September 24, 2009

UPDATED: "The Atlantic 50:" Pundit demographics

The Atlantic Monthly has put together a list it calls The Atlantic 50, which it describes as "the columnists and bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debates:"

Updated: At a reader's suggestion, I looked up on Google Trends the number of searches for each name on this list. "steve sailer" came in ahead of 19 of The Atlantic 50. For example, #1 ranked "paul krugman" has been searched for 17.6 times as often on Google as "steve sailer" in 2009, but #12 ranked David Broder has only been searched for 0.4 times as often as "steve sailer."

And since "isteve" gets another 50% as many searches as "steve sailer," I might come in ahead of five or six more of these supposedly big names, putting me right at about #25. Of course, the same could be said for lots of other people who aren't on The Atlantic 50. For example, Ann Coulter is searched for more often than anybody on The Atlantic 50 besides Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and Michelle Malkin is ahead of Krugman. (And there are lots of technical quibbles about the spelling of names, last name-only searches, and so forth, so don't take these ratios all that seriously.)
The Atlantic 50 Searches v. "steve sailer"
1. Paul Krugman 17.6
2. Rush Limbaugh 104.0
3. George Will 5.3
4. Thomas Friedman 6.3
5. David Brooks 6.6
6. Charles Krauthammer 7.0
7. Glenn Beck 90.0
8. Frank Rich 1.7
9. Andrew Sullivan 14.8
10. Karl Rove 5.6
11. Sean Hannity 23.4
12. David Broder 0.4
13. Peggy Noonan 3.0
14. Rachel Maddow 31.0
15. Arianna Huffington 3.1
16. Fareed Zakaria 6.1
17. Maureen Dowd 6.2
18. E.J. Dionne 0.0
19. Bill O'Reilly 8.7
20. Keith Olbermann 18.2
21. Kathleen Parker 1.5
22. Glenn Greenwald 2.6
23. Nicholas Kristof 1.2
24. William Kristol 0.9
25. Robert Samuelson 0.7
26. Dick Morris 7.1
27. Eugene Robinson 1.4
28. David Ignatius 1.1
29. Josh Marshall 0.9
30. Mark Levin 20.0
31. Holman Jenkins 0.0
32. Bill Moyers 9.0
33. Richard Cohen 2.0
34. Jonah Goldberg 1.4
35. Gail Collins 0.7
36. Ruth Marcus 0.1
37. Steven Pearlstein 0.0
38. Joe Klein 1.1
39. Anne Applebaum 0.6
40. Michael Kinsley 0.3
41. Matthew Yglesias 0.7
42. Joe Nocera 0.3
43. Ronald Brownstein 0.0
44. Steve Benen 0.0
45. Lou Dobbs 10.4
46. Bret Stephens 0.0
47. Kimberley Strassel 0.0
48. Harold Meyerson 0.0
49. Ezra Klein 2.4
50. Hendrik Hertzberg 0.0

Here's how The Atlantic came up with their list of "the most influential commentators in the nation:"
To compile the list, our team spent months collecting and analyzing data, tracking a group of 400 names that eventually became our 50. Our in-house methodology relies on three streams of information:
  • Influence: We conducted surveys of more than 250 insiders – members of Congress, national media figures, and political players – asking respondents to rank-order the commentators who most influence their own thinking. These surveys were done with National Journal.
  • Reach: We collected and analyzed data to measure the total audience of each commentator.
  • Web Engagement: In partnership with PostRank, a company specializing in filtering social media data, the Wire analyzed top commentators on 16 measures of webiness, including mentions on Twitter and performance on popular social media sites like Digg and Delicious.
The final list is the result of an algorithm that brings together these three factors.

Rather than debate who is on the list, I'm going to use this list to answer a question I've been wondering about. Like Francis Galton in the 1860s, I like to take other people's lists made for their own purposes and use them to answer my own questions, such as: What are the demographics of opinion-molders?

Using somebody else's list to answer your question is less susceptible to bias than making up your own list. Presumably, the Atlantic folks weren't thinking about demographics when they came up with their methodology, so their list isn't biased by preconceptions about demographic balance. Therefore, whatever its flaws, it's a more neutral starting point for examining the demographics of the commentariat than any list I'd come up with after I came up with my question.

Here's my first crack at estimating the demographics of The Atlantic 50. I'll update this table on Friday as improved info comes in via the Comments.

Male White Black Asian Hisp Jewish RC Arm
Ort
Pro Mus

41.00 48.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 23.75 10.75 1.50 1.00 9.50 1.00

82% 96% 2% 2% 1% 50% 23% 3% 2% 20% 2%
Paul Krugman 1 1


1




Rush Limbaugh 1 1






1
George Will 1 1






1
Thomas Friedman 1 1


1




David Brooks 1 1


1




Charles Krauthammer 1 1


1




Glenn Beck 1 1



1



Frank Rich 1 1


1




Andrew Sullivan 1 1



1



Karl Rove 1 1






1
Sean Hannity 1 1



1



David Broder 1 1


1




Peggy Noonan
1



1



Rachel Maddow
1



1



Arianna Huffington
1





1

Fareed Zakaria 1

1





1
Maureen Dowd
1



1



E.J. Dionne 1 1



1



Bill O'Reilly 1 1



1



Keith Olbermann 1 1






1
Kathleen Parker
1






1
Glenn Greenwald 1 1


1




Nicholas Kristof 1 1




0.5


William Kristol 1 1


1




Robert Samuelson 1 1


1




Dick Morris 1 1


1




Eugene Robinson 1
1





1
David Ignatius 1 1




1


Josh Marshall 1 1


1




Mark Levin 1 1


1




Holman Jenkins 1 1






1
Bill Moyers 1 1






1
Richard Cohen 1 1


1




Jonah Goldberg 1 1


0.5 0.5



Gail Collins
1



1



Ruth Marcus
1


1




Steven Pearlstein 1 1


1




Joe Klein 1 1


1




Anne Applebaum
1


1




Michael Kinsley 1 1


1




Matthew Yglesias 1 1

0.25 0.75 0.25



Joe Nocera 1 1



1



Ronald Brownstein 1 1


1




Steve Benen 1 1








Lou Dobbs 1 1






1
Bret Stephens 1 1


1




Kimberley Strassel
1








Harold Meyerson 1 1


1




Ezra Klein 1 1


1




Hendrik Hertzberg 1 1


0.5


0.5

The first thing that leaps out at you demographically is the Lack of Diversity, the extreme under-representation of Non-Asian Minorities. Out of fifty, there's one black guy, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post (who out of this rather dull list is definitely one of my favorites -- sensible yet idiosyncratic). So, the list is 2% black, whereas the population is about 13% black

As for Hispanics, there's one Spanish-surnamed guy, Matt Yglesias, who has a white Cuban grandfather, but doesn't particularly consider himself Hispanic and instead identifies as Jewish-American, due to his three Jewish grandparents. So, we'll call the list 0.5% Hispanic, versus 15% of the population.

So, although non-Asian minorities are a little over 30% of the population, they are under-represented by an order of magnitude among the opinion elite.

"Asians" (following the Census Bureau's post-1982 definition when they took South Asians -- physical anthropology be damned! -- out of the Caucasian race and put them in with East Asians) are represented by Fareed Zakaria, who is from an aristocratic Indian Muslim background. (His father was #2 to Indira Gandhi in India's ruling Congress Party.) So, 2% Asian on the list versus maybe 5% of the population. By the way, I'm not surprised that the "Asian" representative is Indian rather than from the much more numerous East Asian community. South Asians tend to be more political and loquacious than East Asians.

So, the Atlantic's list is 96% white, which certainly fits my long-held theory that our media elites are clueless about the impact of demographic change in the American population because everybody they compete with is white. For example, a recent study found that 94% of the screenwriters of studio releases are white. At this level in American society, minorities are just exotics. As I wrote in 2006:
This doesn’t mean that the white elites view minorities as their equals. Far from it. Instead, they can’t conceive of them as competition. Nobody from Chiapas is going to take my job. Status competition in the upper reaches of American life still largely consists of whites trying to claw their way to the top over other whites, who, as an example, make up 99 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs. That’s why the media treats the outsourcing of hundreds of thousands of white-collar jobs to English-speaking, high-IQ Indians as a respectable cause for alarm, but not the insourcing of tens of millions of immigrants to perform blue-collar and servile jobs.

The Atlantic 50 is 82% male.

It's 6% out-of-the closet homosexual (Andrew Sullivan, Rachel Maddow, and Glenn Greenwald).

Religious ethnicity (i.e., the religious background of one's ancestors) is interesting. I haven't exhaustively searched each pundit's parents, but I looked enough to find out some things I hadn't known, such as that David Ignatius of the Washington Post is Armenian. Also, the father of Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times was an Armenian immigrant college professor from Romania. (I can't find anything about the background of his college professor mother Jane.)

There's a widespread assumption that any pundit with a German-sounding name is Jewish, although that's not always true. Is Kimberly Strassel Jewish? Steve Benen? I don't know enough to even guess.

Keith Olbermann was raised Unitarian and in this video tells a long story about how his father turned down a job at an anti-Semitic New York department store chain in the 1960s because they kept probing to see if he's Jewish. According to Olberman's version of the story, his father finally shouted that he didn't spend his Saturdays at temple because he wasn't Jewish and stormed out denouncing the department store executives for their anti-Semitism. And that's when the 10-year-old Olbermann learned to hate conservatives.

Perhaps, though, I wonder if young Olbermann didn't get the story backwards in some fashion. The notion of an anti-Semitic department store chain in New York City in the 1960s seems curious. Was there one? My search of Google for the phrase "anti-Semitic department store" finds zero hits. My experience at the UCLA MBA school in the early 1980s was that a professor had to warn the gentile female students that, much as they might be experts on fashion and shopping, they should not get their hopes up about making a great career at any of LA's department store chains because the best jobs were reserved for Jewish men.

Perhaps, the elder Mr. Olbermann was angry at the anti-gentilism of the department store executives, but since "anti-gentilism" isn't even a word, the story got stuck backwards in Olbermann the younger's head. Or maybe the elder Mr. Olbermann was part Jewish and didn't feel like apologizing for his ancestors' mixed marriages to the Jewish department store executives. Who knows?

Olbermann was raised in the Unitarian church, so I'll put him down as Protestant. (Yes, I know that Unitarians aren't even Christians theologically, but ethnically they are more or less Protestants.)

Skipping Strassel, Benen, and Kristof's mom, I'll take a guess at the religious background of 47.5 of the pundits and use 47.5 as my denominator.

Roman Catholics do fairly well, with 23 percent, plus another 3 percent Armenian Catholics (are Armenians Catholics? They aren't Protestants), plus 2 percent Eastern Orthodox (Arianna Huffington). Protestants are underrepresented at 20%. Jews make up about 50% of the Atlantic 50 versus 3% of the population, which means people of Jewish background are a little more than 30 times more likely to be in the Atlantic 50 as the average American. White Jewish men are at least 50 times over-represented.

The Jewish figure may go down a little as I hear about more individuals with Jewish surnames who are actually half-Jewish. And there are all the questions about what to do with adoptees, cuckoos' eggs, converts, and so forth.

This strong Jewish representation among the influential isn't new. In the 1995 book Jews and the New American Scene, the prominent social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset, a Senior Scholar of the Wilstein Institute for Jewish Policy Studies, and Earl Raab, Director of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University, pointed out:
"During the last three decades, Jews have made up 50% of the top two hundred intellectuals, 40 percent of American Nobel Prize Winners in science and economics, 20 percent of professors at the leading universities, 21 percent of high level civil servants, 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington, 26% of the reporters, editors, and executives of the major print and broadcast media, 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the fifty top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series." [pp 26-27]

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

September 23, 2009

How is "affordable housing" handed out?

Rich Calder in the New York Post answers a question I've long been asking: How is "affordable housing" (i.e., below market price housing) handed out? Who gets to decide who gets housing subsidized by the neighbors?

Despite a string of scandals that recently led Congress to cut off its federal funding, ACORN still stands to make millions of dollars off its support for Brooklyn’s controversial Atlantic Yards project, The Post has learned.

The left-wing organization -- longtime boosters of the $4.9 billion NBA arena and residential- and office-tower project -- says it expects to be tapped to market and help decide who gets to live in the coveted, but long-delayed, 2,250 affordable-housing units planned for Atlantic Yards.

This, after Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner helped bail ACORN out of financial trouble last September with a $1 million loan and a $500,000 grant, according to memos.

Although contracts are not yet been signed, Ismene Speliotis, executive director of ACORN’s New York chapter, told The Post her organization “expects to play a role in the marketing and lease-up” of the Prospect Heights project’s affordable housing to be underwritten by the city.

The work would include community outreach and screening people to determine qualified applicants, and then scandal-scarred ACORN would be entrusted with overseeing a lottery system to choose who gets the housing. Ratner’s firm is expected to manage the housing.

When asked how much ACORN might make off Atlantic Yards, the city’s Department of Housing Preservation & Development referred questions to Ratner, who said via a spokesman it wasn’t the “appropriate time” to make such “decisions.”

But Anita MonCrief, a former ACORN official-turned-whistleblower, estimates the anticipated deal could bring the group $5 million to $10 million annually over multiple years from the public and private sector based on other housing deals ACORN has nationwide.

Patti Hagan, a Prospects Heights activist and former operative for ACORN’s political arm, the Working Families Party, said she’s learned the hard way that “ACORN is a corrupt organization that had its silence bought by Ratner.”

As Ratner was quietly funneling $1.5 million in grants and loans to ACORN last year, his firm was reeling from the economic downtown and laying staff off and bringing in “value engineers” to shave Atlantic Yards' costs.

Critics and some project supporters began questioning whether Ratner could deliver the affordable housing and jobs he promised. But ACORN -- which was embroiled in an embezzlement scandal and owed millions of dollars in back taxes -- remained silent and accepted Ratner’s gift.


Sounds like nice work if you can get it.

It's a fascinating symbiotic relationship between capitalists and professional anti-capitalists. The capitalists aren't just paying protection money to avoid a few protesters. They are also buying ACORN's reputation as a leftist power-to-the-people street organization to demonstrate to center-left politicians that their giant project is good for the poor.

By the way, Ismene Speliotis? What kind of name is that? I found one politician with that name, and he's from Boston and his first name is Theodore, so I would guess it's Greek.

Have you ever noticed that leftist organizations that claim to represent poor people of color don't always follow strict affirmative action guidelines when it comes to their really good jobs? Like the Hispanic union SEIU, which is headed by Andy Stern. Or, for example, here's a picture of ACORN's founder Wade Rathke, who looks like if he ever went outside in the sun, he might burst into flames.

Or here's John Taylor, head of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (the "nation's social justice trade association"), who looks like a cross between John Connally and Nathan Lane.

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

My Taki's Mag review of The Informant!

In Taki's, I ponder Steven Soderbergh's latest -- The Informant! -- with Matt Damon as Mark Whitacre, the division president at Archer Daniels Midland who finked on the Andreas family's price-fixing cartels, along with the economics of anti-trust and the morality of manic-depression.

Read it there and comment upon it below.

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

September 22, 2009

My VDARE.com column on Ethnic Equality: Ethnicity for Everybody or for Nobody

Here's part of my VDARE.com column outlining a potential breakthrough in long-term political strategy:

Although we are constantly instructed in the teeth of all the evidence that race is “just a social construct,” the reality is that “Hispanic” ethnicity is certainly less of a natural inevitability. Instead, it’s just a bureaucratic construct of the Nixon Administration’s Office of Management and Budget.

While the government allows all individuals to self-identify as a member of a wide selection of races (including “Guamanian or Chamorro” on the 2000 Census short form), it only recognizes a single ethnicity: Hispanic. Nobody else is allowed an ethnicity. All others get lumped together as a nullity: merely Non-Hispanics. ...

The Hispanic electoral tidal wave you always hear about actually consists of an artificial agglomeration of people who don’t share the elemental ties of race, looks, national origin, cuisine—or even language ...

What “Hispanics” do share now is legal privilege. By granting Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Paraguayans etc. etc. preferences for being “Hispanic,” Nixon and the federal bureaucracy conjured up a pan-Hispanic political class dedicated to uniting together to defend this special treatment. ...

As long as Hispanic-only ethnicity exists, this Hispanic elite will side overwhelmingly with the party more favorable to affirmative action, the Democrats. Thus, while Republicans typically lose about 2 to 1 among Latino voters, they are outnumbered 12 to 1 among Latino elected officials.

Nevertheless, decisive action can declaw and defund a seemingly powerful lobby. For example, for 30 years “bilingual” educators grew more numerous and better organized off the taxpayers’ money. Essentially no politicians, least of all the hapless California GOP, dared take on this ever-growing lobby. In 1998, though, Ron Unz’s Proposition 227 put the abolition of bilingual education directly to the voters of California. And they agreed with Unz 61-39.

With the bilingual Ed lobby’s myth of inevitable triumph punctured, the Bush Administration’s 2001 No Child Left Behind Act—otherwise so softheaded—cut back on bilingualism’s federal mandates. Today, bilingual Ed is far from dead, but Unz’s well-placed blow has left it close to dead in the water politically.

How should we offer Ethnic Equality?

- Either, everybody should be allowed to choose an ethnicity—Italian, Okinawan, German, Guatemalan, Barbadian, Navajo, or whatever—and all laws and regulations, including the EEOC's Four-Fifths Rule, should apply equally to all ethnicities. (Administratively, data collection would be simple: the Census Bureau currently asks about “ancestry,” which could simply be renamed “ethnicity.”)

- Or, nobody should have a legally recognized ethnicity. Ethnicity would be treated by the government like religion rather than like race. You can win a discrimination lawsuit over disparate treatment due to your religion, but you can’t win one based on disparate impact on your co-religionists -- the government doesn't collect statistics on religion, so statistical impact can't be calculated. Hence, there are no religious quotas.

Note that the public doesn’t have to understand the concept of “disparate impact.” (How many New York Times columnists do you think understand it?) All that voters need is to have an opinion on the unfairness of one ethnicity being more equal than all other ethnicities.

And unfairness is something that people can’t help having feelings about.

Which form of Ethnic Equality should we have: Ethnicity for Everybody or for Nobody?

Well, in the spirit of bipartisanship upon which Barack Obama ran for President, I think we should let him make the choice between Everybody and Nobody.

What could be more just than that? It’s like when you have to divide one desert between two children. The fairest way is to announce that one will cut and the other will pick which piece he wants.

To make the deal even better, I’d go so far as to offer the President a historic compromise: permanent racial preferences for the descendants of American slaves (and for tribally registered American Indians, while we’re at it) in return for Ethnic Equality.

Mr. Obama, you can achieve a historic victory for the black race, you can fulfill the “dreams from your father,” just by choosing either Ethnicity for Everybody or Ethnicity for Nobody.

Take your time, Mr. President. Talk it over with the public! Let’s have a national conversation on ethnic preferences!

After all, as an old discrimination lawyer, that’s your field of professional expertise.

Seriously…taking preferences away from Hispanics in return for preserving them for blacks is the last thing David Axelrod wants Obama to talk about—an “alliance of the diverse” always threatens to dissolve into an oxymoron (which is exactly why making him talk about it should be a GOP priority).


Read the whole thing at VDARE.com and comment about it below

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

September 21, 2009

Why athletes go broke

Sports Illustrated ran a good article last spring on How (and Why) Athletes Go Broke, which an awful lot of them do. There are really two classes of jock bankruptcy -- the stars who made enough millions to live on for a lifetime and went broke spectacularly, and the guys who made only a million or two in a career that ended before they expected. The latter are especially prevalent in the NFL, which chews up players rapidly.

Wonderlic test scores suggest that NFL players average about 5 IQ points higher than their race's average. They tend to be above average in work ethic, too. And they're pretty good at following instructions. Merlin Olsen, the great defensive lineman who later starred on the long-running "Little House on the Prairie" TV show tells the story about his first day on the set. The director is telling him "Just act natural," until finally he explodes and explains that he's a professional football player not a naturally talented actor, but the one thing you can say about professional football players is that they are coachable, so get him a good acting coach who will teach him how to move and how to react on camera.

(By the way, I wonder what percentage of guys with the natural ability to make the big time never do because of lack of intelligence or lack of self-discipline, and thus ends up in jail or at fails to do the rehab to come back from an injury.)

So, that suggests that professional athletes are not all that unrepresentative of the average American's ability to handle a financial windfall, which may explain a lot about where the money went during the Housing Bubble.

The article makes the point about how athletes tend to invest their money into something tangible -- real estate, small businesses, or inventions -- rather than into the more abstract realms of finance.

Traditionally, the one sure-fire business for a congenial retired jock was to own a bar or a restaurant. If you have a lot of famous friends who want to have dinner with you while you schmooze with autograph-seeking patrons, you can make a nice amount of money off the tourist trade (as long as your accountant isn't conspiring with the manager of the restaurant to rip you off) who come to see celebrities in person. Michael Jordan, who does not have a congenial personality, did well off a restaurant in Chicago for awhile -- his solution was to have the backers build him a giant fishbowl-like private dining room in the middle of the restaurant where the masses could watch him dine with his friends without being pestered.

One issue is that big league athletes don't really have an off-season anymore in which they get work experience. Hall of Fame quarterback Roger Staubach spent his off-seasons from 1970-1977 working in the real estate business. He recently netted about $100 million from the sale of The Staubach Company. But nobody works at a future career in the off-season anymore because they all have to workout several hours per day -- the offseason is when you build muscle -- even if you're making the NFL minimum and probably will only play a few years.

A lot of NFL players go broke within a few years of retiring, but one thing to remember is that many of them don't know they've retired yet, and I'm not talking about Brett Farve. For example, I was recently looking at the Wikipedia lists of Jewish athletes, but it turned out to be hard to figure out how many are currently playing in the NFL since most of the ones who have recently played are currently listed as "a free agent," which suggests they hope their careers aren't over yet. Presumably, they spend a lot of time each day staying in shape, and maybe flying around the country to audition for coaches looking to fill a spot on the bench opened by an injury. That can be an expensive lifestyle, especially if you feel it's crucial to your confidence that you roll like an NFL player, not a member of the reserve army of the unemployed.

A problem that most black and many white pro athletes have is that they typically don't have any nuclear family members that they can (reasonably) trust to manage their money for them. In contrast, a high school friend of mine, whose father was a respected lawyer, became a CPA. One of his younger brothers grew up to be a star baseball player who graduated from Stanford and then made about $20 million in salary in the 1990s. With his brother managing his money and his father available for advice on legal matters, the ballplayer did fine. But the number of parasites lurking around jocks is legion.

I suspect a hidden resource of some powerhouse college athletic programs is that they tap their rich supporters to offer career paths to valuable kids who might not be pros. For example, one of the hidden strengths of the USC defense is that USC's fourth-string quarterback, the guy who in practice pretends to be the upcoming opponent's quarterback, is a tremendous all-around athlete named Garrett Green. Very few programs have a fourth-string quarterback who can credibly imitate in practice Terrelle Pryor of Ohio State.

Green went to my old high school, Notre Dame of Sherman Oaks, CA, where he averaged 11 yards per pass attempt and 10 yards per carry. I saw him outrun the entire defensive backfield of Compton Dominguez on an 80 yard touchdown keeper in the CIF championship game. Green would be a star anywhere outside of Division I (he was heavily recruited by Harvard) and would probably be a starter for the Vanderbilts and Rices of semi-big time football. But he doesn't quite have the height or arm strength to be a plausible NFL quarterback, so USC has him playing special teams, holding on field goals, filling in at wide receiver and defensive back, but mostly playing opposing quarterback in practice for the first team defense to work out on.

Green already has his USC bachelor's degree and is getting a Master's in real estate development. I wouldn't be surprised if USC boosters who are big time real estate developers made clear to him that he has a definite career path ahead of him in hometown real estate development if he sticks its out with USC as their utility infielder rather than transfer to somewhere where'd be a starter.

It strikes me that one competitive advantage a college football program could develop is to have superrich alumni offer to manage the money of pro athletes who attend their schools. If I was some single mom whose kid was being widely wooed by college coaches because he was a sure bet for the pros, I wouldn't mind if the Oklahoma St. coach, for example, said that T. Boone Pickens has volunteered to have his accountants provide very conservative money management for free until your son is, say, 28. It probably violates all NCAA amateurism rules, but it would seem like a reasonable perk to me.

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

Cuckoos Eggs

According to the rating system of Chessmetrics.com, for a brief period in the early 1970s, Bobby Fischer was the greatest chess player of the last 170 year.

Peter Nicholas in the LA Times has a long article, Chasing the king of chess, documenting his theory that Bobby's true father wasn't German gentile biophysicist Gerhardt Fischer, whom his mother Regina Wender, a Jewish-American, had married in Moscow in 1933. Instead, Nicholas argues that the biological father was Paul Nemenyi, a Hungarian Jewish physicist. Nicholas has pictures of the two men, Gerhardt Fischer and Paul Semenyi, for you to compare to the chess legend's looks. I guess I'd lean toward his theory, but neither man looks implausible for the role of Fischer's father.

That reminds me of John D. Gartner's theory in In Search of Bill Clinton: A Psychological Biography that the former President wasn't actually the posthumous son of the bigamous marriage of his mother Virginia (the first of her five marriages) to traveling salesman Bill Blythe (the last of his five marriages). Bill Blythe, a high school dropout, was in the Army in Italy nine months before Bill Clinton was born. In 1993, when the Washington Post revealed that the President had an unknown half-brother in California, Clinton shrugged it off.

Gartner feels that having one charming tramp for a parent, his mother is enough to account for the ex-President's charming trampiness, while having another charming tramp, his putative father, as a parent is genetic overkill and leaves open the question where Clinton got his more serious genes.

Gartner theorizes that a doctor in Hope (where Virginia was a nurse) named George Wright was the real father. Later, Dr. Wright had young Bill Clinton vacation with his family every summer at a lakeside house. Apparently, lots of people in Hope believe Clinton was Dr. Wright's natural son.

Wright was a dirt-poor farmboy who graduated from high school at 16, worked in his brother's cotton-field for four years to save up money for college, graduated in 2.5 years, and then graduated from LSU medical school, where a classmate recalled him as "the poorest person I met im medical school." He was a bright workaholic and a voracious reader of medical literature. Of Wright's three legitimate sons, one is a doctor, another a lawyer, and a third is a car salesman.

It sounds plausible that Clinton is the product of his mother and the bright, hard-working doctor. But, of course, that's not proof. One of the doctor's sons is willing to provide a DNA sample if the ex-President is ever willing.

This reminds me that the bane of the uneasy reign of King Henry VII, the Lancastrian founder of the Tudor dynasty, were the impostors, Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, who pretended to be the rightful heirs to the late King Edward IV, whose daughter Elizabeth of York Henry had married to end the War of the Roses after killing her uncle, Richard III at Bosworth Field. The impostors were handsome youths whom Yorkist malcontents seized upon to lead sizable military uprisings. Warbeck, who looked much like the famously handsome King Edward IV, might possibly have been an illegitimate offspring of that lusty monarch.

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

September 20, 2009

Mighty oafs from little acorns grow

From the San Antonio Express-News:
Cisneros advising ACORN in crisis

By Gilbert Garcia - Express-News

Former Mayor Henry Cisneros said Friday he accepted a request to serve on an advisory council for ACORN in order to help the community organizing group recently rocked by allegations of corruption.

Cisneros, who worked closely with ACORN on housing issues during his stint as HUD secretary, said ACORN representatives approached him “about six weeks ago” to help the organization deal with the voter-registration crisis. He added that his advisory role simply took on greater urgency this week with the emergence of the video....

Cisneros said the advisory council consists of “five or six people” and is attempting to recruit a prominent individual who can conduct a thorough review of ACORN.

“We're advising that they find someone who is regarded by the country as beyond reproach, a very high-level person, like a Sen. (George) Mitchell, who did this with baseball, or Warren Christopher, who weighed in after the riots in Los Angeles. Someone whose recommendations would be accepted.”

Hey, I know of a very high-level person who has worked closely with ACORN over the last 17 years: Barack Obama. He'd be perfect!

Cisneros, of course, is a poster child for how much destruction the corporate - community organizing - political connection can do. As Bill Clinton's HUD secretary, he signed the 1994 deal with Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide that Countrywide would behave like it was covered by the Community Reinvestment Act, then later joined Countrywide's board. As perhaps the best known Mexican-American politician, Cisneros provided Countrywide with "regulatory air cover" as it ran amok with ridiculous loans, all in the name of closing the minority homeownership gap.

From Mozilo's January 2005 press release:

"The $1 trillion We House America Challenge, expanded from $600 billion announced in 2003, embodies Countrywide's long-standing commitment to lead the mortgage industry in closing the homeownership gap for minority and lower-income families and communities," said Countrywide Financial Corporation Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Angelo Mozilo. ...

"We have also called upon one of our esteemed directors, the Honorable Henry Cisneros, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development and a former mayor of San Antonio. Henry will put to use his long and respected experience as an advocate for affordable housing who understands the benefits to communities of homeownership."

That sure worked out well for all concerned.

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