses are made freely available for the edification of humanity until the end of time listed hers as being “Restricted until November 5, 2008,” which just happens to be the day after the election.

Newsweek went on:

“Michelle wrote that Princeton “made me far more aware of my `blackness` than ever before.” She wrote that she felt like a visitor on the supposedly open-minded campus. “Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with Whites at Princeton,” she wrote, “it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.””

On Friday, the Obama campaign released her thesis. Here`s a highlight, in which the potential First Lady explains how much she wants to be, well, “Black first:”

“These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant. This realization has presently, made my goals to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community more desirable.”

Now, VDARE.com is, for obvious reasons, not in the business of criticizing other people`s punctuation. Nor do we think that anybody`s glorified term paper is all that important.

Yet, because the candidate himself has made sure to leave such a minimal paper trail from the 1980s and 1990s (one immense autobiography and a single op-ed, according to Lexis-Nexis), anything that casts light on the Democratic frontrunner`s personal views on crucial issues is needed.

Predictably, the same feelings of personal and thus racial inadequacy manifested themselves when she got into ultra-competitive Harvard Law School on another quota. The Newsweek reporter explains:

“At Harvard, she felt the same racial divide. … `She recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and she was very comfortable with that,` [friend Verna] Williams recalls. Michelle recalls things differently. … Her aides say Michelle earned her way into Harvard on merit by distinguishing herself at Princeton.”

When she graduated from HLS in 1988, she was hired by the high-paying Chicago corporate law firm Sidley Austin (which, perhaps not coincidentally, posts a 2,000-word statement describing their “Commitment to Diversity” on their website).

One problem remained: the Illinois bar exam. It appears that in 1988 she either failed it or was unready even to try it. She eventually passed and was admitted to the bar in May 1989, almost a year after graduation. (In contrast, her husband was admitted only a half year after graduating from Harvard Law School three years later).

There`s nothing shameful about failing the bar exam. Hillary Clinton, for example, failed the Washington D.C. bar exam. According to blogger Half Sigma, 19 percent of applicants failed the July 1988 Illinois test. But, whiffing even once is not the kind of thing that is supposed to happen to Harvard Law School students. (Similarly, Hillary only told her Yale friends that she passed the Arkansas bar exam; she kept covered up until 2003 that she had failed the D.C. exam.)

Being admitted to the bar is public, so word of Michelle`s no-show on the list of new lawyers likely spread among her old Harvard classmates in late 1988, leaving another wound upon her pride. If, however, she`d gone to the kind of law school where graduates frequently take a few tries to pass, she would have felt better about herself and less bitter at the white race.

After a few years at Sidley Austin, she let her law license lapse and began working as go-between for Mayor Daley`s Machine. She enjoyed the kind of vague but well-paid career made possible by affirmative action. The description on the candidate`s website of what exactly she`s been doing for the U. of Chicago Medical Center is eye-glazing but ultimately revealing: she`s in the diversity racket.

“She also managed the business diversity program. Michelle has fostered the University of Chicago`s relationship with the surrounding community and developed the diversity program, making them both integral parts of the Medical Center`s mission.”

With great power comes great rewards. A couple of months after her husband was sworn in as U.S. Senator, Michelle`s salary at the Medical Center was raised from $121,910 to $316,962.

A cynic might say that this rather resembles a $195,000 annual … uh, investment by a large private medical institution in the good will of a U.S. Senator and potential President who may well play the crucial role in deciding whether or not there will continue to be large private medical institutions.

Another way of looking at is that Michelle`s value on the influence market went up $200,000 when her husband moved up, so the Medical Center had to ante up or lose her to somebody else who would pay the going rate for the wife of a political superstar.

Still, to say that would be to suggest that Michelle Obama on her own isn`t worth $316,962, which, like any and all skepticism about the Obamas, would be racist. So, almost nobody in America is saying it.

The Daily Mail of London has taken a more jaundiced view:

“An acquaintance of Obama`s family compares her with another political wife, another lawyer as it happens, with a keen interest in making money. “Michelle is very much like Cherie Blair [wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair]. She is a middle-class girl who has discovered that money is nice and doesn`t see that as a contradiction with having radical beliefs,” he said.

Chicago`s veteran political consultant and pundit Joe Novak agrees, saying: “She [Michelle] is now motivated more by personal gain than by social consciousness. She saw her opportunities, and she took them.” …

I suspect, on no particular evidence, that Michelle`s desire for a stately home pushed the normally ascetic Barack into involving in his 2005 purchase of an expensive mansion the notorious white collar crook and slumlord Tony Rezko, a Levantine Christian immigrant who goes on trial March 3rd.

Obama and Rezko had been doing each other Chicago-style favors for years. Yet, surely by 2005, Obama must have known that it was time to shed his more unseemly associates if he wanted to move to the really big house in Washington.

(By the way, VDARE.com readers will be interested in one of Rezko`s old partners` defenses of the man accused of stealing $50 million: “At 19 years old, he came off an airplane and couldn`t speak English, but over the years he must have brought a hundred Rezkos over from Syria.” [Rezko`s life a story of pizza and politics, By David Jackson and John Chase, Chicago Tribune,October 12, 2006]A hundred more Rezkos! Swell.)

Let me finish by speculating even more irresponsibly on what the cautious Barack might be telling Michelle in private: that he`ll have to play the moderate during his first term. But when he`s home free in his second, then he`ll be keeping it real.

For her.

Steve Sailer wrote in 2013:

The First Lady’s admission to Princeton wasn’t entirely her own doing. Besides the usual affirmative action, she was also a Princeton legacy. In fact, her two-year-older brother Craig Robinson was already the Big Man on Campus, both metaphorically (he’s always been popular, although he appears to be wearing out his welcome as Oregon State basketball’s head coach) and literally (he’s 6’6″). While Michelle Robinson’s application was under consideration in the January to March of 1981, sophomore Craig Robinson was helping Princeton to the Ivy League title. Her big brother was then Ivy League basketball player of the year in her first two years on campus, and led Princeton to the 3rd round of the NCAA tournament in 1983.

And I presume her application wasn’t hurt either by her being close friends with one of Jesse Jackson’s daughters.

This latest speech continues a 35-year-old pattern of Michelle Robinson Obama being peeved that other people noticed that she only got into Whitney Young H.S., Princeton, Harvard Law School, and Sidley Austin because of pull, racial and personal.

Steve Sailer wrote in 2015:

Barack and Michelle Obama have always chosen to live in Chicago within the Double Bubble of police protection provided by both the Chicago PD and the kick-ass U. of Chicago PD. The harassment of poor blacks in the Obamas’ neighborhood wasn’t a bug, it was a feature to them.

Update: From 1993-2005, the Obama’s owned a condo within a … gated community inside the Double Bubble of Police Protection: Triple Secret Protection!

Posted in Barack Obama, Blacks | Comments Off on NYT: For Michelle Obama, Talking About Race and Achievement, and Making It Personal

Miami Herald: Miami-Dade schools remove principal after his post about police controversy

Report:

The principal of North Miami Senior High School inadvertently injected himself into the racially charged national debate over police treatment of blacks with a social media comment — and it wound up costing him his position at the school.

The Miami-Dade County school district announced Wednesday that Alberto Iber had been removed as principal after going online to defend a white Texas police officer who waved a gun at black teens while responding to a call about an unruly pool party.

In a brief statement, the district said employees are required to conduct themselves, both personally and professionally, in a manner that represents the school district’s core values. The district said a replacement would be named shortly and that Iber would be reassigned to administrative duties.

“Judgment is the currency of honesty,” said Superintendent of Schools Alberto Carvalho. “Insensitivity — intentional or perceived — is both unacceptable and inconsistent with our policies, but more importantly with our expectation of common sense behavior that elevates the dignity and humanity of all, beginning with children.”

Cellphone footage from McKinney, Texas, caught white officer David Eric Casebolt throwing a black teenage girl to the ground, then briefly drawing his gun while responding to a call about an raucous pool party. The incident last week was just the latest in a string of encounters that have sparked charges of abusive police treatment of minorities.

Iber — in a brief public post on a story on the Miami Herald’s website — defended the officer’s response.

“He did nothing wrong,” Iber wrote in a comment that showed his Facebook picture, name, school and title. “He was afraid for his life. I commend him for his actions.”

…“I support law enforcement, and also the community and students that I serve as the proud principal of North Miami Senior High,’’ he said. “The comment I posted was simply made as the result of a short video that I watched and my personal opinion.”

Iber, who just finished his first year as the head of North Miami Senior, said he meant to write the comment anonymously.

Since when does offering an opinion in support of a police officer under fire not represent a school district’s core values? Are you only allowed to express left-wing opinions? What are the parameters for acceptable opinions?

America’s crime problem is not primarily white police officers acting badly. It is blacks behaving badly. As Steve Sailer wrote in 2013:

With federal judge Edith Jones being denounced for saying that blacks and Hispanics commit more violent crimes on average, it’s worth digging up an obscure but important 2002 book chapter written by the late James Q. Wilson, the leading social science expert on crime:

A central problem—perhaps the central problem—in improving the relationship between white and black Americans is the difference in racial crime rates. No matter how innocent or guilty a stranger may be, he carries with him in public the burdens or benefits of his group identity…
Estimating the crime rates of racial groups is, of course, difficult because we only know the arrest rate. If police are more (or less) likely to arrest a criminal of a given race, the arrest rate will overstate (or understate) the true crime rate. To examine this problem, researchers have compared the rate at which criminal victims report (in the National Crime Victimization Survey, or NCVS) the racial identity of whoever robbed or assaulted them with the rate at which the police arrest robbers or assaulters of different races. Regardless of whether the victim is black or white, there are no significant differences between victim reports and police arrests. This suggests that, though racism may exist in policing (as in all other aspects of American life), racism cannot explain the overall black arrest rate. The arrest rate, thus, is a reasonably good proxy for the crime rate.
Black men commit murders at a rate about eight times greater than that for white men. This disparity is not new; it has existed for well over a century. When historian Roger Lane studied murder rates in Philadelphia, he found that since 1839 the black rate has been much higher than the white rate. This gap existed long before the invention of television, the wide distribution of hand guns, or access to dangerous drugs (except for alcohol).
America is a violent nation. The estimated homicide rate in this country, excluding all those committed by blacks, is over three times higher than the homicide rate for the other six major industrial nations. But whatever causes white Americans to kill other people, it causes black Americans to kill others at a much higher rate.
Of course the average African American male is not likely to kill anybody.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, fewer than one out of every 2,000 black men would kill a person in any year, and most of their victims were other blacks.
Though for young black men homicide is the leading cause of death, the chances of the average white person’s being killed by a black are very small. But the chances of being hit by lightning are also very small, and yet we leave high ground during a thunderstorm. However low the absolute risk, the relative risk—relative, that is, to the chances of being killed by a white—is high, and this fact changes everything.
When whites walk down the street, they are more nervous when they encounter a black man than when they encounter a white one. When blacks walk down the street, they are more likely than whites to be stopped and questioned by a police officer…
The differences in the racial rates for property crimes, though smaller than those for violent offenses, are still substantial. The estimated rate at which black men commit burglary is three times higher than it is for white men; for rape, it is five times higher. The difference between blacks and whites with respect to crime, and especially violent crime, has, I think, done more to impede racial amity than any other factor. Pure racism—that is, a visceral dislike of another person because of his skin color—has always existed. It is less common today than it once was, but it persists and no doubt explains part of our racial standoff. But pure racism once stigmatized other racial minorities who have today largely overcome that burden. When I grew up in California, the Chinese and Japanese were not only physically distinctive, but they were also viewed with deep suspicion by whites.
For many decades, Chinese testimony was not accepted in California courts, an Alien Land Law discouraged Asian land purchases, the Chinese Exclusion Act (not repealed until 1943) prevented Chinese immigration, and a Gentlemen’s Agreement, signed in 1907, required Japan to cut back sharply on passports issued to Japanese who wished to emigrate to California. When World War II began, the Japanese were sent to relocation camps at great personal cost to them.
Yet today Californians of Asian ancestry are viewed by Caucasians with comfort and even pride. In spite of their distinctive physical features, no one crosses the street to avoid a Chinese or Japanese youth. One obvious reason is that they have remarkably low crime rates.
The black murder rate, though it is much higher than the rate for whites or Asians, does not always change in the same way as the white rate. Between 1976 and 1991, the murder arrest rate for black males aged twenty- five and older fell dramatically even though the murder arrest rate for the nation as a whole did not change at all. Apparently, adult black men were becoming less violent. But in some years, such as 1965 to the early 1970s, the black murder rate increased much faster than the white rate. By the late 1960s the black rate was over eighteen times higher than the white one. Then, beginning around 1975, the black rate declined while the white rate continued to increase, so that the ratio of black arrests to white arrests fell to around six to one. From 1980 until the present, the rate at which adult blacks and whites are arrested for murder dropped more or less steadily. By contrast, the rate at which black and white juveniles are arrested for murder increased sharply from 1985 to the early 1990s, with the white rate almost doubling and the black rate more than tripling. Starting in the mid- 1990s, the juvenile rate fell again, almost down to the level it was at in 1985.
In short, though the gap sometimes widens and sometimes narrows, white and black homicide rates tend to remain different.

The late J. Philippe Rushton and Glayde Whitney wrote for the magazine Population & Environment (Vol. 23, No. 6):

Crime statistics within Britain, Canada, and the United States show that people of East Asian ancestry are disproportionately under-represented while those of African ancestry are disproportionately over-represented rel-ative to those of European ancestry. For example, in Canada, a government commission found that Blacks were five times more likely to be in jail than Whites and ten times more likely than Asians (Ontario, 1996). In Britain,the Home Office (1999) found that Blacks, who were 2% of the general population, made up 15% of the prison population. (No figures were re-ported for East Asians such as the Chinese, but Asians from the Indian sub-continent were 3% of the general population and 2% of the prison population.) In the U.S., Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) and Taylor and Whitney(1999) analyzed the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics and National Crime Victimization Surveys from the U.S. Department of Justice (e.g., 1997, 1998)and found that since record keeping began at the turn of the century, and throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, African Americans consistently committed proportionately more violent crime than did European Americans, while Asian Americans consistently committed proportionately fewer.

Victim surveys tell a similar story. The proportional differences in arrest statistics cannot therefore be attributed to police prejudice. Finer grained analyses within the United States also find race a factor. Whitney (1995) found that the best predictor of local murder rate is the percent of the population that is African American. Across 170 cities, Whitney (1995) found a correlation of r = 0.69 between the rate of murder and the percent of the population that was African American. Similarly, across the 50 states, Whitney (1995) found a correlation of r = 0.77 between the rate of murder and the percent African American. In a follow-up study, Hama (1999) found a correlation of r = 0.76 across the 50 states between violent crime (an aggregate of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), and the percentage of the population that was African American. Lynn (2002a, 2002b) has examined the application of Rushton’s r-K theory to racial differences in sexual behavior and psychopathic personality.

Thus, Lynn (2002a) analyzed the annual surveys of the National Opinion Research Center for 1990–1996 and found that, compared to Whites, Blacks reported more sexual partners and a greater frequency of sexual intercourse. Similarly, Lynn (2002b) reviewed the literature on psychopathy and found that East Asians averaged the lowest rate, Blacks highest, and Whites intermediate. The attributes included: being diagnosed with child-hood conduct disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) being suspended or excluded from school, scoring low on tests of moral understanding, failing to live up to financial obligations such as paying back student loans, poor work commitment, recklessness (e.g., having traffic accidents), maintaining monogamous relationships, being responsible parents, engaging in domestic violence, and needing hospitalization for in-juries sustained through altercations.

Two fundamentally different models have been put forth to explain why the races differ in average rate of crime and other socially valued out-comes: (1) the “discrimination” model, and (2) the “distributional” model(Herrnstein, 1990). The discrimination model focuses on social and institutional practices that discriminate against members of one group (or favor members of another), thus tilting the “playing field.” The crucial assumption of this model is that in the absence of such discrimination, crime rates would be about equal for all populations. Factors hypothesized under this model include relative poverty, anti-Black bias by police, a lack of access to legitimate channels of upward mobility, and inadequate family socialization due to the legacy of slavery.

On the other end of the model, criminologists as early as the 1920s explained the under-representation of East Asians in U.S. crime statistics by hypothesizing the East Asian “ghetto.” This “ghetto” was seen as a response to external prejudice that protected members from the disruptive tendencies of the outside society. It was also claimed that bias against East Asian migration (“yellow peril”) resulted in only the wealthiest or hardest-working East Asians gaining entry into White-majority countries.The alternative distributional model explains the overlapping of the populations and their differing averages in terms of differential population characteristics—for example, Rushton’s (2000) r-K life-history theory, or Sowell’s (1994) theory of socialization through subtle cultural traditions.Other factors hypothesized to underlie the distribution model include deep-rooted cultural values and family structures endemic to populations, as well as biological variables including body type, percent of age of cohort, hormonal levels, exposure to toxic chemicals such as lead which may have different effects based on constitutional differences in metabolism, and personality and temperament. Thus according to the distributional model, the population differences are expected to occur more universally.

The two models may each be partially correct (Ellis & Walsh, 1999). To test whether the race differences in crime found within Britain, Canada, and the U.S. occurred more universally, Wilson and Herrnstein (1985)and Rushton (1990, 1995) collated data from INTERPOL Yearbooks (1980to 1990) and found that Pacific Rim countries reported less violent crime (an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries.

Rushton’s theory of r-K race differences was examined in relation to the rate of murder, rape, and serious assault per 100,000 population and Gross Domestic Product per Person for 74 countries from the 1993–1996 International Crime Statistics published by INTERPOL and the 1999 CIA World Fact Book. Each country was assigned to one of the three macro-races East Asian, European, and African. The results corroborated earlier findings that violent crime is lowest in East Asian countries, intermediate in European countries, and highest in African and in Black Carib-bean countries. The median number of violent crimes per 100,000 population were:7 East Asian countries—34; 45 European countries—42; and 22 African and Black Caribbean countries—149, respectively. The median Gross Domestic Product per Person was highest in East Asian countries ($12,600), intermediate in European countries ($7,400), and lowest in African and Black Caribbean countries ($1,900).

Across the three population groups there was an “ecological correlation” of −.96 between crime and wealth (wealthier countries had less crime). Finer-grained analyses, however, found that while wealth was negatively related to crime across European or East Asian countries, it was positively related to crime for the African and Black Caribbean countries (i.e., the wealthier an African or Black Caribbean country, the greater its rate of violent crime). Future research needs to examine genetic factors in addition to cultural factors as well as their interactions.

J. P. Rushton (2000) has proposed an evolutionary life-history theory to account for racial differences in a host of demographic, populational, and environmental variables. The theory proposes a gene-based Negroid-Caucasoid-Mongoloid gradient of r/K reproductive strategies. Drawn from sociobiology (Wilson, 1975), the r-K continuum defines a genetically-coordinated group of traits that evolved together to meet the trials of life—survival, growth, and reproduction. At one end of this scale, r-strategies are characterized by high fertility, low-investment parenting, fast maturation,and low intelligence and learning ability. K-strategies, on the other hand,are characterized by low fertility, high-investment parenting, slow maturation, and high intelligence and competitive ability.

Typically, the K-strategy requires more complex nervous systems and bigger brains. It has been hypothesized that r-selected species are more adapted to non-competitive environments of resource abundance whereas K-selected species are adapted to more competitive environments of resource scarcity. Because the components of life-history (differential fertility, rates of maturation, sexual behavior, and parenting) are critical determinants of demography, r/K theory could have important implications for understanding human variation. Rushton extended r/K theory to human race differences and found it predicts a wide spectrum of characteristics including fertility, infant mortality, rates of physical maturation, IQ scores, brain size, dizygotic twinning,crime, sexual potency, sexual precocity, number of sexual partners, and hormone levels. Mongoloids tend toward the K end of the r-K gradient. On average, they devote resources to producing fewer children, invest more heavily in them, and provide them with greater parental care. Negroids, on average, lie more toward the r end of the gradient. They tend to devote resources to producing greater numbers of children, invest less heavily in them, and provide less parental care. Caucasoids tend toward being inter-mediate, though closer on the r-K gradient to Mongoloids than to Negroids.

One test of Rushton’s gene-based theory is whether the racial differences in British, Canadian, and U.S. crime statistics are generalizable inter-nationally (Neapolitan, 1998; Rushton, 1990, 1995; Lynn, 2002b). Do East Asian populations from China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam (sometimes called Orientals, or more technically, Mongoloids) generally average lower rates of violent crime (e.g., murder, rape, and serious assault) than do European populations (Whites, Caucasoids)? In turn, do Europeans and their descendants generally average lower rates of violent crime than Africans and their descendants (Blacks, Negroids)? The answers may shed light on the extent to which observed racial differences are the result of local conditions within Britain, Canada, and the United States (e.g., anti-Black racism;selective migration from Pacific Rim countries) versus conditions endemic to the populations (e.g., cultural values, family structures, genetic and bio-logical factors). Crime statistics within Britain, Canada, and the United States show that people of East Asian ancestry are disproportionately under-represented while those of African ancestry are disproportionately over-represented relative to those of European ancestry. For example, in Canada, a government commission found that Blacks were five times more likely to be in jail than Whites and ten times more likely than Asians (Ontario, 1996). In Britain,the Home Office (1999) found that Blacks, who were 2% of the general population, made up 15% of the prison population. (No figures were re-ported for East Asians such as the Chinese, but Asians from the Indian sub-continent were 3% of the general population and 2% of the prison population.)

In the U.S., Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) and Taylor and Whitney(1999) analyzed the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics and National Crime Victimization Surveys from the U.S. Department of Justice (e.g., 1997, 1998)and found that since record keeping began at the turn of the century, and throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, African Americans consistently committed proportionately more violent crime than did European Americans, while Asian Americans consistently committed proportionately fewer. Victim surveys tell a similar story. The proportional differences in arrest statistics cannot therefore be attributed to police prejudice.Finer grained analyses within the United States also find race a factor. Whitney (1995) found that the best predictor of local murder rate is the percent of the population that is African American. Across 170 cities, Whitney (1995) found a correlation of r = 0.69 between the rate of murder and the percent of the population that was African American. Similarly, across the 50 states, Whitney (1995) found a correlation of r = 0.77 between the rate of murder and the percent African American. In a follow-up study, Hama (1999) found a correlation of r = 0.76 across the 50 states between violent crime (an aggregate of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape,robbery, and aggravated assault), and the percentage of the population that was African American.

Lynn (2002a, 2002b) has examined the application of Rushton’s r-Ktheory to racial differences in sexual behavior and psychopathic personality. Thus, Lynn (2002a) analyzed the annual surveys of the National Opinion Research Center for 1990–1996 and found that, compared to Whites,Blacks reported more sexual partners and a greater frequency of sexual intercourse. Similarly, Lynn (2002b) reviewed the literature on psychopathy and found that East Asians averaged the lowest rate, Blacks highest, and Whites intermediate. The attributes included: being diagnosed with child-hood conduct disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), being suspended or excluded from school, scoring low on tests of moral understanding, failing to live up to financial obligations such as paying back student loans, poor work commitment, recklessness (e.g., having traffic accidents), maintaining monogamous relationships, being responsible parents, engaging in domestic violence, and needing hospitalization for in-juries sustained through altercations.

Two fundamentally different models have been put forth to explain why the races differ in average rate of crime and other socially valued out-comes: (1) the “discrimination” model, and (2) the “distributional” model (Herrnstein, 1990). The discrimination model focuses on social and institutional practices that discriminate against members of one group (or favor members of another), thus tilting the “playing field.” The crucial assumption of this model is that in the absence of such discrimination, crime rates would be about equal for all populations. Factors hypothesized under this model include relative poverty, anti-Black bias by police, a lack of access to legitimate channels of upward mobility, and inadequate family socialization due to the legacy of slavery. On the other end of the model, criminologists as early as the 1920s explained the under-representation of East Asians in U.S. crime statistics by hypothesizing the East Asian “ghetto.” This“ghetto” was seen as a response to external prejudice that protected members from the disruptive tendencies of the outside society. It was also claimed that bias against East Asian migration (“yellow peril”) resulted in only the wealthiest or hardest-working East Asians gaining entry into White-majority countries. The alternative distributional model explains the overlapping of the populations and their differing averages in terms of differential population characteristics—for example, Rushton’s (2000) r-K life-history theory, or Sowell’s (1994) theory of socialization through subtle cultural traditions. Other factors hypothesized to underlie the distribution model include deep-rooted cultural values and family structures endemic to populations, as well as biological variables including body type, percent of age of cohort, hormonal levels, exposure to toxic chemicals such as lead which may have different effects based on constitutional differences in metabolism, and personality and temperament. Thus according to the distributional model, the population differences are expected to occur more universally. The two models may each be partially correct (Ellis & Walsh, 1999).To test whether the race differences in crime found within Britain, Can-ada, and the U.S. occurred more universally, Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) and Rushton (1990, 1995) collated data from INTERPOL Yearbooks (1980to 1990) and found that Pacific Rim countries reported less violent crime(an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries and much less than did African and Caribbean countries. Summing the crimes, and averaging across years, Rushton (1990, 1995) found statistically significant differences per 100,000 population of: 44 (Pacific Rim), 74 (European), and 143 (Afro-Caribbean) total crimes, respectively. These results did not depend on the selection of countries because when only ethnically more homogeneous sets were chosen, for example, by limiting countries to those from northeast Asia, central Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, the proportionate differences remained the same—or became even greater.Nor did the pattern alter for other sets of countries. For example, in the Caribbean data set, six mainly White/Amerindian countries averaged 72per 100,000 whereas eight mainly Black countries averaged 449 violent crimes per 100,000 population (Rushton, 1995)…

These data speak to one of the most important issues facing the field of criminology in showing there are significant differences in murder, rape,and serious assaults in East Asian, European, and African countries that parallel those found within Britain, Canada, and the United States. More-over, the crime differences cannot simply be attributed to “poverty” for such an explanation does not fit the finer-grained analyses found within African countries where violent crime increased with GDP. This could be because only wealthier nations have the infrastructure to gather and report crime statistics comparable to those for East Asia and Europe. It is also possible that there are some gene-culture interactions when opportunities become available for engaging in behavior not otherwise affordable. In Africa, for example, there is a link between wealth and AIDS: wealthier males turn their resources into sexual partners (Rushton & Bogaert, 1989). Lynn (2002a; 2002b) recently noted the relation between race differences in sexual behavior and psychopathic personality and Rushton’s r-K theory. He therefore called for a paradigm shift in the analysis of a number of population and environment issues. Most notably, while HIV/AIDS is a serious public health problem for all racial groups, it is especially so for Africans and people of African descent (currently almost 9 out of every 100 Africans are infected with HIV/AIDS; the rate is 2.2% in the Black Carib-bean; in the U.S. about 2% of African Americans are living with HIV/AIDS compared to 0.4% of European Americans and less than 0.1% of East Asian Americans (UNAIDS/WHO, 2001). Since there is little cultural contact be-tween the various African descended populations, the explanation is most likely a genetic one.Taken together, these results support the distributional model rather than the discrimination model of why the races differ in average rate of crime and other socially valued outcomes. However, we do not suggest that racial differences are 100% genetic, but rather that they are due to genes, cultures, and their interactions. Genetic factors involve brain size and intelligence (Jensen, 1998; Rushton & Ankney, 2000), and hormone levels like testosterone (Ellis & Nyborg, 1992). Cultural factors involve socialization practices, including of deep-rooted values transmitted by families (Sowell, 1994).

Luke: As I wrote in July 2014:

Black kids are more rambunctious than white kids who are in turn more rambunctious than oriental kids.

Blacks tend to take more risks in life than do whites who in turn take more risks than do Orientals. Ergo, Orientals are the least likely group to be victimized by violent crime, followed by whites, then latinos and then blacks. Orientals have the best credit scores, best academic scores, best incomes, followed by whites and then by latinos and blacks.

These trends hold the world over.

Black kids physically mature quicker than any other race. They can hold their head up sooner after birth, they can walk before white kids can, they have their periods earlier, they engage in sex earlier, they’re more likely to give birth to twins, and they have shorter life spans than other races.

Blacks engage in more pathologic behavior than do whites who engage in more pathologic behavior than orientals.

These are the facts of life but they are apparently unknown to the Washington Post.

White kids are more likely to get suspended from school than are oriental kids. That’s not because of racism. That’s because of genetics.

Black kids are more likely to play football than oriental kids. That’s because of genes. Their bodies are shaped differently (orientals have bigger brains than whites and consequently have wider hips and run more slowly on average). Blacks tend to have more muscular definition than do whites who have more than do orientals.

Steve Sailer writes: “So no matter what the President might say about black youths ought to behave better, his followers know in their bones that the real problem is discrimination against black youths.”

Any white or asian parent with a modicum of common sense knows you don’t want to send your kids to a school with a lot of black kids (just as whites and asians rarely choose to live in neighborhoods with a black or latino population over 20%).

People don’t assimilate except in the most superficial of ways such as language. Oriental kids who move to Australia or America develop academic, professional and social lives similar to what they would have led in their home countries. Same thing holds for blacks and mestizo Indians etc.

J. Philippe Rushton wrote in his book Race, Evolution & Behavior:

Black babies mature more quickly than White babies, while Oriental babies mature more slowly. African babies in a sitting position are more able to keep their heads up and backs straight from the start. White babies often need six to eight weeks to do these things (see Chart 3). It is unlikely that social
factors could produce these differences. A basic law of biology shows that longer infancy is related to greater brain growth.

These differences in growth rate mean that races tend to differ in the age when they reach milestones such as the end of infancy, the start of puberty, adulthood, and old age. The races also differ in crime rates, parenting style, and even population growth.

Black babies spend the least time in the womb. In America, 51% of Black children have been born by week 39 of pregnancy compared with 33% of White children. In Europe, Black babies of even
professional mothers are born earlier than White babies.

These Black babies are not born premature. They are born sooner, but biologically they are more mature. The length of pregnancy depends on the genes.

Jared Taylor writes:

Different species have evolved different approaches to propagation. At one extreme is the r-strategy, by which an organism produces a very large number of offspring, but gives them little or no care. The oyster is a good example. Every year it releases millions of eggs into the ocean and leaves them to the mercies of weather and predators. Almost all of them die, but a few survive.

r organisms must mature quickly because they get no help from their parents. The ones that survive repeat the cycle by producing huge numbers of eggs, only a few of which will live. The symbol r stands for the maximum rate of increase in a population, and when the conditions for reproduction are good, an r-strategist can increase its numbers at a terrific rate.

At the other extreme is the K-strategy, which is used by more advanced animals, including man. The number of offspring is much smaller, but great effort is taken to give each one a good chance of survival. K- and r-strategists consequently are very different both in biology and in what Prof. Rushton calls life histories.

K-strategists live longer, have larger brains, and take longer to reach sexual maturity. Unlike the simpler r-strategists, they tend to have some kind of social organization. Besides the care they give their young, adults may share food, cooperate in the hunt, and fight predators together. The K-symbol stands for the carrying capacity of the breeding area, and represents the production of small numbers of offspring that are carefully nurtured for a particular environment.

All humans follow an extreme K-strategy. They have few young, who take years to mature and require a great deal of care. They have large brains and complex societies based on cooperation. However, human races are not identical. The chart on page 3 shows that Asians consistently show more K behavior than whites, who in turn show more than blacks. There is virtually no departure from this pattern.

Maturation and Reproduction

In almost every respect, racial differences in the physiology of reproduction show an r-K pattern that runs from blacks to whites to Asians. Fraternal twinning, for example, which happens when a mother releases more than one egg during ovulation, is clearly an r-strategy of producing more and smaller young, who are more likely to be miscarried, be born underweight, die in infancy, and receive less parental care.

Fraternal twinning is twice as common among blacks as among whites, and twice as common among whites as among Asians. Triplets are ten times more common among whites than among Asians and 17 times more common among Africans than among whites. In some African populations, multiple births account for 60 out of every 1000. In Japan, where twins are very rare, they are viewed suspiciously as the products of a “litter,” more akin to dogs than to humans.

Offspring of the different races gestate and mature according to different r-K strategies. Blacks are born earlier and smaller than whites, but are stronger and better coordinated. They can sit up and roll over sooner than whites, who can do so sooner than Asians. On average, blacks walk at age 11 months, whites at 12 months, and Asians at 13 months.

Although it is a specialized measure of development, permanent tooth eruption occurs sooner in Africans than in Europeans, and later in Asians. Among primates in general, there is near-perfect correlation between lateness of permanent tooth eruption and such things as length of life, brain size, years to maturity, and complexity of social organization…

Asians are more restrained, cooperative, and less aggressive than whites; whites are more restrained and less aggressive than blacks. These rankings are the same, whether subjects are assessed by personality tests or by their peers. From an early age, blacks are more impulsive and dominant than whites, and males boast and swagger more. Asians are least dominant and impulsive.

William Shockley wrote: “Nature has color-coded groups of individuals so that statistically reliable predictions of their adaptability to intellectually rewarding and effective lives can easily be made and profitably be used by the pragmatic man-in-the-street.”

FORMER TEACHER ERIC GUSTAFSON WRITES:

Once when I was in high school, I annoyed my conservative parents by asking a cute Hispanic girl to a dance. I knew this would bother them, but I never understood why. They had occasionally given me vague hints to find a mate of my own race so as to “keep my heritage white.” However, they failed to explain exactly what that meant, or why it was important. Perhaps they took too much for granted. They had spent most of their lives in white towns and I also grew up mostly among white people.

In my younger days, my libertarian views clouded my understanding of race, which I thought was a corrupt, collectivist concept. To add to the confusion, my mainstream, 1980s Christian upbringing had taught me always to look past the surface and into the heart–a teaching I interpreted too broadly. I had a self-righteous moral universalism that was sometimes openly hostile to the values of my own parents. In my arrogance, I saw my elders much the way Michelle Obama sees older white people: as misinformed throwbacks who needed to be enlightened by young people.

REPORT:

In their wide-ranging book, Crime and Human Nature, James Wilson and Richard Herrnstein point out that criminals are almost always more impulsive than non-criminals. They cannot put off the satisfaction of their desires, even if immediate satisfaction means smashing and grabbing. Other researchers, whose work has been exhaustively summarized by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, have found that blacks are more impulsive in this sense than whites, who are in turn more impulsive than Asians.

If it is true that blacks favor immediate impulse over long-range goals and if they are less able to sacrifice today for rewards tomorrow, it would help explain not just high rates of criminality but the chaos and lack of development that characterize all black societies. It takes foresight and self-control to work at a boring job rather than rob a liquor store, or to invest money rather than spend it, or to do homework rather than watch television. Any group that cannot defer satisfaction will not progress very far…

Albert Schweitzer, who devoted his life to ease the sufferings of Africans concluded at the end of his career: “They [Africans] have neither the intellectual, mental or emotional abilities to equate or to share equally with white men in any of the functions of our civilization.”

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on Miami Herald: Miami-Dade schools remove principal after his post about police controversy

JJ: Al Pacino reopens debate over pro-Nazi celebs

From the Jewish Journal:

The decision by actor Al Pacino to withdraw from a Danish play because its author supported the Nazis during World War II has reopened a long-simmering debate over cultural contributions by individuals whose racial or political views are anathema.
Pacino, the Academy Award winning star of such films as The Godfather and Scent of a Woman, pulled out of the Copenhagen production of a play adapted from novel “Hunger,” after learning that its author, the late Knut Hamsun, backed the Nazis.

How come there’s no such sanction against celebrities who back communism? Communism killed more people than Nazism. I wonder if it has something to do with the large number of Jews (though a distinct minority among Jews) who supported communism. By 1950, a million American Jews were either communists or socialists (estimated sociologist Nathan Glazar in 1966).

This supposedly “long-simmering debate over cultural contributions by individuals whose racial or political views are anathema” seems to break down to whether or not someone or something was/is good for the cool kids. Is that humanity’s ultimate litmus test?

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on JJ: Al Pacino reopens debate over pro-Nazi celebs

Jenna Jameson Converting To Judaism

From The Jerusalem Post:

The adult actress says she is in the process of converting to Judaism; On social media, she posts pictures of kosher products and writes in Hebrew.

It’s a scene most Jewish families are familiar with: a table laid with two homemade challahs, Shabbat candles, a kiddush cup and an impressive spread of food. The catch? This image was posted online by Jenna Jameson, arguably the world’s most famous former porn star.

“Here is a little image from last Shabbat!!!” the 41-year-old mostly-retired actress wrote next to the photo she posted on Twitter and Instagram. “I made home made Chilean sea bass chraimeh, potato pancakes, Israeli salad and yummy challah!”

While Jameson has in the past described herself as a devout Catholic, things are apparently taking a turn, as she wrote on social media that she is currently converting to Judaism for her Israeli-born boyfriend.

On Tuesday she posted a photo of a box of Strauss popsicles exported from Israel that she bought at a local market, writing in Hebrew that they were “taim” (tasty).

When one follower invited her to visit Israel, she wrote in Hebrew: “I’m coming to Israel soon,” and told another “b’ezrat Hashem.”

Posted in Conversion | Comments Off on Jenna Jameson Converting To Judaism

Rabbi Of Ethical Understanding Expelled From RCA

Forward.com:

Rabbi Marc Schneier, the spiritual leader of a tony congregation in the Hamptons, has been expelled from the Rabbinical Council of America, the Forward has learned.

The five times married Schneier was quietly expelled from the Orthodox rabbinical group earlier this year in relation to allegations, in 2010, that he had an extramarital affair with a congregant, according to a source with first-hand knowledge of the expulsion who did not wish to be named.

The RCA, Modern Orthodoxy’s largest rabbinic association, did not deny it had taken the highly unusually step of expelling Schneier…

Reached by phone on June 5, Schneier said that the RCA never informed him that he has been expelled. He said that the idea he has been expelled is “crazy.”

“I’m not the kind of person to deny something if it took place,” Schneier said.

Schneier is founding rabbi of The Hampton Synagogue, in Westhampton Beach, N.Y., which attracts some of New York’s wealthiest residents.

He is also renowned as leader of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, an interfaith group he founded along with Def Jam Recordings founder Russell Simmons.

Schneier became the focus of tabloid stories in 2010 after it emerged that he was having an extramarital affair with Gitty Leiner, a member of his Westhampton congregation.

The affair was exposed in divorce papers filed by Schneier’s then fourth wife Tobi Rubinstein Schneier.

Forward.com:

The Riverdale Jewish Center reportedly is seeking to get rid of Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt, whose habit of inviting young males to join him for naked heart-to-heart talks in the sauna was the subject of a recent article in The New York Times.

In a meeting Monday night, the board of directors of Rosenblatt’s Orthodox synagogue voted 34-8 to seek a financial settlement to get Rosenblatt to resign his pulpit position, the N.Y. Jewish Week reported. Though Rosenblatt’s unusual behavior long was known in his synagogue community, the board surmised that the publicity that now surrounds Rosenblatt would make it impossible for him to fulfill his rabbinic duties at the 700-member shul and therefore it is preferable that he step down, the newspaper reported.

The Times story that prompted the firestorm focused on Rosenblatt’s custom of inviting male congregants or students, some as young as 12, to play squash or racquetball, then join him in the public shower and sauna or steam room, often naked. No one cited in the story accused Rosenblatt of sexual touching, but several expressed their discomfort with the practice and described the behavior as deeply inappropriate for a rabbi and mentor. At various times, Rosenblatt was told by rabbinic bodies or his congregation’s board to limit such activity.

Posted in R. Jonathan Rosenblatt, R. Marc Schneier, Rabbis, RCA | Comments Off on Rabbi Of Ethical Understanding Expelled From RCA

Persians have a new earner but it may not be legal

I’m hearing about Persians around Beverly Hills making a few bucks from this angle.

REPORT: “Authorities, who say these types of transactions happen frequently, began working last year to stop the increasing flow of high-end cars overseas. But they’ve run into a significant obstacle: What the exporters are doing may not be illegal — even if the government and the automakers don’t like it, and even if so-called straw buyers are sometimes deceptive.”

“Lawyers for exporters say the lack of criminal charges relative to the number of allegations authorities are making shows that the business model is fundamentally legal. Widlansky, the Florida lawyer, said exporting should be a matter between automakers and their dealers, or between dealers and customers who violate the no-export agreements that are a routine part of many luxury-car transactions. Some dealers have sued straw buyers after being penalized by a manufacturer.”

NYT: U.S. Targets Buyers of China-Bound Luxury Cars

Posted in China, Persians | Comments Off on Persians have a new earner but it may not be legal

Charles Manson – The Guy Who Killed The ’60s

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* An interesting documentary film was made a few years ago entitled ‘Manson the Man Who Killed the ’60s’.
Excellent title for a film, it just about says it all, in that Charles Manson more or less singlehandedly ‘killed’ the whole concept of the late 60s at least, the Height Astbury delusion of gentle bearded long hairedness, love and peace, ‘raised consciousness’ and all the rest of it.
Saying all that, Manson, the evil little fraudster himself, is still very much a ‘cultural hero’, in the sense that he somehow embodies the general craziness, and eventual dissolution of that whole era. Strangely enough, the Apollo moon landings happened at around the same time.

* I don’t know why Manson has such a bad reputation, he has a pretty mainstream, PC world view:
Helter Skelter

“… Black men … would lash out in violent crimes against whites. A resultant murderous rampage against blacks by frightened whites would … provoke an internecine war of near-extermination between racist and non-racist whites over blacks’ treatment. Then the militant blacks would arise to … finish off the few whites … to have survived;

In this holocaust, the members of the enlarged Family would have little to fear; they would wait out the war in a secret city …”

What college-educated liberal would disagree with that? Manson would be on the right side of the Ferguson issue.

* Clark and Darden may not have been the best prosecutors to ever enter a courtroom, but they did more than well enough to prove Simpson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The person who botched the case was Garcetti for stupidly filing the case in downtown LA (instead of Santa Monica where it belonged) thereby allowing the seating of a jury composed mainly of angry and stupid black women.

* I believe at the time Rolling Stone magazine was all set to come out with an issue glamorizing the Manson Family as anti-establishment rebels when at the last minute they decided to have a visit with Bugliosi’s LA prosectutor’s office leading to them to significately moderate the tone of their cover story.

You think they could have learned a thing or two.

* That was part of what freaked out the entertainment industry so much about the Manson murders: there were always lots of fringe folks hanging around, and at the end of the 1960s with the youth revolution in taste making everything uncertain, they’d been letting them get a little closer.

Posted in Crime | Comments Off on Charles Manson – The Guy Who Killed The ’60s

Report: Rabbi Who Installed Hidden Cameras in Dorm to Open New Seminary

As I understand it, the rabbi is opening a new school and NCSY – where he worked before — needs to make a decision if they will work with him and let him into their programs.

LINK: According to the Haaretz article, “Bryks currently teaches at two yeshiva programs for men in Israel, Derech and Chai Israel, and two seminary programs for women, Tomer Devorah and Meorot.”
Rabbi Tully Bryks now appears as a teacher and member of the recruitment staff on the website of Meorot, slated to open next year. Rabbi Baruch Smith is no longer listed as Meorot’s director, although the URL for his biography is http://mymeorot.com/teacher/rabbi-baruch-smith-director/. Rabbi Smith is now the “visionary”, and no one is listed as director.
Rabbi Bryks’ name does not currently appear on the list of staff members on the websites of Tomer Devorah or Derech. Chai Israel only lists administrators on its site.
I am sharing information that is available publicly, as no one connected to the situation has given me permission to quote him or her. I put up the post so that parents can make informed choices, and to encourage seminaries to be transparent about personnel and control.
In May, 2013, Haaretz reported that Rabbi Tully Bryks, director of the Bar-Ilan overseas program, was forced to resign after installing hidden cameras in the hallways of the girls’ dormitories.
“The surveillance cameras were discovered within hours by several stunned students living in adjacent rooms, who immediately lodged a complaint with program administrators citing severe invasion of privacy and who demanded police intervention.

Bryks was soon thereafter relieved of all his responsibilities at the program and barred from any contact with students.”

Bryks posted an apology on his personal Facebook page, claiming that he installed the cameras in order to investigate complaints against the maintenance staff…

HAARETZ: Director of Orthodox gap-year program at Bar-Ilan fired for installing cameras in girls’ dorms

Posted in Abuse, NCSY, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Report: Rabbi Who Installed Hidden Cameras in Dorm to Open New Seminary

What’s The Latest With Former Beth Jacob Rabbi Uri Pilichowski?

According to the bio linked to his Twitter account:

Rabbi Uri Pilichowski grew up in Fair Lawn, New Jersey with Rabbi Benjamin Yudin and Rabbi Saul Zucker as his mentors and teachers. He attended Yavneh Academy day school and Frisch High School. Rabbi Pilichowski studied in Mevaseret Zion for eight years, earning a Bachelor of Talmudic Law and Rabbinic Ordination. While living Israel, Rabbi Pilichowski taught and mentored gap year students.

Rabbi Pilichowski then moved to Beverly Hills, CA to become the Assistant Rabbi of the famed Beth Jacob Congregation. While at Beth Jacob, he partnered with Rabbi Steven Weil to increase Synagogue membership to over 700 families and created a national model for teen and youth departments. Rabbi Pilichowski was then blessed to spend three years in Boca Raton, Florida where he was the Rosh Beit Midrash and Gap Year advisor. Rabbi Pilichowski also served as one of the Rabbis at The Boca Raton Synagogue, focusing on the teen department.

An Israeli citizen and former member of the Israel Civil Defense, Rabbi Pilichowski prided himself with his involvement with the Pro-Israel community in America. He created the first teen pro-Israel group in the country that taught students to advocate in Congress for a stronger US-Israel relationship. His students gained a national reputation that has even reached the White House. Rabbi Pilichowski continues to teach his students from Israel via Skype.

In July 2014, in the midst of Operation Protective Edge, Rabbi Pilichowski moved his family to Israel to become the Director of Overseas Programs at the famed Yeshivat Hakotel in Jerusalem’s Old City. Rabbi Pilichowski teaches in and administrates the American/British, South American Program and European Programs.

Rabbi Pilichowski also enjoys writing and speaking; he is the author of three books, a book on time management, on the weekly Torah portion and on the Jewish festivals. He has been a scholar in residence in synagogues across America, from Richmond, VA to Santa Barbara, CA. Rabbi Pilichowski is happily married to Aliza and has six wonderful children in Mitzpe Yericho.

According to his Facebook, he’s the director of Israel Advocacy at Southern NCSY. Surely that’s a former job. He still lives in Israel. I believe he’s moved on from his position at Ysehivat Hakotel.

Y. says: “If you Google his name, the sixth hit says he’s moved to another yeshivah in Israel, Migdal Hatorah in Modiin.”

I believe YU is cracking down over the past four months as a result of lawsuits, and this matter has become more urgent in the light of the R. Jonathan Rosenblatt shvitz shanda. I understand that R. Kenny Brander has been pushing schools associated with YU to make sure that all staff are clean. There has been a clean-up and people have been let go as a result of this crackdown. Rabbis are moving out with their good name intact and going to more hareidi institutions.

As I wrote July 19, 2011:

On a regular basis over the past eight months, Rabbi Pilichowski read the private email of Topp, West and Ishakis, email that came in from congregants, financial advisors, spouses, friends and the like. You can imagine the painfully personal emails that some people send their rabbi.

At times, Rabbi Pilichowski deleted emails so that Rabbi Topp and company never saw them. For instance, he deleted an email from Yeshiva University that insisted that Rabbi Pilichowski have nothing to do with the shul’s summer kollel program (staffed by YU scholars).

Why? Because this email from Yeshiva University to Rabbi Topp alleged that Rabbi Pilichowski had acted inappropriately in the interviewing process for the program.

What was the nature of this conduct? Apparently, some got the impression that Rabbi Pilichowski wanted only attractive women on the group he was assembling.

Posted in R. Jonathan Rosenblatt, R. Uri Pilichowski | Comments Off on What’s The Latest With Former Beth Jacob Rabbi Uri Pilichowski?

Every Time We Farbrengen In 90035, A Riot Breaks Out

Chaim Amalek: Get a bunch of Modern Orthodox types together and this is the inevitable outcome. Only the Japanese are worse. Time for more funding for midnight shiurs.

Posted in Crime | Comments Off on Every Time We Farbrengen In 90035, A Riot Breaks Out