July 26, 2005

Second iSteve.com Panhandling Drive!

Second iSteve.com Panhandling Drive!

Click Here to PayLearn More Amazon Honor System

The Internet Age is a reader's dream, but it can also be a writer's nightmare because it is so hard to get paid in an age when everybody expects "content" to magically appear for free. Moreover, my blogging and more formal articles are never going to support a lucrative amount of advertising since my natural audience is quite elite. (As Fry explained on Futurama, the economics of mass media are: "Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared.") Nor are the big money boys enthusiastic about supporting an independent thinker who isn't a team player.

I don't just provide opinionizing. Over the last year, I broke the following stories that required extensive statistical analysis:

- Despite all the talk about how smart John F. Kerry was, he scored slightly worse on his military officer qualification exam than did George W. Bush, whose no brainiac himself.

- The enormously popular table showing that Kerry-voting blue states have much higher IQs than Bush-voting red states was a hoax.

- That the exit poll claiming that Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote was wrong.

That the Hispanic vote totaled only 6.0%, not the 9% that Michael Barone speculated it would be, and that ten times more of Bush's incremental votes came from whites than from Hispanics.

- That the engine underlying why red states are red and blues states are blue is affordable family formation.

- That the most celebrated theory in the big bestseller Freakonomics -- that abortion cut crime -- didn't come close to meeting the burden of proof.

As well, there are book reviews that go far deeper than what you'll see anywhere else, film reviews different from anyone else's, and a lively blog.

So, I'm coming to you, my friends, hat in hand. Please don't make me have to get another real job! Corporate America might not survive a second go-round with me.

The Amazon donation buttons above provide you with an instant opportunity to become a patron of the arts and letters (a.k.a., to give me money). Donating to this pixel stained wretch is fast and easy. Your credit card is secure, and your privacy is protected at Amazon.com -- i.e., your name doesn't appear on donations that go through Amazon. [So I won't be be able to thank you personally.) Foreign currencies are accepted.

I'll add a Paypal button later.


Or you can
E-mail me, and I'll give you my address, and then you can send me a check or cash.

Y
ou might be interested in how big a cut Amazon takes. It's quite reasonable: 2.9% of the total and a 30 cents fixed fee per donation. This has some implications that are fascinating (well, to me). For example, if you donate $1.00, then Amazon keeps almost one-third of it, or 32.9 cents. I only get 67.1 cents. Well, that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it? I mean, you aren't feeling generous toward Amazon, now are you? Yet, if you kick in only a buck, they keep a hulking third of it.

A much more efficient solution is to (drumroll, please) give me more money. If, for instance, you donate $50.00, then I get to keep a full $48.25. That's a lot better!


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Why the First Bush Administration Refused to Protect Our Borders:

A former INS official named Mark Reed testified to Congress in May that back during the Bush the Elder's Administration:

I was present at a high level strategy meeting between representatives of Federal Law Enforcement, DOD [Department of Defense], and the State Department regarding the urgency of sealing the Mexican border to stop drug smuggling. When DOD stated that they were capable of detecting and interdicting any intrusion, but could not distinguish between groups of migrants from drug smugglers until interdiction, the dialogue became difficult. When DOD refused to entertain the idea that they should only detain drug smugglers upon interdiction, the meeting was abruptly terminated. The safety valve that illegal immigration provided toward the stability of Mexico seemed to be a more compelling national security priority than drug smuggling.

That's certainly interesting now that word has come from the LA Times that the latest Bush administration is dunning corporations to build a war chest to "marginalize" conservative talk radio and other pillars of the GOP for opposing the President's amnesty & open borders immigration plan.

It's not surprising that the Bushes look out for the interests of the Mexican ruling class, since the Bush family has had ties of financial and friendship ties with the Mexican kleptocrats going back decades. I first wrote about this little-covered connection for UPI back in February 2001, and then in more depth for VDARE in January 2004:

Some of the First Dynasty's favorites have been criminals on a scale so extravagant as to scandalize even the long-suffering citizenry of Mexico.

Take Jorge Diaz Serrano. Jonathan Kwitny reported in a long exposé in Barron's ("The Mexican Connection of George Bush," September 19, 1988, requires Dow Jones' subscription to access):

"Without breathing a word to shareholders in his Houston oil-drilling company, Zapata Off-Shore Co., George Bush in 1960 helped set up another drilling operation employing Mexican front men and seemingly circumventing Mexican law. And he did so in association with Jorge Diaz Serrano, a now-convicted felon who has become a symbol of political corruption in a country with no shortage of contestants for that dubious distinction. In helping to launch … Permargo, Bush and his associates at Zapata teamed up with Diaz Serrano and a Mexican associate in camouflaging the 50% American ownership of Permargo."

George H.W. stood by his old partner:

"’I have high regard for Jorge,’ Bush was quoted as saying in People magazine in 1981. ‘I consider him a friend.’"

Diaz went on to bigger, if not better, things.

"Eventually, Diaz Serrano would take control of Permargo, before moving on to head Pemex, Mexico's government oil monopoly. Shortly after his five-year stint at Pemex, he would begin a five-year stint in jail, having defrauded the Mexican government of $58 million it is still trying to get back…"

Yet, today, Serrano seems like a quaint figure from Mexico's more innocent past. He was a public servant who merely feathered his own nest. Worse was to come.

The big difference between the nice clean corruption of the 1970s and today is the new pervasiveness of drug money, and its accompanying violence, among the Mexican elite...

The Bush family's most important Mexican friendship was with the Salinas family, whose scion Carlos ruled Mexico from 1988 and 1994, before fleeing to exile in Ireland to avoid being lynched by his furious countrymen. (For the lurid details on this depraved brood, see my article "Mexico's Corrupt White Elite.")

Julie Reynolds of El Andar noted,

"Bush Sr. met Carlos Salinas’s father, Raúl Salinas Lozano, back when the latter was Mexico’s commerce secretary. The families’ friendship has continued through the years. Raúl Salinas, the president’s brother, has told investigators that Jeb and Columba Bush joined him three times for vacations at his hacienda Las Mendocinas."


Jeb's host Raul, who was known as "Mr. 10%" in Mexico for demanding the Salinas family cut on all government contracts, is currently serving 27 years in the slammer for the assassination of PRI chairman Francisco Ruiz Massieu, his ex-brother-in-law. Raul's wife was arrested in Switzerland while attempting to withdraw $94 million in cash from their Swiss bank's safe deposit box.

Dubya's amigos in Texas, however, are not exactly migrant farm workers. As Julie Reynolds, assisted by Victor Almazán and Ana Leonor Rojo, wrote in El Andar:


"It was during those campaign years [of Bush the Elder] that George Junior bonded with many of his Latino allies in the state [of Texas] and made the friends he would later lean on when his political ambitions got into gear. By and large, the Latino alliances Bush touts so loudly these days are not social workers or school teachers, and they are certainly not working-class. Like most in W’s circle, they are Texas heavy-hitters who got rich from their astute blending of business and politics."


In a long, complex El Andar article entitled “LOS AMIGOS DE BUSH: The disturbing ties of some of George W. Bush’s Latino advisors," Reynolds amassed evidence to back her allegation that two of Bush's top Mexican-American backers in Texas are palsy-walsy with individuals linked to Mexico's feared Gulf narco cartel.

As George W. said numerous times in response to questions about illegal aliens, "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." (America, of course, does.) Here's one touching example of his assisting an undocumented worker in his struggle with the uncaring INS, as reported in El Andar by Reynolds and Eduardo Valle of Mexico City's El Universal newspaper:


"In the fall of 1991, George W. Bush asked his father, the President, to 'help out' on behalf of Enrique Fuentes León. … Fuentes León was living in the United States on a tourist visa that was about to expire."


What "family values" had brought this lawyer north of the Rio Grande?


"He had fled Mexico in 1989, after a highly-publicized case in which he was charged with bribing two judges in order to free a wealthy Acapulco businessman convicted of the rape and murder of a young child…"

"He remained free in the U.S. for three more years on an expired tourist visa, even though the Mexican government made an official extradition request on October 21, 1991. … By 1994, he had purchased more than $6 million in San Antonio real estate, and together with Texas publisher Tino Durán made moves to purchase the now-defunct San Antonio Light newspaper…"


When the INS was pestering Fuentes Leon in the early 90s, Duran, who calls himself "a friend and supporter of the Bush family," set up a meeting between the notorious fugitive and the future President of the United States to get him to intercede with the current President of the United States. Duran said:


"'I had sent him [George W.] a letter so he would know what it was all about, so he could decide if he wanted to help," Durán said. ‘And he called me and said, 'Sure, come on down and let’s talk about it.' ‘Enrique and I went down to his office and he called the President." George W. Bush asked President Bush if he could help Durán and 'his friend here.’ Durán says President Bush then asked Durán to send him a letter and said he would direct the information to the State Department."


What happened next?


"Fuentes León … was finally extradited to Mexico after a 1994 arrest for allegedly attempting to bribe an INS agent with $30,000… A courthouse employee said that Fuentes León showed up every day in a $200,000 car, followed by 'around 25' other vehicles…"


How could he afford that? Fuentes León is alleged by El Andar to be the "consigliero" of the Gulf narco cartel.


"Today, Fuentes León is again imprisoned in Mexico. This time it’s for a case in which he is charged in relation to the kidnapping and death of Nellie Campobello, 85, a famous former ballerina whose 13 year-old grave was found last year. The title to Campobello’s house has mysteriously appeared under the name of Fuentes León’s wife."

[More]

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

July 25, 2005

Who is Duane "Dewey" Clarridge?

The current scandal in Washington remains boringly focused on what Karl Rove said to whom when, because the Democrats conceive of Rove as the evil genius who has cost them election after election (when a more balanced assessment suggests that Rove, while energetic and ruthless, is far from infallible or irreplaceable). The more interesting questions revolve around who was responsible for the operations building up the fraudulent case for the Iraq War that later needed covering up.

For whatever it's worth, one reader has tossed out the name of Duane "Dewey" Clarridge (a.k.a., Dax P. LeBaron), a retired CIA deputy director who was pardoned by George H.W. Bush in 1992 after being indicted for lying to Congress during Iran-Contra.

Clarridge has since done consulting work for Ahmed Chalabi, and helped draw up the 1998 plan for 5,000 "crack soldiers" from Chalabi's INC to invade Iraq with U.S. support, a scheme that Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni derided as the "Bay of Goats."

The LA Times reported 13 months ago that Clarridge was in Iraq, advising Chalabi.

Does anybody know anything more about Clarridge?


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Does Vicente Fox have something on George W. Bush?

When I described to my wife the LA Times article reporting on how the President is building a war chest to launch a civil war within the GOP to drive out his own conservative base for opposing Bush's amnesty/open borders plan, she said, "I've always figured Fox has something on Bush. Like, maybe, after one of Bush's lost weekends in Matamoras, a hooker's body was found floating in the bay, an 11-year old transvestite hooker. And Fox might have bought the police file, figuring it might come in handy some day."

"That's raw, irresponsible, baseless speculation!" I responded. "But I kinda like it."


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

July 24, 2005

Terry McMillan Loses Her Groove

In 1997, I wrote in "Is Love Colorblind?"

Despite these opportunities to meet white men, so many middle-class black women have trouble landing satisfactory husbands that they have made Terry (Waiting to Exhale) McMillan, author of novels specifically about and for them, into a best-selling brand name. Probably the most popular romance advice regularly offered to affluent black women of a certain age is to find true love in the brawny arms of a younger black man. Both Miss McMillan's 1996 best-seller How Stella Got Her Groove Back and the most celebrated of all books by black women, Zora Neale Hurston's 1937 classic Their Eyes Were Watching God, are romance novels about well-to-do older women and somewhat dangerous younger men. Of course, as Miss Hurston herself later learned at age 49, when she (briefly) married a 23-year-old gym coach, that seldom works out in real life.

McMillan is currently divorcing the 23-year-younger Jamaican gentleman who inspired Stella. Newsweek interviews her.

Q. Are you disillusioned with marriage?

A. As everyone knows, I am currently going though a divorce.

Q.That must be very difficult. I'm sorry.

A.That's why my novel was late. He kept me distracted in hopes he could break me down. That was until the night I said, "Why don't you tell the truth about something for a change?" And he said, "You couldn't handle it." And I said, "Try me." And he said, "I'm confused about my sexuality." And I said, "What!" And he said, "I think I might be gay. No, I am gay. I am gay." I had a halogen lamp right near the chair where I read, and I said, "I would like to take this lamp and whop your face. But you know what, I'm not going to because you finally told the truth about something. And look what it turned out to be."

Q. Wow. That sounds like a passage right out of one of your novels.

A. He's a sociopath, a covetous sociopath. Think of Scott Peterson without the murder. That is how sociopaths are. They woo you, and they can convince you of anything. I couldn't put a finger on what he was doing. He cheated, lied and betrayed me. And when I complain about this, he calls me a homophobe.

Q. And yet your new book has a surprisingly hopeful view of long-term marriage. Why?

A. The book was finished before all this happened. By the time it was in the catalog, I was so sapped and so pissed off, I didn't know what to do. My credit cards were maxed out. I almost went bankrupt. I was supporting him in his dog-grooming business. I was miserable, but he was happy as a lark. Now he's got his citizenship, he's coming after me for my money and he's writing a tell-all to capitalize on my fame.

Q. But you had a prenuptial agreement, didn't you?

A. I was a multimillionaire. I married a 21-year-old who hadn't finished college. Of course I had a prenup. I wouldn't marry Eddie Murphy without a prenup. My lawyers are on Madison Avenue. I'm not stupid. I'm not paying him a dime. I'll go to jail first. I have a valid prenup. He's out of the closet. He's committed a crime. His citizenship should be revoked.

Q. What do you think of authors who've suggested that gay black men lead double lives because there is so little support for homosexuality in the African-American community?

A. That's bull---t. They have an excuse for everything. It's difficult for them to come out but it's easy to lie, cheat and put my life at risk? They sneak around, hide behind a woman, in some cases women with children. I'm HIV-negative, but I get tested every month. Sometimes they just like sneaking around. It's cowardly. They shouldn't hide behind a woman.

Q. You sound angry and heartbroken. Are you?

A. My heart was broken and not just because of the gay thing. It was the betrayal. The fact that he was doing this all along. All those years he was acting. It's an awkward situation to be in. Everyone asks, "Couldn't she see?" But they don't know how he behaved around me all those years. He spun a web that was so dense I couldn't see through it.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

"Jared Diamond: The New King of All Media"

"Jared Diamond: The New King of All Media" is my new VDARE.com column. I think it's the fairest assessment of the author of Guns, Germs, and Steel yet. Here's an excerpt:

Still, his 2005 environmentalist bestseller Collapse can be valuable, especially if you look for the parts where Diamond shows more courage than is normal for him these days.

A close reading demonstrates that Diamond is quite unenthusiastic about mass immigration. For instance, in his chapter about the ecological fragility of Australia, he relays this optimistic hope for better policy in the future:

"Contrary to their government and business leaders, 70 percent of Australians say they want less rather than more immigration."

Diamond also points out that the quality of immigrants matters. In an interesting chapter comparing the two countries that share the island of Hispaniola, the mediocre but livable Dominican Republic and dreadful Haiti, he notes that one reason the Dominican Republic is now both more prosperous and less deforested and eroded than tragic Haiti is the difference in their people:

"… the Dominican Republic, with its Spanish-speaking population of predominantly European ancestry, was both more receptive and more attractive to European immigrants and investors than was Haiti with its Creole-speaking population composed overwhelmingly of black former slaves."

Ironically, when I left the "Collapse" exhibit, with its generic warnings about overpopulation, at Los Angeles's Natural History museum, I turned out of the parking lot onto Martin Luther King Boulevard, where the billboards were in Spanish. In LA, the African Americans have been pushed off even MLK Blvd. by Latin American immigrants.

Diamond writes:

"I have seen how Southern California has changed over the last 39 years, mostly in ways that make it less appealing… The complaints voiced by virtually everybody in Los Angeles are those directly related to our growing and already high population… While there are optimists who explain in the abstract why increased population will be good and how the world can accommodate it, I have never met an Angeleno … who personally expressed a desire for increased population in the area where he or she personally lived... California's population growth is accelerating, due almost entirely to immigration and to the large average family sizes of the immigrants after their arrival."

Unfortunately, Diamond's bravery then breaks down again. Rather than call for doing something about immigration, such as enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration, he merely laments, "The border between California and Mexico is long and impossible to patrol effectively …"

No, it's not. Israel, with two percent of America's population, is successfully fencing off its West Bank border, which is ten percent as long.

In another important section, Diamond illustrates how ethnic diversity makes environmental cooperation more difficult. He praises the Dutch as the most cooperative nation on earth and attributes their awareness of and willingness to tackle problems to their shared memory of the 1953 flood that drowned 2,000 Netherlanders living below sea level. (Unfortunately, he doesn't mention whether Holland's rapidly growing immigrant Muslim population remembers when the dikes failed 52 years ago.)

Diamond notes that there are three possible solutions to what Garrett Hardin called "the tragedy of the commons," or the tendency for individuals to over-consume resources and under-invest in responsibilities held in common, leading to ecological collapse.

  • Government diktat.

  • Privatization and property rights -- but that's impractical with some resources, such as fish.

  • "The remaining solution to the tragedy of the commons is for the consumers to recognize their common interests and to design, obey, and enforce prudent harvesting quotas themselves. That is likely to happen only if a whole series of conditions is met: the consumers form a homogenous group; they have learned to trust and communicate with each other; they expect to share a common future and to pass on the resource to their heirs; they are capable of and permitted to organize and police themselves; and the boundaries of the resource and of its pool of consumers are well defined." (My emphasis)

Wow! [More]


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Have Rove and Bush gone nuts?

The news that the Bush Administration is launching a massive campaign, in conjunction with Democratic politicos and funded by big corporations like Microsoft and Wal-Mart, to demonize the sizable majority of the Republican Party that objects to illegal immigration suggests that the pressures of the Washington scandals have gotten to Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

It's extraordinarily difficult to come up with a rational reason why the Bush Administration is planning to go to war against conservative talk radio:

Tancredo succeeded in dominating the debate, Holt and Armey said, because of an echo chamber of conservative talk radio and other advocates for limiting the influx of Mexicans across the border.

Ironically, one of the designated leaders of Bush's campaign to "marginalize" GOP conservatives who oppose illegal immigration is former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who in 2002 on "Hardball" called for the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from the West Bank. It's good to see Mr. Armey has his priorities straight.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Luke Ford Interviews Ronald Bailey

Luke Ford interviews Ronald Bailey, Reason Magazine's science writer on his new book Liberation Biology, here. I don't believe I've ever expressed an opinion on the stem cell controversy -- it sounds complicated to think through and everybody else has an opinion already so I don't think I could add any value. I'm not so optimistic about biotechnology as Bailey, but he's a solid guy, not just a libertarian ideologue.

Mickey Kaus called Luke the "human Echelon Project, for the prodigious amount of interviewing and transcribing he does of who's saying what around LA. Luke even interviewed me. But the bonus reason for reading Luke's blog is so you can then read the libelously hilarious "Luke Ford Fan Blog."


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Bush announces his Suicide of the GOP initiative

(This is not an Onion parody, sadly): From the LA Times:

Worried that the tone of the immigration debate is pushing Latinos away from the Republican Party, the White House is working with political strategists to ...

quietly bury his divisive, unpopular 2004 Open Borders plan, right?

Wrong! Bush now wants to go to war against his conservative base over immigration, fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with Democrats. Here's more from "Immigration Rising on Bush's To-Do List:"

... create a broad coalition of business groups and immigrant advocates to back a plan President Bush could promote in Congress and to minority voters in the 2006 elections.

The strategists say Bush is planning to make immigration a top priority as soon as this fall, once the focus on a Supreme Court vacancy has passed. The push is being planned to coincide with next year's campaigns for the House and Senate, in which Latino voters could be crucial in several states. It is part of a broader White House strategy to forge a long-lasting majority by drawing more minority voters.

Aiming for an air of bipartisanship, the White House-backed coalition, to be called Americans for Border and Economic Security, will be led by former U.S. Reps. Cal Dooley (D-Hanford) and Dick Armey (R-Texas). The chief organizer is one of the capital's most important White House allies: former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who has hosted preliminary meetings at his Washington lobbying firm just blocks from the White House and has been advising the RNC on minority outreach.

The effort is designed to help Bush take control of an increasingly contentious debate that has threatened to split the Republican Party and undermine its outreach to Latino voters. Although the White House has not laid out details for a plan, in January 2004 Bush proposed a guest-worker program that would be open to many illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and to prospective workers abroad.

A guest-worker program is favored by many Latinos and by businesses, many of them major GOP donors that depend on a steady flow of workers from Mexico and other countries. The White House effort is aimed at satisfying these groups while promoting tougher border security enforcement. The latter focus is an attempt to mollify a vocal bloc of cultural conservatives in the GOP — some in the House leadership — who argue that undocumented workers present a security threat and take some jobs that could be filled by Americans.

Some Republican strategists worry that the more extreme voices in this camp are alienating Latino voters with anti-immigrant language, and one goal of the new coalition is to marginalize those voices. Organizers said the coalition could help the GOP avoid the kind of political damage caused in the early 1990s by the anti-immigration campaign in California backed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson.

The issue has presented a quandary for Bush, who backed off his earlier calls for immigration changes after conservatives rebelled. Now, the White House hopes to reinvigorate the drive for new immigration laws — but this time it wants to work in advance to ensure that the president is backed by a broad alliance of business and advocacy groups.

There are signs, however, that the administration effort is running into problems even as it begins: Several key business groups are hesitant to join the new coalition, questioning whether the administration can separate itself from the anti-immigration wing of the GOP that is promoting restrictive policies. And the party's leading voices favoring stricter limits on immigration, such as Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), remain undaunted — pledging to intensify their efforts.

Coalition organizers say that makes their work all the more timely.

"The politics of the Republican Party isn't going to change by itself. It needs help," said Terry Holt, a spokesman for Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, who works with Gillespie and is recruiting members for the new coalition. "Immigration needs advocates. And if those advocates engage, they can have a profound impact on the issue."

Referring to the Latino vote, which turned out in larger numbers last year for Bush than in his 2000 campaign, Holt added: "There are great opportunities for Republicans, and also dangers if we don't handle this properly."

Holt and Armey, who as House majority leader from 1995 to 2002 unsuccessfully challenged some of his fellow conservatives to soften their opposition to immigration, said the new group's message would seek to isolate players such as Tancredo, who leads a House caucus that backs stiff border restrictions.

Tancredo succeeded in dominating the debate, Holt and Armey said, because of an echo chamber of conservative talk radio and other advocates for limiting the influx of Mexicans across the border.

"There's two voices right now, and the noisy one is what I call the slam-the-borders crowd," Armey said. "The voice we want to speak with — and the one that will be in unison with President Bush — is the voice that echoes those marvelous words on the Statue of Liberty."

"To me, the Tancredo wing appeals to the more prurient character of our nature," Armey added. "We want to talk to the better angels of our nature."

Organizers say the new coalition is patterned after groups formed to press for Bush's overhaul of Social Security and his successful 2003 push for a Medicare prescription drug program — a new aspect of Republican strategy in which corporations and other interest groups are tapped to help move public opinion in favor of a policy initiative.

Corporations and advocacy groups with a direct interest in immigration — including those who need skilled high-tech workers, farm laborers and university teaching assistants — are being aggressively targeted for membership. Those being courted include Microsoft Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and groups representing academic institutions, restaurants, hotels, landscaping firms, hospitals and nurses.

Organizers say this is the first time an effort has been made to bring these disparate groups together to focus on immigration issues.

Admission into the new coalition costs between $50,000 and $250,000. The proceeds are expected to pay for a political-style campaign for an approach to immigration that combines heightened border security with a guest-worker program of some sort, creating an environment that the White House believes will be more favorable for Bush to step back into the fray.

Tancredo accused the administration of forging an alliance with business executives who view migrants as a path to greater profits.

"They know this has nothing to do with Hispanic votes," he said. "They're trying to cover what their real motive is, which is to supply [business] with cheap labor, to not close the spigot of cheap labor…. But they've lost in Congress. They've lost the public. And now they're in damage control."

Tancredo asserted that Bush was in a bad spot politically, caught between public opinion favoring restrictive immigration policies and corporate interests that want looser policies. He said the apparent plans being laid by the new coalition seem to contrast with the message Bush gave to House leaders during a recent White House meeting: that the borders must be secured.

"I think he is trying to figure out a way to triangulate here," Tancredo said. [More]


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Austin Bramwell on "Evolutionary Conservatives"

The youngest member of National Review's five-man Board of Trustees writes in the new August 15th issue of The American Conservative:

Second, a loose network of what John O’Sullivan has called “evolutionary” conservatives attempts to understand politics in light of genetic science. Unlike many conservatives, evolutionary conservatives remain undaunted by the apoplectic reaction of liberals to Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve and Dinesh D’Souza’s The End of Racism. Steve Sailer, for example, the most talented evolutionary conservative, writes with rigor and imagination on such scabrous topics as race, IQ, voting patterns, and national identity. Though other writers treat these ideas as taboo, perhaps because they seem to undermine American ideals of equality and self-reliance, evolutionary conservatives pride themselves on preferring truth to wishful thinking.

This attitude enables them to understand affirmative action and identity politics in a way that others cannot. More timid conservatives believe that if only we embraced the American Creed with sufficient fervor, we would become a color-blind society at last. As Thomas Sowell observes, however, every country that has racial or ethnic groups of differing economic achievement has adopted a system of preferences. Race relations seem to have an irreducibly tragic dimension; identity politics may well be a permanent feature of all multi-ethnic societies, often, as in Bosnia, Rwanda or Sri Lanka (and, perhaps, Iraq) with calamitous results. Human biodiversity is important; we owe to ourselves to try to understand it.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

July 22, 2005

Immigration to Britain

In recent years, a strong effort has been made to rewrite the history of Britain to make the current massive immigration appear to be as traditionally British as crumpets. For example, Wikipedia's article on "Immigration to the United Kingdom" begins:

The United Kingdom has had a long history of immigration, from the Beaker people of the 3rd millennium BC, to the waves of invasions by the Roman Empire, the Anglo-Saxons and Normans, to the settlement of people arriving from the Colonies in the 19th and 20th centuries and finally to modern immigration.

The history of immigration to the United Kingdom is, essentially, the history of the development of the United Kingdom itself, making it what it is today. It is fair to say that the ancestors of most people living in the United Kingdom today were immigrants at one time or another throughout history.

In reality, it now appears that until the last 50 years, there was remarkably little immigration into Britain since the immediate post-Ice Age period:

British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age, Gene Study Says
James Owen for National Geographic News

July 19, 2005 Despite invasions by Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, and others, the genetic makeup of today's white Britons is much the same as it was 12,000 ago, a new book claims.

In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters.

Miles, research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, England, says recent genetic and archaeological evidence puts a new perspective on the history of the British people.

"There's been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it's now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons' genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age," Miles said.

These nomadic tribespeople followed herds of reindeer and wild horses northward to Britain as the climate warmed. "Numbers were probably quite small—just a few thousand people," Miles added. These earliest settlers were later cut off as rising sea levels isolated Britain from mainland Europe.

New evidence for the genetic ancestry of modern Britons comes from analysis of blood groups, oxygen traces in teeth, and DNA samples taken from skeletal remains.

Ice Age hunter-gathers also colonized the rest of northwest Europe, spreading through what are now the Netherlands, Germany, and France. But Miles said differences between populations can be detected in random genetic mutations, which occurred over time.

The most visible British genetic marker is red hair, he added. The writer Tacitus noted the Romans' surprise at how common it was when they arrived 2,000 years ago.

"It's something that foreign observers have often commented on," Miles said. "Recent studies have shown that there is more red hair in Scotland and Wales than anywhere else in the world. It's a mutation that probably occurred between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago."

Britain's population in the late Stone Age may have much been larger than historians once supposed. For instance, scientists have calculated that it would have taken around 30 million hours to create Stonehenge.

"By the time Stonehenge was built you'd had about a thousand years of farming," Miles said. "The population's expanding, and people are getting together to form big labor forces to put up these big public buildings."

Population estimates based on the size and density of settlements put Britain's population at about 3.5 million by the time Romans invaded in A.D. 43.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

"The Left's War on Britishness"

"The Left's War on Britishness" by Anthony Browne in the Telegraph.

One of the stranger scenes in Bridget Jones Diary is the entry for May 8th, 1995, when Bridget, whose heart is usually in the right place, tries to get her trendy friends to help her put together a party to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Victory-Europe day. But when she wants to decorate with Union Jacks, her friends think she's gone fascist, and the party never comes off.

Browne writes:

No, the real answer to why Britain spawned people fuelled with maniacal hate for their country is that Britain hates itself. In hating Britain, these British suicide bombers were as British as a police warning for flying the union flag.

Britain’s self-loathing is deep, pervasive and lethally dangerous. We get bombed, and we say it’s all our own fault. Schools refuse to teach history that risks making pupils proud, and use it instead as a means of instilling liberal guilt. The government and the BBC gush over ‘the other’, but recoil at the merest hint of British culture. The only thing we are licensed to be proud of is London’s internationalism — in other words, that there is little British left about it...

But self-loathing in a nation, like self-loathing in an individual, is alienating. Someone who despises himself inspires greater contempt than affection, and a country that hates itself cannot expect its newcomers to want to belong.

Only in the last few years has it dawned on the government how dangerous the Left’s war on Britishness really is. Labour ministers now queue up to declare that we need a new sense of British identity. But the ability to learn a few sentences in English and a knowledge of how to claim benefits do not create a national allegiance.

What is needed is something to make the people who live in these islands feel good about being British, but the war on Britishness has imposed a nationwide amnesia about our national story.

The historian Simon Schama wrote that ‘to collude in the minimisation of British history on the grounds of its imagined irrelevance to our rebranded national future, or from a suspicion that it does no more than recycle patriotic pieties unsuited to a global marketplace, would be an act of appallingly self-inflicted collective memory loss’. And as the American philosopher George Santayana warned, ‘A country without a memory is a country of madmen.’

Britain is one of the few countries where it is a source of pride to despise your country. We are all repeatedly taught the things to be ashamed of about Britain, but what about the things to be proud of?

The truth is that Britain’s self-loathing is as unique as it is unwarranted. Britain really is great. These small rainswept isles off the western end of the vast Eurasian landmass have contributed far more to the well-being of the rest of humanity than any other country, bar none.

Well, duh.


If I may interject ...

This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England. . .


Thank you. I just wanted to get that off my chest. Browne continues:

Sometimes it takes a foreigner to open your eyes. A Norwegian diplomat told me long ago that he was taught at school, as British kids aren’t, that Britain gave the world industrialisation, democracy and football — its economic system, its political system and its fun.

That is just the start of it...

The problem for Britain is not that it has too little to be proud of, but too much.

Indeed.

That's a general problem today ... over the last 500 years, the levels of human accomplishment have been so radically uneven -- Caucasians over all others, Europeans over non-European Caucasians, Western Europeans over Eastern Europeans, and, more arguably, Brits over Continental Western Europeans -- that it seems pointless for living people to take pride in their ancestors' accomplishments because it would be like a man taking pride in men inventing 99% of the stuff worth inventing.

It makes sense these days to celebrate the fact that a woman invented Wite-Out (the mother of Michael Nesmith of the Monkees, to be precise) but it doesn't make much sense to celebrate that a man invented Post-It notes, because men invented, more or less, everything. Likewise, it seems not just in bad taste, but pointless, to celebrate Western Europeans for all they've accomplished because they've accomplished so much.

The downside, though, is that when you downplay traditions of greatness, and when you license envy and tell the most creative to be ashamed of their forebears for making everybody else in the world feel small, you tend to get less greatness in return. Culturally, we seem to be lacking in the confidence that produces greatness.


The tragic irony is that no matter how many multiculti festivals the British government pays for and how much it denigrates its own past, the Pakistanis know that they come from an inferior culture, and it enrages them. On the other hand, these assaults on the pride of the natives has a corrosive effect on their will to create, and they sink into drunken slothfulness.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

"Comprehensive Review"

Before 1996's Proposition 209 outlawed the use of racial quotas in U. of California admissions decisions, picking applicants was simple: they just ranked the member's of each official ethnic group on test scores and GPA adjusted for class difficulty and selected from the top down until they filled each group's quota.

Now that it's unconstitutional to use racial preferences, the bureaucrats have instituted "comprehensive review" of applicants in order to reinstitute quotas surreptitiously by making the application process so complicated that nobody can figure out how they made their decisions. (The Latino Caucus in the state legislature demanded they get more Latinos into the UC schools than a colorblind system would produce.) One element of obfuscation is that each applicant must now submit an essay about how they have "overcome adversity." The purpose is for minorities to write about how they've been discriminated against so that the admissions committees can figure out if applicant named "John Jones" is black or white. Of course, it just encourages adolescents to dwell on their victimization, which adolescents love to do anyway.

This leaves the white and Asian kids with a problem: what adversity to write about? Well, if you've watched the Olympics on TV, you can probably guess: according to a UCLA professor, one out of three essays overall (and thus probably close to half of the white and Asian kids' essays) are about the death of a grandparent!

"Everybody called my grandfather an angry old coot, and his neighbors got a restraining order against him after he kept throwing poisoned steaks to their barking dogs that woke him from his afternoon nap, and I hadn't actually seen him since I was eleven, but when he died at 86 on that golf course in Florida, the shock was so great that that's why I got that mediocre 2.75 GPA my second semester sophomore year, and I think if I hadn't been so traumatized I would have gotten better than that 540 on my European History SAT Subject Test."


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

July 21, 2005

Richard Lynn objects to my Jodie Foster example

The co-author of IQ and the Wealth of Nations writes:

I think you have overestimated the effect of "regression toward the mean." The effects are quite small, as shown empirically in the Terman study of genius in which the IQs of the children were only about 5 points lower than those of the parents(133 vs 138, respectively). Theoretically, IQ is believed to be mostly determined by additive genes. If it were entirely determined by additive genes the average IQ of the children would be the same as that of the average of the parents. Thus Jodie Foster with her IQ of say 100 mated with a sperm donor with an IQ of 160 should have children with an average IQ of 130. Jodie Foster with her IQ of say 100 mated with Mr Average with an IQ of 100 should have children with an average IQ of 100. Regression occurs through non additive genes and environmental effects.

But wasn't the Terman study restricted to students who scored 130 and higher? William Shockley and another Nobel Prize winner famously missed the cut by a couple of points. Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting the point? Anyway, think of it this way, if your brother is 7 feet tall, how tall do you expect to be? Not 7 feet.

UPDATE: Greg Cochran fills in some details on the Terman study of highly intelligent children that began back before WWII. The average IQ of children in the study (the "Termites") was 151. The average IQ of their eventual spouses was 126. Thus, the average of the married couples was 138. The average IQ of their children was 133. This would suggest, crudely, a narrow sense heritability (parent to child) of 33/38 or 0.86, which would be fairly high even for a broad sense heritability (between identical twins). Other estimates of narrow sense heritability I've seen have been between 0.34 and 0.5, which would bring about more regression toward the mean.

Anybody have other studies on narrow-sense heritability?


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Tom Wolfe: Diversity = Dispersity on Campus

From Wolfe's novel I Am Charlotte Simmons, in which Charlotte's friend Laurie describes diversity at North Carolina State:

Mr. Thom said there was certainly a lot written about multiculturalism and diversity in colleges these days. How did they manifest themselves in everyday life at Dupont?

"I don't know," said Charlotte. I just hear about them in speeches and things."

Laurie piped up again. "At State, everybody calls diversity dispersity. What happens is, everybody has their own clubs, their own signs, their own sections where they all sit in the dining hall -- all the African Americans are over there? ... and all the Asians sit over't these other tables? -- except for the Koreans? -- because they don't get along with the Japanese, so they sit way over there? Everybody's dispersed into their own little groups -- and everybody's told to distrust everybody else? Everybody's told that everybody else is trying to screw them over -- oops!" Laurie pulled a face and put her fingertip over her lips -- "I'm sorry!" She rolled eyes and smiled. "Anyway, the idea is, every other group is like prejudiced against your group, and no matter what they say, they're only out to take advantage of you, and you should have nothing to do with them -- unless you're white, in which case all the others are not prejudiced against you, they're like totally right, because you really are racist and everything, even if you don't know it? Everybody ends up dispersed into their own like turtle shells, suspicious of everybody else and being careful not to fraternize with them."


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Bye-Bye Bandar

After 22 years as the Saudi ambassador to America, Prince Bandar is headed home. The Prince was bad for the U.S., using his extraordinary amiability and infinite supply of ready cash to exploit moral weaknesses in Washington higher-ups. That's why I'd been calling for him to be sent home for several years. (I would, however, love to read his memoirs someday. I suspect, though, that many important people in our nation's capital would not look forward to the publication of Bandar's autobiography.)

On the other hand, he was a tremendously talented ambassador, and his country was terribly lucky to have him. On the human level, his story is admirable: he is the son of a slave-girl (he's about as black-looking as Colin Powell).


A former State Dept. official emails:


The Saudis have outlawed slavery [although not until 1962, during the American civil rights era], but it still exists not only for black Africans, but also for Filipino housekeepers who are effectively abducted for long periods after arriving in Saudi with a work permit. As Christians, the Filipinos have no civil rights whatsoever.


He reminisces about his contacts with Bandar:


One trip in the mid-1970s, I was told I would do well to meet a young Prince Bandar bin Sultan, son of the Defense Minister and the fighter pilot/squadron leader of the Saudi Air Force’s crack attack wing. We met for several hours in his office and he told me that the Saudi military considered Iraq the biggest military threat in that bad neighborhood [the US Embassy was under the impression that the Shah of Iran was more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, so this was a surprise to me].

The very dark and athletic Bandar invited me to dinner at his home that evening, a rare event for a foreign diplomat who usually only saw Saudi royal family types from afar. That evening, over liquorless orange juice, Bandar and I spent hours discussing Saudi domestic policy and US-Saudi diplomatic relations. He told me the fascinating story of how he rose from the lowly lineage of a Sudanese slave mother and Minister of Defense father Prince Sultan to a position of some eminence----his shiftless full-blooded royal brothers were all playboys and had sinecure government positions. He explained that since Bandar had been shunned by his half-brothers as a child, he had hung around the alpha-male type adults in the household and overheard their political discussions until he had figured out a lot of the Saudi backstairs political scene through his native street smarts and curious mind.

Sent to military school, he was the only senior prince who flew advanced jet fighters ‘"The plane does not know I am a prince.”

Although in a moment of exuberance that night Bandar told me that he wanted to be king, he actually did better. His longtime service as Saudi Ambassador in DC and his affable intelligence gave him access to several presidents of the USA [Reagan, the two Bushes & Clinton] which he used to become actual friends with all of them except Reagan. As the son of a slave mother, Bandar could never come into the line of succession to become king, but his marriage to the daughter of former King Faisal assured him of a senior position in the Royal Family.

Perhaps an anecdote related to me by XXX, sheds light on just how important Bandar became over the twenty-plus years he was Saudi Ambassador in DC. The story is that in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait in the summer, there was a major problem in convincing the Saudis that the US military should be allowed to be positioned in the Islamic Holy Land [subsequent events in the mid-90s bore out the controversial implications of stationing ’infidels’ in Saudi].

Prez George HW Bush asked Bandar, who was totally committed to sending a US force to Saudi, how to get King Fahd, buffeted by senior royal princes distrustful of the US and also skeptical that the US would even honor Carter and Reagan’s promises to defend Saudi against an attack from anywhere, to agree to invite the Americans. Bandar asked GHWB to send Defense Secretary Dick Cheney [who brought along Colin Powell] with him to Riyadh for a meeting with the King. Bandar asked Cheney to bring along reconnaissance photos of jets parked on a military airfield---it didn’t matter from where.

Bandar told Cheney and Powell that they should let him do the talking. XXX told me that Bandar had Cheney show the King the photos and that Bandar said that the airfield was in North Yemen and that the jets were Iraqi planes sent by Saddam to encircle Saudi Arabia.

Bear in mind that the Saudis had seized a huge chunk of Yemen early in the 20th century and that about one Saudi out of four was of Yemeni heritage. North Yemen had defeated Egypt in a war in the ‘60s and the Yemenis were renowned as the fiercest fighters in the Arab world. Yemen also had made no secret that it wanted the territory back that the Saudis had ripped off fifty-some years before.

When Fahd was shown the photo and told that the Iraqi planes were in Yemen, his immediate reaction was to invite the American military into Saudi Arabia.

Of course, Saddam was quickly defeated by Schwartzkopf’s brilliant plan, but the American military remained long after the Gulf War was successfully concluded. Osama bin Ladin and the Saudi mujahideen who had fought in Afghanistan regarded US presence in the Islamic Holy Land as an abomination worse than the Crusaders’ long stay in the Levant. Of the fifteen Saudis in the suicide attacks of 9/11, eleven were of Yemeni heritage, as of course is Osama bin Ladin. And of course, Prince Bandar’s success in convincing King Fahd to allow US troops into Saudi Arabia in the Cheney meeting that day had unintended consequences which will last for a long time.

Bandar's replacement as ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki Faisal was fired two days before 9/11 and doubts remain as to his knowledge of what was going to happen and when it was going to happen. The best explanation for the extremely rare occurrence of a senior royal official being fired is that Prince Turki had been paying off major terrorist organizations to prevent an attack on the Saudis. It turned out that one or more of the huge payoffs, reportedly amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, were complete scams. Another version is that the terrorists took the money and then committed hits against the Saudis anyway. No one has successfully demonstrated that Prince Turki had any advance knowledge of 9/11.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

July 20, 2005

"Hustle & Flow"

"Hustle & Flow" -- The much anticipated Sundance hit will be out Friday. From my review in the upcoming American Conservative:

Hip hop first hit the Top 40 way back in 1979 with the amusing "Rapper's Delight" by the Sugarhill Gang. At the time I thought, "What a cute novelty record -- I bet that style will be around for a year, maybe even two!" Little did I anticipate that decades of stylistic innovation by African-Americans were coming to an end, and that rap would turn out to be the black hole that entrapped black talent for, apparently, all eternity.

Hip-hop kept its goofy aura through the mid-80s (when the biggest selling rap record was "The Super Bowl Shuffle" by the Chicago Bears NFL team).

Then, gangsta rap emerged from Los Angeles and New York. By promoting the drug dealer's code of what a boy had to do to be a man, it helped spread the crack wars across the country. By 1993-94, the murder rate had quadrupled among black 14-17 year-old-youths born in the late 70s (which was after Roe v. Wade, as economist Steven D. Levitt conveniently forgot to mention while pushing his abortion-cut-crime theory in the bestseller Freakonomics).

Fortunately, the generation born in the 80s started to grasp that they could listen to gangsta rap without living it, but the damage had been done. In New York City today, there are 36 percent more black women than black men alive.

It says much about contemporary values that the Audience Award at the Sundance film festival was won by the indie crowd-pleaser "Hustle & Flow," the purportedly uplifting story -- "Everybody gotta have a dream" -- of a pimp striving to find redemption by becoming a gangsta rapper.

Perhaps we will next be treated to a heartwarming movie about a Gestapo agent aspiring to qualify for the Death's Head SS. If, as the hype claims, "Hustle & Flow" is the new "Rocky," well, then "Jeff Gannon" should be pitching Hollywood on his rise, such as it was, from militaristic manwhore to Bush Administration shill.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

July 19, 2005

Levitt's state-by-state abortion-crime correlations

Something that hasn't been mentioned is what an uncertain reed the Freakonomics abortion-cut-crime theory is largely based upon: correlations between the abortion rates by state in the 1970s and the crime rates by state in the 1990s. Beyond all the other problems I've noted (such as the correlations only work for the decline in crime in the mid-1990s, and instead are reversed during the huge crime increase in the late 1980s and early 1990s), a massive weakness in his analysis is that people move. After two decades, a large fraction of the population is living in a different state. Even worse for Levitt's assumption, the odds that a grown child will be living in a different state than his mother was living in when she was pregnant with him are even higher.

Now, if all this movement was purely random, utterly unrelated to crime and abortion laws, then that would simply make any connection between abortion in the 1970s and crime in the 1990s harder to detect. But, we have good reason to assume that interstate migration is driven in part precisely by crime rates and by the general moral climate (of which the abortion rate is symbolic).

This is an enormously complicated subject, but let me give one example. Consider New York and California, which Levitt repeatedly points to as states that legalized abortion early (in 1970) and had crime fall-offs earlier in the 1990s. If you look at white people, you'll see that NY and California continued to attract affluent whites who could afford to insulate their kids from crime and moral decay, while they shed large numbers of less well-to-do whites who were worried that they couldn't afford to provide their kids with a good upbringing.

So, comparing the white populations of NY and California in the 1970s versus the 1990s is a classic apples and oranges comparison, and within each state, too. Among whites, the populations became increasingly affluent, older, and the family sizes shrunk. In contrast, the white populations of socially conservative (and thus low abortion) states became relatively younger and less affluent and thus more crime prone.

But that's just one dynamic. When you throw in the significant differences in the racial makeup of states over time, it all gets extremely complicated. But the key point is that there is no reason to assume that you can make safe apples to apples comparisons of the populations in states in the 1970s versus 1990s, as Levitt assumes you can.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer