72 responses to “Malkin’s Chutzpah”

1. 

   Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

   September 15, 2009 at 6:31 pm

   I think it is because you were trained as a closet leftist Alex. You kind of look like you have communist tendencies. I am glad you will never be called upon to defend a needy client in a court room. You must have missed logic classes. When you present just part of an arguement to make your case, intellectual honesty could be lacking. If you are attacked by Arabs, you do not go looking for Orientals. That is unless PC is more important than solving the crime. I will take Michele’s arguement over yours anyday. But then I am just Zelsdorf.
2. 

   Triumph

   September 15, 2009 at 6:47 pm

   I love Malkin. Aside from being incredibly hot, she knows the score.

   She reminds me of a post-Obama styled Rachel Ray.
3. 

   TangoMan

   September 15, 2009 at 6:58 pm

   However, I have to say that I admire the chutzpah of her recent blog post, in which she decries the “racial thuggery” of an assault that currently has no evidence of racial motivation.

   Now, it may well turn out that there was a racial component to the assault.

   Standards that are sufficient for the President and the “Civil Rights” litigation industry should similarly be sufficient for Michelle Malkin.
4. 

   Alex Knapp

   September 15, 2009 at 7:41 pm

   TangoMan,

   I must have missed the part where Barack Obama says it’s okay to throw people in camps because they’re the wrong color.
5. 

   TangoMan

   September 15, 2009 at 7:51 pm

   Alex,

   Stay focused, bro. Is Malkin saying that about the group that attacked the boy on the bus? No, she’s not. The issue is about prima facia presumptions. The President is notorious for this and so are many “civil rights” advocates, for instance, they’ll look at the racial composition of a firm’s workforce and if the racial ratios are not within bounds they’ll presume active discrimination. If you want to travel this road, about camps, then the current President who is so emulating FDR has a greater likelihood of bringing about these camps than an author and pundit.
6. 

   Charlotte

   September 15, 2009 at 7:55 pm

   Ditto, TangoMan.

   Well said. Thank you.
7. 

   Alex Knapp

   September 15, 2009 at 8:01 pm

   TangoMan,

   Is Malkin saying that about the group that attacked the boy on the bus?

   Yes.

   The President is notorious for this

   He’s notorious for “racial thuggery”? Citation needed.

   many “civil rights” advocates, for instance, they’ll look at the racial composition of a firm’s workforce and if the racial ratios are not within bounds they’ll presume active discrimination.

   Sometimes the law actually requires the presumption of active discrimination in those instances. Sometimes it is indicia of discrimination. For you to accuse these unnamed “civil rights” advocates of “thuggery” you would have to show that this is, in fact, unjust significantly more often than it isn’t. Burden of proof is on you.

   If you want to travel this road, about camps, then the current President who is so emulating FDR has a greater likelihood of bringing about these camps than an author and pundit.

   Michelle Malkin defended the camps as necessary and moral, and strongly implied that locking up Arabs would be, too. Got any evidence at all of Obama wanting to do this?
8. 

   Steve Plunk

   September 15, 2009 at 8:01 pm

   Until there is evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to call this “racial thuggery”. The video is pretty convincing. I would even go so far as to speculate prosecutions have taken place with this amount of evidence.

   Of course as an 11 year old I wandered into the wrong lunch spot and was assaulted because of my race. It was a long time ago but it was an early lesson in reverse discrimination.

   I wonder if a video tape of a lone black child being beaten by whites with other whites cheering and taking photos would be considered “racial thuggery”? Actually no, I don’t wonder at all.
9. 

   Alex Knapp

   September 15, 2009 at 8:05 pm

   Steve,

   The cops say there’s no evidence of racial motivation. Look closely, and you’ll see white kids cheering it on, too.

   Schoolkids cheer on fights, regardless of motivation. It’s sick, but it’s true.

   Now, it may have been a racially motivated assault. But there’s no evidence of that yet.

   My point, though, is that Malkin can’t go around claiming “racial thuggery” when she made money off the proposition that it’s okay to round people up into camps based on their race.
10. 

    sam

    September 15, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    Evidently, it was just a couple of kids acting badly, as kids are wont to do from time to time:

    Dispute over seat sparked attack on school bus, student says
11. 

    TangoMan

    September 15, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    Alex: “I must have missed the part where Barack Obama says it’s okay to throw people in camps because they’re the wrong color.”

    TangoMan: “Is Malkin saying that about the group that attacked the boy on the bus?”

    Alex: “Yes.”

    OK, show me where Michelle Malkin wrote that these kids on the bus who beat up on the white kid should be sent to a camp.

    He’s notorious for “racial thuggery”? Citation needed.

    1.) His Administration stops any effort to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidate voters, despite the intimidation being caught on tape and televised to the nation.

    2.) Protests at Harvard where he, and others, were intimidating the administration into hiring people based on skin color.

    3.) Organizing racial demonstrations during his tenure as a racial agitator in Chicago.

    4.) All sorts of racial quotas embedded within recent legislation, for instance, the requirement to enroll greater numbers of minorities in medical school. Crafting law is simply directing the force of government against the free will of people. How do racial quotas have any connection to health care reform?

    5.) Deep ties with ACORN, Rev. Wright and Father Michael Pfleger, and other assorted racial agitators.

    For you to accuse these unnamed “civil rights” advocates of “thuggery”

    He’s notorious for “racial thuggery”?

    Did they teach you about logical fallacies in law school? You’re arguing against a strawman and trying to legitimize it by a.) putting racial thuggery into quotes and b.) then attributing the use of that phrase to me. I never said anything about “racial thuggery” rather I argued about prima facie presumptions. If the President and “civil rights” champions are free to make presumptions when race is involved then that same courtesy should be extended to Malkin.

    Do you find it so difficult to argue with what I actually write than you find that you have to resort to arguing against strawmen and then attributing to me words that I never wrote?

    Sometimes the law actually requires the presumption of active discrimination in those instances. Sometimes it is indicia of discrimination. For you to accuse these unnamed “civil rights” advocates of “thuggery” you would have to show that this is, in fact, unjust significantly more often than it isn’t. Burden of proof is on you.

    This is one huge mess of muddled thinking. Let’s analyze it via simple substitution by replacing “civil rights violations” with “sexual assault violation.” If a law stated that there is a required presumption of sexual assault against a defendant, and “sexual assault” do-gooders were running rampant with their accusations, who would buy the notion that a balance between accurate and inaccurate accusations was a sufficient threshold. The issue is not the balance but the actual evidence, there should be no presumption of guilt. Why should anyone be presumed guilty because the law states that they should be so presumed?

    If these “civil rights” advocates wish to make a case that discrimination exists then let them present evidence and prove their accusation.

    These folks are trading on the same prima facia assessment of surface facts that Michelle Malkin relied on. Look at the now proven false initial assessments that surrounded the Matthew Shepard case and the Jena-6 case. If you’re going to condemn Malkin for doing what bleeding hearts did with Shepard’s murder and the Jena-6 case, then condemn the bleeding hearts with the same force you’re applying to Malkin.
12. 

    odograph

    September 15, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    Sometimes the law actually requires the presumption of active discrimination in those instances. Sometimes it is indicia of discrimination. For you to accuse these unnamed “civil rights” advocates of “thuggery” you would have to show that this is, in fact, unjust significantly more often than it isn’t. Burden of proof is on you.

    Tango wants to introduce into that discussion the “fact” that some races are more intelligent “on average” than others, and that this explains differences in outcomes. But he’s not a racist, no sir.

    The sad fact of course is that he never had to go there. It is much easier, and fairer, to say “OK these statistics show a difference in outcomes, we can have a conversation about that. We believe in equal rights and equal opportunity, if we can find some actual discrimination we can address it.”

    I understand that some liberals want to skip the finding of actual discrimination, but that’s where our moderate-conservative attention should be.

    We shouldn’t be … well trying to put out the fire with gasoline. That’s what you are doing when you want to bring out your IQ results.
13. 

    Alex Knapp

    September 15, 2009 at 9:06 pm

    TM,

    OK, show me where Michelle Malkin wrote that these kids on the bus who beat up on the white kid should be sent to a camp.

    *sigh* She said that this was an example of “racial thuggery.” I merely pointed out the obvious that racial internment camps are also “racial thuggery.”

    1.) His Administration stops any effort to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidate voters, despite the intimidation being caught on tape and televised to the nation.

    I don’t have enough info to comment.

    2.) Protests at Harvard where he, and others, were intimidating the administration into hiring people based on skin color.

    The mere fact of a protest isn’t “thuggery.” Was there physical violence threatened? Is there something wrong with increasing the racial diversity of a university?

    3.) Organizing racial demonstrations during his tenure as a racial agitator in Chicago.

    I’ve read Obama’s memoirs. I don’t think that’s a valid interpretation of the work he was doing.

    4.) All sorts of racial quotas embedded within recent legislation, for instance, the requirement to enroll greater numbers of minorities in medical school. Crafting law is simply directing the force of government against the free will of people. How do racial quotas have any connection to health care reform?

    Do you have a cite for that?

    5.) Deep ties with ACORN, Rev. Wright and Father Michael Pfleger, and other assorted racial agitators.

    Do you have evidence that Wright, Pfleger, or ACORN (acting in its official capacity) instigated or commited acts of racial violence?

    This is one huge mess of muddled thinking. Let’s analyze it via simple substitution by replacing “civil rights violations” with “sexual assault violation.” If a law stated that there is a required presumption of sexual assault against a defendant, and “sexual assault” do-gooders were running rampant with their accusations, who would buy the notion that a balance between accurate and inaccurate accusations was a sufficient threshold. The issue is not the balance but the actual evidence, there should be no presumption of guilt. Why should anyone be presumed guilty because the law states that they should be so presumed?

    If these “civil rights” advocates wish to make a case that discrimination exists then let them present evidence and prove their accusation.

    Okay, you know, absent names and concrete situations or statistics, this is a fruitless discussion because without specific definition, we’re just going to argue past one another.

    If you’re going to condemn Malkin for doing what bleeding hearts did with Shepard’s murder and the Jena-6 case, then condemn the bleeding hearts with the same force you’re applying to Malkin.

    I condemn Malkin because she thinks its okay for the government to round up people into internment camps on account of their race.
14. 

    TangoMan

    September 15, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    Tango wants to introduce into that discussion the “fact” that some races are more intelligent “on average” than others, and that this explains differences in outcomes.

    This has been evident since the 1970s. Even James Heckman, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, has determined the same finding.

    1.) Blacks at higher levels of education earn greater premiums for their education than Whites, especially at the doctoral level where Blacks earn more than Whites.

    2.) There is greater income variation within racial groups than between racial groups. This being the case, why then is there such a focus on the small difference rather than the large difference? If it’s discrimination then why are so many blacks doing well resulting in the larger wage disparity within the group?

    If you have obvious answers to your questions but you don’t like the answers, then why is it preferable to accuse innocent people of being racists rather than to actually deal with reality? Do you think that it helps heal a social fabric when innocent people, who know they’re innocent, are accused of racism?
15. 

    An Interested Party

    September 15, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    3.) Organizing racial demonstrations during his tenure as a racial agitator in Chicago.

    “Racial agitator”…hmm…where have I seen that term used before…hmm…ah, yes…I do believe that term was used to describe people in the South during the 60s who dared to work in the Civil Rights Movement…how exactly was the president a “racial agitator” when he worked as a community organizer in Chicago?
16. 

    odograph

    September 15, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    See Tango, you said something before about the way I “bind” things, but I’m really just trying to figure out your bindings.

    I said “OK these statistics show a difference in outcomes, we can have a conversation about that. We believe in equal rights and equal opportunity, if we can find some actual discrimination we can address it.”

    Why wasn’t that good enough?

    To say again, there is no reason this has to be about the nature of the races at all. If it’s about discrimination, it can simply be about discrimination.

    I used the metaphor above, “trying to put out the fire with gasoline.”

    Are you “innocent” but blissfully counter-productive? Is that’s what this is about?

    Or do you actually like the fire?
17. 

    just me

    September 15, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    1.) His Administration stops any effort to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidate voters, despite the intimidation being caught on tape and televised to the nation.

    I don’t have enough info to comment.
    

    I am surprised you aren’t aware of this.

    Link to recent story

    Link to video of black panther with night stick at polling place
18. 

    TangoMan

    September 15, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    Is there something wrong with increasing the racial diversity of a university?

    No more than there is anything good about increasing racial diversity in a university. It’s an irrelevant issue. Universities are built on a foundation of ideas and thinking, not on having a rainbow of skin colors. Wasting time on pursuing racial diversity while ignoring intellectual diversity does a disservice to the purpose of universities.

    I’ve read Obama’s memoirs. I don’t think that’s a valid interpretation of the work he was doing.

    Can you cite for me any contemporary American reference to the existence of Dutch community organizers, Scottish community organizers, Albanian community organizers, etc? Were there gangs of French-Americans who stormed meetings in mass in order to extort benefits for their community? I too have read Obama’s fictional memoirs (Dreams from my father: a story of race and inheritance) and hold to my position that he was agitating and using race (predominantly, not exclusively) as a method of selecting for his group.

    Do you have evidence that Wright, Pfleger, or ACORN (acting in its official capacity) instigated or commited acts of racial violence?

    Again with the shifting goal posts? Now it’s racial violence. Do you have any evidence that Malkin committed acts of racial violence? Get real. Stay focused on your original thesis rather than grasping wildly at ever greater shrill accusations.

    Do you have a cite for that?

    Um, check the text of H.R.3200, where else do you need to look? There are “diversity” scholarships for nursing, there are provisions for loans for “disadvantaged” students, there are reporting requirements with respect to “diversity” that apply to various institutions under the purview of the bill. Here’s one example:

    (g) Preference- In awarding grants under this section the Secretary shall give preference to programs that

    (1) provide for improving nurse retention;

    (2) provide for improving the diversity of the new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population;

    (3) provide for improving the quality of nursing education to improve patient care and safety;

    (4) have demonstrated success in upgrading incumbent health care workers to become nurses or which have established effective programs or pilots to increase nurse faculty; or

    (5) are modeled after or affiliated with such programs described in paragraph (4).

    (h) Evaluation-

    (1) PROGRAM EVALUATIONS- An entity that receives a grant under this section shall annually evaluate, and submit to the Secretary a report on, the activities carried out under the grant and the outcomes of such activities. Such outcomes may include–

    (A) an increased number of incumbent workers entering an accredited school of nursing and in the pipeline for nursing programs;

    (B) an increasing number of graduating nurses and improved nurse graduation and licensure rates;

    (C) improved nurse retention;

    (D) an increase in the number of staff nurses at the health care facility involved;

    (E) an increase in the number of nurses with advanced degrees in nursing;

    (F) an increase in the number of nurse faculty;
    (G) improved measures of patient quality (which may include staffing ratios of nurses, patient satisfaction rates, patient safety measures); and

    (H) an increase in the diversity of new nurse graduates relative to the patient population
19. 

    TangoMan

    September 15, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    I said “OK these statistics show a difference in outcomes, we can have a conversation about that. We believe in equal rights and equal opportunity, if we can find some actual discrimination we can address it.”

    Why wasn’t that good enough?

    Yes, you’re right, it is good enough. I apologize for focusing on the first part of your comment and not giving this equal attention.

    To say again, there is no reason this has to be about the nature of the races at all. If it’s about discrimination, it can simply be about discrimination.

    As I wrote above, I prefer that accusations of racism and discrimination be based on evidence. So, I’m with you 100% on this point.

    I used the metaphor above, “trying to put out the fire with gasoline.”

    Are you “innocent” but blissfully counter-productive? Is that’s what this is about?

    Or do you actually like the fire?

    Here’s the thing, most people believe in causality, so if they see an outcome they believe that there is something that causes the outcome. When people see disparate outcomes they will seek a reason for the disparities. If we look for actual discrimination and don’t find it, I don’t believe for a moment that people will simply accept the disparities. If I’m wrong and people will accept such disparities without knowing the reasons they arise and they don’t blame innocent people for the outcomes, then you’re right, there is no need for me to address the causality issues.
20. 

    odograph

    September 15, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    No more than there is anything good about increasing racial diversity in a university. It’s an irrelevant issue. Universities are built on a foundation of ideas and thinking, not on having a rainbow of skin colors. Wasting time on pursuing racial diversity while ignoring intellectual diversity does a disservice to the purpose of universities.

    Here’s a related take. Universities have governors, or regents, or something. It’s up to them. It’s their university. If they think diversity is important to their mission, or their fundraising, or their relation with the community, then they can do it.

    I can’t tell them what to do, because I don’t have a university.

    (I am indirectly an owner of California’s universities … but only one owner of a few million. It is quite a dilute interest.)
21. 

    TangoMan

    September 15, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    Here’s a related take. Universities have governors, or regents, or something. It’s up to them. It’s their university.

    1.) So a university that bucked the “diversity” trend and stated that they chose to exclude Blacks or Jews or women or Vets or Liberals or Conservatives would be ok with you?

    2.) If the universities are in receipt of public monies then should they be in the business of discriminating? Privately funded universities, and I think that only Hilldale fully qualifies in this regard, like other private institutions, should, I think, be free to do whatever they want, no matter how distasteful to the sensitive flowers among us.
22. 

    odograph

    September 15, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    Here’s the thing, most people believe in causality, so if they see an outcome they believe that there is something that causes the outcome. When people see disparate outcomes they will seek a reason for the disparities. If we look for actual discrimination and don’t find it, I don’t believe for a moment that people will simply accept the disparities. If I’m wrong and people will accept such disparities without knowing the reasons they arise and they don’t blame innocent people for the outcomes, then you’re right, there is no need for me to address the causality issues.

    Well, I think these things fall in two classes. When the causation/discrimination is apparent, we have our causality. When the causation is opaque, I think the cloudiness is the thing to question.

    Yes, we can say, we have some correlation here … but if we try hard and can’t find the discrimination, how can we know that there is any?

    That’s kind of returning the discussion back to where it was before all those 1970’s court cases, but … we’re verging on something post-racial, it might be time.
23. 

    odograph

    September 15, 2009 at 10:07 pm

    1.) So a university that bucked the “diversity” trend and stated that they chose to exclude Blacks or Jews or women or Vets or Liberals or Conservatives would be ok with you?

    Quite an unfortunate way to word it. If a university relied on SAT scores and written essays (without knowing race), I’d be OK with it.

    I would not repeal statutes prohibiting overt discrimination.

    2.) If the universities are in receipt of public monies then should they be in the business of discriminating? Privately funded universities, and I think that only Hilldale fully qualifies in this regard, like other private institutions, should, I think, be free to do whatever they want, no matter how distasteful to the sensitive flowers among us.

    As I said in the time-staggered post, we have some 1970’s decisions, made in very different times. Geez louise, the Woolworths lunch was only 10 years earlier. I don’t think I’ll fault congress and the courts for trying to find something which worked for that time.

    Going forward … didn’t Obama say maybe it was time for income- rather than race-based affirmative action?
24. 

    TangoMan

    September 15, 2009 at 10:10 pm

    Well, I think these things fall in two classes. When the causation/discrimination is apparent, we have our causality.

    That’s fine with me, well for the sake of this conversation at least, where I’ll accept the abridgment of freedom of association as acceptable.

    When the causation is opaque, I think the cloudiness is the thing to question.

    This is too opaque for me to understand. Would you flesh out your thoughts a bit more.

    Yes, we can say, we have some correlation here … but if we try hard and can’t find the discrimination, how can we know that there is any?

    A little more detail please.

    That’s kind of returning the discussion back to where it was before all those 1970’s court cases, but … we’re verging on something post-racial, it might be time.

    Frankly, I’m beginning to think that this “post-racial” meme is without foundation. It’s starting to look like the election of President Obama will set back race relations in that liberals are getting very quick on the draw in claiming that any criticism of Obama is based on racism. As with Nixon opening China, perhaps the best route to a post-racial state would have been to have a Black Republican elected President for conservatives aren’t as prone to cry racism at liberals for every imagined slight, so when liberals criticized a Black Republican President, those criticisms could be accepted at face value instead of being cast as cover for racist complaints.
25. 

    TangoMan

    September 15, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    Going forward … didn’t Obama say maybe it was time for income- rather than race-based affirmative action?

    Call me a cynic, but I don’t believe that these change advocates actually believe in the change, rather I think that they’re trying their best to put lipstick on a pig, that is they think that the overlap between race and income is so close that income becomes an effective proxy for race. The problem is that the results of such a change will surprise these reformers, in that poor Whites from families earning less than $10,000 (1995 income) outscored rich Blacks from families earning more than $70,000 (1995 income):

    white |black |Hispanic |Asian
    income verbamath |v m |v m |v m
    x$1,000 | | |
    under 10 409 460| 320 315| 330 386| 343 482
    10-20 418 459| 337 369| 349 403| 363 500
    20-30 428 471| 352 382| 369 420| 397 518
    30-40 433 478| 362 393| 384 431| 415 528
    40-50 439 488| 375 405| 399 446| 432 537
    50-60 446 498| 382 414| 409 456| 444 549
    60-70 453 506| 385 415| 415 458| 453 558
    over 70 475 533| 407 442| 430 478| 476 595
    overall 448 498| 376 426| 356 388| 418 538

    If a university relied on SAT scores and written essays (without knowing race), I’d be OK with it.

    I’d be ok with it too, but as with the recent UCLA reform, the efforts to subvert the process and game the system, I don’t believe that the policy as written and the policy as implemented are the same.
26. 

    odograph

    September 15, 2009 at 10:26 pm

    Well, someone says “there aren’t enough minority plumbers” and “they must be discriminating in hiring apprentices.”

    I could say, “show me where the discrimination occurred, and that the plumbers weren’t just hiring the first handy kid when a position opened.”

    (I also think a family obligation to hire a nephew is not racial discrimination.)
27. 

    odograph

    September 15, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    Call me a cynic, but I don’t believe that these change advocates actually believe in the change, rather I think that they’re trying their best to put lipstick on a pig, that is they think that the overlap between race and income is so close that income becomes an effective proxy for race.

    So? The important thing is that we’ve left a race based system. In future, whoever is poor will get the shot.
28. 

    odograph

    September 15, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    (and after you leave a race based system, it might be easier to have a discussion about how much of the total enrollment should be designated for affirmative action and/or diversity.)
29. 

    TangoMan

    September 15, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    So? The important thing is that we’ve left a race based system. In future, whoever is poor will get the shot.

    If the rules were applied fairly and not gamed by administrators, then I’d share your positions, but as I said, I’m cynical about these reform efforts based on what I’ve seen in university admissions and the university environment.

    In other words, I don’t think that the rules will be set, applied fairly and the chips will be let to fall where they may. The system will be corrupted and gamed to bring about the desired outcome.
30. 

    anjin-san

    September 15, 2009 at 11:30 pm

    outscored rich Blacks from families earning more than $70,000

    Interesting. Did not know that more 70K made one rich. Hell, I am rich and then some 🙂
31. 

    Michael Reynolds

    September 15, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    As a white man I’m always so glad to see the alacrity with which TangoMan jumps into any discussion of race and defends the Aryan White Race from the untermenschen. Not that you’d use quite that term, eh?

    Like clockwork. Mention black people and there’s Tango with his Charles Murray routine. Never fails. Hmm. Wonder why?
32. 

    anjin-san

    September 16, 2009 at 12:00 am

    Michael,

    When you think about it, blacks have to be pretty damn uppity to make 70k.

    It’s no surprise that Mango is a fan of Malkin. The woman is a proven racist, lower than whale shit…
33. 

    Matt

    September 16, 2009 at 12:05 am

    3.) Organizing racial demonstrations during his tenure as a racial agitator in Chicago

    As someone that has lived near and in Chicago for the last 29 years I can’t help but find that comment hilarious. Obama was well known there long before he even gave that first speech (and for good reasons not what you’re trying to say).

    @justme
    I’ve seen that video and I see something completely different from what you’re trying to imply. While the cameraman is seemingly trying to spark a problem the “black panther” is just chilling answering his questions in a polite manner. Nothing happened just a few words back and forth and obviously no threats were made. Meanwhile a similar encounter with a police officer would of resulted in something much worse 🙁
34. 

    Michael Reynolds

    September 16, 2009 at 12:18 am

    Anjin:

    Tango just really, really, really,really, really, really, really, really, really, really likes white people.

    Really.

    And he’d like to point out that black people are not as smart as he is. He’d like to point that out again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

    And again.

    Because it’s ever so important for us to know that Tango really likes white people and really thinks black people are inferior. And he’ll wedge that Vitally Important data into every single thread he can.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    Here’s something fun: Google “TangoMan” and “race.” Then Google TangoMan and just about anything else. Say “Obama”or “politics” or “health care.”

    Me, I’m handicapped by my Jewish intellect, but I sense there may be a pattern.
35. 

    Our Paul

    September 16, 2009 at 12:28 am

    When the conservative movement raises our Lady of the Poison Pen and our Anorexic Lady in Basic Black to cult status, should we just have a pom pom dance off to determine which should be the one and only true Queen Bee?

    Is there any way we can arrange a blind date between TangoMan and Ms Malkin? They appear to be soulmates…
36. 

    anjin-san

    September 16, 2009 at 12:28 am

    Can you cite for me any contemporary American reference to the existence of Dutch community organizers, Scottish community organizers

    Well, from my own family history, I know about the French Mutual Benevolent Society. They provided housing loans to recent French immigrants, as well as helping with education, and, of course there was The French Hospital in San Francisco, which was still a going concern when I was a kid. Sounds a lot like, gasp… community activism. That tango is ignorant of this aspect of American history should surprise no one.

    Really, how dare people try to work together to make things a little bit better. Don’t they know they should be happy to spend their lives cleaning toilets for people like Barbara Bush?

    My Grandfather met my Grandmother when he gave my Great- Grandfather a ride home from a French club meeting.
37. 

    TangoMan

    September 16, 2009 at 2:30 am

    Well, from my own family history, I know about the French Mutual Benevolent Society. They provided housing loans to recent French immigrants, as well as helping with education,

    Mutual aid societies are not the same thing as “community organizers.” The former focuses community resources internally, and is run by volunteers or has staff paid for by the mutual aid society, the latter extorts resources from non-community members in order to spread the loot amongst the community and organizes activities, which in other communities, are basically done informally.

    You did dodge the question though, who ever heard of a “community organizer” in scores of other communities? Do you need a paid community organizer in your community in order to get cars to stop speeding on your street, in order to bring about a block picnic, in order to organize a babysitting network, etc? In my life I’ve been a member of a number of communities and I’ve never found one community that required the services of a paid community organizer in order to achieve the aims of the community. YMMV.

    Michael, I see that you missed the point, prima facie assumptions. If you don’t condemn such assumptions in presumed discrimination cases then it’s inconsistent to condemn them in the Malkin case. Do you disagree?
38. 

    TangoMan

    September 16, 2009 at 2:40 am

    Interesting. Did not know that more 70K made one rich. Hell, I am rich and then some 🙂

    $70,000 in 1995 = $100,000 in 2009.

    In 2007, the Census Bureau determined that the mean family income was $50,000. The median household income for the top 20% was $88,030 while the top 5% earned $157,176.
39. 

    TangoMan

    September 16, 2009 at 4:04 am

    Alex, you confuse me with your double standards.

    Sometimes the law actually requires the presumption of active discrimination in those instances.

    Here you say that if the law permits an act, then it is OK, yet when you refer to internment, even though the Supreme Court ruled in the government’s favor with the Korematsu decision, you argue that it is indefensible.

    If you rely on the law to provide you with justification in one case, I find it difficult to accept that you so easily condemn an act that had the cover of law in another case.

    BTW, just out of curiosity, have you read Michelle Malkins ‘In Defense Of Internment’ or are you like those old-timer Pravda letter writers who would denounce an author’s latest work because he was an enemy of the Soviet Union and they thus saw no need to read the author’s work?
40. 

    Herb

    September 16, 2009 at 4:19 am

    Tangoman, your animus towards community organizing is so transparent that it’s kind of funny. I wonder…if Barack Obama had been a dentist rather than a community organizer, would you have a similar distaste for dentistry?

    Also, if you’re promoting Tea Party protests, attending them, and then covering them on your blog, does that make you a community organizer? (Hint: The answer is YES.) I suppose that kind of community organizing is okay with you, eh?
41. 

    Herb

    September 16, 2009 at 4:33 am

    “BTW, just out of curiosity, have you read Michelle Malkins ‘In Defense Of Internment’ or are you like those old-timer Pravda letter writers who would denounce an author’s latest work because he was an enemy of the Soviet Union and they thus saw no need to read the author’s work?”

    Not to be too harsh…but what kind of idiot would read a book called “In Defense of Internment?”

    If you’re still undecided after the Holocaust…in the words of Flavor Flav, I can’t do nuthin for ya, man.
42. 

    sam

    September 16, 2009 at 6:59 am

    Perhaps TangoMan could allay some of the suspicions about his views on race if he would explain why those views should not give aid and comfort to the kind of racist we all deplore. The kind of racist who believes blacks are inferior to whites and would justify all manner of ill-treatment of blacks on the basis of their inferiority.
43. 

    DaveinMD

    September 16, 2009 at 8:28 am

    How long will we have to wait for an apology from Malkin now that it appears that school bus incident was about seat preference? My guess is… forever!
44. 

    Herb

    September 16, 2009 at 8:30 am

    In Tangoman’s defense, I don’t think he’s racist. He’s just relentlessly, hopelessly partisan. I’m not sure whether he’s defending Malkin on the merits…or because she’s the “conservative” in this particular debate. From past debates with him, I suspect it’s the latter.
45. 

    Alex Knapp

    September 16, 2009 at 8:41 am

    TangoMan,

    Here you say that if the law permits an act, then it is OK, yet when you refer to internment, even though the Supreme Court ruled in the government’s favor with the Korematsu decision, you argue that it is indefensible.

    If you rely on the law to provide you with justification in one case, I find it difficult to accept that you so easily condemn an act that had the cover of law in another case.

    Drawing an equivalence between a rebuttable prima facie presumption of discrimination and actually rounding up people based on their race and throwing them into camps requires a very special kind of moral blindness.

    There’s nothing wrong with laws that prevent employment discrimination, and a legal standard of a rebuttable prima facie presumption of discrimination when an employer hires a disproportionately low number of non-whites is hardly unjust.

    Believe it or not, TangoMan, but even in this day and age there are people who believe that blacks are genetically inferior to whites and consequently tend not to hire even the most qualified blacks. The law forbids that hiring principle, and I have zero problem with that.
46. 

    Alex Knapp

    September 16, 2009 at 8:42 am

    And TangoMan, yes, I did read the execrable In Defense of Internment. I’ve also read the historical research that Malkin ignored in order to reach the conclusions that weren’t even justified by the data she presented.
47. 

    Pug

    September 16, 2009 at 9:24 am

    Tango Man is just damn tired of the white man being held down by all those dark people.
48. 

    DC Loser

    September 16, 2009 at 9:46 am

    This whole thread is stupid. Everyone knows Asians are smarter than whites AND blacks.
49. 

    Michael Reynolds

    September 16, 2009 at 9:57 am

    Pug:

    The great thing about TangoMan is that he’s kind of a Zelig character: he’ll pop up anywhere.

    Anywhere that affords him the opportunity to spread his message of: blacks=inferior.

    If you take some time and Google TangoMan and race you’ll see he pops up here, there, everywhere. And always for one purpose: to tell us all that 1) he’s white and 2) he’s smart and 3) black people are inferior.

    He dresses it up, but that’s the hobby horse he rides day and night, through wind and rain. Like Paul Revere racing around from blog to blog to spread his warning: the black skins are coming! The black skins are coming!

    He’s very subtle and very clever. He really is quite intelligent. But the problem is one of agenda. He can’t quite conceal his agenda. In order to do that he’d have to spend at least some of his time writing about something else. Too much work, I guess. So all his subtlety is for naught. Because when all you ever want to talk about is blacks and IQ, blacks and IQ, blacks and IQ, blacks and IQ, you end up kind of giving the game away.

    Which is why despite his ever-so-clever, ever-so-discreet work, TangoMan keeps getting banned as a racist. And the more he obsesses the longer a trail he leaves and the more he is revealed for what he is.
50. 

    spago

    September 16, 2009 at 10:23 am

    Michael Reynolds decides to play the race card which is surprising because I have never seen that attack from the left before.

    Herb decides that from a professional stand point dentistry and community organizing are comparable in a discussion, which is a brilliant link between a real career and an imaginary one.

    All because Alex Knapp decides to post something that pokes a big fish for what the chance that the big fish will poke back? I mean who is Alex Knapp? I don’t know some bearded guy from Kansas who has the moral authority on race issues. Who knew from Kansas of all places.

    I don’t understand how the conversation about internment camps can even be had without discussing the left’s poster boy FDR. Maybe it’s intellectually dishonest for you to discuss this without at least a mention.
51. 

    anjin-san

    September 16, 2009 at 10:34 am

    $100,000 in 2009.

    Ah, so. 100k makes one rich. COOL!

    Look guys, the negros are putting Tango down. He is mad as hell and he is not going to take it any more…
52. 

    brainy435

    September 16, 2009 at 11:10 am

    Nice of Alex to pointedly lie about Malkins coverage. Talk about bias. He somehow “forgot” to point out that Malking wasn’t the one who ascribed racial motivations to the beating, the police chief did. Which was prominintly noted in the story she linked.

    He and the other racist Malkin-haters also lied and said she would never report on the police back-tracking on thier racism claims. She noted it in an update and added that update to the headline.

    Curious, seeing as how I don’t read Malkin but was able to gather all of this in 5 mins based off the link Alex supplied. Do you people even read these things before you comment on them?
53. 

    TangoMan

    September 16, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    sam,

    Perhaps TangoMan could allay some of the suspicions about his views on race

    I already hit on this topic with odopgraph, I’m fully in support of the notion of equal opportunity and believe that the law should treat each person as an individual equal before the law. I don’t believe in efforts to equalize outcomes. I object on the strongest terms to the presumption of unmeasurable discrimination being a primary driver of social disparities and am insulted with the operative presumption that people of good conscience are responsible for inflicting harm on others through their unmeasurable attitudes and the actions that derive from those attitudes. I don’t think that this operative presumption is healthy for society in the it creates unwarranted guilt in those who are presumed to be evil and it creates unwarranted bitterness, doubt and suspicion in those who are the purported victims of the unmeasurable discrimination. Secondly, the policies that arise from creating rules based on a false view of reality lead to unjust outcomes and oppressive efforts to engineer outcomes to make right what was not made wrong by the hands of man.

    Lastly, it’s not my concern which groups find solace in these views. Do real really expect vegetarians to modify their philosophy if it is taken up by some despicable cult?

    Michael,

    And always for one purpose: to tell us all that 1) he’s white and 2) he’s smart and 3) black people are inferior.

    Wrong on all three counts. I never tell anyone I’m white. I never mention my race. Similarly, I never tell people I’m smart. It doesn’t matter to me what you think of my level of intelligence, what matters is how you respond to my arguments. Lastly, I’ve never claimed Blacks are “inferior,” that’s a false claim that you’re attributing to me. I reject the whole notion of superiority and inferiority as applied to groups. That’s a leftist formulation that is always applied when it comes to evolution. Liberal creationists, like yourself, deploy these formulations and religious creationists deploy their own formulations when arguing against evolutionary principles.

    But the problem is one of agenda. He can’t quite conceal his agenda.

    I don’t need to conceal my “agenda.” You argue a liberal point of view. Others argue a conservative point of view. I argue an evolutionary conservative point of view. Others argue against the introduction of religious perspective in political debate, others argue for the introduction of religious perspective in political debate, I argue against liberal creationism in the political and policy sphere.

    Spago nailed it, you pull the race card because you have nothing intelligent or relevant to write in support of your false world view.

    Alex,

    Drawing an equivalence between a rebuttable prima facie presumption of discrimination and actually rounding up people based on their race and throwing them into camps requires a very special kind of moral blindness.

    1.) The issue is that in the former case you relied on the legitimacy of law to excuse the presumption of guilt, when presumption of guilt is an idea with pernicious consequences. If you wish to hide behind the legitimacy of law then this gambit is paper thin when you reject the legitimacy of law with respect to the internment of some Japanese during WWII.

    2.) You seem to object to race being the operational criterion for selecting people to send to camps yet there exists plenty of social policy which favors people in the US based on their race. I find it difficult to reconcile distaste for the concept of race-based criteria based on context, for it appears that the objection isn’t centered on the odiousness of the criteria, just on the program that uses the criteria, so your objections to the concept ring kind of hollow.

    There’s nothing wrong with laws that prevent employment discrimination, and a legal standard of a rebuttable prima facie presumption of discrimination when an employer hires a disproportionately low number of non-whites is hardly unjust.

    There’s plenty wrong with anti-discrimination laws. The issue is whether most people believe that the benefits outweigh the harms. Such laws strip people of the Constitutional freedoms, they impose government intervention on private activities, they work to reduce diversity in relationships, and lastly they advance the pernicious notion of presumed guilt. To say that there is nothing wrong with these laws is to completely ignore very valid concerns.
54. 

    Steve Verdon

    September 16, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    If you take some time and Google TangoMan and race you’ll see he pops up here, there, everywhere. And always for one purpose: to tell us all that 1) he’s white and 2) he’s smart and 3) black people are inferior.

    I’ve been arguing/discussing with TangoMan for quite some time Michael and I don’t recall ever hearing him state what race he is. So what evidence do you have for this Michael? You state it can be found easily via google…link please.

    Maybe you had this link in mind? Oh no, wait nothing at all about race. I did do that google search but couldn’t anything backing up your three assertions above.
55. 

    An Interested Party

    September 16, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    Because when all you ever want to talk about is blacks and IQ, blacks and IQ, blacks and IQ, blacks and IQ, you end up kind of giving the game away.

    Oh Michael, you are being so unfair…this is certainly not the only thing that TangoMan likes to talk about…are you forgetting how often he tells us about the alleged brilliance of Sarah Palin…

    There’s plenty wrong with anti-discrimination laws. The issue is whether most people believe that the benefits outweigh the harms. Such laws strip people of the Constitutional freedoms, they impose government intervention on private activities, they work to reduce diversity in relationships, and lastly they advance the pernicious notion of presumed guilt.

    So laws that make it illegal to hire only white people for jobs or only sell homes to Asians or only administer medical care to blacks are somehow “wrong” and “harmful”? I mean, really, how dare the government stick its nose in people’s business…of all the nerve…
56. 

    TangoMan

    September 16, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    So laws that make it illegal to hire only white people for jobs or only sell homes to Asians or only administer medical care to blacks are somehow “wrong” and “harmful”? I mean, really, how dare the government stick its nose in people’s business…of all the nerve…

    Yet laws which tell women what they can do with their own bodies are wrong. Government intruding into personal affairs in one instance is noble but in another instance its despicable. Hmm.

    Government telling you what you can and cannot read or say is a clear wrong, but government restricting your ability to freely associate is swell.
57. 

    G.A.Phillips

    September 16, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    This whole thread is stupid. Everyone knows Asians are smarter than whites AND blacks.

    Sure is,but the only real smart people are liberals who teach other liberals how to be liberaler, and color has no meaning to liberals, they are color blind, unless your not a liberal, then your just wrong a racist……

    They are the essence of what rainbows and lucky charms are made from, and are born to be that way, blessed by Gaea to lead the less evolved back into the wilderness…..
58. 

    An Interested Party

    September 16, 2009 at 9:09 pm

    re: TangoMan September 16, 2009 20:13

    It’s nice to know that you’re an advocate for bigots and even, dare one type, racists…
59. 

    TangoMan

    September 16, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    It’s nice to know that you’re an advocate for bigots and even, dare one type, racists…

    Bigots deserve their right to freely associate with people without having bleeding heart liberals run rampant over their Constitutional rights in their pursuit of creating a liberal nirvana.

    Modern Liberalism would make Voltaire weep:

    “I do not agree with a word you say and I will fight to the death to deny you the right to say it”
60. 

    Michael Reynolds

    September 16, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    Gosh, what a surprise to see Verdon leap to defend our very own Scientific Racist. I don’t think you really want any of this, Steve. You’re just a Libertarian. Tango’s a whole ‘nother beast.

    TangoMan: I appreciate your admission that you have an agenda. I understand you have your own definition of that agenda, but agenda it is. And no, it’s not comparable to mine: I’m all over the web talking about writing, foreign policy, politics.

    You, on the other hand, are almost always on-message. That message being: the mud people are stoopid and shouldn’t be intermarrying with our good white women or immigrating to the US and bringing down our collective IQ.

    I have a question for you, TangoMan. Your name pops up next to Sailer a lot. What’s interesting is that it seldom shows up next to Peter Brimelow. It’s odd, because Brimelow bankrolls the Scientific Racist movement through his VDare Foundation. You’d think you’d mention him from time to time.

    You had a very detailed answer about Canadian health care a while back, a rare departure from your singular obsession with race. Was that knowledge gained while you were living in Canada?
61. 

    TangoMan

    September 16, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    I understand you have your own definition of that agenda, but agenda it is. And no, it’s not comparable to mine: I’m all over the web talking about writing, foreign policy, politics.

    Physicians tend to see medical issues through the lens of their training. Political scientists tend to see politics through the lens of their training. Musicians tend to analyze music through the lens of their training.

    Liberals tend to view the world through the lens of their ideology. Conservatives tend to view the world through the lens of their ideology.

    I’m not a creationist. Full stop. My training and my proclivities toward the scientific method lead me to follow evidence based reasoning. Humans are not exempt from the factors that drive evolution. Full stop. You wanting to close your eyes to these factors and hold firm to your liberal creationist beliefs doesn’t make me a racist.

    You argue all of your points on politics and foreign policy based on the ideology you hold. You are identical to every other commentator who ventures forth with opinion or analysis that is informed by a world view. I do the same. I believe in human differences, I believe that human differences have social consequences, I believe that policy should either uniformly ignore human differences or uniformly acknowledge any differences. My holding to evidence-based reasoning doesn’t make me a racist, it just makes me seek answers that you prefer to ignore, case in point, the comparisons on infant mortality are heavily influenced by population variance, such that women of some races have higher rates of multiple births than women of other races and such variance helps explain, in part, infant mortality rates.

    I know that you’re feeling all righteous in your little tirade, and like President Carter, you’ve relaxed any standards you have on who now qualifies as a racist, but you so devalue the charge when you apply it with such relaxed standards. Every physical anthropologist, population geneticist, and others who believe in evolution are not racists. You’re a fool for thinking so. I can understand your feeling threatened by information which undermines your world view and the rage you must feel against your intellectual impotence in that you’re unable to counter the challenges to your liberal creationism, but your Savonarola act will only take you so far, and you’ve already surpassed the point of lost credibility.

    That message being: the mud people are stoopid and shouldn’t be intermarrying with our good white women

    OK putz, time to put up or shut up. Back up this, and previous, libels by quoting me or apologize.
62. 

    Michael Reynolds

    September 16, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    TangoMan:

    Now, how could I possibly libel you? You’re a pseudonym, absolutely unknown to any of us.

    Although I find it interesting that you refused to answer my Canadian question. Nothing on Brimelow, nothing on VDare. Just a long attempt to throw me on the defensive, and a lot of Scientific Racist talking points. Not my terminology, by the way, “Scientific Racism,” I think that came from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Here’s the thing: if you tell us your real name I’d probably have to be more circumspect, wouldn’t I? Because then you could sue me. You’d lose, but you could sue me.

    Tell us who you are, TangoMan. If you’re who I think you are, I’ll bet I can supply you the quotes regarding miscegenation.
63. 

    An Interested Party

    September 16, 2009 at 11:48 pm

    re: TangoMan September 16, 2009 21:56

    Only liberals support anti-discrimination laws? I’d love to see how many conservatives around here think that it shouldn’t be illegal to deny selling someone a home because of the color of his skin or denying someone else a job because she is a woman…
64. 

    TangoMan

    September 16, 2009 at 11:53 pm

    Only liberals support anti-discrimination laws?

    You’re twisting the argument. You were asserting that the bigots shouldn’t have interests that should be protected. I disagree. Just because a bigot exercises their constitutional right to freedom of association in a way that you disapprove doesn’t mean that I, and others, are wrong to defend the exercise of a constitutional freedom.
65. 

    Michael Reynolds

    September 17, 2009 at 12:02 am

    By the way, for those following along and wondering, “Who the hell is Peter Brimelow,” here’s a couple of useful links:

    Link 1

    Link 2
66. 

    An Interested Party

    September 17, 2009 at 12:03 am

    So bigots/racists should have the “constitutional freedom” to deny hiring black people? Or to try to keep Hispanic people out of their neighborhoods? Do tell us about the interests of these people that you want to protect…
67. 

    TangoMan

    September 17, 2009 at 12:06 am

    Now, how could I possibly libel you?

    You’ve made claims here that you’ve found me writing various points. You’ve claimed that you’ve found these comments via Google. Show them to everyone. Link ’em up baby.

    You know, it’s rare that I actually come across a living, breathing caricature of a mindless leftist, but you’re acting true to stereotype. Racist = anyone who bests a leftist in an argument. I can’t believe that you’re not man enough to admit to your lies.

    If you’re who I think you are, I’ll bet I can supply you the quotes regarding miscegenation.

    You fool. Your causality is assbackwards. You claimed the following:

    . . .and shouldn’t be intermarrying with our good white women

    We have two alternatives to consider:

    1.) You Googled my writings and found me writing this; or

    2.) You’re making things up, or as Rep. Joe Wilson so famously put it, “you lie.”

    Now you’re claiming that you need personal information from me in order to verify your claim. If that’s the case, then how is it that you made such an authoritative claim in the first place? You’ve just revealed yourself to be a liar with your accusations. It’s impossible for you to provide evidence that TangoMan wrote anything remotely similar to your claim because Google doesn’t return any hits which show me writing anything of the sort.

    Although I find it interesting that you refused to answer my Canadian question.

    Dude, small things occupy small minds. Why that is of interest to you is for you to deal with with your shrink. I’ve written on scores of topics, despite your allegations to the contrary. There’s nothing uniquely noteworthy on my musings about Canadian Health Care and in fact, I have no clue which post you’re even referring to for I’ve commented on Canadian Health Care for years, as well as British Health Care, happenings in the Japanese medical community, events in the Chinese medical-research community, Australian jurisprudence, I’ve compared the high altitude adaptations found in the Andeans, Tibetans, and Ethiopian highlanders, wine tastings, etc.

    I suppose I should thank you for your complement on my comment about Canadian Health Care because it sure differed from the one offered by Our Paul in this thread:

    Similarly, if you are going to pass yourself off as a knowledgeable in Canadian Health Care, simply quoting an article will not make you an expert. Some critical thought is necessary.

    The interesting choice presented here is whether you are too easily impressed or whether Our Paul is too critical. Maybe the two of you should get a room and hash it out.
68. 

    Michael Reynolds

    September 17, 2009 at 12:10 am

    Ah, so it is you. TangoMan is “Peter Brimelow.”

    Thanks for confirming that.

    TangoMan is the famous Peter Brimelow. We should be honored.
69. 

    TangoMan

    September 17, 2009 at 12:14 am

    So bigots/racists should have the “constitutional freedom” to deny hiring black people?

    Should a woman not be allowed to exercise her freedom to choose between a male and female OB/GYN because to do so on the basis of gender would constitute gender discrimination? Does this female patient not have the right to freely associate with people of her own choosing?

    This woman has entered into a commercial transaction and if she has chosen one physician over the other simply on the basis of gender, should she be compelled by law to revoke that choice and choose her physician randomly?

    An employer is entering into a commercial contract with an employee – there is an exchange of service for money. What business does government have in stepping into the middle of this commercial exchange and compelling an abridgment of free association? What’s next, the government stepping into bookstores and abridging the right to free expression?

    Have you so little faith in the good will of people that you believe, absent legal restrictions, that people will chose to actively discriminate? I don’t share you lack of faith in my fellow Americans.
70. 

    Michael Reynolds

    September 17, 2009 at 12:14 am

    Peter Brimelow as quoted by the SPLC:

    “White voters — what 50 years ago would have been called Americans because 50 years ago this country was 90 percent white — they went for McCain 55-45,” Brimelow told the inaugural meeting of the H.L. Mencken Club at a Baltimore hotel last Friday night. “It wasn’t overwhelming, but it was a sizeable victory. It’s not clear to me that the American people really supported Obama.” The president-elect only got a majority of white votes among 18-to-30-year-olds, according to Brimelow. “What this election shows is that whites vote one way and everybody else votes the other way.”

    A former senior editor at Forbes magazine, author and founder and editor of the white nationalist hate website VDARE.com Brimelow blames the 1965 Immigration Act for a host of problems. (The Immigration Act greatly reduced the percentage of immigrants from Europe while allowing for huge increases in Asian and Hispanic immigration.) Until its passage, Brimelow said Friday, the United States had the option of being more like Switzerland — a relatively small population, stable birthrates, homogeneous and highly educated — or Brazil, which he characterized as “diverse” and “chaotic.” He added, “We’re in the process of becoming Brazil with gated communities and so forth.”

    I’ll leave it to OTB readers to decide whether that’s racist.
71. 

    sam

    September 17, 2009 at 9:26 am

    @TangoMan

    I’ve never claimed Blacks are “inferior,” that’s a false claim that you’re attributing to me. I reject the whole notion of superiority and inferiority as applied to groups.

    But you have argued that blacks as a group are inferior to whites as a group using IQ as a measure, have you not?

    Lastly, it’s not my concern which groups find solace in these views. Do real really expect vegetarians to modify their philosophy if it is taken up by some despicable cult?

    No, but I would acknowledge that a despicable racist cult could find justification for its attitudes and actions in the IQ argument.