The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Rule 5 Sunday: SUNshine Girl

Posted on | February 7, 2022 | Comments Off on Rule 5 Sunday: SUNshine Girl

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Things have been hopping in Canada lately, what with the Mother Of All Honking going on in Ottawa, so it seemed appropriate to post one of the Ottawa Sun’s SUNshine girls, the relatively decorous Canadian version of the UK Sun’s Page Three girls. Today’s example is Shaelynn, a blue-eyed Pisces who likes Cadillacs.
Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley esse delendam.


Ninety Miles From Tyranny: Hot Pick of the Late Night, The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #1617, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns. 

Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Happy Society Friday, and the Saturday Gingermageddon. 

EBL: The Ides Of March, Julie London, Reacher, Allison Gollust, Em Beihold, Year Of The Tiger, Civilization: Romance & Reality, and MAGA Mutiny.

A View From The Beach: Ana de Armas Has Some Serious Fans, Michael Avenatti Screwed the Pooch, Friday Political Frolic, Fish Pic Friday – Ray Cwik, Tattoo Thursday, Salt of the Earth?, Wednesday Wetness, The Hard Way, The Monday Morning Stimulus, Rando Celebrity News, Maryland, My Maryland, Palm Sunday and Hef’s Widow Destroys His Precious Legacy 

Thanks to everyone for the luscious links!

Amazon Warehouse Deals

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Shop Sex & Sensuality Gifts




Category: Rule 5

FMJRA 2.0: Burning For You

Posted on | February 6, 2022 | Comments Off on FMJRA 2.0: Burning For You

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Not a good week for the home team: split two games with Montreal and then got swept in a two-game series by the White Sox. Things don’t look much better this week, as I have a three-game series at Seattle, which just traded for Dick Allen who’ll hit cleanup behind Pete Rose. FML.
Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley esse delendam.

We’re not going to finish above .500 this season, are we? *ducks*

Rule 5 Sunday: Evangeline Lilly 
Animal Magnetism
Proof Positive
A View From The Beach
EBL
Ninety Miles From Tyranny

‘Liberal Creationism,’ Revisited
357 Magnum
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: There Ain’t Nothing Wrong With The Radio
A View From The Beach
EBL

Yes, Black Lives Matters Was a Scam
The Political Hat
A View From The Beach
EBL
‘Air Biden’: Midnight Flights Bring Illegals From Border, and It’s ‘Racist’ to Notice
357 Magnum
EBL

The Joy of Schadenfreude as Nick Wright Cries the Tears of Unfathomable Sadness
357 Magnum
EBL

‘Running Gun Battle’ in Florida Town Leaves One Dead, Four Wounded
EBL

In The Mailbox: 01.31.22
A View From The Beach
EBL

I (Still) Hate Illinois Nazis
Hogewash
EBL

Malignant Dwarf Jeff Zucker Forced to Resign From CNN Over Sleazy Sex Affair
First Street Journal
357 Magnum
EBL

On The Road
357 Magnum
EBL

‘Complicit in Oppression’
EBL

Crime Is a People Problem, Which Is Why You Can’t Expect Democrats to Solve It
357 Magnum
EBL

In The Mailbox: 02.03.22
Proof Positive
357 Magnum
A View From The Beach
EBL

Carjacker Had ‘Ghost Gun,’ Five Outstanding Warrants, Felony Record
EBL

Somebody Tell Nick Wright That Patrick Mahomes Will Never Be the GOAT
EBL

What Does ‘White Supremacy’ Mean?
EBL

In The Mailbox: 02.04.22
Proof Positive
357 Magnum
A View From The Beach
EBL

Top linkers for the week ending February 4:

  1.  EBL (18)
  2.  357 Magnum (8)
  3.  A View From The Beach (6)

Amazon Warehouse Deals




Category: FMJRA Award

‘The Dismantling of Race-Conscious Admissions Would Deal Another Blow to Equity in Science’

Posted on | February 6, 2022 | Comments Off on ‘The Dismantling of Race-Conscious Admissions Would Deal Another Blow to Equity in Science’

Former UNC Chancellor H. Holden Thorp

Professor Reynolds linked this with the flippant dismissal, “White guy says there are too many Asians.” And perhaps that’s sufficient rebuttal, considering the actual stakes involved in the current situation (see, “Supreme Court can end racial preferences with Harvard and UNC admissions cases,” Mike Gonzalez, Fox News, Jan. 31). It is in fact the case that “affirmative action” (or, as it is now called in academic codespeak, “diversity”) has the effect of discriminating against Asian-Americans in admissions to elite universities, in order to enable those institutions to fulfill their self-imposed quotas of so-called “underrepresented minorities.” In other words, despite the actual discrimination that Asians have experienced historically (and even to this day), because of their extraordinary scholastic success, they are treated unfairly in the admissions process in comparison to black and Hispanic students. Exactly how is this justifiable? “Diversity” is the all-purpose explanation, but it is self-evident that numerical quotas as being used in this process — why else would black students be exactly 14% of the Harvard freshman class, year after year after year? — and that such a racial quota system makes a mockery of the meritocratic ideal that these institutions claim to represent. As much as I would like to ignore this, especially because I’m not awed by the prestige of Harvard, the argument made by H. Holden Thorp deserves close scrutiny.

Who exactly is H. Holden Thorp, you ask? Since August 2019, he has been editor-in-chief of Science magazine. A North Carolina native and chemist by profession, he was something of a youthful prodigy. In his 20s, he was awarded a $500,000 grant from the Packard Foundation, and subsequently made fortune by establishing biotech and pharmaceutical companies. As a member of the faculty of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, he advanced to the top of that institution:

He became the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences in 2007, after a nationwide search. One year later, he was named chancellor of the University after being nominated by Erskine Bowles, president of the University of North Carolina System, and unanimously chosen by the Board of Governors.
In 2013, Thorp resigned the position of Chancellor amid allegations of widespread academic fraud, which were later outlined in Wainstein Report. The Wainstein Report describes the findings of an independent investigation conducted by former federal prosecutor Kenneth Wainstein. It describes abuses spanning over 18 years, which included “no-show” classes that had little to no faculty oversight. Approximately half of the enrollees in these classes were athletes.

I’m not sure how much personal responsibility Thorp bore for the “widespread academic fraud” at UNC, since the “abuses” predated his chancellorship by several years, but he did resign as a result, so there’s that. So now let’s see his opinions on affirmative action:

As science struggles to correct systemic racism in the laboratory and throughout academia . . .

(How did “science” get roped into these “struggles”? But never mind . . .)

. . . in the United States, external forces press on, making it even more difficult to achieve equity on all fronts — including among scientists. . . .

(What is “equity,” and why must it be achieved “on all fronts”? Or are these just slogans tossed around for the sake of virtue-signalling?)

The latest example is the decision by the US Supreme Court to hear cases brought against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill challenging their right to use race as a factor in undergraduate admissions. . . .

(If we consult the previous sentence, we see that this decision by the court is being categorized as one of those “external forces” which allegedly make it “difficult to achieve equity.” In other words, merely by agreeing to hear the case, the court has impeded “equity.” The logic of this assertion escapes me, but I’m not a scandal-tainted former UNC chancellor, so perhaps it’s just over my head.)

It is sometimes easy for scientists to let colleagues in other disciplines engage in a debate like this, but the dismantling of race-conscious admissions would deal another blow to equity in science.

(I’m at loss to explain why “equity in science” is so doggone vital as to require “race-conscious admissions” to achieve it.)

The Supreme Court has protected affirmative action in the past, but the Court’s current majority of conservative justices could mean the end of the program. This is no time for the scientific community to stay silent. It is a crucial moment for science to mobilize against this latest assault on diversity.

(OMG! An “assault on diversity”! We must “mobilize”!)

For more than 50 years in the United States, colleges and universities have been using multiple criteria to select undergraduates, recognizing that a diverse student body is essential for the university to achieve its mission.

(Why? Historically black universities don’t have “diverse” student bodies; does Thorp mean to imply that, e.g., Howard fails to achieve the mission of a university?)

I asked Peter Henry, the WR Berkley Professor of Economics and Finance at New York University, about the economic data on the matter. “Affirmative action corrects a market failure,” he said. “Talent is broadly distributed across the US population, but opportunity is not.”

(If any population group is underrepresented in a university’s student body, this is a “market failure”? Why? Where is it enshrined in law — much less in the principles of economics — that everything in life, including university attendance, must be equally distributed among every group, so that the freshman class at Harvard or UNC is a demographic mirror of the population? By the way, how many heterosexual males are in the theater program at Harvard? If straight guys are “underrepresented” in student theater — as is generally the case, based on my personal observation — would they qualify for affirmative action? But never mind, back to “science” . . .)

The process [i.e., “race-conscious admissions”] gives deserving students a chance that they might not otherwise have, adding excellence to the higher education system.

(The key word here is “deserving.” What Thorp is saying is that, merely by being black or Hispanic, some students deserve this “chance” more than others, but the logic of this assertion evades me. Exactly how is it that admitting students with lower scores, simply because they check the correct racial box, is “adding excellence”? If there were no measurable differences in academic performance, these racial quotas would not be necessary. What the students suing Harvard and UNC claim is that, despite their superior qualifications, they were denied admission simply because they’re Asian, and Asian students are “overrepresented.” Thorp does not explain why a Korean-American student is less capable of “adding excellence” than a Puerto Rican student, and I’d like to see someone back him into a corner to demand such an explanation, but I’m not going to hold my breath.)

It also acknowledges that not all students have an equal opportunity to excel at objective measures like standardized tests and grades, and it levels the playing field by giving students and universities the chance to spotlight other important attributes and factors in the admissions process. . . .

(What does that even mean? Why don’t “all students have an equal opportunity to excel at objective measures like standardized tests and grades”? It’s not a difference in opportunity, but rather a difference in ability, that “objective measures” are intended to determine. You can talk all you want about “root causes,” nature-vs.-nuture and all that — very interesting as a research project — but at the point where an elite university is deciding which 17-year-olds qualify for acceptance, the “objective measures” must trump everything else, if the process is to be both fair and meritocratic.)

I know something about this struggle because I was one of the chancellors of UNC who oversaw the admissions policies in question. When the Supreme Court took up the case of Abigail Fisher versus the University of Texas at Austin, I submitted an amicus brief prepared by UNC’s law dean and general counsel. Fisher, a white student, challenged the university’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admission process. Denied admission in 2008, she argued that the use of race in this manner violated her constitutional right to equal protection. In the brief, it was shown convincingly that students chosen for admission based on a range of criteria, including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background, fared better than those chosen solely on the basis of standardized test scores and high school grades.

(Oh? This amicus brief was conclusive proof that the “range of criteria” approach to admissions produced better results than reliance on test scores and grades? I’m not familiar with that document, but I’m suspicious of Thorp’s assertion that UNC’s law dean so conclusively settled the argument in favor of a racial quota system.)

This commitment to providing access to higher education has now landed UNC in the courts.
All of this is bad for science. Failure to enroll a diverse undergraduate population has already excluded outstanding people from science, and limiting affirmative action will only make matters worse.

(Who are these “outstanding people” who have been “excluded . . . from science”? Does Thorp have a list of their names or is this just a theoretical assumption about the effects of allegedly inadequate efforts “to enroll a diverse undergraduate population”?)

But much more insidious are the messages these fights continue to send. It’s bad enough that science faculty haven’t continually updated their methods of teaching to ones known to be more inclusive. Likewise for universities and their processes for faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure that sustain inequity. Now, on top of all that, the highest court in the United States is going to engage in a highly public debate over whether many of the country’s potential future students of science can enter the scientific community, continuing the perpetual message of exclusion.

(How “insidious” that the Supreme Court will “engage in a highly public debate” about — checks notes — the claim that Asian students are victims of systemic discrimination in the admissions process at elite universities.)

The cases currently before the court involve claims that Asian Americans are penalized for their race in admissions decisions at Harvard and UNC. As Jennifer Lee, Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, points out in the Editor’s Blog this week, this misrepresents Asian American sentiment: 70% of Asian Americans support affirmative action, and fewer than 10% have reported being passed over for college admissions. As Lee notes, the cases before the court will not address real anti-Asian bias on college campuses.

(He’s citing a sociology professor who in turn is citing a poll, because that’s how arguments about civil rights should be settled — science!)

What can scientists do to counteract all of this? Study the data showing that talent is broadly distributed and then use this evidence to help fight exclusive practices. It’s also important to emphasize that grades and standardized test scores alone are insufficient selection criteria. But more importantly, show up this go-round. Students deserve to see science faculty rise up alongside colleagues in the humanities to support affirmative action. That will be a powerful message of welcome.

Also, be sure that your varsity athletes get credit for no-show classes, because that’s how H. Holden Thorp did it, back at good ol’ UNC.




 

Category: Education, Racism, Supreme Court

Have You Heard of ‘The CROWN Act’?

Posted on | February 6, 2022 | Comments Off on Have You Heard of ‘The CROWN Act’?

Friday, I wrote about the “Is Professionalism a Racist Construct?” seminar that Washington University in St. Louis did last week, but I hadn’t watched the full hour-long video and — oh, boy! — is it chock full of craziness. After a half-hour, they begin talking about The CROWN Act, and go on about it for 10 minutes. What is The CROWN Act?

In June 2019, California made headlines for becoming the first state to outlaw the racial discrimination of individuals based on their natural hairstyles. The bill, SB 188, passed the state Senate in April and passed in a unanimous vote by California’s state assembly on June 27, 2019. The law, also known as the CROWN Act (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair), states, “In a society in which hair has historically been one of many determining factors of a person’s race, and whether they were a second class citizen, hair today remains a proxy for race. Therefore, hair discrimination targeting hairstyles associated with race is racial discrimination.”

Now, on the one hand, everybody agrees that racial discrimination is bad and wrong — except when you’re discriminating against Asians in the Ivy League, and then Democrats are perfectly OK with it. But on the other hand, is this specific legislation necessary? Is it wise? Does this need to be enforced by the federal government?

At the federal level, the Crown Act passed in the House of Representatives last September, but it stalled in the Senate. State-specific legislation has been quite successful, though. So far, twelve states have passed the Crown Act or variations on it, including California, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, Maryland, Connecticut, New Mexico, Delaware, Nebraska, and Nevada. More than ten cities have passed the Crown Act in states where it has not yet become law, and at least 17 states have completed the filing or pre-filing steps that could soon lead to official legislation.

This is just pure 100% craziness, and the fact that it started in California — land of legalized larceny and homeless junkies defecating on the sidewalk — ought to be sufficient argument against it. There is an unfortunate tendency, among a certain type of bien-pensant white person, to condescend to black people in a patronizing way, like an indulgent parent attempting to placate a spoiled child. As bad as this approach is when dealing with actual children, it’s utter madness when dealing with adults, and a formula for disaster.

What is going on with The CROWN Act seems to be a largely symbolic gesture, giving white Democrats a chance to vote for something that they can point to as evidence of their anti-racist bona fides, but in the process creating a law that is likely to be mischievous in its effects. Can someone point me to an example of how this law is being enforced? Is this just another way to create business for tort lawyers filing flimsy lawsuits?

The fact that four university deans would spend 10 minutes of a video seminar talking about this law only deepens my suspicion that it’s a bad idea, and that the states which have enacted it will have cause to regret it. I mean, whenever California Democrats and elite academia agree on anything, it’s invariably a bad idea. There is a difference between disapproval and legal prohibition; not everything we dislike, or which we believe to be socially harmful, needs to be prohibited by law. And novelty is scarcely a recommendation for legislative action. The fact that it is impossible to find any precedent for The CROWN Act — really, who ever heard of any law like this? — is the strongest argument against it.

The rush to ram this crazy thing through state legislatures, and even to make it a federal statute, should be resisted long enough to see what effect it will have in those states that have already enacted it. Perhaps I’m wrong, and The CROWN Act will be harmless or even beneficial, but I don’t think so. If this is a good idea, it would be the first good idea California Democrats have had in recent memory.




 

Category: Racism

GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!

Posted on | February 5, 2022 | Comments Off on GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!

Last July, Michael Avenatti was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for his attempt to extort money from Nike, and now the creepy porn lawyer has again been convicted of felony charges:

Attorney-turned-criminal Michael Avenatti was convicted Friday of swiping nearly $300,000 in book-advance money from his then-client Stormy Daniels.
The now-twice-convicted felon — and one-time rising star — now faces a maximum of 22 years in prison for his conviction on wire fraud and aggravated identity theft charges.
The jury started deliberating Wednesday. He’s scheduled to be sentenced on May 24.
After the verdict, Avenatti made a brief statement to reporters outside of the courthouse in lower Manhattan as rain poured down.
“I’m very disappointed in the jury’s verdict. I am looking forward to a full adjudication of all of the issues on appeal,” he said.
His conviction marks another black eye for the already tarnished attorney, who rose to national fame during the Trump administration as a vocal foe of the president while he was representing Daniels.
Avenatti was a darling of the left during his time as Daniels’ attorney, who relished in sparring with former President Donald Trump and his supporters on social media and cable news.
He even floated running for president against Trump in 2020, as he was reportedly dubbed “the savior of the republic.”
Throughout the trial, prosecutors painted Avenatti, 50, as a calculating thief who stole two book-advance payments from Daniels in 2018 that totaled nearly $300,000.

A thief, a swindler, a liar and a liberal media darling.

(Hat-tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)




 

Category: Crime

In The Mailbox: 02.04.22

Posted on | February 5, 2022 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 02.04.22

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Well, I gave it my best shot, but I didn’t make it home early enough to do two of these and get fully caught up. Which I suppose is just as well since then you would have six link posts this week…anyway, since I have to be back in the tax mines on Sunday (and I already have four clients lined up) I’m just going to spend one night in my own bed before heading back up US-95 to Reno. Might be a book post tomorrow along with the FMJRA. Might wait until next Saturday. We’ll see.
Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley esse delendam.

OVER THE TRANSOM
357 Magnum: The Joys of Owning A Sparky Car
EBL: Is CNN Paying Chris Cuomo Millions In Hush Money? also, David French & The Dispatch Are Fighting Systemic Racism
Twitchy: Here’s How To Get A Refund Now That GoFundMe has Nuked The Freedom Convoy Fundraiser
Louder With Crowder: Shaq Dunks On Mandates, Says Nobody Should Be Forced To Get The Jab
Vox Popoli: Conservatives Discover Wang Humin, No More Soros Games, and Natural Immunity Is The Only Immunity
According To Hoyt: When They Honk People Off, also, Conspiracy Theories
Monster Hunter Nation: Current Event Roundup, also, Gun Runner Now In Paperback

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: The Straight White Christian Man
American Conservative: Appeasement For A Good Cause, also, All The Institutions Failed
American Greatness: Senate Report – Thousands Of Americans Left Behind In Afghanistan Thanks To Biden’s Botched Withdrawal 
American Thinker: Austin Thinks Again, also, School Board Demeans Parents Over Controversial Books
Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Happy Society Friday
Babalu Blog: Beta Is Desperately Hoping The Lights Go Out, also, Surprise! Cuban Dictatorship Raises Millions Collecting Blood From Its Citizens & Selling It Abroad
BattleSwarm: Jeff Zucker Out At CNN For Sexing Not Sucking,  Snowpocalypse Not, and LinkSwarm For February 4
Behind The Black: Pushback – Doctor Fired For Opposing Mandates Sues Hospital, SpaceX Launches Another 49 Starlink Satellites, and Iceye Raises $136 Million In Private Investment Capital
[Speaking of capital, this is February, and time for Mr. Zimmerman’s birthday fundraiser to help keep Behind The Black going. Go show the man some love at his website or via Patreon. – WS]
Cafe Hayek: Peacefully Protesting COVID Hysteria
CDR Salamander: Fullbore Friday
Da Tech Guy: The Key Line From The Story Of Charlotte Bellis, Truck Trudeau & The Rest Of The COVID Authoritarians, and CNN, Jeff Zucker, & The Left/Media’s Harvey Weinstein Rules
Don Surber: Poll Shows Most Ukrainians Won’t Defend Ukraine, Biden Denies Religious Exemption To Navy Chaplain, and Just Like That, Liberals Hated Mountain Lions
First Street Journal: 44 Murdered In Philadelphia This January – An Improvement! also, A “Crime” Created By Government
Gates Of Vienna: “Canada Has Been Usurped By A Maoist”, Sharia On The Federal Bench, and An Appeal From A Canadian Trucker
The Geller Report: FBI Director Shamelessly Lies That J6 Protesters Have Been Treated No Differently Than Antifa & #BLM, also, Here’s How Democrats Plan To Rig The 2022 Elections To Stay In Power
Hogewash: Team Kimberlin Post of The Day, Discovery Will Be Entertaining, and I’ve Had A Previous Bad Experience With GoFundMe
Hollywood In Toto: Susan Sarandon’s Ghastly Anti-Cop Tweet Explained, Masculinity Gets A Comeback With Reacher, and Jon Stewart’s Chickens Coming Home To Roost
The Lid: Pelosi Will Soon Regret Her Advice To Olympians In Beijing, also, Latest Hunter Biden Corruption Evidence Triggers Special Counsel Demands
Legal Insurrection: Professor Glenn Loury’s Ilya Shapiro Moment, Former ACLU Head Ira Glasser Blasts Organization’s New Progressive Agenda, and Ilya Shapiro To Whoopi – “Let’s Talk…We Have To Disrupt This Toxic Cultural Moment In Favor Of Free Speech”
Michelle Malkin: Open Borders Inc. – The “Conspiracy” Is Real
Nebraska Energy Observer: Something Good To Say, People’s Party Of Canada, and Eppur Si Muove, Galileo
Outkick: ESPN Idiot Says Red China Genocide Is No Worse Than Red States Requiring Voter ID, Is NBC’s Savannah Guthrie Working For The Red Chinese?, and Credit To NBC Olympics Host Mike Tirico For Covering Red China’s Genocide
Power Line: Truckers Of The World Unite!, Price of the Ticket, and Who’s Toobin Who?
Shark Tank: Occasional Cortex Praises Eskamani’s Work, also, Murphy Lone Democrat To Vote Against COMPETES Act
Shot In The Dark: On The One Hand, Sic Transit Gloria Civilis Occidentalis, and It’s Always A National Holiday When You’re A Fact Checker
The Political Hat: Brave New World – Abolishing Parenthood, Racial Equity Audits, and Criminal Prosecution By AI, also, Poe’s Law Is Broken
This Ain’t Hell: Vindman Returns, Navy Master Chief Under Investigation, and Valor Friday
Transterrestrial Musings: Aerojet, Moonfall, and Vitamin D
Victory Girls: #BLM Shuts Down Fundraising, Red China Wins Gold In Olympic Oppression, and Schools Nationwide Bitterly Clinging To Masks & Vax
Volokh Conspiracy: Georgetown Law’s Actions Against Ilya Shapiro Lack Credibility, also, #TeamJackson Member Allegedly Edited Wikipedia Bios Of Potential SCOTUS Nominees
Weasel Zippers: Black Republican Blackballed By Virginia Assembly’s Black Caucus, Teacher Yells At Student For “Thin Blue Line” Mask – “That’s The New Confederacy Flag!”, and Bad Orange Woman Can’t Explain Why Biden Won’t Attend NYPD Funerals During NYC Visit
The Federalist: How Much Did Mark Zuckerberg’s Money Shift Wisconsin Votes For Biden?, Stop Harming Yourself With “Self Care”, and How Green Energy Fantasies Can Amplify Civil Unrest
Mark Steyn: The Shame Of A Nation, Copper Bottom, and Honking The Week Away

Amazon Warehouse Deals




Category: Linkagery

What Does ‘White Supremacy’ Mean?

Posted on | February 4, 2022 | Comments Off on What Does ‘White Supremacy’ Mean?

Four people wasting their time (and yours, too).

This is a question I have been thinking about for a while, but never found the right entry point for exploring it until today, when Instapundit linked to this article at Campus Reform:

The Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis hosted an event that made headlines before it even began, called “Is Professionalism a Racist Construct?”
In the event, the presenters characterized various qualities of workplace environments such as “perfectionism,” “a sense of urgency,” “defensiveness,” “worship of the written word,” and “quantity over quality” as characteristics of White supremacy culture.
One presenter, Assistant Dean for Field Education Jewel Stafford connected these alleged characteristics of White supremacy culture to the idea that “even though we’re working really hard, there’s a narrative that we’re not enough, that somehow who we are, what we do, it’s just not enough.”
The host, Associate Dean for External Affairs Gary Parker, noted that “there were some media outlets that portrayed this talk in a less than flattering light.”
Another presenter, Assistant Dean of the Office of Community Partnerships Cynthia Williams, addressed this controversy in her speech, noting multiple times that she was “getting into good trouble” with her colleagues, and specifically addressed the “provocative” nature of the question, “Is professionalism racist?” . . .
The presenters began their presentation with a land acknowledgment, noting that the Brown School “is within the ancestral homelands” of various “tribes that have resided, occupied, and called this region home.”
Williams then said, “We acknowledge the 1,252 black American men and women who since January 1, 2015, unjustifiably died due to police brutality and anti-black violence.”

Let’s start with that last claim, which is self-evidently false. The source of that 1,252 number is a Washington Post database but — excuse my white supremacist “perfectionism” — Dean Williams cited it wrong:

You see that the 1,252 refers to the total number of black people who died in police shootings between January 2015 and late May 2020 (see this NPR piece for a contemporary citation), but the cited source did not claim all these people “unjustifiably died.” In fact, nearly all of the people shot by police, whatever their race, were “armed or otherwise dangerous,” as Heather Mac Donald explained in June 2020:

In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.
The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

Do the math: In 2019, of the 235 black people fatally shot by police, 226 of them (96.2%) were armed. A detailed examination of the circumstances in which the 3.8% unarmed black suspects were shot might reveal incompetence or bad training as the explanation, but if there is among those nine cases a clear-cut example of “anti-black violence,” I’m unfamiliar with it, and certainly that label cannot be applied to all 1,252 police shootings of black suspects between 2015 and mid-2020.

Dean Williams was simply wrong about this, and yet she holds a position of authority at a prestigious private university where the annual cost of attendance is $76,766, including room and board. Maybe professionalism is “white supremacy,” so it’s racist to expect a university dean to be careful about citing data correctly. More importantly, however, what is this offensive nonsense about “white supremacy culture”?

This became a subject of controversy in 2019, when it was included in a slide presentation that was “was part of mandatory training sponsored and funded by the [New York City education] department’s Office of Equity and Access and . . . administered to principals, central office supervisors and superintendent teams.” The source of this is a 2001 book, Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change Groups by Kenneth Jones and Tema Okun. The full list of “white supremacy culture” characteristics, as listed on that 2019 training slide:

1. Perfectionism
2. Sense of urgency
3. Defensiveness
4. Quantity Over Quality
5. Worship of the Written Word
6. Only one right way
7. Paternalism
8. Either/or thinking
9. Power Hoarding
10. Fear of Open Conflict
11. Individualism
12. Progress is Bigger, More
13. Objectivity
14. Right to Comfort

While Jones died in 2004, Okun is still alive and has explained her authorial intent:

The original list is really a list of white supremacy characteristics that define and express white middle and owning class values and norms. White middle- and owning-class power brokers embody these characteristics as a way of defining what is “normal” and even “aspirational” or desired – the way we should all want to be. We know this because of how those who do not belong to the white middle and owning classes are required to adopt these characteristics in order to assimilate into this desired norm (when such assimilation is allowed). As a result, many poor and working class white people report they have not and do not internalize some of these norms. For example, fear of open conflict does not reflect the lived experience or value of all people in the white group.
These characteristics are not meant to describe all white people. They are meant to describe the norms of white middle-class and owning class culture, a culture we are all required to navigate regardless of our multiple identities.

Now, I’m not going to go through this entire list of characteristics — my “sense of urgency” tells me this would be a poor allocation of my valuable time — but rather will observe that it is by no means clear to me either (a) why these all these traits are deemed harmful, or (b) in what sense they are “white supremacist” either deliberately or in their unintended impact on minorities. No doubt it is true that anyone who aspires to success in a competitive environment (i.e., with “middle and owning class values and norms”) would manifest some tendency toward “perfectionism” and a “sense of urgency.” That is to say, you want to do the job exactly right, and do it as quickly as possible — quality control, productivity, and efficiency, in other words. These are basic values necessary to success in any business, but I suppose if you’re in the world of tax-exempt non-profit “social justice” activism (which is Tema Okun’s career), you can work as slow and sloppy as you want, and it doesn’t make any difference. As for “worship of the written word,” let me quote Jones and Okun:

Worship of the written word shows up as:

— if it’s not in a memo, it doesn’t exist
— if it’s not grammatically “correct,” it has no value
— if it’s not properly cited according to academic rules that many people don’t know or have access to, it’s not legitimate
— an inability or refusal to acknowledge information that is shared through stories, embodied knowing, intuition and the wide range of ways that we individually and collectively learn and know
— continued frustration that people and communities don’t respond to written communication; blaming people and communities for their failure to respond
— those with strong documentation and writing skills are more highly valued, even in organizations where ability to relate to others is key to the mission
— those who write things down get recognized for ideas that are collectively and generationally informed in a context where systemic racism privileges the writing and wisdom of people in the white group
— academic standards require “original” work when our knowledge and knowing almost always builds on the knowledge and knowing of others, of each other
— claiming “ownership” of (written) knowledge to meet ego needs rather than understanding the importance of offering what you write and know to grow and expand the community’s knowing

Do you see the problem here? The advantage of the written word, in terms of communication, is clarity and permanence.

If I tell you something — such as describing a workplace rule or a standard procedure — you might misunderstand me or forget what I told you. By putting the rule or procedure into writing, I thereby create a permanent record of it, and if you then fail to adhere to the prescribed instruction, you can’t say you weren’t told. If you say that my written instruction was not clear, anyone can look at the written document and see for themselves whether or not the meaning was clear. On the other hand, if you are barely literate, I can see why this preference for written communication in the workplace might be problematic for you. And if you are a habitual fuckup, with a tendency to create workplace problems by your haphazard and sloppy way of doing things, it might be inconvenient for you if your boss can point to a written memo in which he specifically told you not to do things that way. What is being attacked here as “white supremacy culture” by Jones and Okun is the value of written communication; they are attempting to devalue literacy, per se.

Keep in mind that, as I said before, Jones and Okun wrote this in a handbook about tax-exempt non-profit “social justice” activist groups, where efficiency and productivity might not be as highly valued as in, for example, the world of engineering or banking or any other competitive field of enterprise where doing things the right way actually matters.

We should not be surprised that a bunch of academic administrators with degrees in sociology would think this Jones/Okun text was splendid, because is there anywhere efficiency is less valued than modern academia? Can you imagine any greater waste of time and money than this hour-long video seminar?

 

These are four people who have nothing better to do than to record an hour-long YouTube video for an audience of 840 people. Nobody will learn anything about “white supremacy” from that video, unless what they mean is to describe the characteristics necessary to success.

Oh, wait a minute . . .




 

Category: Education, Racism

Somebody Tell Nick Wright That Patrick Mahomes Will Never Be the GOAT

Posted on | February 4, 2022 | Comments Off on Somebody Tell Nick Wright That Patrick Mahomes Will Never Be the GOAT

The retirement this week of Tom Brady gives me another excuse (as if I needed one) to rub salt in Nick Wright’s fresh wounds. If you don’t understand why I despise Nick Wright, you can read all about it here, but the main point is that Nick is a shameless homer for the Kansas City Chiefs, which impairs his objectivity vis-a-vis my boy Mac Jones and the New England Patriots. Because of his bias, as a KC native, Wright wants to believe that the Chiefs are poised to become an NFL “dynasty” similar to the Patriots’ two-decade dynasty under Coach Bill Belichick, and that Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes can supplant Tom Brady as the “GOAT” (greatest of all time). But that’s never going to happen.

Brady and Mahomes are two very different types of quarterbacks. Brady is a classic dropback passer, while Mahomes is an improvisational genius whose scrambling ability makes him one of the best running QBs in the league. After four seasons as KC’s starter, Mahomes already has more rushing yards (1,189) than Brady had in his entire 20-year career (1,124).

This fact is the biggest reason why Mahomes is unlikely to replace Brady as the GOAT. Brady won a record seven Super Bowls, and four of those (beginning with Super Bowl XLIX in 2015) he won after he turned 37. In other words, a major reason Brady won more Super Bowls than anyone else is because he lasted longer in the NFL than anyone else, and a quarterback isn’t likely to still be playing in his 40s if he’s always running around the way Mahomes does. Football rules protect a quarterback as long as he’s behind the line of scrimmage passing, but once he runs downfield, he’s just another runner, and that involves a heightened risk of injury. Besides which, even if Mahomes can avoid getting his knees wrecked in one of his wild downfield runs, running ability tends to decline with age. Even the greatest running back in NFL history, Emmitt Smith, only lasted 15 years in the league, and didn’t top 1,000 yards in his last three seasons. Insofar as his mobility and speed make Mahomes exceptional, nobody (not even Nick Wright) could imagine he’s still going to be outrunning linebackers when he’s 35.

Look, I understand the “excitement” factor with Mahomes, who has a seemingly miraculous way of extending plays even after the pocket collapses and all his receivers are covered, but age will take its toll, and there is no way the Chiefs QB, now 26, can keep doing that forever. Bottom line, if Mahomes aspires to win more Super Bowls than Tom Brady, he needs to get his streak rolling now, and not be choking in the playoffs the way he choked Sunday against the Bengals.

Did I mention it’s hard to win Super Bowls? Think of everything that has to happen just right for a team to even make it to a Super Bowl — first, you have to win enough regular season games to qualify for the playoffs (14 out of 32 NFL teams, a 44% chance), but then except for the top seed in each conference, you have to win three games (wild card round, divisional playoffs, conference championship) to reach the Super Bowl. One loss in the playoffs and you’re out, as Nick Wright learned to his everlasting mortification Sunday. Only two of the 32 teams in the league play in the Super Bowl, and only one can win, so that 1/32nd chance is always a long-shot. This is why the fact Tom Brady won it seven times is so amazing. At age 27, Brady had already won three Super Bowls.

Patrick Mahomes has won one Super Bowl, and will turn 27 this September. It’s possible Mahomes might have won another Super Bowl, but he got beat by the GOAT last year. Mahomes didn’t even throw a touchdown pass in that game, which might have been a foreshadowing of how bad he choked in the second half against the Bengals.

Need more salt in that wound, Mr. Wright? Your boy Mahomes is behind the sticks, so to speak, in his drive to beat Brady as the GOAT. If he doesn’t win the Super Bowl next year, he’ll be two behind Brady’s pace. Of course, after winning Super Bowl XXXIX, it took another ten years before Brady won his fourth, as the Patriots beat the Seahawks 28-24 in Super Bowl XLIX. In between those two Super Bowl victories, Brady and the Patriots twice lost the Super Bowl (XLII in 2008 and XLVI in 2012) to Eli Manning’s New York Giants. Those were the only two Super Bowls that Eli Manning won; his brother Peyton Manning also won two (XLI in 2007 with the Colts and L in 2016 with the Broncos). Six other quarterbacks — Bart Starr, Roger Staubach, Bob Griese, Jim Plunkett, John Elway, Ben Roethlisberger — each won two Super Bowls. Troy Aikman won three, while Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana each won four Super Bowls. If Mahomes were to win one more Super Bowl, he would rank among the 12 best quarterbacks in NFL history by that metric. Should Mahomes win a third Super Bowl, he’d be one of the five best quarterbacks in history, and winning four would rank him in the top three all-time. So far, however, Mahomes has won only one Super Bowl, and if he keeps choking the way he choked Sunday against the Bengals — really, that second half was one of the worst choke jobs anyone can remember — he may never win another.

The chances of Patrick Mahomes surpassing Tom Brady’s seven Super Bowl victories are so tiny, you might not be able to see them without an electron scanning microscope. Yet that tiny chance is what Nick Wright is betting on, every time he suggests Mahomes could be the new GOAT.

Let’s just hope Nick’s disillusionment is as painful as possible.

You can buy more salt on Amazon, just sayin’ . . .




 

Category: Football
« go back — keep looking »