May 16, 2006

"How a Bill Becomes a Law" question.

A reader writes:

"Do you happen to know if funding for putting the National Guard on the border is appropriated in the Senate bill? (I suspect it is.) If so, the House would have to vote for a guestworker program to get any hope of enforcement, no?"

A reader responds:

I'm a regular reader of your site who happens to be in the congressional appropriations business. The short answer to his question is no. Appropriations are in a process entirely separate from the immigration bill. If the Guard were required to carry out this mission, however, it raises a lot of questions about funds, since activating Guard units typically carries considerable personnel costs and other needs. There has been a lot of discussion up here on the Hill this spring about the Guard being underfunded--the Administration sent up a budget proposal that assumes a far lower end strength for the Guard than will likely be the case. But the other fact to consider is that the appropriations process could give opponents of enforcement another crack at the issue after any immigration bill is passed, by proposing amendments that would block the use of funds for the Guard to carry out the mission. And even if they fail, there's no guarantee the Guard could sustain the mission without compromising overseas deployments and natural disaster responses.


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

Is Bush our first Latin American President?

A reader writes:

"Having spent some time in Latin American countries, one of my biggest fears regarding the current immigration issue has been that Latin-style political corruption will work its way into the U.S. However, when I look at the current administration I wonder if that hasn't already happened. In fact, I wonder if Texas' proximity to Mexico corrupted its political culture along time ago, hence our current president. People used to say that Bill Clinton was the first black president. Bush may very well be our first Latino president."

As New York Times correspondent Alan Riding wrote in his 1984 bestseller Distant Neighbors: A Portrait of the Mexicans, in Mexico, "[P]ublic life could be defined as the abuse of power to achieve wealth and the abuse of wealth to achieve power."

As I've been explaining since early 2001, The Bush dynasty has had extensive business, personal, and political ties to Mexico's ruling class, and at least two of Bushes's closest rich Mexican friends have been so corrupt or vicious -- even by the standards of Mexico -- that they've served long prison terms in Mexico.

Meanwhile, the President's politically ambitious nephew, George P. Bush, who is the son of Gov. Jeb Bush and his Mexican-born wife, will be old enough to run for President in 2012.


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

The American Conservative issue of May 8, 2006

The new issue of The American Conservative:

May 8, 2006 Issue

The Politics of Amnesty
By W. James Antle III
The Senate’s guest-worker legislation is dormant but not dead.

New Republican Majority?
By Steve Sailer
The future of the GOP lies not with the Hispanic vote but with overlooked middle-class Americans.

Big Brother Watches Britain
By Peter Hitchens
While our soldiers attempt to export freedom to the Arab World, it perishes in the birthplace of the Magna Carta.


Is It Civil War Yet?
By Robert Dreyfuss
Iraq has entered a new and perhaps irreversible stage of chaos—the emergence of a Shi’ite insurgency.


The Old College Try

By Peter Wood
What happens when an evangelical college moves into the Empire State Building

Why Trade Deficits Matter
By Robert Locke
Trading ourselves into poverty

Grand Coalition
By Neil Clark
Strange bedfellows or not, Left and Right find common ground against military adventurism.

Maid in the Shade
By Steve Sailer
Jennifer Aniston in “Friends With Money”

The Case for Peace
By Daniel McCarthy
Neo-conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq edited by D.L. O’Huallachain and J. Forrest Sharpe

Dueling Banjos
By Marcus Epstein
Rednecks and Bluenecks: The Politics of Country Music
by Chris Willman

How the West Won
By Gerald J. Russello
The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success
by Rodney Stark



Regime Crisis

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Why Bush’s approval rating is 38 percent

Twilight in America
By Paul Craig Roberts

Case of the Missing Moon
By Taki
Manliness is next to godliness.



Fourteen Days: Bush Takes Time to Read Sy Hersh; A General’s Regrets; Tom DeLay’s Legacy

Deep Background: Bush’s Iran Contras; Ghorbanifar is Back; Italy Keeps an Eye on Michael Ledeen

Purchase an online edition of this issue immediately!


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

More on why multicultural societies tend to be uncreative:

In response to my post yesterday, Jim Kalb at Turnabout offers four more thoughts:

* High-level creativity needs a coherent setting and tradition to give it materials and possibilities. That’s why there is no Shakespeare of pidgin. As Sailer points out, ethnic cuisines developed in monocultural settings.

* In multicultural society the only principles of order are arm’s length contract and top-down management. There’s not enough of a network of ties and common understandings for anything else to work. Neither allows for much creativity, because they’re too simple and single-minded.

* Then there’s the obvious point, that if you have a multicultural society that has to pretend to be free, equal and democratic you have to control thought and expression in boring ways to keep the whole house of cards from collapsing. “Celebrating diversity” means refusal to deal with any important issue in an interesting way, because you might end up saying that something is better than something else.

* Don’t evolutionary biologists talk about the importance of isolated niche situations for speciation? Whatever its status in biology, the reasoning suggests that cosmopolitan societies would be uncreative.


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

Tom Wolfe's concept of the "fiction-absolute:"

In Wolfe's recent Jefferson Lecture, he wrote:


Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world--so ordained by some almighty force--would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles.


I only wish Wolfe had come up with a catchy name, which he, the coiner of "radical chic," "the Me Decade," and "the Right Stuff," is certainly capable of. A reader writes:


Tom Wolfe's "fiction-absolute" structure of the mind has tremendous explanatory power.

Regarding (racial) groups with significantly different innate abilities, it would suggest that the 2 groups cannot ever live together in harmony. No group would ever agree to take part in a society that valued traits that would ensure that their group was valued less. Even though their group overall well being might be materially better, and any individual might gain status and prestige within this system, if it decreased the status potential of the group they will rebel and create their own values.

I have been waiting my whole life for someone to systematically explain this to me. It seemed intuitive but I wasn't smart enough to systematically understand it.

It would also explain the phenomenon of political correctness. It never made sense to why telling the truth was such a big deal. Maybe the liberals understand the human mind better than I do. Maybe each particular group must feel that they have a theoretical chance to dominate or else there will be a psychological schism too large to bridge without overt domination of one group over another.

A diverse society therefore has two options: living a lie that every group is equal in ability (eventually backed by force as it fails) or a caste system backed by force.

This would seem to argue against neoconservative color blind society that ignores group differences. It would also argue against your citizenism where we are all aware of our differences but get along fine and only think about the nation as a whole.


What happens is that people are perfectly capable of living happily in a society where their group is below average ... until they think about it. The problem is that as time goes on, people general get more time on their hands to think about things like this, and more "ethnic leaders" to encourage them to dwell on the insult of it all.

The funny thing is that your group doesn't even have to be below average for you to be outraged. Indeed, it appears to be a general pattern that the closer your group gets to being the top dog today, the angrier you get over slights to your group in your great-grandfather's day, as JPod's tantrum over immigration last Friday on NRO's "The Corner" showed.

Let me add, thought, that the point of citizenism is not that its natural or easy but that it's necessary to head off trouble caused by natural divisiveness.


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

Warren Buffett as public policy analyst

Yesterday I quoted zillionaire Warren Buffett on how little he pays in taxes. Several readers objected. One responded:

Don't be fooled by Buffett's schtick. He's a genius investor, but his policy prescriptions are one more proof of Derbyshire's line that political stupidity is a special kind of stupidity, not well-correlated with other kinds.

First of all, the reason Buffett pays so little in taxes is that he never sells anything, and hence has no realized gains to tax. Do you - does he - favor taxing unrealized gains? I'm unaware of anyone who thinks that's a good idea. So what's the point of him making the comment?

Second, the thing about Buffett is his motivation for pretty much everything is the search for new investment opportunities. In an economy with relatively easy credit and efficient markets, it's hard to find such opportunities. Hence Buffett's continuing complaint - stretching back at least a decade - that credit is too easy and the state needs to intervene more in the economy. Buffett made piles of money in the late 1960s and 1970s when our economy was much more of a mess. His policy prescriptions frequently harken back to the nostrums of that era - not because they were good for the economy, but because they were good for Buffett's particular skills of finding undervalued businesses. I'm not saying he consciously wants the economy to tank. I'm saying he thinks a "good" market is one with lots of things for him to buy, whereas that is emphatically not a "good" economy for most people.

Third, while Buffett is certainly not wrong that the wealthy have benefited disproportionately from the economic growth of the last 5, 10, or 25 years, this is not something unique to America. It's happening in Europe, in Asia - pretty much everywhere. Why this is happening is a good and interesting question. It also happens to be something Buffett is not especially interested in. There is a mountain of evidence that tax policy is a very poor mechanism for reducing income inequality, evidence that Buffett never even bothers to dismiss much less refute.


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

The Bush Theory:

In the 21st Century, the nation with the most unskilled labor will control the universe!

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

Doctors strike against affirmative action in India:

The big IQ differences within India are causing increasing problems. The AP reports:

NEW DELHI - A doctors' strike that began in the capital to protest an affirmative action program at medical colleges spread Sunday, threatening to cripple services at major government health care facilities.

Medical students demonstrated across the country, angered by police violence Saturday against doctors protesting at government hospitals in the capital, New Delhi, and Bombay.

The protests were sparked by the government's decision to increase the percentage of low-caste Indians at state-run medical colleges to 49.5 percent of the student body. Currently, 22.5 percent of admissions entries are set aside for low-caste Hindus and students from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Similar affirmative action programs already exist in other state-run educational institutions, aimed at creating equal opportunities for low-caste Hindus, who have faced discrimination for centuries.

Emergency health services at New Delhi hospitals were the worst hit by the strike. Television stations showed dozens of patients on stretchers lying unattended outside emergency rooms, many of them poor people unable to afford private hospitals...

The government showed no sign of budging. Commerce and Industry Minister Kamal Nath said the government was committed "to affirmative action because we have to ensure growth that is inclusive."

Despite laws against discrimination, India's lower castes — 80 percent of India's 1 billion people by government estimate — are still at the bottom in most social indicators, such as education, income, employment, asset ownership and debt.


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

The Chuck Hagel Presidency, RIP:

The Republican Senator from Nebraska has won some admiration for his skepticism about the Iraq Attaq. Yet, if the analysis by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation that the Hagel-Martinez bill, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611), that Senate leaders have agreed to pass is close to accurate -- that it would increase legal immigration over the next 20 years from 19 million to 103 million -- then Hagel has forfeited all the good will he has built up, and should be run out of elective office by the voters of Nebraska.


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

Senate Bill to add 103 million legal immigrants

Senate immigration bill tantamount to open borders:

Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years
by Robert Rector WebMemo #1076
Heritage Foundation
May 15, 2006 | |

If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.

Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions.

In contrast to the 103 million immigrants permitted under CIRA, current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next twenty years. Relative to current law, then, CIRA would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation’s population.

The figure of 103 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years—over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits. [More]

***

Senate immigration bill even more catastrophic than previously understood:

Reform bill to double immigration
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES May 15, 2006

The immigration reform bill that the Senate takes up today would more than double the flow of legal immigration into the United States each year and dramatically lower the skill level of those immigrants.

The number of extended family members that U.S. citizens or legal residents can bring into this country would double. More dramatically, the number of workers and their immediate families could increase sevenfold if there are enough U.S. employers looking for cheap foreign labor.

Another provision would grant humanitarian visas to any woman or orphaned child anywhere in the world "at risk of harm" because of age or sex.

The little-noticed provisions are part of legislation co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida, which overcame some early stumbles and now has bipartisan support in the Senate. The bill also has been praised by President Bush, and he is expected to endorse it as a starting point for negotiations in his prime-time address to the nation tonight

All told, the Hagel-Martinez bill would increase the annual flow of legal immigrants into the U.S. to more than 2 million from roughly 1 million today, scholars and analysts say.

These proposed increases are in addition to the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens already in the U.S. whom the bill would put on a path to citizenship. These figures also do not take into account the hundreds of thousands of additional immigrants who would be admitted to the U.S. each year under the guest-worker program that is part of the bill.

"If there is anyone left in the world, we would accept another 325,000 through the guest-worker program in the first year," said NumbersUSA's Rosemary Jenks, who supports stricter immigration laws.

The numbers have emerged only recently as opponents studied the hastily written 614-page bill in the five weeks since it was first proposed. It quickly stalled over Democratic refusal to allow consideration of any amendments to the bill, but debate resumes today after Senate leaders reached a compromise on the number of amendments. "Immigration is already at historic levels," said Ms. Jenks. "This would double that at least." The figures have been provided by Ms. Jenks, the Heritage Foundation and several Senate lawyers who have studied the bill since it was proposed.

One of the most alarming aspects of the bill, they say, are the provisions that drastically alter not only how many but also which type of workers are ushered into the country. Historically, the system that grants visas to workers has been slanted in favor of the highly educated and highly skilled. Currently, a little less than 60 percent of the 140,000 work visas granted each year are reserved for professors, engineers, doctors and others with "extraordinary abilities." Fewer than 10 percent are set aside for unskilled laborers. The idea has always been to draw the best and the brightest to America.

Under the Senate proposal, those priorities would be flipped. The percentage of work visas that would go to the highly educated or highly skilled would be cut in half to about 30 percent. The percentage of work visas that go to unskilled laborers would more than triple. In hard numbers for those categories, the highest skilled workers would be granted 135,000 visas annually, while the unskilled would be granted 150,000 annually.

What's more, the Hagel-Martinez bill would make it considerably easier for unskilled workers to remain here permanently while keeping hurdles in place for skilled workers. It would still require highly skilled workers who are here on a temporary basis to find an employer to "petition" for their permanent residency but it would allow unskilled laborers to "self-petition," meaning their employer would not have to guarantee their employment as a condition on staying.
[Read the rest]


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

May 15, 2006

Live-Blogging the Apocalypse

The VDARE.com blog is all over today's immigration events in real time.

Here is the transcript of Bush's speech.

Random notes on Bush's immigration speech:

If this speech reassures conservatives, we definitely are the Stupid Party, just like John Stuart Mill claimed.

- There was no call for a border fence, just "We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas," which is not at all the same thing.

- Let's do the math on sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to the border for one year. At an average of 21 hours per week on sentry duty, that's 750 men for a border that is almost 2,000 miles long, or about one per 2.6 miles of border.

- And anyway, "Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities." [Emphasis mine]. And the National Guard force will be drawn down after one year.

- Bush denounced "catch and release" treatment of "other-than-Mexican" border crossers. Congratulations to Juan Mann of VDARE.com for introducing this issue to the national discourse.

- Bush has renamed his "Guest Work Program" as a "Temporary Worker Program." Presumably, this is intended to confuse the public, to make them assume that both the program and the workers are only temporary. Of course, neither is true. The idea that the workers would only stay temporarily in the U.S. is a total joke. All Bush says about this is: "And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay." In other words, he doesn't have any plan to deport temporary workers once their years are up. And once the program gets going, the lobby for perpetuating it ad infinitum would be rich and powerful.

- What happens when the "temporary workers" have children during their "temporary" years in America, children, who, under the current reigning (although dubious) interpretation of the 14th Amendment are instantly American citiizens.

Bush's non-amnesty amnesty:


"Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration."


Bush has been obfuscating for years on this subject. Amnesty is not about citizenship, it's about residence. Very, very few illegal aliens have a burning desire for citizenship so that they can start, say, doing jury duty. Plenty of them who were amnestied due to the 1986 bill never bothered to become citizens. What they want is residence.

- Bush's "wait-in-line" scam:


"I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law … to pay their taxes … to learn English … and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship. But approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty..."


It's important to understand that Bush is trying to pull the wool over our eyes through the use of the phrase "will have wait in line behind those who played by the rules." This sounds like illegal immigrants would have to go home and wait in line behind those from their own countries who have applied for legal residence in America. But what he's actually saying is that illegal immigrants should get legal residency here right away but then have to wait in line for citizenship (i.e., mostly the right to vote) behind legal immigrants.

- Don't you love how politicians, when they are on side of the elites against the voters, always say things like, "We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone’s fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain"? Isn't exploiting issues for political gain an essential of republican government?

- The response by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) was basically like Br'er Rabbit asking the fox to throw him in the Briar Patch. He desperately wants Bush's plan to pass to produce more Democratic voters. The American Establishment wants the Senate bill bad. The networks should have had Rep. Tom Tancredo give the response.


- I tabulated how Bush's speech did on Gateway Pundit's "Open Borders Drinking Game" and found you would have needed to chug four Dos Equis beers, down 8 tequila shots, and do something called a "beer bong." You can see the details here on VDARE's blog.


-The VDARE.com blog is all over today's immigration events in real time.

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

Bush's Immigration Speech

My new VDARE.com column on Bush's immigration speech this Monday night is up.


It is rumored that the President will announce that National Guard troops will be headed to the border.

My question: Exactly how can the Bush Administration round up enough National Guardsmen when so many are deployed—as VDARE.COM’s own Allan Wall was—in Iraq?

The answer: it can't.

The Washington Post reports:


"One defense official said military leaders believe the number of troops required could range from 3,500 to perhaps 10,000, depending on the final plan. Another administration official cautioned that the 10,000 figure was too high." [Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S. Border, by Lolita C. Baldor, May 13, 2006]


Sounds impressive!

But let's do the math…

  • Our Mexican border is 1952 miles long.

  • There are 168 hours in a week, so each Guardsman would be on duty on the border for, say, one quarter of that or 42 hours per week. Even that is unreasonably optimistic, because many members of a National Guard unit would not perform sentry duties, but would instead be back at the base being commanders, clerks, support personnel and the like. And even the sentries wouldn't be on the border full time, considering how much work time these days is devoted to training, leave, sexual harassment seminars, diversity sensitivity workshops, and the like.

So, if each one of the 3,500 National Guardsmen was on patrol an average of, say, 21 hours per week (which is 1/8th of the 168 hours in a week), that would provide one soldier per 4.5 miles of border.

For some reason, I'm not reassured.

Particularly because this deployment would certainly be withdrawn as soon as Bush feels what might be called a "decent interval" has elapsed.

[More]


Indeed, the Los Angeles Times now reports on Monday morning that:


Bush Seeks to Assure Fox Over Border

As the White House prepared to announce deployment of National Guard troops along the nation's southern border to stanch the flood of illegal immigrants, President Bush tried to reassure the president of Mexico on Sunday that the move was temporary and did not amount to militarization of the border.


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

Warren Buffett on taxes

During a Q&A at the recent Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, the world's second richest man said:


The tax breaks for the wealthy that have been enacted are extraordinary. Most members of the Forbes 400 pay a lower portion of their income in taxes than the receptionist in our office does. That wasn’t true 30 years ago—and it should not be true in a rich society. In 2004, my tax rate was the lowest of anyone among the 15 or 16 people who work in our office. And that wasn’t because of any tax shelters I invested in (I don’t own any tax shelters) or any special tax advice I got. It’s crazy.

The media hasn’t conveyed the extent to which the typical individual hasn’t shared in the prosperity of the past 10 years as much as the wealthy have.


It's too bad that Warren Buffett has never showed much interest in financing any opinion journalism. It would be nice to have a patron who is both insanely rich and sane, rather than vice-versa, which is closer to the truth for a lot of the moguls who currently subsidize opinion journalism.


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

Why multicultural societies are less creative

Conventional wisdom holds that the more ethnically diverse a society is, the more "vibrant" its cultural creativity.

This sounds plausible in theory, but down through history, the opposite is more likely to be true. Periclean Athens wasn't as cosmopolitan as Alexandria or Rome, and Fourteenth Century Florence was full of Italians but not much else, and so forth. Right now, America is more diverse than ever, but it sure doesn't seem as creative as it was for most of the 20th Century.

So, what's wrong with the standard theory that cultural diversity increases creativity by making it easier to borrow good ideas from other cultures?

Well, perhaps cultural diversity makes it too easy to borrow. Why go through the hard word of creating when you can just borrow? Necessity is the mother of invention, and diversity reduces the necessity of inventing your own amusements.

Consider racially homogenous Liverpool, England in the early 1960s. Some Liverpudlian youth loved this new-fangled rock 'n' roll music invented in the Mississippi River Valley in the 1950s. If there had been an African-American community in Liverpool, the white kids would have employed the black Americans to play music for them to dance to. But there weren't any African-Americans in Liverpool, so the white kids had to make their own.

Consider everybody's favorite slam-dunk case for diversity: cuisine. And, yet, what's never mentioned is that all those wonderful foreign cuisines themselves evolved in conditions of relative cultural homogeneity and isolation. The problem is that if you have a lousy cuisine, you can do one of two things: improve it or borrow somebody else's. The more easily you can borrow, the less incentive you have to fix.

Or, how about excellence in basketball? For the second straight years, Steve Nash, a white Canadian, just won the NBA Most Valuable Player award, while Dirk Nowitzki, a white German, once again finished third in the voting. Yet, no white American has even finished in the top 10 in the MVP voting since John Stockton way back in 1995. Shouldn't playing against African-Americans make white basketball players better? Well, it hasn't quite worked out that way. Apparently, it's more conducive for the development of talent for young white basketball players to grow up in white countries where they don't have to compete with so many black players when they are starting out.


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

May 14, 2006

Species Do Not Exist!

One of the common arguments made for why race supposedly does not exist is that unless there's a race for everyone and everyone in his race, then the entire concept of race is useless and fallacious. An yet many of the same problems exist with the concept of species.

There are approximately 22 different proposed definitions for the species, with the most prestigious being Ernst Mayr's: "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.” And yet, it turns out that this definition has problems (besides not working for asexual species and being useless for paleontological purposes: lots of animals that are reasonably considered separate species can interbreed if they are in the mood.

You can breed lions and tigers together in the zoo to get ligers and tigons, but there is a lack of hard evidence that they've ever existed in the wild.

But now there is interesting news of a formidable wild hybrid. National Geographic reports, with a picture:

DNA analysis has confirmed that a bear shot in the Canadian Arctic last month is a half-polar bear, half-grizzly hybrid. While the two bear species have interbred in zoos, this is the first evidence of a wild polar bear-grizzly offspring.

Jim Martell (pictured at left), a 65-year-old hunter from Idaho, shot the bear April 16 on the southern tip of Banks Island (see Northwest Territories map), the CanWest News Service reports.

Wildlife officials seized the bear after noticing its white fur was interspersed with brown patches. It also had long claws, a concave facial profile, and a humped back, which are characteristic of a grizzly.

Now the genetic tests have confirmed that the hybrid's father was a grizzly and its mother was a polar bear.

"I don't think anyone expected it to actually happen in the wild," said Ian Stirling, a polar bear expert with the Canadian Wildlife Service in Edmonton.

Polar bears and grizzlies require an extended mating ritual to reproduce, Stirling said. Both live by themselves in large, open habitats.

To prevent wasting their eggs, females ovulate only after spending several days with a male, Stirling explained. "Then they mate several times over several days."

In other words, the mating between the polar bear and grizzly was more than a chance encounter. "That's what makes it quite interesting," he added.

Stirling says the hybrid has no official name, though locals have taken to calling it a "pizzly" and a "grolar bear."

These kind of hybrids raise important legal issues under the Endangered Species Act.

These conceptual conundrums with the concept of species are one reason I tossed out the top-down idea of race as "subspecies" and invented the bottom-up concept of a racial group as a "partly inbred extended family." In this framework, then a species is a "virtually wholly inbred extended family," but it's all relative. See my article: "It's All Relative: Putting Race in Its Proper Perspective."


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

Great White Defendants Galore! Why stop with Great White Defendant (a term coined by Tom Wolfe in Bonfire of the Vanities) when you can go all the way to a Great Albino Defendant, as in Paul Bettany's villain in the upcoming The Da Vinci Code? A reader points us to the the Wikipedia page on the "Evil Albino" in popular culture.

*

A reader points out Law & Order's conversion to Great White Defendants was prefigured in the 1890s:

A couple weeks back you wrote an article about how news stories and fiction about crime involving white and/or rich people gets a lot of attention and/or sells well, whereas crime that involves only poor blacks and Hispanics, i.e. most crime, doesn’t. You gave the example of the Law and Order series. Early on, the writers tried to be realistic, placing the crimes in the black and Latino parts of Manhattan where it most often occurs. However, the ratings of the early shows weren’t very good, and so they changed the show to focus on crimes in more prosperous neighborhoods and well-off defendants.

I couldn’t help but be reminded of a lecture an English professor gave on Conon Doyle in a class on 19th century literature that I took while at Columbia. He pointed out that the first two of Doyle’s novels, A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of the Four, have their crimes taking place in the seedy parts of London. Like the early Law & Order episodes, these novels didn’t sell well. It’s commonly noted that when Doyle switched to the short story format in his subsequent Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Memoirs, his sales greatly improved. What’s not as often noted, that my professor observed, is that Doyle also changed where the crime occurs: from the seedy working class areas to the posh West End and lavish country estates.

Doyle also changed the profiles of his criminals. In the early novels, they weren’t respectable people. In A Study in Scarlet, they were a hit squad of Mormons whose job it was to hunt down and murder apostates. In The Sign of the Four, it they were convicts from India, only one of whom was white. In the later works, by contrast, they were mainly people of privilege.

It appears that there’s nothing new under the sun. Crime that happens where you wouldn’t expect it, and committed by people who don’t fit the common criminal profile, is out of the ordinary and therefore interesting. Crime among the poor committed by ruffians is a commonplace, and therefore boring.

*

Mark Holmberg of the Richmond Times-Dispatch writes:

Syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts suggested the Duke case would've blown up even worse if the racial tables were turned.

"Imagine if the woman were white and reported being raped by three black members of the basketball team. You'd have to call out the National Guard."

Really?

"That hyperbole isn't born out by the facts," said Richmond-area attorney Jeff Everhart.

He's representing one of the four Virginia Union University students indicted last week for allegedly raping a University of Richmond coed on Jan. 21.

All four of the accused are black, two who had ties to the football team. One was a star quarterback as a freshman. All four were considered good kids, attending a historic black university.

The victim is white, an out-of-state student attending the posh University of Richmond, which has Duke-size tuition.

She reportedly left a party at a UR campus apartment with the four. Police say she was assaulted in some woods in western Henrico. Police found her and two of the suspects after neighbors heard a woman's screams.

Alcohol is a factor, as it is in the Duke case. Similarly, DNA tests will play a starring role.

But not a peep about the VUU case in the national media. The indictments played on Page B3 of this paper, while the Duke case started in our Sports pages and eventually made our front page.

*

On the VDARE.com blog, James Fulford takes issue with my suggestion that the #1 Hot White Defendantte on the LAPD's 220 Most Wanted list is "felon Vanessa Lanza Etourneau, a French girl with serious cheekbones." Instead, he nominates Corinna Kowalsky, a strawberry blonde ingénue, who turns out to be an illegal alien call girl from Germany, who “befriended the victim and then later burglarized his residence taking various items of art, silver and porcelain."

You be the judge!

*

Occam's Razor is not so popular in England these days: An excess of Boring Black Defendants captured by colorblind remote control monitoring systems is posing a spin problem for the PC PC of the London Bobbies:

Cameras set racial poser on car crime
Dipesh Gadher, Transport Correspondent

BRITAIN’S most senior policeman Sir Ian Blair is facing a race relations dilemma after the release of figures that reveal almost half the number of people arrested in relation to car crime in London are black.

Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has signed off a report by his force’s traffic unit which shows that black people account for 46% of all arrests generated by new automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) cameras.

The technology allows car registration plates to be scanned and automatically run through databases to determine whether a vehicle is stolen, uninsured or has not had its road tax paid.

Each number plate is also checked with the police national computer, where vehicles suspected of links to crimes such as robberies are flagged up.

The Met has deployed six mobile ANPR camera units in the capital, primarily in areas with high levels of street crime. When a suspect vehicle is identified, police officers are sent to intercept the driver.

Although ANPR technology is impartial, the disproportionate number of blacks being arrested has prompted the Met to investigate.

The arrests have been broken down by ethnicity in a report sent last month to the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), to which the force is accountable.

It reveals that between April 2005 and January this year the units generated 2,023 arrests. Of these 923 were black suspects, while 738 (36%) came from white backgrounds. Asians accounted for just over 9% of arrests.

The report tacitly appears to address concerns among ethnic minority communities who believe they are unfairly targeted by the police through stop and search powers. Black people are up to six times more likely to be stopped than whites.

The report says: “It is worth stating that out of all our activities, this is the one area where the officer has minimal discretion as they respond to an electronic matching process.”

Last week the Met attempted to explain the high number of arrests among blacks by the fact that they make up a higher proportion of the population in areas such as Southwark and Lewisham in south London, where the ANPR units operate.

However, statistics from the 2001 census show that the highest black population in any borough is no greater than about 25%. The proportion of black people across the capital as a whole is about 11%.

Peter Herbert, an independent member of the MPA and spokesman for the Society of Black Lawyers, said: “The Met really wants to avoid any allegation of disproportionality so they will seek to explain these figures by whatever nuance they can. The targeting of certain boroughs might be justified in terms of some crime, but it’s certainly not justified in terms of all crime.”

Captain Gatso, of Motorists Against Detection, the anti-speed-camera group that uncovered the Met figures, said: “All this does is create a new problem for Sir Ian Blair, the politically correct PC, as ANPR cameras and the databases they are linked to are colour blind.”

It is more than a decade ago that Lord Condon, the former Met commissioner, caused controversy when he suggested that young black men were likely to be responsible for most muggings.


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

Tom Wolfe's Jefferson Lecture:

The great journalist/novelist explains his point of view. An excerpt:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a "fiction-absolute." Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world--so ordained by some almighty force--would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to "the intellectuals" also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.

The human beast's belief in his own fiction-absolute accounts for one of the most puzzling and in many cases irrational phenomena of our time. I first noticed it when I read a book by Samuel Lubell called The Future of American Politics. Lubell was a political scientist and sociologist who had been as surprised as everybody else by the outcome of the 1948 presidential election. That was the election in which the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman, was a president whose approval rating had fallen as low as 23 percent. Every survey, every poll, every pundit's prediction foresaw him buried by the Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey. Instead, Truman triumphed in one of the most startling upsets in American political history. Lubell was determined to find out why, and so he set out across the country. When he reached a small Midwestern town that had been founded before the turn of the 19th century by Germans, he was puzzled to learn that the town had gone solidly for Dewey despite the fact that by every rational turn of logic, every economic motivation, Truman would have been a more logical choice. By and by Lubell discovered that the town was still predominantly German. Nobody had ever gotten over the fact that in 1917, a Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson, had declared war on Germany. That had set off a wave of anti-German feeling, anti-German prejudice, and, in the eyes of the people of this town, besmirched their honor as people of German descent. And now, two World Wars later, their minds were fixed on the year 1917, because like all other human beasts, they tended to champion in an irrational way their own set of values, their own fiction absolute.

The 2004 election came down to one state: the state of Ohio. Whoever won that state in the final hours would win the election. Northern Ohio, the big cities of Cleveland, Toledo on the Great Lakes, were solidly for Kerry. But in southern Ohio, from east to west, and in the west was the city of Cincinnati, Ohio went solidly for George Bush. And the reason? That great swath of territory was largely inhabited by the Scots-Irish. And when the Democrats came out in favor of gun control, the Scots-Irish interpreted this as not merely an attack on the proliferation of weaponry in American life but as a denunciation, a besmirching, of their entire way of life, their entire fiction absolute. Guns were that important in their scheme of things.

More recently, I returned to Washington and Lee for a conference on the subject of Latin American writing in the United States. The conference soon became a general and much hotter discussion of the current immigration dispute. I had arrived believing that, for example, Mexicans who had gone to the trouble of coming to the United States legally, going through all the prescribed steps, would resent the fact that millions of Mexicans were now coming into the United States illegally across the desert border. I couldn't have been more mistaken. I discovered that everyone who thought of himself as Latin, even people who had been in this country for two and three generations, were wholeheartedly in favor of immediate amnesty and immediate citizenship for all Mexicans who happened now to be in the United States. And this feeling had nothing to do with immigration policy itself, nothing to do with law, nothing to do with politics, for that matter. To them, this was not a debate about immigration. The very existence of the debate itself was to them a besmirching of their fiction-absolute, of their conception of themselves as Latins. Somehow the debate, simply as a debate, cast an aspersion upon all Latins, implying doubt about their fitness to be within the border of such a superior nation. [More]

I suspect this this is true most of all of the kind of professional Latinos/as who attend conferences on Latin American writing in the United States. But, they are the most articulate ones, so they can drag lots of others with them.


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

The Catholic Church versus The Da Vinci Code

Mean Mr. Mustard writes:

When someone tells an outright, bald-faced and easily demonstrable lie about you, do you simply point out that the other guy is full of s---, or do you defend yourself by claiming offense?

Apparently, the Catholic Church and other critics of the Da Vinci Code take the latter tack.

It's so very depressing, because it reveals much more than just the Church's inadequate response to slander. It puts on display the level to which our society has descended into full-blown solipsistic narcissism.

Of course, if you ask them, they'll also point out eventually (I hope) that Brown's claims to historicity and scholarship are the stuff of below-average conspiracy theory which he didn't even have the common decency to himself invent, but had to lift nearly whole from another untalented writer's ravings.

But that kind of appeal to objective truth really just won't do these days. For one thing, it's simply not emotive enough. All it does is describe what is rather than whether or not it makes me want to cry. For another, it does have quite rude implications, doesn't it? One side being correct implies the other sides' incorrectness, and that kind of thing puts you on the short road to mandated sensitivity training.

In describing how dreadfully hurt and offended they are over Dan Brown's low-brow crap, Church spokesmen are shamefully but not surprisingly taking a cue from the modern, feminized and self-absorbed approach to discourse. One would hope for more spine from an institution that purports to reveal and explicate divine, unalterable truth, but at the same time you have to admit that they're merely using the most powerful weapon currently available in the public sphere, the ultimate trump card in all disputes: an expression of personal hurt feelings.


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