Saturday, February 17, 2007

More Airbrushing

Creatively reinterpreting the past appears to be a theme in case-related matters this week. The potbangers blazed the trail; Amanda Marcotte took up the challenge.

The ex-official blogger for the Edwards campaign published an explanation of her departure yesterday in Salon.

Her departure from the Edwards campaign, in her view, was a cataclysmic setback. In her article, she claimed:

  • “Regardless of its motive, the result of the smear campaign was to send a loud, clear signal to young feminist women. It tells them that campaigning for Democratic candidates, and particularly doing so in positions that would help the candidate connect with young feminist communities like the one that thrives in the blogosphere, is a scary, risky prospect.”
  • “When I was trying to decide whether to resign, no other concern weighed as heavy as the fear that resigning would tell the right-wing mob that harassing young feminists works.”
  • “It’s also plausible that the right-wing noise machine was working on pure misogynist emotion.”
  • “This was just the first sign that the established media and political circles will not be letting the blog-writing rabble into the circle without a fight.”

Marcotte mostly attacked the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue. But, she conceded, her problems began when she “noticed a small flare-up of oddly aggressive and misogynistic comments in my moderation queue over a short, irritated post I wrote about the coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape case on CNN.” That post, dated early January, openly asserted that a sexual assault took place.

Her response? To assume “that some anti-feminist blogger had linked me and so, in frustration, I went and rewrote my by-then week-old post to mock the commenters by spelling out my views in childish, easy-to-understand language.”

Marcotte is a professional blogger; I’m not. But I don’t consider it common practice at most blogs to, upon receiving questioning comments, eliminate the original post and replace it with something else.

And how does Marcotte define an “anti-feminist blogger”? Apparently anyone who believes that no evidence exists in this case to suggest that a rape occurred.

The affair, laments Marcotte, “may have been the first indication that the right-wing noise machine had noticed me and was looking for something with which to hurt me and my new employers.”

The blogs that did the most postings on Marcotte and the Duke case were Liestoppers and DIW—hardly part of the “right-wing noise machine.” Liestoppers was devoted to a campaign designed to allow Mike Easley, a Democrat, to appoint Durham County’s next DA; this blog is run by someone backing Barack Obama.

But, as Marcotte made clear in her original (airbrushed) post about the case, she clearly is someone for whom the facts are secondary to advancing her ideological agenda.

By the way, Marcotte also claimed in her Salon column that “liberal blogs are issue-oriented and good at parsing out complex ideas that don’t fit well into the sound-bite-driven mainstream discourse. They are a good fit for wonky Democrats.”

Here’s a compilation of Marcotte’s postings on the lacrosse case. How many people would consider these postings examples of “parsing out complex ideas,” or “wonky,” or “issue-oriented”?


Another redefining occurred this week in the Chronicle column of one of the few remaining defenders of the Group of 88, Samson Mesele. Echoing the assertion of Charles Piot from last Monday’s edition of the Group of 88 Rehab Tour, Mesele claimed that the Group of 88 is really the Group of 89—that “in my view, [President Brodhead] is an honorary signatory of the ad and its references to student-identified problems of racism, sexual coercion and social inequality at Duke.” (I’m not sure Brodhead would agree with this claim.)

Mesele articulated the Group of 88’s current talking points—(1) the ad had nothing to do with the lacrosse case; (2) dozens of professors taking out full-page ads “listening” to their students is somehow routine in higher education: (3) critics have willfully misinterpreted the document, which no one noticed at the time.

“Indeed,” he wrote, “the April ad’s social commentary transcends the very dimensions of the lacrosse case. Publishing student experiences is . . . an extension of the University’s educational interests.”

The latter claim is, of course, absurd: it would imply that every day, college newspapers are filled with dozens of ads published by dozens of professors “listening” to students with whom those professors agree on ideological issues.

But what of Mesele’s first claim? His assertion echoed that of the “clarifying” faculty, whose defiant open letter asserted that the Group of 88’s statement was not “a comment on the alleged rape, the team party, or the specific students accused.”

Here’s an announcement (scroll down the page) of an April 12 event at the John Hope Franklin Center:

Wednesday, April 12th, 2006: 07:00 PM - 08:30 PM

Room 240, John Hope Franklin Center

Panel Discussion

Thinking About This Social Disaster

Wahneema Lubiano (AAAS and Literature), Thavolia Glymph (AAAS and History), and Serena Sebring (Sociology)

The presenters will talk about what has happened, what is happening, and what is coming together in the framing of the accusation of rape against members of the Duke men’s lacrosse team and its afterlife. [emphasis added] There will be plenty of time for audience members to be part of the discussion.

The same announcement on the African-American Studies program blog helpfully contained a link to the (since-removed) URL of . . . the Group of 88’s ad.

Serena Sebring, as a post earlier this week noted, was a prominent potbanger; when asked whether the protesters should apologize for their rush to judgment, she eloquently replied, “Nope.” At the forum noted above, Thavolia Glymph lamented how “since the [negative] DNA results were returned Monday, we [have been] moving backwards.” And Lubiano, of course, was not only the author of the Group of 88’s ad, but the author of eight of the student quotes in the ad, which came not from a transcript but from her (apparently unverified) notes.

To review:

  • The “listening” statement, which contained quotes about what “happened to this woman” and thanked protesters for not waiting, was entitled, “What Is a Social Disaster?”
  • Six days after its publication, the AAAS hosted a forum entitled “Thinking about a Social Disaster,” which addressed “what has happened, what is happening, and what is coming together in the framing of the accusation of rape against members of the Duke men’s lacrosse team and its afterlife.”
  • The official announcement of the event on the AAAS website linked to the “listening” statement.

But the ad was not “a comment on the alleged rape, the team party, or the specific students accused.”

As Marcotte discovered, it’s difficult to airbrush the internet.


1 – 200 of 290   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

I got my Duke Magazine as an alumnus and was disappointed, but not surprised, at the tone in the lacrosse article. It only speaks to these G88 members and also proclaims that the reason that there are troubles are racist bloggers.

I'm thankful for KC's blog and am glad he's such a thorough researcher.

While KC may not consider Brodhead an honorary signatory, in my book, he's as good as one because he's at a minimum sat by watching silently. If the G88 think he's a part of them, then he is, because anyone who disagreed with the G88 could quickly say "While I respect the thoughts of my wonderful Studies professors, I consider myself neither an honorary nor implicit signatory of any of their statements, contrary to their beliefs." They wouldn't have come out and said that they considered him part of the fold if either a) he didn't give that strong impression to them or explicitly agreed in private, or b) they knew he'd be too spineless to speak out otherwise. Neither of those two options are palatable to me or my alumnus checkbook.

Anonymous said...

Marcotte is history...the comments at Salon showed a refreshing number of liberals calling bullshit on her self-pitying, casuistic, and fatuous explanation.

The G88 are her ideological brethren...but, unlike her, they haven't received an official rebuke for their equally outrageous behavior.

We're all waiting...

Chicago said...

Anyone who goes to the furthest extreme of any argument like Marcotte consistently does shows an obvious lack of credibility, especially when they do not know the facts. It was not the right wing that got you fired/forced to resign Amanda, it was your foul mouth, intolerance and close minded manner.

By the way KC, I too am pulling hard for Barack!

Chicago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It seems to me that the group of 88 have taken to the mind set of Moe the bartender from the Simpsons, who once said,"I've done alot things in my life that I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are Disgusting."

Ryan Paige said...

I assume Marcotte will soon be coming out against those right-wingers at Amnesty International, the ACLU and the Innocence Project who are working to free the wrongfully accused and pushing for safeguards to prevent exactly the kind of miscarriage of justice we're seeing in the Duke case.

I didn't realize not wanting innocent people in prison was a right-wing point of view.

Anonymous said...

Marcotte's comments about being targeted by the right wing in relation to the Duke scandal have been picked up by Ann Bartow who claims there is an active astroturfing campainge going on. It was in reference to a Kathleen Bergin article where she closed the comments almost immediately. I suspect some feminists are going to try to censor comments on their sites going forward.

Bergin article

Anonymous said...

Since when is drawing conclusions based on facts a political issue? To do otherwise, as appears to be the case of some members of the Group of 88, is sloppy scholarship.

Still it is difficult for me to emotionally understand why the Group of 88 behaved as they did? While KC has done an outstanding job of documenting there behavior I’m still mystified why they felt they needed to rush to judgment? Why not wait for enough facts to emerge before you take a stand?

Anonymous said...

I love internet debates for one overwhelming reason: it is all done in error free, unblinking hard copy. Regardless of the interpersonal/scamming skills mastered - subject changing, denial, emotional intimidation- it all means fuck-all in the clean, permanent, crystal bright daylight medium of the online written word.
Watching people trying to act as if online conversations can be manipulated as easily as face to face conversations is fascinating.

Anonymous said...

Could anyone provide information on the key Duke trustees? Who are they and why are they putting up with the current adminstration's performance?

Anonymous said...

Worth reading:

Anonymous said...

Chronicle: Off-East rape investigation continues

Anonymous said...

According to the hardcore leftists, there are no such things as facts, since there is no such thing as truth. There is a reason that leftists always are speaking of power.

They believe that if they have power, if they have the guns on their side, then whatever they wish to be truth becomes truth. If Crystal had named Brad Ross as one of the "rapists" and even if he could have proven he was not ever at the party, there are still plenty of leftists, feminists, and potbangers who would be insisting that he had committed rape that night.

Does anyone doubt that Wendy Murphy would be trying to figure a way to bring him into the mix? Reade Seligmann's routine call to a cab company suddenly became an event of "frantically calling a cab" in one of Murphy's missives.

No, people like Marcotte and the G88 don't want to be confused by facts because, to them, there are no facts. Their "truth" is whatever they want the meta-narrative to be, and nothing else. Welcome to Bolshavia where anything, including the impossible, is possible.

Anonymous said...


Did you read Heather Mac Donald's article on Harvard's new president?

Think it's linked at the Manhattan Institute site. Relates to Duke as this woman sounds as nutty as Karla Holloway.

Simon, could you link it, please.


Anonymous said...

There is something important to remember, and that is that people in the so-called "isms" studies do not know how to argue. They engage in monologues and personal experiences. There is no real dialog with anyone else; we are supposed to listen with rapt attention to whatever they say, agree, and then grovel in guilt.

To them, the idea of "arguing" the "facts" of this case is ridiculous. The accuser is a black female, the accused are white males, and that is all that one needs to know. It does not matter a whit if any of them even touched her; they are guilty, period, and anyone who doubts their guilt does so because he or she is racist and sexist.

Notice that Marcotte declared that criticisms of her accusations of rape against the lacrosse players were "misogynist." Why? Because people disagreed with her, and since she is the self-declared standard of feminism, to disagree with her is to hate all women.

Now, those of us trained in regular academic disciplines recognize her "arguments" as something that might come from a child or from one who does not care to learn how to argue. As I have pointed out throught this entire affair, the "isms" studies at a place like Duke are totally foreign to historic academic processes, and we can see the results of giving people in these groups the kind of power that they want. They set up their little reign of terror, and it could have cost three young men their very lives, or, at least, their freedom.

Anonymous said...

erratum to 1:03

She's not president yet, but is expected to be confirmed.

Mac Donald's article is entitled. "Harvard's Faustian Bargain."

If I were Duke's or the G88's lawyers, I'd use this info because this woman is a diversity pimp par excellence


M. Simon said...

Marcotte was in a fight with Eric at Classical Values over her Duke post and some others before she ever joined the Edwards campaign.

BTW firefly who used to post here (she is on Marcotte's side) suggested Pandagon to me. I read it and turned it (the Duke/Airport comment) into a post before she joined Edwards.

She was in a fight with righties before she ever joined Edwards. They were keeping an eye on her. The Edwards thing only brought it more into the open.

M. Simon said...

Wayne 12:41,

Fem Law Profs

Here is how you make permalinks:

<a href="url">text to display</a>

replace url with:
leave the quote marks

replace text to display
Duke Fever

Duke Fever

If you keep a cheat sheet (text file) up of your most commonly used forms (probably around 10 to 20) it is really easy.

Anonymous said...

If Amanda and the g88 acted like this, said these things, because it was part of a performance and at the end of the show they'd clean their faces and go home quietly I could almost laugh. But, clearly, it isn't an act and they are dangerous. They need to be re-educated. I want them to stop shouting everybody [turn] down [the volume], really listen, and find another feeling somewhere other than anger. I would sentence them to monetary restitution and penalties (Simon, you do the math). I would sentence them, on a 1:1 basis, to hold and caress and feed premature and crack babies. They would be sentenced to helping the infirm, giving bed baths, feeding, playing cards, pulling numbers for BINGO, holding the hand of a dying human being. Eventually I hope they might realize some shred of non-political, non-racial, non-feminist, non-angry thought or feeling. I would sentence them to help the weakest among us who cannot understand who the 88 are or where they came from. There would be quizzes of course ( Cedarford, please help out with that.) Graduation day, and parole, would depend on demonstrated listening skills, being able to reflect any statement said to them accurately and appropriate verbalization their own feelings. After graduation I would let them volunteer on the wards where people might accidentally puke on their shoes. (Roman, please, could you shoot the documentary?) Otherwise they can all take the next one way flight to Zimbabwe and stay with their Uncle Robert.

M. Simon said...

Bill 12:57AM,

I'm a fan of Interzone where everthing not forbidden is mandatory.

M. Simon said...


Just for you bubaleh.

Harvard's Faustian Bragain

Anonymous said...

A two-part question for the book, if not the blog:

If the G-88 had the wisdom at the outset to counsel restraint instead of promoting prejudice (purely hypothetical, so please play along):

1) Do you think that justice would still have been derailed the way it was, and

2) If so, would this case still have become a priority for you?


M. Simon said...

MTU 1:30AM,


One minor point. The crack baby thing is a myth.

The Dr. who did the original study did a further study a few years later and said he had it all wrong.

I think he found the real correlation was low birth weight. Crack of course inhibits apetite. So crack was an indirect cause. The crack itself in the system seemed to do no harm if birth weight was OK.

M. Simon said...

Dave 1:35,

It would have gone the same way because Nifong had an election to win.

As to #2 - I'd still have been interested. like Bill A. I'm a long time student of criminal injustice. The real "justice" system works nothing like it is shown on TV. Rotten to the core. If the guilty get punished for the crimes they actually commit in proceedings where officers of the court are honorable and truthful I'd be surprised.

Which is why we have this case. The standard operating proceedure is totally corrupt. Normally they limit this kind of behavior to the usual suspects. People no one gives a damn about. Nifong tried to strech the envelope. He got caught trying to apply lower class justice to upper class people.

So what does the stupid lower class demand? Justice? Not on your life.

2 minute video of a black guy who gets it

Anonymous said...

KC....why the hell do you care about this little case in Durham so much? After all, you've never been falsely accused of rape, assault and kidnapping of a prostitute before. What kind of a stupid loser spends so much time exposing injustice? If these boys didn't want to be railroaded into indictments, why didn't they just move to Guam or Alaska or Mars where they wouldn't be confronted with the harsh reality that white males are ALL violent, racist rapists regardless of whether or not they are violent, racist or rapists?

What the fuck is your problem? KC...I just don't know what you have against a group of agenda driven racists and delusional anti-feminist feminists when you don't even live next door to them...yet! Why don't you just turn a blind eye to all this muchadoaboutnothing?

Anonymous said...

To M Simon

Many bloggers had Marcotte on their radar including a number of feminists. She had a habit of misquoting people or banning them from her site if she was losing an argument.

I put the hedges cheat sheet into my delicious but it never works on this site.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I'm a Duke graduate with a degree in economics and physics. I have no formal writing, blogging, commenting, etc. experience, and I got an email from this joker with the simple text, "Please, leave me alone. I'm sorry that this case means so much to you". This lady is a joke. She has no analytical ability. She has no writing ability. She has nothing other than the praise and adulation of a few desperate people who have no better idea of how to conduct their thoughts and lives than she does.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

KC...despite the ridiculousness of his article. I would think it wrong to dissect it in such a forum. Samson is one of the sad souls who I very often passed at Duke who knew nothing more than the approval of their professors. I think that Mr. Dowdell knows exactly what happens at Duke when you are not given the full approval of your professors. At Duke, it would seem, you must not only have approval of your intellectual prowess, but also approval of your race, gender, physical inclination and a myriad of other metrics before you are allowed to be seen as "just a student". For the sad souls who teach Samson, too many other things matter too much.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, her termination notwithstanding, Marcotte had proven that unthinking angry partisanship is quite a marketable commodity.

The big loser in this day and age is critical thinking. All Marcotte had to do was (while keeping her absolutist viewpoints) tone down some of her inflammatory comments, and she'd be quite gainfully employed.

Anonymous said...


The article about Faust was written by the same person who wrote an article saying that the cold blooded murder of Sean Bell by the NYPD was justified. Aren't you strongly opposed to such injustices of the criminal justice system?

M. Simon said...

Polanski 2:14AM,

You sir are disgusting. And funny.

Next can you do one on short tounge? STS.

My friend Eric says short people don't get no respect.

Perhaps a Short Studies Dept is in order. WE could call it "the SS" for short.

If SDS is worth $200 mil I think all three together should be worth $800 mil. Why? Just call it synergy.

M. Simon said...


I know nothing (that I can remember) about the Sean Bell case.

I do know that killings by police in NY have been going down over the last few years so trends are in the right direction.

Anonymous said...


You and I agree that things are getting better when the police kill less people, and we agree that Polanski is disgusting. Now if only you could realize that he also is a racist (but then perhaps I'm not getting the humor).

M. Simon said...

OK. I looked up Sean Bell.

If Al Sharpton is the family advisor the case must be very weak. Tawana Brawley ring a bell?

BTW I posted that bit because Polanski asked me to. However I do agree with it. No matter what the author said about Bell.

Truth is truth, without respect to source.

Anonymous said...


I guess truth is truth without respect to source unless that source is Al Sharpton. You, sir, are a hypocrite.

M. Simon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
M. Simon said...

Al Sharpton is a racist.

Anonymous said...

Roman, I'd like to present a lab on microscopic techniques.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon said...

Polanski a racist? Then count me in too.


You've got it.

Oh, and selectively picking whatever facts you like (and ignoring others) can be racist.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon said...
Al Sharpton is a racist.

I agree, but truth is truth without respect to source.

Anonymous said...

Simon and Polanski are racists (as Simon has admitted). Still, they are correct in asserting that Nifong has committed a grave injustice in this case. Truth is truth without respect to source.

M. Simon said...

Bell was in a shady place with a bunch of shady characters. Who knows what happened? I'd have to see the evidence.

If the family had a real case they would be advised by a lawyer not Al Sharpton.

Al Sharpton is who you get when you have Tawana Brawley as a client.

Al Sharpton is who you get when you want to drive Jews out of your community

Sharpton inflamed a race riot over the incident, but a New York grand jury found no evidence of any crime against Brawley and it is now widely acknowledged that she concocted the allegation. Steve Pagones, a prosecutor whom Sharpton blamed for the false incident, won a $345,000 verdict against Sharpton for defamation.

"A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn's Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and anti-Semitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin's funeral he rails against the 'diamond merchants' - code for Jews - with 'the blood of innocent babies' on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, 'No justice, no peace.' A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting 'Kill the Jews!' and stabbed to death."

Tawana and Al

It is possible Rev. Al has the truth on his side. The odds are against it.

The article I linked to conforms to my understanding of the issues involved. Clearly.

The Bell case - not so much. If he was drunk enough to be impaired he may have not been reacting well in a shady neighborhood. A bad situation to be in under the circumstances.

Did the cops over react? It is quite possible. OTOH they are taught to use overwhelming deadly force if they think a gun is present. Shit happens. Less often now under Guiliani.

Still, if the Bell family had a real case they would have a lawyer representing them not the Rev. Al., whose record is somewhat less than sterling.

M. Simon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The anonymous poster who's arguing that Polanski and Simon are racists is way too smart for me. I have a PhD and yet I fail to see why such sublety and multiple posts to get to such an amazing conclusion. I am sure that if you had asked them directly "are you racist", they would have admitted as much right away. After all, when confronted with such a superior intellect anyone would amdit to one's own deficency without hesitation. Perhaps your talents are wasted here...

Anonymous said...

Mr Polanski Basher:

How many times must I ask you to define your term "racist"?

I'd like to engage in a civilized conversation on the topic.

In the meantime, I'm on the phone with Frank Gehry who has agreed to be the architect for the wonderful building that will be home to the unhung.

I think a hobbit-like structure would be great, along with a secet underground tunnel that would lead to the women's studies building.

That's where the serious pot banging will commence.

Yes, I'm angry, and I want my own state-of-the-wee-wee structure.

It's a glorious idea, and a fabulous addition to Angry Studies.


M. Simon said...


So we have Al who is known to be "liberal" with the truth and an authoress whose interpretations of the facts does not conform to your interpretation? I know how I'd bet.

If you can find a link to what she said about Bell I'd read it and give you an informed opinion.

So far I only have your word to go on.

I like to read the source material.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
M. Simon said...

When one of the undercovers identified himself as an officer, the car holding the party twice tried to run him down.

Sean Bell

That is an undisputed fact about the car tring to run the officer down. It is assault with a deadly weapon. The announce part is disputed.

It could have been caused by the cops not announcing themselves. Or Bell was drunk and did something stupid or both.

Once the shooting starts every one unloads. Echos sound like aimed fire. Shots flying by raise the fear level and narrow the vision.

Whatever happened looks like a bunch of mistakes to me. Manslaughter at most.

But as the article states it was not racism.

The article goes on to say that it probably was caused by mistakes on both sides.

I don't see that as a blanket defence of the police. She also brings out a number of police mistakes at other places and times.

I'd say your characterization of the article was incorrect.

Her main point is that whatever happened it was not racism. A black cop fired the first shot.

I'll go back to my main point. If the Bell family had a case they would have a lawyer, not Al Sharpton.

BTW odds are I was working against racism in America before you were born. I grew up in a black neighborhood. I tried to drink out of the "Colored only" water fountain when I was 5. So by age 5 I was already wised up. One of my best drinking buddies in high school was a black guy who worked for my father. Teddy White - Postmaster of Denver. Very bright young man with an honest soul. My dad thought he and his father were great. I liked them both a lot too.

Anon. you have no idea about me.

Anonymous said...

Anyone else notice that the "wonky" liberal bloggers often sound bratty? They also seem to think nothing of dropping the f-bomb in every other sentence.

Anonymous said...


I don't mind an F bomb here and there. What drives me batty is their failure to define an argument, resorting to meaningless expressions like racism. I fear cognitive deficiencies and a bad education are at fault.


M. Simon said...

Anon 3:30AM,

Ever notice they also have a hugh distortion field that seems to cloud their comprehension?


I fear cognitive deficiencies and a bad education are at fault.

Yep. Evidence provided above. When they have no argument it is always some slur.

Never - let me look into it, you could be right.

Anonymous said...

There seems to be an interesting difference between the mindset of, say, a Wendy Murphy and that of a meta-narrator like Marcotte.

The delusional Murphy lashes herself firmly to false facts, trying to defend them ferociously against all comers, but not Marcotte: for her, facts are immaterial, inconsequential details. It's like she is trying to get to the punchline of a joke, and you are quibbling over whether the drunk walked into the bar on Tuesday night or on Wednesday night.

A stripper walked into a house... after that, Marcotte doesn't really care who did or said what to whom, or if the accuser's timeline is impossible, or whatever. Those are details, inessential to her joke. A black stripper walked into a house full of white jocks...and of course they're holding her down and fuh...and now they're trying to get away with it!

Marcotte is truly mystified at being rebuked and heckled for this narrative. It was, she thinks, a perfectly good joke, so the ugly reaction she got must come from misogyny and racism.

But then Amanda, you know what they say: comedy is hard.

Anonymous said...

The PC infection at Duke seems to spread without bound. Listent to the Dean of the Engineering. I'm embarassed.

Deans Discuss Social Impacts of Engineering

p.s. M. Simon, before you post, I know how to write html and choose not to because I think people should know the link they're about to click into.

Anonymous said...


If you don't use html then we can't copy the links because they get cut off.

If you use html, simply hovering over the link will reveal its source.

Anonymous said...

2:04 inre; to M. Simon's kind cheat sheet.

I had trouble because I would delete the line break that appear when I cut/past the URL. That gave an error message. Once I left everything as pasted, even though it appear odd, the links begin to work fine.

Surely as KC needs to sell a book, M. Simon should bottle patience and sell it by the case.

Anonymous said...

From the Heather MacDonald article on Sean Bell, a great article...

"...and sundry other hate-mongers in and out of city government as they accuse the police of widespread mistreatment of blacks and issue barely veiled threats of riots if they do not get “justice...”

- veilded threats of that what the Gang of 88, the pot bangers, Duke leadership wants? It sure seems so...

"...When one of the undercovers identified himself as an officer, the car holding the group twice tried to run him down..."

"...a fourth man in the party fled the scene once the altercation began..."

"Bell and the other men with him all had been arrested for illegal possession of guns in the past; one of Bell’s companions that night, Joseph Guzman, had spent considerable time in state prison, including for an armed robbery in which he shot at his victim"

"Nothing in these facts suggests that racial animus lay behind the incident. (Though this detail should be irrelevant, the undercover team was racially mixed, and the officer who fired the first shot was black")

"Since 1993, 11,353 people have been murdered in New York City. The large majority of victims and perpetrators have been black. Not a single one of those black-on-black killings has prompted protest or demonstrations from the city’s black advocates."

"Had Sean Bell been shot by a fellow club-goer, the protesters and their leaders would not have paid a single moment’s attention to his death"

"Here’s a simple proposition: Why don’t the anti-cop agitators shoulder the responsibility for public safety in even one inner-city neighborhood, in lieu of those dangerous NYPD officers?"

"The police could probably lock away just about every dangerous thug roaming the streets if they got more cooperation from witnesses and people with knowledge of the crime. Instead, they often encounter a wall of hostile silence in minority communities."

"It would be astounding if any of the anti-police activists leading protests about the Sean Bell shooting had ever attended a precinct community meeting or offered to help the police solve crimes."

Thanks for bringing this story to my attention; were I an officer, I probably would have shot them all had they attempted to run me over.
If an armend NYDP asks you to get out of the car, you may want to consider following orders...

Anonymous said...

Sorry here's the link to the Sean Bell article; a very good read.

Sean Bell article

Anonymous said...

"I fear cognitive deficiencies and a bad education are at fault."

You can't fear AND know cognitive deficiences are at fault? Which is it?

I think you need a clarifying statement that you KNOW the faults.

Michael said...

> Marcotte is a professional
> blogger; I’m not.

She may do it for a living but when it comes to professionalism, she doesn't cut the mustard. She doesn't care about facts, she is rude and crude if you don't think like she does and has no tact and diplomacy. How Edwards thought that she could be a reasonable part of a Presidential campaign is beyond me.

There are plenty of blogs by the left, right, run by males and females that are civil, respectful, that avoid slander, that carefully check facts and that responsibly alter their posts (by including notes of alterations).

Marcotte's problem is herself in that she can't see this.

Anonymous said...

The Group of 88 and their "airbrushers" must be called to account.

President Brodhead... are you listening?

Anonymous said...

she eloquently replied, “Nope.”

Hmmm, an uncharacteristically catty comment from the usually straight-down-the-center Brooklyn history professor.

Anonymous said...

Chicago: Come now, she's not a bad-looking girl. But, as others have said here, and as Rod Serling once reminded us, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

As my grandmother used to say "Beauty is skin deep but ugly goes clean to the bone". She was talking about character and breeding. AM is ugly to the bone. The dreary architecture of her soul really turns me off. (Bonus points for identifying the reference.)

K.C. and readers may be interested in Prof. Piot's response at John in Carolina...

Anonymous said...


If you don't use html then we can't copy the links because they get cut off.

If you use html, simply hovering over the link will reveal its source.

Even thought it is "cut off", it's still there. Click just to the left of the "h" in "http" and drag down to highlight including the ".html" after the line wrap. Then do a copy. You'll get the URL which you can paste into your browser. In general it's bad to click on a link that takes you to an unknown site. We're pretty safe here, but...

Anonymous said...

The detail that bothers me about the Sean Bell case is that one cop fired 31 times. I haven't heard any news on this case in a long time.

Anonymous said...

More on the Edwards bloggers from a Democrat point of view.

Liberal Bloggers Demonstrate Their Political Immaturity, Democrat Says

Gary Packwood said...

12:48 AM

Anonymous said
Could anyone provide information on the key Duke trustees? Who are they and why are they putting up with the current administration's performance?

This would be a good topic for us to consider.
All trustees have fiduciary responsibilities and thus...all trustees are key figures.

Here they are...

Last week this site had e-mail addresses.

There must be dozens of attorneys advising the trustees.

Does anyone here want to help us understand fiduciary responsibility?

Anonymous said...

Remember, you don't have to "prove" someone is a racist; you merely have to make the assertion.

When Lyndon Johnson was losing a congressional race early in his career, he was approached by his terrified campaign manager and asked what to do about the opponent who was ahead in the polls. "Call him a pigf---ker and make him deny it," was Johnson's answer. Try proving you're "not something" when confronted by an accusation; it's logically impossible. That's why civilized legal systems are based on the presumption of innocence.

The word "racist" is so overused, and bandied about with so little thought, that is has become meaningless -- except to those who think it still constitutes a useful smear.

I suppose this position makes me a racist.

Anonymous said...

More on the Edwards bloggers from a Democrat point of view.

Of course, this Democrat worked for the hated "Joooo" Lieberman so the Marcotte apologists despise him as much as the hated right wingers.

That is the really disturbing thing about the Far Left. These people who occupy the leftmost 5% of the political spectrum are so angry and hateful that they cannot even tolerate those who are center-left or very liberal. You sign up for the whole Hard Left package or you are the enemy.

These people remind me of all the silly communist groups who infected Hyde Park when I attended the University of Chicago. You had a couple of Trotskyites, a couple of Maoists, a couple of this flavor of international socialist, and a couple of ovo-lacto-vegan lesbian Stalinists. I figured if all these people could get along, they could put together a respectable protest of 10-12 people.

Never happened as they were busy hating each other as much as they hated Ronald "Ray-gun".

Unknown said...

Marcotte just doesn't get it. Potty mouth narcissism (as opposed to a vast right-wing conspiracy) simply is not the correct way to break into mainstream commentary.

Liberal Bloggers Demonstrate Their Political Immaturity, Democrat Says:

Gary Packwood said...

Brodhead as a signatory

Selecting the president of Duke is the most important job of the board of trustees.

The president is the person who carries out policy which is established by the board of trustees.

I doubt that the president (Broadhead) should sign a petition which eventually must be sent to the president (Broadhead).

Such foolishness would might cause board members to wonder out loud about who is in charge.

It is really a good idea for the president not to shoot himself or herself in the foot in front of the people who sign his/her paycheck.

Also, it is good form for the president to defend his/her institution from the charge of hostile work environment harassment...and not... cause it.

Anonymous said...


Only a Freeper would cite 'COUSIN DUPREE' this early in the morning.


Anonymous said...

We have a winner. There's never a bad time for Steely Dan.

Anonymous said...

KC: You support Barack Obama? Why on earth would you do that? You seem to be a very fact-driven person, so I would have expected you to wait for a candidate to put forth a program or compile a record of accomplishment before endorsing him. Mr. Obama has so far done neither.

Anonymous said...

More detail on trustees...

Anonymous said...

The 88/87/89's "Listening Statement" reminds me of this line from 'Pulp Fiction',

"In conversation do you listen, or wait to talk?"

Anonymous said...

There's hope for Duke now that Harvard has made its Faustian Bargain. Wahneeba, Holloway, and their cohorts can seek employment there.

Anonymous said...

TO M. Simon---

You mentioned something about a poster named "firefly" earlier.

I don't recall seeing such a poster here. Perhaps her tenure was before I came to D-I-W.

However.....there used to be a very obnoxious and kind of dumb poster by that name on the NY Times political fora.

She was a dog. No other word to describe such a creep. She'd do drive-by attacks and flame.....yet offer no logical arguments for her freeze-dried Leftist trash.

Could be the same hag.


Anonymous said...

There's never a bad time for Steely Dan.

Ain't that the truth! And on DVD-A.

Anonymous said...

Polanski writes

Source: American Heritage College Dictionary

Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

I guess I'm not a racist because I'm not ethnocentric: Pygmies are just as important as human beings as Ashkenazi Jews.

I guess I'm a racist because I do believe that different races possess different characters and abilities.

Do you agree with this assessment, or are you of the opinion that I'd like to exterminate all blacks and Asians?


I have not seen anybody suggest you are a Nazi, or that you wish to exterminate blacks and Asians. However, I have called you a racist. You have now provided the definition. You fit that definition. Simon too fits that definition. As does, I believe, Al Sharpton. I don't see the problem.

M. Simon said...


The firefly posting here was not terribly unreasonable. Other wise I would not have visited Pandagon.

Could be the same person differnt day? Who knows.

M. Simon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shadoo said...

Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

I think this definition is flawed. Different races do indeed have superiority in various situations. One need only look to the NBA to see that is the case. Noting where different races excel and where they fall short is not racism in my book. It is simply noting data.

M. Simon said...

I have an answer to the unfair distribution of energy. (like why did the Muslim nut cases get all that oil)

Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion

Anonymous said...

Oooops, that post above about racism from Tom was me.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon -

I haven't gone through all the material you reference from your site, so perhaps this question is answered somewhere in the material you reference. If so, just tell me to shut up.

With my firm belief in a market-driven economy, I do not understand why this wouldn't have already been funded by venture firms or more altruistic foundations such as those funded by Gates, Google, et al.

--Lumpy Gravy

M. Simon said...

Six lights in an American office and Africa is dark (don't laugh).

It is all so unfair.

Except for much of Africa the average IQ is 70. There may not be enough smat people to run a high tech civilization. I guess they don't teach that in school.

An the engineer wants Americans to live with less power. Idiot. Why not work to make power cheaper so more people can afford it?

M. Simon said...

Gravy 11:01AM,

I can't figure it out either.

I post links to that article in the hope of creating demand.

The basic technology dates from the 50s. It is used commercially to make portable neutron generators using Deuterium and Tritium as fuel.

If you use Boron 11 and Hydrogen no radiation.

Anonymous said...

TO M. Simon--

The discussion you were having with some others about IQ is very intriguing and you always offer up much to support your POV.

However, as you already have experienced, such a topic is like a volcano ready to explode.

Things that people believe and experience everyday cannot be verbalized. One must pretend that the differences do not exist.

I don't know exactly what to make of all those studies; however, real-life, everyday experience tells me that you are correct in many ways.

There are different kinds of intelligence; however, it seems that the vast majority of the black population excels in only the artistic--and that is also often questionable--and the physical disciplines on a regular basis.....and I'm talking about the majority. We all know individuals who are bright and successful, but they are few and far between.

If anyone wanted to explore this topic, just do a study of Durham. Most blacks there have enjoyed all the benefits life has to offer. There is always a "program" for this and a "program" for that. Many, many black professionals making a lot of money still raise children who can't seem to compete on the same level of those with similar advantages.

It never fails. No matter the socio-economic level, if you're black, there's always something that you "need"......more "access".....less "discrimination".

Never mind that their whole foundation is built upon a sandcastle of special treatment.

As I said, IQ is a provocative topic. It's difficult to say whether the differences are from innate inability or lack of serious effort.

This Duke case has certainly opened up the underbelly of parasites like the Gang of 88 in academia, and has shown just what a free ride many black "victims" have in this country.

I also think it's possible that many of them are so dim that they don't know what they don't know.


Anonymous said...

In light of the panel discussion held last April and the course offerings contemplated by members of the African American Studies department centered around "listening" issues raised by the lacrosse incident, perhaps an entire series of seminars is in order: AAAS Seminars Held On Lacrosse Exploitations, or . . .


Anonymous said...

Marcotte and G88 remind me of Jimmy Carter who wanted to create a dialog and debate on racist Israel. Of course, Carter refuses to debate with anyone, or admit any factual errors and instead prefers monologue. Anybody who disagrees with it is a righ-winger or "getting money from the jews" (Carter himself got tens of millions from saudies).

This is a standard practise in Angry Left nowadays. Demand a debate, then refuse to debate. Truth and facts are irrelevant as they are part of the white male western capitalist mindset only.
That's why election fraud is legitimate if it is done by moonbats (ACORN operatives bought votes in exchange of drugs and money, registered felons and illegals - since "nobody can be illegal" it is fine to let illegal eh undocumented people to vote, it is fine to destroy the cars of the republican party's get out the vote operation (2004, wackos included the sons of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore D-Wis.) since republicans are wrong etc.

Anonymous said...

I agree with another poster about the questionable gravitas of Barack Obama.

He desperately needs to "articulate" (Oooops, we can't say that can we?) agenda.

Obama had a perfect chance and a shining moment to show his balls and his open-mindedness and his character in denouncing those who railed against Joe Biden for using the word "articulate". He could have shown us how "big" and how confident he is by laughing it off and telling other black people to cool it. Instead, he road the victim train and let the shouters play their game.

This was a defining moment that showed the kind of people who'd be in an Obama White House.

Nobody in the real world has the patience for this childishness.

He's all sizzle and no steak.

He's an impressive personality, and I can see that from all the praise and media accolades, he's on a cloud. But how realistic?

Likewise, I'd like to go sashaying down some sandy Caribbean beach today in the same ultra-hot suede bikini I wore a decade ago....however....without a lot of work and sweat, it would be delusional to believe that I'd be able to pull it off.

We all want things....especially if others are telling you they are within reach.

Barack Obama will lose many votes simply because his wife is an angry and disgruntled black woman with a "jimmy jaw".

After the interview that I saw, I don't care for her at all.

Why didn't he scoop up someone like Vanessa Williams while she was in between marriages?

LIS! :>)


Anonymous said...

Simon, Debrah, etc:

It is true that data is not necessarily racist. Nor is it racist to point out a fact. It all depends on your purpose. For example, African American men are more likely to go to prison than to college. One who points that out may be a racist (suggesting that African American men by nature are criminals), or an anti-racist (suggesting that the criminal justice system tends to punish poverty and that, for one reason or another, African Americans are more likely than whites to be poor). One may also suggest sociological reasons that are not necessarily racist or anti-racist.

The point is that the arguments the two of you have made tend toward the racist emphasis on natural differentiation, on suggesting that a group, because of its racial characteristics, is inferior (Simon: Africans do not have sufficient intelligence for high tech; Debrah: blacks only tend to excel in the physical--and questionably in the artistic). Yes, these are racist sentiments. You can call the 88 parasites, but at least most of them do not appear to share these racist ideas.

Anonymous said...


I knew it too. I just wasn't up when you posted it.

Here come those Santa Ana winds again ...


Anonymous said...

Neither Marcotte nor the G88 nor their defenders realize that they have not been "smeared". All that has been done is to point out their positions by referencing their own words.

Marcotte can call her comments "sarcasm" if she wants to. But true sarcasm is underpinned by wit and the truth. There is nothing witty or truthful about Marcotte.

The G88 can claim that their Ad was misinterpreted; that there was no aspect of a rush to judgment in it. How else can one interpret "we thank those of you ... for not waiting"?

Their problem stems from the fact that they live by the credo that says "words mean what I want them to mean." And they reserve the right to change the meaning at their discretion. Thus, the aptly named "Wonderland" aspect to this whole case.

Reasonable people know the definitions of the words Marcotte and the G88 have used in referring to the LAX case. If there is any "smearing" going on, those who claim to be smearees are actually the smearers.

Words have consequences; they are just too juvenile to accept the responsibility. As such the Marcottes and the G88s and their defenders are dangerous when placed in positions of responsibility.

M. Simon said...


Well Obama taught at U Chicago. (My alma matter - #2 Son graduates this spring). So there is solidarity with a fellow professor.

Second Obama is well connected with the Chicago mob. The Tony Rezko connection.

Although I'm not sure #2 is a positive motivating factor.

Me? I don't like any of them. I do lean towards Guiliani, for now.

Did I mention that Obama is a closet Communist?


Lumpy Gravy,

If you have the connections I'd be glad to help you sell it. I understand it well enough to do simple presentations to non-technical or even semi-technical people. I am not deep enough into it yet to do the designing myself. However, no one has had a "gotcha" I couldn't answer. And that includes some physicists.

Anonymous said...

Weighing In for $0.02

Liberals interpret "different" to mean "inferior" when the word appears in a discussion of race, much like "bias" has become a 4-letter word in the PC dictionary. Then they go off on the standard racist accusations. That does tend to put a damper on dialog.

Obama is regularly referred to as a "rock star." Given that the typical rock star is an addled narcissist who thrives on the squeals of a 13-year-old primarily female audience, I'd say the term is completely appropriate.

Anonymous said...

11:52 - I can't speculate as to whether anyone (unless a post makes it clearly manifest) as to whether anyone is racist. But I think you miss an important factor when it comes to African Americans in this country. There appears to be a cultural disinclination towards education and towards the bonds and support that have typically obtained with a strong, traditional nuclear family. And these cultural factors appear to be even more pernicious than genetic ones. And given this country's history of racial discrimination, this group can ill afford these tremendous impediments, especially in an increasing knowledge based economy. What I find tremendously unhelpful about the Gang of 88 and their ilk (yes, it is an generalization, but a fair one), is that their myopic focus on victim status - indeed as evidenced by their rush to judgment and hysteria surrounding the Duke hoax - they ignore the very real and substantial cultural problems in the African American community that no amount of reparations efforts will redress. In a very real way, the Duke hoax exemplifies the problem - potbangers yell, academics view the world as an oppositional zero sum game (i.e. whites win so someone must lose) in a complex world where that paradigm rarely makes sense any longer - and yet, the statistics, yes, the raw data and statistics, continue to be so utterly depressing that to fail to raise the very real cultural and behavioral problems (while conceding that yes, discrimination, still exists) is intellectually irresponsible.

In pointing this out, I don't feel the need to demonstrate I am not a racist - the data is there - and it is what it is - a tragedy. At the same time, I am inclined to treat everyone as individuals (a novel concept, eh?) so it is easy to draw a distinction between very troubling (indeed disastrous) social data and the way I treat others. We do all of us a favor when we speak in a balanced way and to the facts - and to be continuously driven by white guilt as so many are obfuscates the real problems at hand, even if from time to time statements offend.

Anonymous said...

When Prof Gail Dines made a hash of the case on national TV, I corresponded with her briefly. She complained to me that she'd received foul threatening emails and so wished to lower her profile and remove herself from the controversy for the sake of her family.

Now we see Amanda Marcotte using the same line. I've just read the entire Salon comments section on her piece
(fascinating reading), and the "threatening" emails must have been mentioned at least 20 times.

Is anybody but me a little skeptical about the source of these emails? Hasn't it become entirely too convenient to have emails like these in your in-box when you're embroiled in a public controversy? Isn't it possible that the sender might in fact be an ally, handing the receiver a sword with which to skewer his/her enemies?

Foul-mouthed bozos do populate the net (Marcotte should know), and threats are made, I suppose (though I've never been threatened), but two points need to be made: 1) we don't know for certain that the threats came from enemies of Marcotte and not friends who intended to provide her cover, and 2) even if the threats came from actual wackos, it's highly deceptive to contend that they're representative of the whole of the opposition in any given controversy. They represent only a tiny sample.


Anonymous said...

Inre; Engineering school PC...

"...One of the things that surprised a lot of scientists was the backlash toward stem-cell research-I don't think they expected that," she said..."

I'm just a finance guy. Will someone please explain to me how one build a bridge, the lead edge of a 787 wing, or a nuclear power plant with stem cells?

"...One of the primary issues facing engineers today is the unfair distribution of energy around the world, she said, adding that concerns with global warming and diminishing energy supply only heighten this debate..."

Really; I would have guessed it would be losing ones license and getting ones _____ sued off if a bridge failed and people died.

"...As you look at the globe at night, Africa is dark," she said. "Where is the fairness in that?..."

Well N. Korea is darker. Maybe we start by firing all of the PC marxists that teach the luncacy of a failed economic system.

This is very, very disheartening. One is shocked by the AAAs, Women's studies, and much, if not most of the Humanities, but Engineering?!?!

Remind me not to fly on a plane designed by a Duke engineer...

Anonymous said...

TO 11:52PM---

Please. Please. Tell us from which planet you hail.

Your defense of the raw and rugged and relentless racism oozing from the embarrassing Gang of 88 is so palpable that it is too odious to mention.

And be advised: You are not talking to a rookie with regard to the black community. I was riding the soul train a long time ago. The only trouble was.....I thought that all upstanding black people wanted equal rights. I didn't know that the whole charade was the beginning of a never-ending saga of wanting guaranteed results and special rights.....extending into future centuries.

Most in the black community didn't use affirmative action just to get ahead. It has become a foundation for their lives.

And NO ONE....NO ONE.....can be respected fully when their foundation consists of things that were just given to them.

I venture to say that you have never had any kind of personal relationship with a black person in your life.....simply because your post oozes the self-righteousness of a parasitic Liberal whose sole knowledge consists of sharing a cubicle a few hours a day with a brothah or a sistah.

You're someone who obviously likes rosey scenarios, but you'd wee in your pants if you had ever been met with some of the real pathologies which you defend like a nut.

You're an apologist for the underbelly of society who gets off on harming innocent people.


Anonymous said...

to Anon 11:52- Simon and Debrah sound racist to you because you have been beaten down by the PC crowd to the point that any statement about blacks sounds inappropriate whether it addresses facts or not.
As to the Gang of 88, they most certainly were (are) racists. The "listening" ad was replete with quotes from (imaginary, we now know) black students regarding their poor treatment by whites on campus. It was also crystal clear that the 88 believe that if a black woman is making an accusation against white boys, that she is telling the truth, they are obfuscating: end of story.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the emails these women these women are saying they received is a lie. The are making it up. They take no responsibility for their lack of fact finding and nasty comments.

Anonymous said...

I have many close black friends, but not thugs. I don/t have stupid redneck friends either. Any one watching the black people (lawyers and newmen) from the Bahamas? All of them have class, educated, well spoken and obvious pride in themselves. Thats want I want for not only the black community, but all of america,e

Anonymous said...

12:18 You got it. These women feel free to inject themselves into the case with no knowledge whatsoever. They are aided by their nastiness and language. They assume no responsibility for their thoughts and behavior, When called on, many want to retire from the field. Better to have not included themselves in the debate.

Anonymous said...

Is this racist? (Duke Chronicle)

Ten Black Experience

This is separatist in nature is it not? Separate but equal?

Anonymous said...

To 12:32PM--

And thank G/d for that!

Bahamians have benefited from an English education where all the affirmative action tricks used in American schools were nowhere to be found.

Liberal Leftists who demand equal results without preparation have ruined the educational system in this country.


Anonymous said...

In her piece posted at Salon, Amanda explains the disappearance of many of her posts as follows:

With all our server and software changes over the years, we at Pandagon had hopelessly scrambled and in fact deleted months and even years of the blog by accident. Some blog posts had funky URLs; others had the wrong author. We'd never fixed the problem because no one could figure out a way to do it that didn't involve thousands of manual corrections.

KC, I don't know how familiar you are with commercial webhosts (as opposed to free blog sites.) On the assumption that you have never interacted with the former, I'd like to point out how fishy this explanation sounds. I have never heard of a commercial web host not maintaining a backup of the sites it hosts (most people keep their own backup to CD as well). That way in the event of "scrambled eggs" or accidental deletion, the site can be reloaded.

M. Simon said...


You do not understand statistics.

Low average IQ means that on a per capita basis there will be a lot fewer blacks than whites doing high tech. And on a per capita basis Ashkenazi Jews will outshine whites.

However, averages have nothing to do with individuals. There will be some blacks who do better than some Ashkenazi Jews.

Talent must be judged on an individual basis. i.e. racism is wrong.

The top 5% in brain power have created the civilization that gives us so much wealth. In Africa where the average IQ runs at around 70 there may not be enough high IQ people to run a high tech civilization. The Arabs tend to an IQ of about 85 so they could possibly do it with a lot of effort. Instead they hire (mostly) white brains.

There was a sc-fi story (or was it a novel?) called "the Marching Morons" about this problem.

Say 5% of the American population avg IQ 100 holds civilization together. (IQ above 125)

In a population with IQ avg of 70 (african blacks) that will amount to .01% of the population.

In a population with an avg. IQ of 85 (american blacks) the above 125 will amount to .4% (a factor of about 10 lower than whites).

I'm assuming (for ease of calculation) that the standard deviation is the same (15 points) for all populations. It is actually smaller for blacks than whites. Making the situation worse.

BTW IQ has a correlation with brain size - it is small but significant. The biggest correlation is with parental IQ.

Low IQ correlates with criminality. People in prison average an IQ of 92.

M. Simon said...


Funny thing is black families were stronger in the 40s when racism was very strong than they are now. Something changed.

Anonymous said...

I would ask those posters who have the time to visit the Herald-Sun website and go to the opinion page.

Under the heading "Other Voices", there is a little column by a guy named A.J Donaldson who bills himself as an N.C. Central student. Apparently, he was on the panel when Paula Zahn came to town.

This will give you apologists a taste of the intellect coming out of Central.

It will also illustrate the psychological bankruptcy of this generation's "educated" black students.

Pure infantile logorrhea.


Anonymous said...

To 11:52 and Debrah

Alright Debbie, go to your room and put a heating pad on your tummy until you feel better. I'll bring you a warm gin. It has been decades since I put on a bikini, since before you were born dear, but if we cling to the days when being admired, promoted, singled out, rewarded, given professorships, because of our looks, ugh, well, oops, I think I just stepped in some nasty affirmative action movement here. 11:52, Please help your old Auntie out with this sticky "natural differentiation" business.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon -

I will email you with a plan of action.

--Lumpy Gravy

Anonymous said...

One more comment about the quotes for the Listening ad that Ms. Lubiano claims to have developed from her notes.

When did you learn not to set a line(s) off from the body of your text such that it appears to be a direct quote when it is merely paraphrase?

I think I was in ninth grade.

Yet here we have a woman with a doctorate and a professorship at Duke who doesn't know this? Or does she know it and choose to ignore it to carry out her political agenda?

Anonymous said...

Debrah 12:23:

You know nothing about me except for my views on your views. Your views are racist, based on a definition that Polanski (a self-confessed racist) got out of a reputable dictionary. Your views are similar to those of David Duke. If you want to suggest that I have never had any relationship with the black community, that only shows your utter ignorance (in fact, you know nothing about this topic, and I do not intend to tell you) and your failure to engage in intellectual debate.

I'm afraid I haven't wee'd in my pants in a while, though. I've simply pointed out some flaws in your arguments.

As to the 88:
1. Are they racist? Prove it.
2. Were the quotes from the students imaginary? How do we know? They are in Lubiano's notes, and nobody who was at that meeting has disputed the quotes.
3. If the quotes weren't imaginary, then were the 88 just giving credence to the views of some of the students?
4. Did they all believe that the woman was telling the truth because she was a black woman accusing white men?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions (except for the last one, which is emphatically, "no").

As to 12:16, your points are not racist, and thus they differ significantly from Debrah's lunacy. You make some points about the black family and culture, points with which I disagree. These points were made in the Moynihan report and again by those who advocated Clinton's welfare reform plan. The data are inconsistent, but perhaps this is beyond the scope of this blog (see Hortense Spillers, "Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe," in Diacritics 17/2-1987).

Anonymous said...

I have been reading this post for months now and i've noticed the repetitive allegation that one thing or another is racist. however, rarely, or more appropriately never, is a definition of racism given and then a thoughtful analysis of why the comment in question qualifies as racist.

But the even more interesting thing as this allegation sends many of the people who make the allegedly racist comments running for cover. Will someone please define racism/racist?

Further, it has been deemed, perhaps unwittingly, axiomatic that racism or racist is "wrong". but no one on this board has made a case, not even a weak one, as to why racism, whatever it may mean, is wrong, immoral or whatever description to be applied. will someone please make this case after they define what racism/racist means?


Anonymous said...


I was using the verb "fear" in its meaning of to considerable probable. The context of the usage was pellucid. I used a qualifying word like fear because I do not presume to be absolutely certain why certain posters resort to calling people they don't know racists.


Anonymous said...

1:23 erratum

considerable to consider


Anonymous said...

12:23 - I am 12:16 - you disagree about the profound problems of African American culture? Please. The problem is that Moynihan wasn't just right - he was far more prescient than anyone could have guessed. Is there any non-anecdotal data to suggest otherwise? To deny it is delusional - or else it is simply too painful to acknowledge - which I suspect (understandably) is the case with many who eschew a balanced view between accountability and the vestiges of state sponsored racism. Look, the house is burning in African American society - is there any justification to continually sit and wax abstract about what kind of ism is affecting African Americans? I am not Jewish, but my spouse and children are - and I don't find religion my cup of tea - but every rabbi I have met cautions in the extreme about Jews identifying too closely and inextricably with the Holocaust - this is not to say, just as with slavery, that it was and is evil and wrong - it is just that to define one's existence as a people mostly or solely in terms of a disaster is in and of itself a disaster in the making. Wise teaching, my friend, and deny it at the peril of those who need help the most in our society.

Anonymous said...


Perhaps you missed this definition, provided by a self-described racist:

Source: American Heritage College Dictionary

Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

I will not develop the argument here that racism is bad. There are many who do not believe that it is bad: David Duke, and, I believe, Al Sharpton, think that "race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others," and they presumably do not believe this is bad.

Anonymous said...

1:29--I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you are saying here. Identifying too closely with slaves instead of analyzing slavery and working to end its vestiges is indeed problematic. The Moynihan report, however, did not say this. Rather it blamed black women for emasculating black men--that's a difficult argument to show with any amount of data, and it is strongly disputed in most of the literature. Maybe the argument is correct, maybe not, but I do not find it convincing.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone miss Wendy Murphy?
It's not about Duke case, but fun to read!

Anonymous said...

"There are plenty of blogs by the left, right, run by males and females that are civil, respectful, that avoid slander, that carefully check facts and that responsibly alter their posts (by including notes of alterations)."

You mean like KC's?

And Polanski, I have never laughed at one of your posts, and I certainly disagree with many of your arguments, but SDS was hilarious,absolutely hilarious.

In fact, one of the odd things I've noticed about the Marcotte's and the gang O'88s of the world is the fact that you can insert any number of grievances ... small dicks... big lips ... 'Neema's balls (an 88 supporter over at JiC claimed that'Neema had testicles)... into the narrative and BOOM! you've got your grievance statement finished.

It's that simple. What a hell of laugh to have after a night of guinness.

And MTU, the lab comment had me howling ...

As for IQ, and those who attempt to use it as some sort of standard, please read "The mismeasure of man" by the now-gone Stephen Jay Gould. It'll put a quick stop to those who would quote the "Bell Cuve" by Herrenstein and that other twaddledick as a reliable and accurate source.

But, other than that, what a wonderful,lively post ... or am I allowed to say that, I don't want to seem as a misogynist or anything.

Anonymous said...

I think I'm in love with MTU... don't tell her hubbie though

Anonymous said...

TO 1:06PM---

Let me remind you that you began this useless name-calling. As with the Duke Gang of 88 and other professional "victims", name-calling substitutes for debate.

I really have no interest in talking with someone like you. Your knowledge of the world is obviously scant.

I know you only from your posts and the fact that you hide behind "anonymous" and call names.

I would venture to say that I have traveled the world and have gotten to know many more people from all walks of life than you can conjure from your room above Mommy's garage. LOL!!!

Listen freak, let me educate you: You have me confused with someone who is intimidated by such juvenile tactics. The silly word "racist" has been used so promiscuously that it has been rendered impotent.

Molded little Liberals like you and the Democratic Party would have lost all power long ago without the black vote.

Your bellowing is more like a loony menopausal b!tch.

Ron Karenga is no doubt your master.


Anonymous said...

Can we please get back to what's important here ... all of this leagl stuff and IQ stuff ... you're all ignoring the bigger (or in this case smaller problem) Small Dick syndrome.

I suggest a meta-narrative (what the hell does that mean anyway?) on the struggle of the two-finger (forefinger-thumb) masturbation technique and how it relates to modern sexism and the wholly unfair discrimination by the use of size in postmodern socity.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon @ 2:43 am

Facts are not racists; racists are racists.

"I've done a little study on the subject and the average black IQ in America is about 85, whites about 100, and Ashkenazi Jews about 115.

"Where this really matters is at the upper tail of the curve where blacks will be way under represented relative to their population. Fact. Which means that to keep the faculty roughly poroprtionally representational of population you need an intellectually unchallenging place to park them. Thus Angry Studies. Which has turned natural variation into a crime."

Let's accept for argument's sake both the accuracy and the meaningfulness of your IQ statistics. (I personally think that IQ statistics have very limited reliability, but that is a separate argument.) You use averages to argue that there are NO blacks capabale of doing intellectually difficult work; all blacks have to go into some lightweight field. Indeed according to you there are not even enough intelligent blacks in America to fill 10% of the nation's academic positions with competent scholars.

As you clearly understand, your whole argument makes statistical sense only if the percentage in the upper tail is extremely small because the number of qualified blacks will be determined by the PRODUCT of that percentage and the total number of blacks, which is in excess of 20 million. With any reasonable percentage (say 5%) in the upper tail, that means at least a million blacks perfectly qualified according to your selected measure of IQ. Yet your conclusion is that what is needed "is an intellectually unchallenging place to park" the stupid schwarzes, who obviously in your view are closer to inanimate objects like cars than to real human beings.

It is racism to judge an individual person's intellectual capacity or moral worthiness by the color of his skin or his ethnic background. Pure and simple, no fancy statistics needed.

JeffM (IQ = 66)

Anonymous said...

I am intrigued. The clever poster who is going out of his way to imply -- but never state explicitly -- that this is a racist forum seems to be quite happy that finally we have e definition of racism that allows him/her to label Polanski, Simon and now Debrah, racists.

I have a very strong impression that the game is to eventually include everyone by provoking a statement that fits the definition.

I suggest we cut to the chase. I will concede that I am a racist if the poster concedes that he/she too is a racist. Then we can move on to discuss interesting/relevant things. (BTW, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that according to the definition he/she supports most, if not all, of the 88/87 are in fact racists.)

Short of this, I would like the poster to (1) define "race", (2) to explain what he/she thinks the statement "race accounts for differences in human character or ability" means, (3) explain what he/she thinks the statement "a particular race is superior to others" means.

I have my own views on each one of this items, but I am not trying to accuse others of racism, so my views are not particularly relevant.

It is clear to me that this poster believes that race defines character and that some races are superior to others, but does not want to state explicitily his/her views so to put others on the defensive.

Please, quit to be clever and tell us what you believe so that we know what the game is.

M. Simon said...

Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Well let me see. Sickle cell correlates with race.

IQ correlates with race.

In fact there are genetic markers of all kinds that correlate with race. Which would make population genetics racist? Huh?

What you must remember is that averages have nothing to do with individuals.

M. Simon said...

Jeff 1:53PM,

Uh, you obviously over estimated your IQ. Because your post is evidence you can't read. Statistics is obviously far far beyond you.

I said that one must not judge individuals based on averages.

I will go further. It is up to the folks on top to practice noblesse oblige. Why? Because manual labor is losing its value. That means that those only capable of such labor are going to be hurting in a high tech economy, where you can get a robot that for $8/hr will perform to high accuracy and reliability 24/7/365. No bathroom or lunch breaks either.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Beckett, I'd be suspicious of Marcotte's "hate mail" too. Who knows how many of those she sent to herself? Like Judge Judy has stated, "Once I've caught you lying, I don't have to believe anything else you say."

Anonymous said...

To MTU '76---

Very funny. :>)


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I guess I'm a racist, since I do think the races are different and that we're not "all the same." But I don't go by I.Q. I go by the more tangible ways to indicate these things: crime rates, history, which countries have come up with the greatest inventions, who do I see regularly winning the spelling bee, who's won the Nobel prize in the science categories, which works of literature hold up as relevant for hundreds of years, who has invented and discovered the items and implements that improve our day to day life and all that. But I also believe every individual is an individual, and capable of anything, no matter what tendencies the race or ethnicity might seem to lean to.

M. Simon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

M. Simon,

are you an Ashkenazi Jew?

It's not a rethorical question, I'm just curious.

M. Simon said...

Jeff 2:21PM,

As I said statistics is beyond you.

Statistics relates to probabilities.

The probability of finding an IQ 125 person in a sufficiently large white population given those numbers and assuming 15 point standard deviation is 5%.

In the American black population it is .4%

In the African black population it is .01%.

Probability says nothing about individuals. Which I took that the average person here would get.

As I said. Your IQ is insufficient for the understanding of distributions. My condolences.

I can tutor you in statistics in private if doing it in public embarasses you.

My standard rate is $50 an hour. Cash.

Anonymous said...

What race means in terms of ability in a top institution is that blacks will be under represented if the institution maintains its standards.

You know that race is just a social construct and doesn't exist except in the minds of racists like you!

M. Simon said...



I got lucky in my choice of parents.

I will not mention my SAT scores or what I was told about my IQ.

I will say that I am a U. Chicago alum. And have had a very interesting career as an aerospace engineer (aircraft). One step below rocket scientist. LOL.

I did work next to the room where the Space Shuttle APUs were refurbished.

M. Simon said...


So I'm told.

However, genetics refutes that position.

Anonymous said...

m.simon sez ...

The probability of finding an IQ 125 person in a sufficiently large white population given those numbers and assuming 15 point standard deviation is 5%.

And what about East Asians, like Chinese.

Perhaps about 8% ... given a pop mean of about 105 and sd of about 12.

Anonymous said...

"Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."

Please note the "and" in the definition. "And" is a logical connector which indicates that *both* conditions must be met for the definition to apply.

Making the point more clearly and forcefully, from Webster (emphasis mine):


Any questions, class?

Anonymous said...


Simon, where on God's green Earth did you discover that the Ashkenazi IQ is 1 SD above other Europeans? First off, the Caucasian Italians and Brits have IQs over 100. Did you get your 1 SD Ash advantage from lagriffedulion? Those data are wrong. The most reliable data I've seen show the Ash advantage to be 1/2 SD, which is considerable. However, I don't think the incredible accomplishments of the Ashkenazis are based on IQ alone--I think they are weirdos, like the Irish, which explains Irish-Jewish intermarriage and the fact that Ash are such great artits--filmmaking, writing, painting, musical composition--not to mention philosophy.

Gary 9:16--by all means, let's put some pressure on the trustees--not enough has been written about Brodhead's shameful contribution to this mess.

Cedarford: KC and Taylor's book will be published by St. Martin's Press. IMO, it's a horrible choice. I advised KC early on to contact Adam Bellow, who used to head up The Free Press, which published "The Bell Curve." I don't think the editors at St. Martin's will tolerate any discussions about the elephant in the room re the reason black studies professors are so stupid. I could be wrong about this. Visit St. Martin's Press and check out their titles. Make the call based on what they've already published. Know this: there is de facto censorship in the MSM--duh...

10:32--the word "racist" is a pseudoconcept because all modern scientific data support the distinct racial characteristics data. There is also a lot of differentiation within races. Ever notice that the East Africans win all the long-distance running events, and that the West Africans win all the sprints? Think about it. So to call someone a racist is tantamount to calling them a psychometrician, or an anthropologist.

10:49--thanks, Tom--res ipso loquitur

Debrah--You are absolutely correct re everyday observations of black behavior indicate low intelligence. There is a brilliant article on this subject by the brilliant Lawrence Auster. His blog is "View from the Right." Scroll around; you'll find it.

12:16--great post re emphasizing the material problems in the black community

1:59--I don't think I'm superior to a gorilla. I plan to edit a serious photo book of primate portraits to prove my point.

Simon--yes, Obama taught at the University of Chicago--constitutional law--but he was totally unqualified to do so. He was an affirmative action admit to both Harvard and Chicago's faculty. He has published nothing on constitutional law. Yes, he was an "activist" attorney, but I doubt he did it because he preferred it. He knew that the Laurance Tribes of the world would eat his shorts. Another thing. His screed, "The Audacity of Hope," is a laughable, cliched piece of shit. Someone should convert it to toilet paper. I'd be the first one in line to but it.

1:34 re lessons of the Moynihan Report--Moynihan was a scholar and a genius, 1 of the founders of the true neoconservatism. His report emphasized the deleterious effects to the black family when there was either no marriage or an absent father. He never ridiculed black women. That man had class.

thanks, humboldtblue--if I decide to do docu on this mess, I'm gonna ask Brodhead about instituting SDS on camera--LOL

Anonymous said...

ok this is a good start. we have a few people taking stabs at what racism/racist means. And a bit more of the allegation itself. but now will someone make the case that racism is "wrong" or "immoral"? that was missing from the other posts. since many are defensive about it, seems like there will be some takers on this point.

another makes a good point about the definition that we did see. what does it mean to think a race is superior to others? i would add a question, does it matter to think that one race is superior to others if there are no consequences associated with that opinion? i guess to ask the different question, is it racist to think that white people are superior to black people, but at the same time to believe that michael jordan is the best basketball player of all time and to attend every game (thus paying to see him) that he ever played in?


Anonymous said...

I said that one must not judge individuals based on averages.

Except that, until you have robust evidence that an individual is above or below or just average on a particular trait, you cannot go far wrong in expecting them to be near the average for their race on that trait.

You have a 68% probability of being right for 1SD around the average. In situations where you are looking for individuals who are three SDs above the white mean, your probability of finding good sprinting skills in a white, a jew or a chinese is quite low, and much better in an African American.

Similarly for engineering smarts, although the distributions are different.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon et al,
I think the topic of race and IQ should be channeled to a different blog courtesy of our hosts request.My reasoning is thus;
1) It is a very explowsive topic.Even threatening.
2)Any one who wants info can read the Bell Curve-as you obvipously have.
3)By many left wingers it is looked on as de facto proof of racism to talk about it.(An acquaintance of mine who teaches at the second best school in the Big 10-Go Blue) tells
me he treats questions about it as a silent but deadly fart.Hold your breath ,ignore it and it will go away)Simply bringing this up repeatedly gives critics of this site ammunition of calling it racist.
And-our host has asked us to stop it.If ti makes you feel better,simply murmur,"Yet it still moves."when the urge to post on this strikes

Gary Packwood said...


A Racist is someone you do not like today and someone you want to shock so badly that they won't try and defend themselves.

Alone those same lines, a CULT is a group of people you don't like today.


What happened to our old 'call to arms' of working to help poor people?

Anonymous said...


this case was only about race. it was about nothing more than race. how can we discuss this case without delving into the question of what defines racism and what its consequesnces are?

sorry, your prof friend has good reason to remain silent. i don't blame him after watching what the faculty did at duke. but we don't have to live in fear in the blogosphere.



Anonymous said...

JeffM (who claims to have an IQ of 66, which is simply laughable) sez ...

You use averages to argue that there are NO blacks capabale of doing intellectually difficult work;

I doubt very much that m.simon says that, since I am very sure that he know what a distribution is.

The larger the population the more likely you are to find individuals 4-5 SDs above the pop mean.

Thus, the Chinese, who would seem not to have much population substructure, are very likely to have very many more people with IQs of 130 and above than the US does (on two counts).

If race is a social construct, then so too must racism be, eh.

M. Simon said...

2:47 PM,

Actually character seems to go with IQ. According to population studies on people in prison.

The average prisoner has an IQ of 92.

The higher the IQ the less likely you are to be in prison.


Yes. I'm trying to keep the numbers relatively accurate but somewhat simplified so the beginners in statistics can follow along.

Really the numbers are not too important for my purposes here except as rough orders of magnitude. It is ideas I'm trying to convey.

For instace why we need race norming (non-uniform standards) to get aproximately racially representative populations in elite universities for admissions.

However, if the professors maintain standards, blacks will flunk out of elite institutions at a much greater rate than whites. Which is exactly what we find.

Anonymous said...

Obama is a closet communist? He's a democrat - therefore he is an out and proud commie! God bless his little Marxist brain! D'oh! I meant "articulate".

Any guesses on his IQ? Can he break 100? What's the over/under? 90? 80?

And he does smoke cigarettes and his middle name is Hussein - so there you go - our next president! I for one welcome our Communist Smoking Closet Jihadi Overlord!

Anonymous said...

The reality is that this case is all about guilt and manipulation.

We all need society and are embedded in multiple social groups.

Quite a number of years ago now, the underperforming groups in society (and certain others) discovered that they could use the inbuilt feelings of guilt about differences in achievement that some groups have in abundance to manipulate society to reward the under-achievers with a bigger slice of the pie.

However, people resent manipulation, and over time, it has required larger and larger clubs to achieve the same result.

These same groups now routinely purvey the view that males are all sexist brutes who will rape a poor defenceless female at the drop of a hat, and that white males are privilege-laden brutes who will subject any person of color to discrimination without so much as a blink of an eye.

They do this in the hope that the aforementioned groups will always be on the defensive, and this rape hoax looked like the perfect vehicle for tightening the screws on those groups, however, it all seems to be unravelling and so these ever-hopeful purveyors of untruths are flailing around looking for a way out.

I hope you all understand the reality of this little meta-narrative.

M. Simon said...


I got the Ash stuff from "Bell Curve", la griff, and numerous other places on the net.

SD is harder to measure than averages so there are a range of values given. La Griff du Lion has some pretty good stuff up about the differences. I forget the population they were looking at but it was something like looking at the Gauss Prize in math and figuring out from the winners what the SD was.

As I said I was trying to show trends for those not familiar with the subject, so I simplified a lot and didn't get into the various controversies.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon

Even someone with my limited IQ sees that you failed to show where you said what you claimed you had said in a particular post.

And by the way, the Guassian curve necessarily applies to random samples; it does not necessarily apply to the underlying population. So you cannot assume that a certain attribute is distributed "normally" in an underlying population; you have to demonstrate that independently.

You judge people's intellectual capacity by the color of their skins so you are a racist. All the rest is noise.


Anonymous said...

1:53 said: "As you clearly understand, your whole argument makes statistical sense only if the percentage in the upper tail is extremely small because the number of qualified blacks will be determined by the PRODUCT of that percentage and the total number of blacks, which is in excess of 20 million. With any reasonable percentage (say 5%) in the upper tail, that means at least a million blacks perfectly qualified according to your selected measure of IQ. Yet your conclusion is that what is needed "is an intellectually unchallenging place to park" the stupid schwarzes, who obviously in your view are closer to inanimate objects like cars than to real human beings."

Acually, the Gaussian model would predict upper tail qualifying blacks as amounting to something like 0.5%, or approximately 100,000 in the total American black population. This would be further diminished to a population of around 50,000 working age adults. What percentage of these people would voluntarily CHOOSE to work in academia? If you assume an astronomical 10%, that would amount to a total 5,000 blacks willing and able (though perhaps not ready) to work as university professors -- or approximately 2 for every school in America offering bachlaureate degrees. This is a miniscule number, and way overestimated at that.

Anonymous said...

The reason why I ask the clever poster to define "race" is that I am convinced that he/she can't tell the difference between the social/cultural interpretation and the genetic one. BTW, I would like the poster to explain the difference between race and ethnicity.

Rethorical tricks are fun, and might even feed one's ego. I doubt that they lead anywhere though, particularly in this forum.

I think Polanski and M. Simon understand the differences I refer to. The arrogant, clever lecturer that showed up recently, and I find so irritating, apparently does not.

So, I ask again: What is race? I will ask again my other question once we get this out of the way.

WINDBAG: I find hard to discuss in terms of morally wrong or right something that is not yet properly defined. I can discuss in moral terms specific behaviors. The problem is that racism -- a belief according to the definition -- cannot be defined without first defining race. Moreover, racism -- again, a belief -- becomes morally relevant when it informs behavior. I have yet to see even a suggestion that whatever beliefs people on this forum hold drive them to behave in morally reprehensible ways. The poster is implying it, in my view, but he/she has no basis for such a ridiculous assertion, so he/she does not make it and prefers to discuss things in the abstract. Fine, let's do it. Let's start with defining race.

M. Simon said...

2:53 PM,

There is an Rhinocerous in the room. (I loved Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder in the movie)

The emperor is naked.

You will note that I don't have the couth to not see or be silent about what I see.

So the race baiters will not like it. Tough. The whole Angry Studies crap is about turning natural differences into a political weapon. That is devastating to the idea that one should advance by merit.


I invented this little IQ test for the person who believes they are not valid. See if you can pass.

You are a passenger on a 747-400 and you have a choice of pilots, each has similar visio-spacial co-ordination and motor skills, one has an IQ of 70 the other has an IQ of 130.

Who you gonna call?

To say IQ has no validity is BS. It is a belief that not even your own experience will support.

If you choose the IQ 70 guy all that will prove is that there are at least two morons on the plane.

M. Simon said...

KC as far as I know has only cautioned against stuff like "I hate n....", which only Chris Rock is allowed to say.

I have never said such a thing. I don't believe it and as I said earlier on this thread or another, my best drinking buddy in high school was black.

KC has yet to remove any of my comments about IQ because I am temperate (mostly) and stick to the facts.

Anonymous said...

... and when this all gets sorted out, who's ready to take on Larry Summers' ruminations about women and science?

Can't wait for that one ...

Anonymous said...

The Feb. 16 edition of the Wall St. Journal has an interesting article on page W13 of the Personal Section titled, "Curse of the Christian-bashers".

The article explains the problems facing many Democratic party candidates attempting to appeal to main-stream Americans with being associated with the anti-Christian rants of vile bigots like Amanda Marcotte.

Note to Amanda: Try to complete at least one sentence per blog without resorting to the vapid F word. It is good for the soul.

But on the other hand, as far as I'm concerned... you can rot in hell.

M. Simon said...


I'm sorry.

I took it as a given a minimum understanding of statistics.

As to distributions. A reasonable estimate for distributions in populations over about 30 items is that the distribution is Gaussian even if the distribution is unknown. They teach that in elementary statistics.

As to the real distribution? If it was other than Gaussian I'd have seen a reference to that in the literature. The closest I have seen to that statement is that at the extreme high end tail the distribution may be somewhat non-gaussian. However, I have never seen anything that would suggest that the black and white differences have a different shape. If the shape is the same or similar my conclusions still hold although the actual numeric answer might be different.

Anonymous said...

Locomotive Breath at 6:29 pointed out an interesting observation.

Reminded me of an old old saying 'Those who can do, those who can't teach, those who can't teach regulate.'

Auntie would like to buy everyone here a double rye on the rocks.

Anonymous said...

MTU'76 @ 3:42

Does "do" include research? Most scientists, even social scientists, think of that as their primary activity.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Check out John in Carolina's latest attempt to get the Gang of 88 to talk about the 'Shut up and Teach' meeting last Monday. John contacted Professor Piot via email to get Piot to go on record about he said about KC Johnson at that Monday evening - namely, saying KC's blog is "inciting racist attacks on African American faculty" using "the common strategies [of] totalitarian regimes."

However, Piot refused to explain what he said because his explanation is in a "piece for publication in an academic journal" which he won't let John publish on his blog because Piot says the unnamed publisher of the unnamed publication set for an unnamed time made Piot promise his explanation would "not be published elsewhere beforehand".

In other words, Piot is hiding up in his ivory tower so no one can take a shot at him!

You know, ivory is awful slippery - which is why they used to make billiard balls out of it. If this were a game of pool, Piot must know he's turned himself into the 8 ball and KC is Minnesota Fats getting ready to shoot Piot into the corner pocket!

Anonymous said...

M Simon

Last I looked the population of the US was larger than 30. So according to you the age distribution of the US population must be almost normal. (Guess what: it isn't.)


Anonymous said...

IQ and natural selection

IIRC, one general premise of natural selection is the survival of the fittest and that, by surviving, those with genes that improve survival odds are more likely to pass those genes on to subsequent generations.

Higher IQ may or may not improve survival odds in some environments as much as other genes and traits. Genes that increase resistance to disease or to an endemic parasite - to name two - may be far more important than IQ. Smarties, after all, die from malaria just as easily as dummies.

I read once where someone noted that what is oft measured and called IQ seems to correlate with how many generations a population has lived in cities or, perhaps, how long a genetic group has NOT been hunter-gatherers. The reasoning, IIRC, was that athletic genes, sensory enhancing genes, and some resistance genes would have less impact in survivor selection, allowing other genes - including IQ - to dominate. By that standard, the Far East, particularly the Chinese, would test out at higher IQs on a popuation or mean basis ... and they do.

Anonymous said...


Since you brought it up, this is what I posted on JinC earlier today.

LB had expressed doubts about Piot's intentions. I second those doubts.


I suggest you inquire about the alleged promise to an academic journal. I have a background similar to LB, with the difference that I still work in academia.

I have never heard of remarks to an event like that in question to be "promised" to an academic journal.

Serious academic journals are peer reviewed, meaning that one submits one's work and hopes for a positive response by anonymous referees. Submission, moreover, does not prevent one from making the work public. In fact, in academia we all circulate our work widely prior to or even during submission, either in working paper series or by posting it on our webpages.

If no peer review is involved, then there is no reason to withold the remarks now as this clearly is a case of no serious academic evaluation process resulting in publication.

In short, I am convinced that Prof. Piot is lying and that LB's take is the right one: they have no intention of making the video or the transcript available to the public.

kcjohnson9 said...

The IQ angle is pretty extraneous to the specific issues at hand, it seems to me, and I'd urge people to avoid it.

Anonymous said...

3:19-my apologies for not responding. I had work to do. I would define race as a sociohistorical construction of an individual's identity based on particular legal parameters related to the supposed color of one's skin. I would define ethnicity as the declaration of community with others with whom one perceives cultural similarities.

Thank you for thinking I am clever. I am not. Thank you too for thinking I am arrogant. I am.

Anonymous said...

Apologies: Carolyn, not Carlyin.

kcjohnson9 said...

To Dave's question, 1.35am:

Were it not for the Group of 88's statement, I doubt I would have followed the case; all of my initial posts were on the faculty response, not the case itself.

Anonymous said...


Thanks so much for the response. I asked because that's how it looked, in the context of all the other things you pay attention to.

I went back to Cliopatria and watched your interest sharpen as the G88 staked out their positions and just kept digging in even as the facts proved to be elsewhere.

It's like you were giving them a chance to get it right, in which case you would have happily moved on.

Just their luck. Thanks for staying with it.


Anonymous said...


Your definitions are vague, subjective and wouldn't even make it in a dictionary. Worse, they do not allow for measurement and thus serve no serious purpose. As I thought, you are not a scientist -- social, natural, or otherwise -- but a polemicist.

I did not say that you are clever. I said you are trying to be clever.
There is a difference.

Arrogance breeds ignorance. Yes, you are arrogant.

I am no longer interested in discussing these matters with you. You have nothing to offer.

M. Simon said...


Fundamental mistake.

Age changes with time and birthrate.

IQ and height are more fixed.

Elementary mistake my dear Watson. I'm sure you will get it soon.

Statistics is full of traps for the unwary.

Nice try though.

I take it you learned your statistics from the Angry Studies folks. My condolences.

A word of caution though. Don't try to get a job in statistical quality control. It will be hard to get hired and if you do get hired you will ruin the company.

Especially stay away from population genetics. An individual's genes don't change with time.

Population genetics depends on the random (aside from natural selection) mixing of genetic material. Mendel and all that.

Statistics is a very good tool for random processes. Like sexual determination of an individual's genetics.

Were you aware that IQ is something like 60 to 80% heritable? A very good place to use statistics.

BTW did you pass my IQ test?

Were you aware that there was discrimination against Jews in higher education for most of the 20th Century? Smart Jews were rejected because they were overrepresented in the qualified applicant pool. Population genetics explains that. It also explains why blacks are under represented.

Some blacks think that if black populations were better matched to school demands more of them would be getting degrees. A good idea no?

Anonymous said...

4:16--Poor baby. You didn't get the definitions you want. And you cannot even read your own words. Pity. Go home and get your bottle.

M. Simon said...

KC has spoken.

I defer to our host.

Anonymous said...

Polanski writes

re Moynihan Report: I was omly partially right about this report. Suggest everyone Google it; there is some interesting historical info to be found therein.

re discussions of IQ and KC Johnson--my guess is that Johnson has altered his views on the subject--and I salute him for that

3:19--great post. You ask what race is. My best answer is similar genetic markers. This is an extremely complicated subject, and I'd be a fool to add more than that.

WINDBAG @2:50 asks a legitimate question: Why bother with questions and answers about race superiority?

The answer to this question is simple: In a workforce that demands high cognitive ability to succeed in the best professions, certain groups are statistically more likely to be successful. The problem is that society's most vocal low achievers--blacks--want the goodies other races and ethnicities have to earn. Blacks think they are entitled to Duke Law School because they represent 13% of the population; therefore, they want 13% of everything in elite universities and other cognitively demanding occupations.

Society's answer to this major social problem is to acquiesce to black demands--all the time.

So, what are the consequences?

1. Elite universities must drastically lower their admission criteria to accommodate black mediocrity.

2. these same colleges must spend vast amounts of cash to employ diversity pimps, and to create low IQ havens for these lightweights--otherwise known as black studies

3. Never criticize blacks, otherwise you'll be called a racist

4. Make sure your university employs a lot of people who despise talented whites and Asians

5. Ignore the genius of Japan and China--after all, funding a course on Spike Lee is far more important

6. At a school like MIT, decide it's time to "expand" the curriculum to include more of the soft sciences black "scholars" are so adept at teaching

7. (this is from personal experience)--when working on an extremely difficult job with an affirmative action black, tell them what a great job they did. Next, you stay up all night fixing their mistakes. You both get rewarded in the same way by management.

8. If you are a publisher of a major newspaper like the NY Times, never give the cognitively demanding science reporting job to a black. No, what you do is triple his salary and make him an editorial writer who constantly blames whitey for all blacks' problems--are you listening Bob Herbert and Brent Staples?

I think you get the picture.

PS this case is all about race, and the most important aspect, IMO, is the despicable listening statement and the involvement of the G88. Nifong's history--what about these scum?

Anonymous said...

There is an interesting juxtapositioning between K.C. and the G88. In K.C.'s view, if the facts of the case do not merit the kinds of charges that were made, then the Duke faculty has no business in trying to insinuate that the lacrosse players were rapists and the like.

On the other side, there was a "narrative" to fulfil. The lacrosse players, as Lubiano put it were "perfect" foils for the narrative, as everyone knows that all white males except those who have properly groveled are a bunch of rapists.

Facts did not and do not matter to the G88, only the narrative. If the "facts" do not fit, then one either changes the facts (a la Wendy Murphy) or ignores them and then claims that the incident has "raised the consciousness" of people regarding white male rape. This is what the leftist publication The Nation claimed after the Tawana Brawley hoax.

K.C. is an "old school" historian in that he is interested in what happened, and how one interprets what happened. Those "historians" -- or, may I say distorians -- of the G88 make it up as they go along. The important thing is not truth, but the narrative, as "truth" can be bent to fit the narrative.

It is a clash for which there is no meeting point. No one in the G88 is going to say, "We made a mistake. We rushed to judgment." Instead, they declare: "Our concerns were not about the actual non-incident; we are concerned about racism and sexism and ableism and lookism and whateverism."

And, as we saw this past week, any attempt to criticize them is proof -- yes, proof -- that we are racists, since only racists and sexist dogs would dare criticize anyone whose goals were so lofty and whose narratives are about the good and grand vision for society.

Anonymous said...

Polanski writes

I agree with Johnson: I would not have cared that much about this case had not I read Houston Baker's screed.

Anonymous said...

As for Marcotte, I recall someone posting who knew her in high school and told about an incident at the Senior Prom. The story told me that Marcotte is someone who always is seeking attention. Of course, when she does not receive the attention she believes that she deserves, then she goes ballistic.

I did not know much about blogs and the so-called "angry left" before the lacrosse case, but consider me properly educated now. Unfortunately, these bloggers are people who have no idea about how anything works, about real relationships, and about decent society in general. Instead, they drop their little f-bombs everywhere, pull childish stunts to get attention, and then condemn the rest of us when we are not giving them a standing ovation for their "brilliance."

Anonymous said...

"I would define ethnicity as the declaration of community with others with whom one perceives cultural similarities"

So, I guess I can switch ethnicities provided that I declare community with some set of others provided that I perceive a cultural similarity. Great, even though I look white to you, I'm ethnically black. This is my declaration of community; now give me my affirmative action entitlements!!!!


Gary Packwood said...

M. Simon 2:34PM,

Said.....And have had a very interesting career as an aerospace engineer (aircraft).

You smart folk often drive across the country in a diaper ready to do battle?


Also, how can we understand more from the students about their reaction the the G88 statement?

Anonymous said...


Basically yes, but you're missing two important points. First, the others with whom you declare community have to have some sense that you are, culturally, one of their own (it's true that my definition failed to mention this). Second, while I consider ethnicity to be a largely voluntary category of affiliation, the government does not necessarily agree with me (and I have no affirmative action to give).

Anonymous said...


I don't like to discuss IQ, but you would agree that talent is fair game?


Anonymous said...


KC Johnson deleted my wee-wee studies post.

Listen, Professor, I was extremely serious about that post even though it was humorous. I want to make the argument that silly stuff like little wee-wee syndrome is just as legitimate as the hookup culture at Duke, or courses on white privilege

I notice you avoid my questions.

Afraid to go toe to toe with Polanski?

Just wondering, Professor.

Anonymous said...

Polanski, 3:19 here.

My point was to force out in the open that the poster had a different definition of race in mind, one that basically allows him to say anything and its opposite according to taste. Your definition (and M.Simon's I think)is based on genetics. So you were talking past each other. You knew it, I knew it, now we all know it.
The guy wants to call us racist. His definition allows it, so he likes it.

Now, I think you state your positions concerning blacks and "angry studies" too strongly. I don't know whether you do it for fun, to provoke a discussion or because you truly are an extremist. I give you the benefit of the doubt and read your posts anyway. Who knows? I might learn somenthing. You do play in the hands of clowns like the one that showed up today, however. Something to think about in light of what this forum is about.

You also seem to be too optimistic about the good that your wishlist would do to an elite university. I know something about that. I see things as much more complicated than you make them. The subject matter of angry studies is not the problem. The dominant approach of the 88/87 types is. As M. Simon has pointed out there are places like Chicago where one can study these things with rigor. An interesting question is: how do they do it? Simply keeping out people based on race and IQ? I doubt it. Their reputation is that they stick to standards. Push that point -- standards -- and people will listen. Mix in controversial stuff about the IQ of particular ethnic groups (the Irish, the Italians, the Ash Jews, etc.) and the debate is easily highjacked by those that wish to mute it.

Of course, you are free to do as you please. Just a humble reflection that I offer in the most constructive spirit.

M. Simon: Are Ash Jews a race or an ethnic group?

M. Simon said...

Gary 4:41PM,

I often blog naked. Does that count?


Talent is unequally distributed. As is interest.

As long as we use the same yardstick for every one I have no problem with that.

There are very few people (relatively) who understand computer design. Yet almost every one can take advantage of computers. That is what making the best use of talent does for us. The rich get very rich and the rest of us have a close aproximation of a Cray I on the desktop.

The chance for profit drives it all forward.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon @ 5:23

And you were a communist?!?

What changed you? I really want to know. :)

Anonymous said...

There is surely no nation in the world that holds “racism” in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. “Racism” is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about “racism.” If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.

Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?

Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one’s own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.


Anonymous said...


In Angry Studies departments, "standards" and "quality" are hegemonic, racist terms.

What Professor Johnson should be posting on--or we could initiate it--is what disciplines and subject matter should a great university INVEST in.

Let's see...a course on T'ang poetry or Sojourner Truth?

Distinctions must be made, so why not address them in this forum?


Anonymous said...

meanwhile, in the liberal paradise of Venezuela, following the footsteps of Zimbabwe, Cuba and G88:

I'd bet that G88 are staunch supporters of this nutcase. At least they agree with his anti-capitalist, anti-US policies.

Anonymous said...

To: Gary Packwood, 4:14PM
From: Duke Prof.

Re: Also, how can we understand more from the students about their reaction the the G88 statement?

Duke students are smart, outspoken and quite articulate. Come visit us for a couple of days, ask questions and listen carefully. If approached without prejudices, they offer remarkable insights. You would be pleasantly surprised. You will also notice a remarkable variety of opinions and points of view.

M. Simon said...

Polanski 5:16PM,

Are Jews a race or an ethnic group?

Good question.

Based on genetics there are two kinds of Jews. Mediterranean and European. So that would be two races.

Based on culture there are also divisions but they are more fluid so that would make all Jews an ethnicity.

What made Jews two races is the isolation of the two populations and different environmental pressures. Just what Darwin predicted.

In 500 years, if we don't kill ourselves first, much of the racial divisions will disappear.

However we may see a bifructtation of the cognitive elite from the rest of the population.

Anecdote: My cousin (female) thought I was way too nerdy in high school. I had trouble getting dates. Now brains are in and nerds are doing much better in the mating game.

She told me some time back that she wished she had been more interested in the brainy guys.

Definitely a sea change.

The Bell Curve guys talk about what such a bifructtation will mean for society.

Their take? The productivity of brains is so high that they should be taxed (as they in fact are) to support those who lack talent.

However, they never turned their ideas into a program except to agree with Milton Friedman that the negative income tax was a good idea.

There are all kinds of moral hazards in such a program. i.e. smart women are not reproducing fast enough. Subsidising the lowest cognitive elements of society means they will be overrepresented in the genetic pool vs. the cognitive elite and environmental pressures.

In the long run genetic engineering may fix all of this for us.

I did my part for the brains of the next generation. Four kids.

Anonymous said...

i have to say that i'm truely astonished that no one has made the slightest argument that racism is wrong. I thought the dogs would pounce on that bit of meat since its tossed about on this site so much. but there's not even a faint whisper that articulates why believing that one race is superior to another is wrong.

this is even more interesting in light of polanski's point that we are all so race conscious. he makes a great point about the g-town law student. i don't recall that case, but i certainly have heard more about racism that any murder

Anonymous said...

I realize that I probably won't get a response but here is my e-mail to Ms. Marcotte.

Dear Ms. Marcotte

My name is Patricia McDonald. My phone # is 410-653-3060. My e-mail is My address is 12 Timothys Green Ct., Baltimore, MD 21208.

I've been a feminist since the day I was born in 1955. I am the granddaughter of Catherine Flanagan. Catherine was a feminist back in the early 1900's. She was a poor Irish nothing. Yet, Catherine was one of only 41 woman who were arrested for protesting for the women's vote. You can read about her brave actions in Jailed for Freedom and Biography of Alice Paul. Catherine's arrest is memoralized in the iconic photo of August 1917 that is used over and over to demonstrate the resolve of the feminists to obtain the vote. She served hard time at Occaquan Work house.

Catherine suffered a horrible death from an etopic pregnancy because in those days the Catholic Church would not allow a termination even to save the life of the mother. My mother was placed in a Catholic orphanage following her mother's death until her father, a law professor, could hire a caretaker and reclaim her, her brother and sister.

Catherine's daughter, my aunt Virginia Leary, was one of the first woman graduates of Uni. of Chicago Law School. Despite intense discrimination and long odds, she graduated number one in her class. Virginia went on to be a respected law professor and advocate of international law and rights. My other aunt, Mary Ellen Leary was one of the first women reporters. She worked for the San Fransciso Chronicle and reported on California politics for years. She wrote articles that were published all over the world.

I am a feminist, a lawyer, a mother of two accomplished daughters, an equestrian, etc. I was in the UNC law class one year behind John Edwards and in the class with Nifong. I was friendly with John Edward's wife.

I myself have labored for years to secure the right to choose, equal payment for work etc. In the 60's and 70's I demonstrated for peace and equity. For example, I was at the 1968 Chicago riots. I give you my history and my family's history in order to establish our credentials. We were die hard feminists before you were born. We are willing to go to jail and suffer for our beliefs.

That being said, I am writing to tell you how sad and horrified I am at your writings. Nobody disagrees with the Catholic Church more than I.Yet your writings offend me - someone who should be your ally. In particular, I am revolted at your claim that people who disagree with you on the Duke hoax are "misogynists"

I am sickened by what you write. Your claim that criticism of your blog comments will pose a "scary, risky prospect" to young feminist are utterly without support. If you and young feminist are scared of criticism, you should go hide in some rabbit holes. Other women who came before you were willing to suffer incarceration, forced feeding, humiliation, etc. And you and the young feminists can't take a little heat in the blogs? You give pussy a bad name. And how dare you claim the mantle of feminism considering how weak and scared you are.

The Duke Hoax case is not about feminism, race, etc. That's a false construct imposed upon it. It is about truth, facts, justice and freedom of speech. And by the way it also shows that a female can be a lying c*** to use your language.

If at any time, you want to debate me, face to face, please contact me to arrange the details. But I guess you and young feminist are too cowed to actually stand up for real beliefs.

Patsy McDonald

M. Simon said...

Polanski 5:36PM,

I'm a big fan of rocket science.

M. Simon said...

Patsy 5:48PM,

It is unwise to put your contact info on the www.

You might wish to delete that post and repost with the contact info removed.

M. Simon said...


You give pussy a bad name.

That sweety is a classic.

Anonymous said...

Polanski, 5:16 here.

This is progress. Stick to this line of argument and you have a chance.

As for: In Angry Studies departments, "standards" and "quality" are hegemonic, racist terms.

This might well be. However, they are not so to the rest of the university and the public at large. Force the debate on what subjects are worthy of investment, and on what standards and quality the university should attain in the study of those subjects, and you have a chance. IQ and race are diversions.

You might recall that Soviet Studies were big a few years ago. Now Islamic Studies and China or Asian Studies are on the rise, for obvious reasons. You want to starve Angry Studies? Forget IQ and race. Argue that we need to understand China and that to do so we need to pack the programs with historians, economists, political scientist, international relation experts, scholars of international law, etc.

Elite universities cannot afford to divest from the sciences -- natural and social -- and the professional schools. (In fact, these areas are expected to grow virtually everywhere -- think of genetics etc.)

So, the growth of the new Area Studies is going to come at the expense of Angry Studies.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon,

I am the anon@5:16 who asked about the Ash Jews.

My post was directed to Polanski. I now realize it might look like it was coming from him. Apologies for the confusion.

I also asked about your commie past and what changed you. Just curious.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 290   Newer› Newest»