Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Worse Than Racists

By Walter E. Williams

As a group, black Americans have made the greatest gains -- over some of the highest hurdles and in a very short span of time -- of any racial group in mankind's history. What's the evidence? If one totaled up the earnings of black Americans and considered us as a separate nation with our own gross domestic product, we would rank among the 20 richest nations. It was a black American, Gen. Colin Powell, who once headed the world's mightiest military. Black Americans are among the world's most famous personalities, and a few are among the world's richest people.

The significance of these and other achievements is that at the end of the Civil War, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed such progress would be possible in a little over a century -- if ever. As such, it speaks to the intestinal fortitude of a people. Just as importantly, it speaks to the greatness of a nation in which such gains were possible. Nowhere else on the face of the earth would such progress be possible except in the United States of America. The big and thorny issue that confronts our nation is how these gains can be extended to the one-third or more of the black population for whom they have proved elusive.

A major part of the solution should be the elimination of public and private policy that rewards inferiority and irresponsibility. Chief among the policies that reward inferiority and irresponsibility is the welfare state. When some people know that they can have children out of wedlock, drop out of school and refuse employment and suffer little consequence, one should not be surprised to see the growth of such behavior. The poverty rate among blacks is about 30 percent. It's seen as politically correct to blame today's poverty on racial discrimination, but that's nonsense. Why? The poverty rate among black intact husband-and-wife families has been in the single digits for more than two decades. Does one want to argue that racists discriminate against female-headed families but not husband-and-wife families?

Education is one of the ways out of poverty, but stupid political correctness stands in the way for many blacks. For example, a few years ago, a white Charleston, South Carolina, teacher frequently complained of black students calling her a white b----, white m-----f-----, white c--- and white ho. School officials told her that racially charged profanity was simply part of the students' culture and that if she couldn't handle it, she was in the wrong school. The teacher brought a harassment suit, and the school district settled out of court for $200,000.

To suggest that such disrespectful and violent behavior, though it's observed in many predominantly black schools, is part of black culture is an insulting lie. Worse than that is the fact that such destructive behavior and lack of respect for authority is rewarded. We can see some of the results by visiting some city public schools where violence, disorder and disrespect is the order of the day.

Many whites are ashamed and saddened by our history of slavery, Jim Crow and gross racial discrimination. As a result, they often hold blacks accountable to standards and conduct they would never accept from whites. A recent example is black students at colleges such as NYU, UC Berkeley, UCLA and Oberlin demanding racially segregated housing. Spineless college administrators have caved to their demands. These administrators would never even listen to a group of white students demanding white-only housing accommodations. These administrators and other guilt-ridden whites have one standard of conduct for whites and a lower standard for blacks.

Black people can be thankful that racist forms of double standards and public and private policies rewarding inferiority and irresponsibility were not broadly accepted during the 1920s, '30s, '40s and '50s. There would not have been the kind of intellectual excellence and spiritual courage that created the world's most successful civil rights movement.


https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2017/04/19/worse-than-racists-n2314303?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=


Virus-free. www.avast.com

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Is Profiling OK?

By Walter E. Williams

Profiling is needlessly a misunderstood concept. What's called profiling is part of the optimal stock of human behavior and something we all do. Let's begin by describing behavior that might come under the heading of profiling.

Prior to making decisions, people seek to gain information. To obtain information is costly, requiring the expenditure of time and/or money. Therefore, people seek to find ways to economize on information costs. Let's try simple examples.

You are a manager of a furniture moving company and seek to hire 10 people to load and unload furniture onto and off trucks. Twenty people show up for the job, and they all appear to be equal except by sex. Ten are men, and 10 are women. Whom would you hire?

You might give them all tests to determine how much weight they could carry under various conditions, such as inclines and declines, and the speed at which they could carry.

To conduct such tests might be costly.

Such costs could be avoided through profiling -- that is, using an easily observable physical attribute, such as a person's sex, as a proxy for unobserved attributes, such as endurance and strength.

Though sex is not a perfect predictor of strength and endurance, it's pretty reliable.

Imagine that you're a chief of police. There has been a rash of auto break-ins by which electronic equipment has been stolen. You're trying to capture the culprits.

Would you have your officers stake out and investigate residents of senior citizen homes?

What about spending resources investigating men and women 50 years of age or older?

I'm guessing there would be greater success capturing the culprits by focusing police resources on younger people -- and particularly young men.

The reason is that breaking in to autos is mostly a young man's game.

Should charges be brought against you because, as police chief, you used the physical attributes of age and sex as a crime tool?

Would it be fair for people to accuse you of playing favorites by not using investigative resources on seniors and middle-aged adults of either sex even though there is a non-zero chance that they are among the culprits?

Physicians routinely screen women for breast cancer and do not routinely screen men.

The American Cancer Society says that the lifetime risk of men getting breast cancer is about 0.1 percent.

Should doctors and medical insurance companies be prosecuted for the discriminatory practice of prescribing routine breast cancer screening for women but not for men?

Some racial and ethnic groups have higher incidence and mortality from various diseases than the national average.

The rates of death from cardiovascular diseases are about 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults.

Cervical cancer rates are five times greater among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women.

Pima Indians of Arizona have the world's highest known diabetes rates.

Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as it is among white men.

Using a cheap-to-observe attribute, such as race, as a proxy for a costly-to-observe attribute, such as the probability of some disease, can assist medical providers in the delivery of more effective medical services.

For example, just knowing that a patient is a black man causes a physician to be alert to the prospect of prostate cancer.

The unintelligent might call this racial profiling, but it's really prostate cancer profiling.

In the real world, there are many attributes correlated with race and sex.

Jews are 3 percent of the U.S. population but 35 percent of our Nobel Prize winners.

Blacks are 13 percent of our population but about 74 percent of professional basketball players and about 69 percent of professional football players.

Male geniuses outnumber female geniuses 7-to-1.

Women have wider peripheral vision than men.

Men have better distance vision than women.

The bottom line is that people differ significantly by race and sex.

Just knowing the race or sex of an individual may on occasion allow us to guess about something not readily observed.

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2017/04/05/is-profiling-ok-n2307818?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=


Virus-free. www.avast.com

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Hillary ran the worst presidential campaign ever

By John Podhoretz

So guess what? In the last weeks before the election, the Hillary Clinton campaign did no polling. No. Polling. Whatsoever. Oh, it had data. Lots and lots of data. Analytics, even. Data analytics! But it had no independent information on the overall field of battle in states like Florida, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

So when the election began to turn Donald Trump's way, the Clinton campaign had no idea.

This is one of the thousand revelations in "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign," the new book by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes that, for political junkies, redefines the word "juicy" for our time.

Campaign honcho Robby Mook "was worried about overspending . . . so he declined to use pollsters to track voter preferences in the final three weeks of the campaign." Mook had learned from his time on the Obama 2012 campaign, Allen and Parnes write, that "old-school polling should be used for testing messages and gauging the sentiments of the electorate and that analytics were just as good for tracking which candidate was ahead and by how much in each state."

Guess not.

Allen and Parnes report that the Republican National Committee did know — but just couldn't accept it. The RNC didn't brief reporters on early November polling data it had developed in Michigan and Pennsylvania "because the upticks there were so rosy that party officials didn't believe their own data."

The day after the election, Hillary asked Mook "which decisions had been misguided, where they had erred in strategy and tactics. 'Our data was wrong,' he said . . . 'OK,' she replied."

It is true that, but for 100,000 votes in three states, Hillary Clinton would be president today. It is also true that she ended the election with 3 million more votes than Trump. But it is also true, as "Shattered" makes indisputably clear, that she was unquestionably the worst major presidential candidate in our lifetime.

Others (like Bob Dole) did far worse. But they likely never really had a shot. Hillary had no business losing an election to Donald Trump — but Allen and Parnes pile up headshaking detail after headshaking detail from the very beginning of her campaign to its end showing that she and her people were incapable of making a good call.

About anything.Hillary's dead-end defenders and those who want a Satan-ex-machina explanation for the November result can point to FBI Director James Comey's stop-and-start-and-stop email investigation or Russian meddling. But "Shattered" should shatter any illusions that the Hillary election machine would have run smoothly or successfully in their absence. The campaign was a disaster from the get-go.

The question is: Why?

The answer, if I may be narcissistic for a moment, comes straight out of "Hell of a Ride," the book I wrote in 1993 about the disastrous George H.W. Bush re-election campaign the year before.

I describe a scene in which campaign chairman Bob Teeter called Bush's speechwriters into a meeting in June 1992.

Teeter set before them a chart that looked like the layout of "Hollywood Squares" or the "Brady Bunch" title sequence. Each of the nine boxes had a message the speechwriters were to use in crafting their work — things like "I have been president for 3½ years: Major accomplishments/record."

The box in the center — Paul Lynde, if you will — read: "Theme/Slogan/Name."

There was nothing else in the box. "What I want from you," Teeter said, "is to help me fill this empty box."

After nearly four years as president, eight years as vice president and nearly 20 years in public life before that, Bush and his closest advisers could come up with no simple reason to give the voters for presenting him with a second term.

So, too, Hillary Clinton. Whatever Trump's manifold weaknesses, that is what he had in abundance — Make America Great Again.

And Hillary? It was the empty box all over again.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/18/hillary-ran-the-worst-presidential-campaign-ever/


Virus-free. www.avast.com

Friday, April 21, 2017

Trump Won’t Be Punked By Foreign Dirtbags Like Obama Was

By Kurt Schlichter

After eight years of Barack Obama's pathetic fecklessness, America has got its feck back.

And the whiny progressives who prefer our woman-enslaving, gay-tossing, toddler-crucifying enemies to the guy who beat their designated heir to the Crown (Royal) are in a tizzy.

Oh no, America is refusing to continue down the path of submission, humiliation, and utter failure blazed by President Faily McWorsethancarter!

Heavens, we can't have our enemies respecting us, much less fearing us!

Gosh, we can't have America re-assuming its rightful place in the world – after all, weren't we taught that the United States is the root of all evil by our pony-tailed TAs at Fussboy U?

In fact, Donald Trump is in the process of doing what Barack Obama never did and what he and his coterie of pompous twits and political hacks masquerading as a foreign policy brain trust could never do. Trump is establishing a successful foreign policy doctrine. It's not precisely old school Republican doctrine. It's also not the activist Bush Doctrine, which is often labeled "neo-con" by people who think "cuck" is a sick burn.

Trump's policy is "America First." Obama's policy was "Blame America First." Obama employed force only after extensive agonizing and never in the amount required to actually win. The Obama Doctrine was about staving off defeat just long enough so the next sucker would get stuck dealing with the resulting mess while The Lightbringer chills doing who knows what sans spouse in the South Pacific as Bill Ayers types up his memoirs for him.

Obama treated our allies like dirt, and he didn't just embolden our enemies. He paid them - literally - with pallet loads of cash. Of course our enemies stopped fearing us. To the extent Putin diddled with our election by exposing the depths of Democrat corruption, it's because he wasn't afraid of that posing, prancing puffboy in the White House.

Putin's rethinking his play now, as are those Seventh Century cultists in Tehran and that bloated bratwurst in Pyongyang. They all saw Obama for what he was – a preachy wuss without the stones for a fight, adhering to the motto "Make Love, not war."

Trump though? "We don't understand what they're going to do in Syria, and not only there," pouted some Putin puppet. Good. When you're acting like the most dangerous guy in the room, everyone else thinks twice about making any sudden moves. Be careful, because Trump might just kick your Harry Reid.

There's been a lot of talk about how Trump is "changing his policies" and "flip-flopping." The mainstream media is desperate for a "Trump Fails!" narrative that might stick, and "Trump Betrays His Supporters By Fighting America's Enemies!" is as good as any.

Baloney. These prissy pundits don't get the essential nature of either Donald Trump or the American people. They confuse Trump's critique of establishment foreign policy – one that resonated with the Americans our fey elite asks to carry the burden of their interventionist shenanigans – with pure isolationism and even pacifism. It is nothing of the sort. Americans are sick of their lives and treasure being squandered by dithering milquetoasts who tie our troops' hands and won't do what's necessary because they can't get it through their pointy heads that if it's important enough to fight a war, then we damn well ought to win it.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/04/17/trump-wont-be-punked-by-foreign-dirtbags-like-obama-was-n2314110


Virus-free. www.avast.com