Here is one of the more shocking and unbelievable things I've ever read (Note: it was posted on MSNBC, so I suppose I shouldn't be that surprised!)  A newly released study found:

"...in 1966, only 19 percent of college students who were surveyed earned an "A" or "A-minus" average in high school, compared with 48 percent in 2009."

48% of American high school students recently earned (er, received) an A or A- average?

There is no way in hell that 48% of those students deserved those grades, for many reasons!

1) Numerous pieces of evidence consistently show that American academic performance has been decreasing substantially over the years.  This would imply that the percentage of students who earned A or A- grades in the past was much greater than 48% of students!  But that is not the case.  As the article states, only 19% of those in 1966 earned those grades!

2) It's extremely unlikely, if not nearly impossible, for a legitimate (meaning if the exams were a good measure of ability and marked accurately) bell curve distribution to produce half of the students earning the top grades!  If 48% receive an A or A- average, this implies that the overall student average is approximately B+.  A regular distribution should have a C average!

3) Perhaps most indicative of the invalidity of the figure is this: There is no way in hell that the percentage of top students would increase from 19% to 48% over the same period of time that the best measures of academic ability show the reverse pattern to be occurring!  For example, SAT scores have trended downward significantly since the mid 1960s!

In addition, it defies common sense that academic ability would have risen so much during a period of time when immigration from lower IQ countries increased rapidly!  Since the immigration floodgates were opened in the 1960s, immigrants started flooding into the USA from countries where the people score lower on IQ tests than do Americans.

As a result of this influx of immigrants (and their subsequent children), a greater proportion of Americans now have lower IQs.  As a result, the American student body has...well, to put it simply...gotten dumber!

So what accounts for 48% of the students receiving an A or A- average?  It can only be two things:  Either they've made the questions much easier than they have been in the past, or they're assigning grades that are higher than they've actually earned!

Foreign colleges should think twice about admitting Americans based on their grades!

I wonder if American colleges are engaging in the same practice that the high schools are?

Developments from the Casey Anthony trial today:

"Duct tape found on Caylee Anthony's skull was placed there after the toddler's body had decomposed, not before she died, a forensic pathologist testified Saturday as the murder trial of the girl's mother ended its fourth week on a contentious note."

"Rodriguez also said he planned to testify that a video prepared by a prosecution expert superimposing Caylee's living face with a picture of her skull and the outline of a piece of duct tape was an 'unheard of' application of technology meant only to provide initial identifications of remains."

The defense argues that the superimposition is an "unheard of" application of technology. Really?

Using that logic, and thinking back to when tape recordings switched from Beta to VHS technology:  Does that mean that a crime caught on camera couldn't be used as evidence because only Beta technology had previously caught crimes on tape?

Does the defense want us to believe that one can never use technology for the first time?

And even if a valid problem occurs when a technology is unheard of...well, the technology is no longer "unheard" of!  The prosecution has now been heard!

Today it was reported:

"Federal and local authorities are investigating an apparent airline security breach after an American Eagle Airlines employee allegedly used another man's identity to get a job as a flight attendant.

Jophan Porter, 38, has been charged with six counts of identity theft and three counts of forgery among a lengthy list of other charges, according to the Miami-Dade corrections website."

My advice to Jophan is this:

Next time, raise the bar!  I hear that you can become president of the USA with no ID!

And if it turns out that someone asks you for ID, you won't have a problem with forged ID, no matter how crude and obvious the forgery is!

The United Nations Human Rights Council today approved a gay rights resolution, by a slim margin of 23 to 19.

Which countries opposed the resolution?

"States that opposed the resolution are: Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Uganda."

Yes, some of the most backwards countries in the world appear on the list.

But don't I see some recipients of US financial aid on the list?

Why should US financial aid to them continue, given their disgusting opposition to human rights?

Think of it this way.  Let's say that some people were stranded on an island.  If the society was small enough, they wouldn't need to set up a government at all.  If it was large enough, they would need to assign certain people to handle certain tasks their society requires.  To create a government.

Think about what a government actually is.  It's a body set up by the people to assist the functioning of the people in society.  The people.

So why are those nineteen governments not serving their own people?

Even worse: Why were those nineteen countries selected to the Human Rights Council in the first place?

First, let's look at today's news, for context.  From CNN:

“'Everybody wants an agreement,' Biden told reporters after a meeting in the Capitol with the bipartisan group of lawmakers and other top Obama administration officials. 'That is sufficiently realistic to get to $4 trillion over a decade or so – in terms of reductions.'"

In light of the never-ending, seemingly annual debt and deficit talks, I did a bit of research into past debt reduction talks.

You may be surprised at what I found!

From 1992: 

"In a second defeat for the Administration, the Senate killed a Republican amendment striking a provision from the package that would have permanently extended two tax increases for wealthy taxpayers established in the 1990 budget agreement."

Republicans tried to prevent the tax increase on the wealthy from becoming permanent. OK, that's not really a surprise.  But that's not the surprise I was referring to!

Look at what Bush Sr. offeredas his debt reduction proposal:

"...campaign proposal offered by President Bush to permit taxpayers to earmark up to 10 percent of their income tax payment to reducing the national debt."

Yes, you read that right!  Bush Sr. wanted to allow taxpayers to generously, voluntarily, donate to reduce the national debt!

I bet there would've been a lot of takers for that offer!

As I've previously written, I still don't think either side actually wants to reduce the national debt.

The current talks, involving the Obama administration, are likely to be theatre.  Pure theatre.

Fox News has just released poll results:

"All in all, 49 percent of voters approve of President Obama’s job performance and 47 percent disapprove. Last month, 49 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved."

Wow. No, let me try again. Wooooooooooow.

More Americans approve of Obama's job performance than disapprove?

More Americans approve of Obama's job performance than disapprove!

How could any American, perhaps outside of his family and friends, approve of his performance?  He's a complete disgrace!

This isn't just my opinion...it's fact! It's the only logical conclusion, and is based on overwhelming evidence!

Looking at scandals alone, how could any reasonable person approve of Obama?

If you go to ExposeObama.com, there is credible, disturbing news being published about Obama every single day!


SCANDALS AND LIES PRIOR TO HIS ELECTION

There've been so many scandals he's been involved in, so many lies he's been caught making, that I've forgotten many of them in an attempt to stop my brain from exploding!

My article outlined many Obama scandals that occurred prior to his election. Here are just a few of them:

1) Canadian officials claimed Obama's team privately told them that Obama didn't mean it when he claimed to be against NAFTA.

2) Obama was caught in a lie, and his team actually admitted the lie, regarding the reasons for his disturbing 2001 vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

3) Obama broke his word by suddenly saying he would no longer accept public financing of his campaign.

4) Obama broke his word by decideding to grant immunity to telecom companies.

5) Obama, several times, radically changed his timetable regarding withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

6) Obama refused to wear an American flag lapel pin.

7) Obama was the only politician on stage who refused to place his hand over his heart while the National Anthem was sung.

8) Obama refused to strongly denounce and distance himself from unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers.

9) Obama dubiously claimed that he wasn't in church any of the many times Reverend Wright was caught on tape spewing anti-American venom.

10) Obama's wife Michelle said:

"'For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."


Given the long list of pre-election scandals, and given that Obama's popularity at that time was even greater than today's 49% rating, his pre-election popularity could be considered an even greater indictment of the psyche of some Americans than their current approval of him!

Consider that his approval ratings were even higher at that time, and then ask yourself this:

When someone becomes aware of his refusal to wear an American flag pin, what would make that person think to himself: "Oh, I think i'll vote for that un-American guy!"

When someone becomes aware that Bill Ayers was involved in bombing a police station and the Pentagon, when they become aware that Obama knew Ayers at least fairly well, and when they become aware that Obama, instead of strongly denouncing Ayers' actions, instead downplays knowing Ayers and weakly claims that Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood, what would make that person then think to himself: "Oh, I think i'll vote for that guy, a guy who doesn't find it important enough to condemn a bomber of a police station, a guy who was caught downplaying his relationship with a terrorist!  That guy sounds like he would be a great president!"

And so on, and so on.


SCANDALS AND LIES AFTER HIS ELECTION

It didn't take long for more scandals and lies to come to the forefront.

Several of Obama's nominees for crucial Cabinet level positions were forced to resign before they even took power!

Why?  Disturbing allegations and/or evidence came forward:

Bill Richardson was rumored to be under investigation by the FBI regarding bribery.  Tom Daschle also stepped down.  If I remember correctly, he had tax issues?  Another nominee, one who actually didn't resign, was Tim Geithner, even though he actually admitted not paying his taxes!  And there were at least one or two other nominees that were forced to resign.

Boy, I tell ya, I can just see how the majority of Americans approved of Obama, can't you?

Or was it the case that people who voted for Obama didn't follow the news?  Was that it?  McCain backers read the news, Obama backers don't? (Maybe they bury their head in the sand and say "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" over and over and refuse to acknowledge reality)?

And don't forget all the other post election scandals and lies surrounding Obama! Here are a few:

1) The early term scandal involving his Chief of Staff.  I believe it had something to do with housing?  I'm too depressed to even look it up!

2) Obama submitted the multi billion dollar economic stimulus legislation...but he went against his promise of transparency, and refused to remove earmarks from it!

3) Obama attacked Libya without Congressional approval, going against his own word.  He may have broken the War Powers Act as well!

4) One of the czars Obama hired, Van Jones, stepped down after it was exposed that Obama had hired an admitted communist.

5) After the 2010 midterm election's shift in power, Obama threatened to become a dictator, threatening to use Executive Orders to avoid democracy and write the rules himself.

6) Obama refused to be transparent and release the names of visitors to the White House.

7) Obama reported his own country (actually, a state in the country, Arizona) to the UN Human Rights Council, after Arizona attempted to step up efforts to enforce immigration laws!


There have been so many other scandals surrounding Obama...but I don't need to list them all in order to make my point.  I haven't even gotten into the irrationality of Obama's economic, fiscal and social policies...but that's another article! Or perhaps a book!


ARE SO MANY AMERICANS CLUELESS?

How is it that 49% of Americans approve of Obama's performance?  Are these 49% of Americans part of the 50% of Americans that score below average on IQ tests?  Isn't it true that even a dim person should be intelligent enough to realize that Obama is disturbing?

In light of everything Obama has done, I can think of several explanations for the disturbing approval by those 49% of Americans:

1) They are either extremely unintelligent, or

2) They almost never read the newspaper, or

3) They almost never watch the news on television, or

4) They almost never speak to friends, family or coworkers about politics, or

5) They haven't read any of the many bestsellers exposing Obama, or

6) They simply like the idea of approving of Obama, or

7) They find it difficult to believe that a mild mannered, excellent speaker could be so corrupt, so they act illogically and choose to approve of him, or

8) They voted for him and have trouble admitting to themself they now disapprove of him, or

9) They believe that Obama's policies have benefitted them in the short term, regardless of how his policies will affect them long term, and regardless of how his policies affect the entire country inboth the short term and the long term.

10) They actually don't approve of Obama, but are so afraid of Obama's corrupt reputation that they claim to approve, for fear of retribution, or

11) They are evil.


Maybe citizens should be required to attend monthly educational classes, classes that summarize the month's political news.  That would require enough space to accommodate many citizens; if there are early space limitations, perhaps the priority should be to give the educational spots to those who need them most, Obama backers!

I'm serious about this.  Wouldn't that really help?

OK readers, the 74th smartest person in the world is now going to chime in on California's same-sex marriage debate!

Basically, a District Court Judge has just ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in California.

I'm happy with the result. I'm in favor of same-sex marriage.

However, I'm not convinced that the end result was achieved through proper process.  Let's walk through this:

The public voted for Proposition 8, which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman was valid in California.

Judge Walker then found Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. 

Walker later declared that he is homosexual.

Critics declared that Walker may have had a conflict of interest in ruling on a case that could impact himself, and critics then filed a motion:

"The motion argued that if Walker and his partner ever wanted -- or thought they might want -- to marry, he 'plainly had an 'interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding,' ' it said, citing federal law regarding disqualification of judges."

On June 14 Judge Ware upheld Walker's ruling:

"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings,' Ware ruled."

Now, if it's true that federal law states that a Judge must recuse him or herself if he or she has an "interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding", then this case should've been an easy one to rule on, should it not?

After all, how could Judge Walker not have had an interest in having an extra option, the option to marry his partner?

Walker wouldn't even need to have been planning to marry his partner at the time of his ruling...it's in his interest to simply have the option of choosing to marry in the future, regardless of whether such plans were yet in motion!

How could having an extra option not have been in Walker's interest?

So, a very strong argument supports the motion!

And what of Judge Ware's comments?

"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision..."

Capable versus incapable?  I thought the federal law required one merely determine whether the Judge had an interest in the subject at hand? Why does it matter whether the Judge is capable or incapable of making an impartial decision?

Sure, it's implied that the problem with having an inherent interest in a subject is that it could lead to an inability to be impartial...but does the law actually reference "impartial capability", or does it simply reference whether a Judge has an interest in the case?

And what if the law states that impartiality is something to be considered? Using this context, was Judge Ware correct in his ruling?

No!  Judge Ware said that it is not reasonable to presume Walker was "incapable" of impartiality.

But for the motion to be successful, why would one need to presume Walker was "incapable"?  Wouldn't one merely need to show that, given the potential interest in the outcome of the case, Walker might've been incapable?  Or that Walker likely was incapable?

Why did Judge Ware impose the burden of needing to show, with 100% certainty, that Walker "is incapable" (my emphasis)?  How could anyone, even a neuroscientist, ever meet that burden?

Using that criteria, it's impossible for the motion to have won!

It's sad to see a Judge apparently being unwilling or incapable of acting logically.

I guess things could be worse.  Remember, I certainly believe that same-sex marriage should be legal.

So, if a Judge is going to use backward logic, at least the end result is a positive instead of a negative, right?

When I read things like this, I don't know whether to laugh or cry:

"President Obama listened to dozens of jobs-spurring recommendations suggested by his jobs council Monday -- and then he made one himself on deficits and debt.

'We need to solve our medium and long-term debt problems, not just for abstract reasons, but because they're a concrete impediment to growth and jobs,' Obama said at the second meeting of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The jobs council met in Durham, N.C., to discuss different ideas for jobs creation, which mostly revolved around things the federal government can do to speed up or cull back regulation of private businesses."

Really? That's the best Obama's team can come up with?

Ideas about how to add, remove or alter government regulation of businesses?

Ideas about solving debt problems?

Well, the two ideas are at least admirable, but are extremely unlikely to increase business hiring by much, if at all!  (And what reason is there to believe that Obama actually wants to reduce debt, anyway?  Most of his actions suggest he actually wants to increase the debt).

Obama's administration obviously doesn't have people that are intelligent enough to solve the problem. The problem is easily solvable.

Here's a lesson for Obama:

Businesses feel the need to hire workers when their revenue is increasing.  When businesses sell more goods and services, they need more workers to fulfill that demand.

If an American business increases revenue by selling only to Americans who switched brands from another American business, that does nothing for overall American employment levels.

The business with the increased revenue will hire more Americans, but the business that lost market share will lay off more Americans.

When you look at the aggregate level of business revenue nationwide, there is only one way businesses can increase their revenue overall.

They must sell more to foreign countries than they buy from foreign countries.  Otherwise, American businesses will slowly shrink over time.

This has been occurring for over 37 years straight.  37 years!

Why is it that several consecutive presidents, along with their staff, apparently don't understand that nothing will stop the American decline until they start selling more than they buy from foreigners like China?

About This Series Of Articles

I first became aware of Tim Wise when he was featured on CNN, where he discussed public outrage regarding an article of his.  The article is titled "An Open Letter to the White Right, On the Occasion of Your Recent, Successful Temper Tantrum".

I've since briefly reviewed his website, and have come to the conclusion that he's likely not a good person. 

I get the feeling that he tends to write primarily, or wholly, about white racism.  Look at the titles of his books:

"White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son"

"Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White"

"Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections From an Angry White Male"

"Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama"

"Colorblind: The Rise of Post-Racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity"

Again, I get the feeling that he tends to write primarily, or wholly, about white racism.  I have a bit of a problem with that.  Wouldn't it be better to focus on combating racism in general, regardless of race?

In fact, might his apparent focus on white racism actually be, to some degree, counterproductive to his efforts?  After all, if you're a white person, and you heard him highlight white racism yet downplay or ignore non-white racism, would you not feel he is acting unfairly?

Feeling that he's acting unfair, might many whites tend to ignore his message, since they dislike the speaker's seeming unfairness?  I would think so.

If Tim Wise really wants to eliminate white racism (or racism in general, for that matter!), would it not be fair to address racism by non-whites also?

Before getting into in-depth analysis of his articles, I suspect that Tim Wise has hatred in his heart, and I suspect that he likely makes many illogical arguments.  Why do I suspect this?   Well, I suspect that he has hatred because of the contempt shown by some of his statements.

I think it's likely the case that people with hatred in their heart are more likely to make illogical arguments.  I am very confident that left-wingers are also more likely to make illogical arguments; however, I suppose it's possible that Tim Wise doesn't consider himself left wing.

I value fairness and logic.  And perhaps most of all, I value good intentions.  I'm not so sure Tim Wise is a person with good intentions.

Therefore, I have created a series of articles, each of which will review and analyse one of his articles.  I have a feeling that they will expose, not support, Tim Wise.

Let's see what I, the 74th smartest person in the world, discover!

Below, Part Three makes observations from a third Tim Wise article!

The article I will review below was written by Tim Wise as a followup to his unpopular article "An Open Letter to the White Right, On the Occasion of Your Recent, Successful Temper Tantrum".

That's the article I reviewed in Part One of this series. After reviewing that article, my conclusion of Part One stated:

"Based on this article, Tim Wise sure seems to be an irrationally hateful person, don't you think?"

About the article at hand:  I'm going to comment on a few interesting observations I made.

I don't disagree with Tim's main thrust of his article: That many people misunderstood or were unable to comprehend the intentions of his article.

Nevertheless, within the article I found several illogical points Tim has made, and I'd like to point them out.  Why?  Well, I find them interesting, and...I think Tim Wise is likely not a good person, and hence he's likely deserving of my critique!


Observations From: "Reading Comprehension 101: Text, Subtext and the Politics of Misinterpretation"

1) Tim Wise writes:

"I think I know what it feels like to be the person who writes the reading comprehension questions for those standardized tests we’re so fond of giving, if quite a bit less fond of taking. After all, think about that person for a minute. He or she writes four or five paragraphs for inclusion on the PSAT or whatever, knowing full well that when asked questions about the passage they just read, millions of those who are taking the test will not get the point..."

"Will not get the point"?  Isn't the point of answering a question simple?  Isn't the point to answer correctly?

So Tim thinks that millions of people taking the test would not even realize that it's in their interest to answer the question correctly?

Perhaps Tim instead meant to suggest that millions of test takers wouldn't be able to decipher the answer by using information provided by the question.  That's quite different from not getting "the point"!


2) He writes:

"It must be difficult to write, all the while aware that large numbers of those reading your work will utterly fail to comprehend it."

Why does Tim believe it would be difficult for a test writer to write questions while knowing that many test takers will answer incorrectly?

Isn't it the intention of the test writer to create questions of varying degrees of difficulty, with the intention that progressively fewer numbers of people will be able to correctly answer progressively difficult questions?  Why would that be particularly difficult, given that it is a requirement of the position?

I could see it being frustrating if a principal was to address an entire school about an important, yet difficult to understand, topic.

But one of a test writers' principal aims is to ensure that large numbers of people aren't able to figure out how to correctly answer certain questions!


3) He writes:

"I’ve long known that the same kind of miscomprehension often greets my own writing. First, I focus on touchy subjects like race, and whenever we delve into such matter as this, there is a chance that emotional reading may take the place of reasoned study and analysis. In other words, we see what we want to see, based on wherever we are at the time of the reading, emotionally, and with regard to the issues at hand."

True.   Just look at the absurd reactions to my article about Obama's anti-Americanism.

However, it's safe to say that my review of Tim's unpopular article included quite a bit of reason and analysis.  Don't you think?  ;)


4) He writes:

"Interestingly, the same phenomenon is true for writers, whose work product — or 'art' on our better days — also reflects our emotional state at any given moment."

So Tim states that "the same phenomenon" that occurs for readers also occurs for writers: Emotion overrides reason and analysis.

Oh, wait a minute.  Oops.  Tim states that "the same phenomenon" occurs (emotion leads to lack of reasoning), but when he actually spells out the phenomenon as it occurs for writers, he refers to the emotional effect yet doesn't refer to its effect on reason!

Well, we already know from Parts One and Two that Tim Wise isn't a very reasoned person.  Is it his emotions that cause that?


5) He writes:

"I am yet amazed at how difficult some find it to decipher the words I have caused to appear on the page, and to really interpret what they mean, as opposed to that which they do not."

I agree that many readers were probably unable to decipher the words that Tim wrote.

What is interesting, however, is this:  Tim seemingly also had a problem deciphering!  He was apparently unable or unwilling to decipher how illogical some of his arguments are! (With the exception being that he did decipher the logic yet chose to lie).

Here is an example I pointed out in Part One (my words):

"And notice that Tim Wise refers to 'whites', not 'white conservatives'.  The implication is that all whites, including white liberals, are bred to believe that America is for whites.  But this implies that being bred to believe America is for whites isn't enough to ensure that whites will act to ensure America is for whites.  After all, don't white liberals supposedly avoid the effects of their breeding and act to ensure that America is for all?"

And another doozy, again in my words:

"Tim Wise is saying that there is nothing original about the white conservatives of 2010...after all, there have always been whites who decried black rights; just look at the whites circa 1856!

Is it rational to imply that white conservatives of 2010 feel similarly about black rights (not to mention stringing blacks up from trees!) as the whites of 1856? Of course not!

"Further, is it rational to imply that the Supreme Court in 1856 represented the views of typical whites?  Perhaps...but don't be so quick to make that judgment.  Congress currently has a very low approval rating, and I wouldn't be surprised if powerful elements of government have often been unrepresentative of some majority white views, if only because powerful positions tend to favor the few over the many!"


6) He writes:

"To wit, after my latest piece on the election results went viral, there have been more than a few folks who have written to say how appalled they were by my 'attack on white people,' or my 'attack on America,' or my 'hateful diatribe' in which I 'gleefully anticipate the death of the elderly' and the 'initiation of violent payback of whites writ large by people of color' once whites become a less prominent portion of the national population, a few decades hence. In other words, putting aside the inherent absurdity of this interpretation — I am white after all, as are my kids, as is my wife, as is my momma, all my immediate family and my best friend too — some who read the piece believe against all logic and in the face of plain English (however aggressive the piece may be), that I have announced, excitedly, the coming of a glorious race war and the end of white people."

I agree that Tim's article didn't advocate or foresee violence against whites and/or conservative whites.  In fact, his article stated:

"And they know how to regroup, and plot, and plan, and they are planning even now — we are — your destruction.  And I do not mean by that your physical destruction."

However, I do find this passage of his to be curious:

"We just have to be patient.  And wait for you to pass into that good night, first politically, and then, well…"

It seems like he was implying that a continuation of the sentence would've referred to the literal passing and death of white conservatives.

If so, why would he refer to the death of white conservatives?  After all, if conservative whites lose political power before they die, and if Tim's goal is for conservative whites to lose political power, why would he reference the death of white conservatives?  Is that a goal of his?  I'm not suggesting that it certainly is a goal of his, but it was a curious statement of his.

Also curious is this: Why would the white conservative movement lose political power before they die?

Wasn't Tim's point the opposite?  That the shrinking proportion of conservative whites among the national population (in part due to their death) would lead to a decline in the strength of conservatism?

After all, wasn't that the point Tim was trying to make when he wrote the following?

"It’s OK. Because in about forty years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it."

And wasn't that his point when he wrote this?

"The kind of math that proves how your kind — mostly older white folks beholden to an absurd, inaccurate, nostalgic fantasy of what America used to be like — are dying."

So yes, he was referring to the composition of America changing through death.

However, he is incorrect in determining the cause of the changing composition of America.  It is not primarily (and perhaps at all) because white conservatives are dying at a faster rate than colored people.

(A side note: I doubt white conservatives have a shorter life span than non-whites, given that whites have a longer life span than non-whites.  Even if white conservatives are mostly elderly whites, and even if those conservative, elderly whites have a shorter lifespan than white conservatives born today will, I still doubt that elderly white conservatives have a lifespan shorter than non-whites born today will.  Regardless, the lifespan issue is not the primary driver).

The changing composition of America is due primarily to legal and illegal immigrant populations being composed largely of non-whites.  Another primary factor is the birth rate of non-whites being higher than that of whites.


7) He writes:

"So perhaps we should start with the obvious, for those a bit too slow to begin the reading of the essay with, ya know, the title. For if one reads the title, 'An Open Letter to the White Right, On the Occasion of Your Recent, Successful Temper Tantrum,' one would almost immediately discover an important nugget of relevant information; information that rather clearly spells out who is being critiqued in the piece, and thus, to whom my ire is being directed. It is not white people. It is not the white elderly. It is the white right, as in right-wing."

I agree that Tim's title, as well as some qualifiers throughout his article, are enough to make it clear that the article is aimed at the white right.

However, at points Tim refers specifically to whites, and not white conservatives, and that makes it understandable that some people may have gotten the impression that Tim was anti-white, even though technically Tim's article was address to the white right.

Here's an example of what I mean (my italics):

"In forty years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Opie-Taylor-Down-at-the-Fishing Hole cornpone bullshit that you hold so near and dear to your heart.

There won’t be any more white folks around who think the 1950s were the good old days, because there won’t be any more white folks around who actually remember them..."


8) He writes:

"To believe that I am condemning all white people in this essay requires an incapacity for rational thought almost too stunning to contemplate."

I would say that rational people should've understood the article was aimed at the white right.  

But given Tim's broad references to "whites", I wouldn't use the word "stunning" to describe the magnitude of irrationality on the part of those who didn't understand!

Given the large number of illogical statements of Tim's that I pointed out in Parts One and Two, it does seem hypocritical of Tim to point out the irrationality of readers.


9) He writes: 

"I specify the white right, and I even go on to note that a 'sizable minority' of whites (including myself) will, in the future, stand against the kind of reactionary whiteness embodied by those to whom I was directing my verbal wrath."

Actually, he never used the term "sizable minority".  He wrote:  "decent size minority".  Similar meaning, yes.  But did Tim not actually go back and read what he wrote?


10) He writes:

"Nor does my mention that this bunch of older right-wing white folks are 'dying' — nor my insistence at various points that this will be a good thing for the nation and the world — mean that I hope they die soon, or am cheering their physical obsolescence. Simply put, it is just a fact: generations come and go, and within a few decades, all those white folks who have the luxury of clinging from first hand experience to the nostalgic past of the 50s, and the days we often refer to as 'American innocence' will be gone. And although I wish them all a long and healthy life (even if I might prefer that fewer of them vote)..."

"Long and healthy life?"  Hmm.  I think it's fair to doubt if he is genuine about that, given the points I raised in 6) and 7).


11) He writes:

"And I think it will be a good thing when we are no longer hampered as a society by those who have the capacity to so thoroughly misremember a time that they themselves lived through, and in which so many of them did nothing to move the country forward (and in fact, often stood in the way of human and civil rights for so many)."

It was certainly wrong of many whites to stand in the way of civil rights.  However, I don't think it's necessarily (without knowing more about the potential actions available to whites) fair to blame the majority of whites that did little or nothing to advance civil rights, because humanity often seems reluctant to engage in unpopular change.  It's fair to critique humanity's limitations in that regard, but I think it's inflammatory to imply that whites might be more susceptible than non-whites.

Although I am one of the few people that are willing to speak out in the name of justice, I can acceptthat many are unwilling todo the same, for fear of harming their personal circumstances.


12) He writes:

"If half the population in the U.S. will be people of color in, say, 40 years, then even a decent minority of progressive white folks, combined with a heavily progressive population of color will be able to eviscerate the white right, in political terms."

I find it alarming and incorrect to refer to the left as "progressive".  More on that here.


13) He writes:

"I will grant you, some of the wording I chose for the piece was intemperate, and upon greater reflection, there are no doubt words and phrases I could have chosen that would have conveyed this same core message, perhaps more effectively."

I wish he would provide several specific examples! (One example follows, as you keep reading his article).


14) He writes:

"It is for this reason that I went back and made a few edits to the piece."

Edits?  So the article I reviewed had already been edited?  Just how intemperate was the article prior to being edited?


Conclusion

This article provided me with several more entertaining, curious and/or illogical statements made by Tim Wise.  The collection is adding up!

Coming soon: Part Four!

About This Series Of Articles

I first became aware of Tim Wise when he was featured on CNN, where he discussed public outrage regarding an article of his.  The article is titled "An Open Letter to the White Right, On the Occasion of Your Recent, Successful Temper Tantrum".

I've since briefly reviewed his website, and have come to the conclusion that he's likely not a good person. 

I get the feeling that he tends to write primarily, or wholly, about white racism.  Look at the titles of his books:

"White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son"

"Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White"

"Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections From an Angry White Male"

"Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama"

"Colorblind: The Rise of Post-Racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity"

Again, I get the feeling that he tends to write primarily, or wholly, about white racism.  I have a problem with that.  Wouldn't it be better to focus on combating racism in general, regardless of race?

In fact, might his apparent focus on white racism actually be, to some degree, counterproductive to his efforts?  After all, if you're a white person, and you heard him highlight white racism yet downplay or ignore non-white racism, would you not feel he is acting unfairly?

Feeling that he's acting unfair, might many whites tend to ignore his message, since they dislike the speaker's seeming unfairness?  I would think so.

If Tim Wise really wants to eliminate white racism (or racism in general, for that matter!), would it not be fair to address racism by non-whites also?

Before getting into in-depth analysis of his articles, I suspect that Tim Wise has hatred in his heart, and I suspect that he likely makes many illogical arguments.  Why do I suspect this?   Well, I suspect that he has hatred because of the contempt shown by some of his statements.

I think it's likely the case that people with hatred in their heart are more likely to make illogical arguments.  I am very confident that left-wingers are also more likely to make illogical arguments; however, I suppose it's possible that Tim Wise doesn't consider himself left wing.

I value fairness and logic.  And perhaps most of all, I value good intentions.  I'm not so sure Tim Wise is a person with good intentions.

Therefore, I have created a series of articles, each of which will review and analyse one of his articles.  I have a feeling that they will expose, not support, Tim Wise.

Let's see what I, the 74th smartest person in the world, discover!

Below, Part Two reviews a second Tim Wise article!


Review of : "Trump Card: White Denial, Racial Resentment and the Art of the Heel"

So, the title implies that Donald Trump may have engaged in denial. Given that I consider Trump to be one of the most intelligent celebrities, I'm certainly curious as to what Tim Wise will write about Trump!  However, based on the illogical arguments exposed in Part One, I'm not getting my hopes up!

1) He writes:

"There is no one in the world more creative than a white person trying to deny their racism, after having said or done something incredibly racist."

Really?  So Tim Wise believes that racist whites are more creative in denying their racism than are racist blacks who deny their racism?  Is Tim suggesting that whites are more creative than blacks?

Also, take a close look at Tim's wording.  It implies that all whites may be racist.  After all, if Tim doesn't believe all whites are racist, wouldn't it have made more sense to write the following?

"There is no one in the world more creative than a white racist trying to deny their racism, after having said or done something incredibly racist."


2) He writes:

"Whether it’s the Orange County California Republican activist who recently sent around the e-mail with the picture of the Obamas portrayed as chimpanzees..."

Portraying a black couple as chimpanzees is likely to have been a racist act, given that obviously racist people have a history of associating monkeys with blacks (as have some Muslims with Jews).  If the person with the chimpanzee sign was not racist, she should have thought twice about making the chimpanzee comparison.

However, it's understandable that one might want to disparage someone by comparing them to an animal, as a way of suggesting that they are a lesser form, and it is unfortunate that such a comparision is automatically assumed to be racist.

Regardless of likelihood, one can't assume (as I assume Tim would) that comparing a black couple to chimpanzees is certainly more racist than a comparison between blacks and pigs.  After all, wouldn't most people prefer to be compared to a more human-like chimpanzee rather than a pig or a crocodile?  Perhaps the only reason to assume a chimpanzee comparison is worse than a monkey comparison is if there's something about a black being compared to a chimpanzee that is more hurtful than being compared to a pig..  

So, what's Tim Wise implying?  Is he implying that comparing a black to a chimpanzee is more hurtful than a comparison to a pig?  

If so, why would the comparison to a chimpanzee be more hurtful?  Aren't the more hurtful comparisons ones that involve a nugget of truth?  Is Tim Wise implying that there is something about chimpanzees that blacks can relate to?  Perhaps.  If so, I find it terrible of him to make such an inference!


3) He writes:

"...or the folks who show up to Tea Party rallies with signs picturing the president as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose, no one ever wants to admit the obvious: that they are knuckle-dragging, pathetic bigots. In the case of the above-mentioned Republican activist, she relied on the old stand-by defense; namely, that she has black friends. "

I would think that a picture of Obama portrayed as an African witch doctor may have been fairly likely to have been a racist act, but I think the likelihood of it being racist is far less than the likelihood of the chimpanzee comparison being racist.

Why? Well, there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and was instead born in Kenya.  It certainly wouldn't be out of place to portray him as an African!

As for the witch doctor aspect, it certainly wouldn't be unusual for someone who believes Obama to be illogical to compare that aspect of his behavior to that of a a superstitious, unscientific witch doctor!

About both 2) and 3).  And I can't stress this enough.  Isn't it very plausible that in both instances the whites acted in the manner they did simply because they knew it might be considered racist, and hence, one of the most hurtful methods of attacking Obama?

Since when do someone's hurtful words or acts mean that the person actually believes them?  Haven't you often said something hurtful to a family member, knowing that they would find it hurtful, even though you didn't actually believe in the validity of the claim?  Didn't you ever say something to someone because you knew the topic was sensitive to them?

Tim: Where's your head at?  Did you not think of the reasoning I provided?


4) He writes:

"Of course, she can’t name any of them, because she’s lying; and more to the point, this isn’t a defense to a charge of racism. It would be like a heterosexual man using sexist slurs in the workplace, or pinching female co-workers on the ass, and then insisting that he wasn’t sexist because after all, he has a wife."

If the person with the chimpanzee sign couldn't name any black friends that she claimed to have, I agree that she was probably lying about having black friends.

However, the comparison made by Tim is illogical.  A white racist is certainly unlikely to choose black friends, because a true racist (someone who dislikes blacks regardless of their individual personality and/or actions) certainly wouldn't choose to be friends with blacks!  In contrast, a sexist man is reasonably likely to be married, if only as a result of wanting companionship and children. It's possible for someone to sexist and look down on women to a certain degree, but enjoy elements of their companionship.  But Tim, why would a racist who dislikes blacks choose to be friends with blacks?


5) He writes:

"But the most recent award for a 'White Man Doing Racist Shit and then Lying About it' has to go to Donald Trump. Although Trump insists that he is possibly the 'least racist' person on the planet, and that he actually gets along good with 'the blacks,' whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean, his actions suggest otherwise. Putting aside the testimony of a former colleague of Trump’s, who has noted that the Donald once said that laziness was a 'trait in blacks' (an accusation Trump never denied at the time it was made)..."

Why does Tim Wise believe that it is racist for a white to believe that blacks may be lazier than whites?  Does Tim believe there is no difference at all between the percentage of whites and blacks who are lazy?

I'm not suggesting that it is wise to actually make such a claim about laziness...but if they claim is made, it certainly doesn't suggest the speaker is racist!

If there is a difference between the groups, why would that be considered racist?  If one makes an observation that they believe to be true, how could that imply racism or hatred on the part of the person making the observation?

Making such a claim about laziness doesn't even really say much anyway!  (This is beside the point, but a point I'd like to make).  If one believes one group is lazier than the other, what does that mean?  Does that mean that 10% of whites are lazy and 15% of blacks are lazy? Or does it refer to 10% / 50%?  I'm sure it's much closer to the former than the latter. 

In fact, the opposite could be true.  Whites could be lazier than blacks.  But I suppose Tim's world is very rigid, allowing very little room for error.  Except, of course, when he's the one making the countless errors! 

I've observed what I perceive to be many differences between many groups: males/females, blacks/whites, Canadians/Americans/Europeans.  Am I sexist / racist / nationalistic for believing what my eyes see and my ears hear? Of course not.  And it's a disgrace for Tim to imply that.


6) He writes:

"...his recent rants indicate a definite willingness to push buttons of white racial anxiety and resentment for political gain.  First, Trump jumped on the birther bandwagon, suggesting that President Obama may not have been born in the U.S. This, despite the fact that state officials in Hawaii had long verified that he was born there..."

Rants?  Who's the one ranting?

So Tim Wise is willing to believe Obama was born in Hawaii simply because the people Obama has influence over say as much?  Does he see no potential conflict of interest?  Does he not know that government has a reputation for being corrupt, regardless of the party in power?

Worse, would Tim Wise say that such evidence outweighs the fact that Obama spent millions of dollars defending lawsuits that could have been avoided simply by releasing a birth certificate?


7) He writes:

"...and the fact that the Honolulu newspaper had printed a birth announcement a few days after Obama was born. To believe the president wasn’t born there would require a belief that his mother had purposely concocted a conspiracy to place a phony birth announcement: an act that would have made no sense unless we believe that she somehow knew, even in 1961, that her son — her black son — was going to run for president one day and would need the cover of 'natural born' citizenship."

Really?  Is Tim Wise actually making this argument in all seriousness?

So, a birth announcement can only be placed by mothers who can predict the future presidential success of their son?  That's funny, because I would've thought that many everyday mothers would consider that placing a fraudulent birth notice would simply increase the chance their son would receive the benefits of being considered an American instead of being considered a foreigner! (Those benefits being Social Security, avoiding deportation, Employment Insurance, etc).


8) He writes:

"What makes birtherism racist is simple: it has been part of a larger narrative that has attempted to 'other' Barack Obama, as a secret Muslim, a foreigner, an 'anti-colonial' African (in Dinesh D’Souza’s terms), and as someone who doesn’t view America the way the rest of us (read: white people) do."

The biggest problem with this argument is Tim's claim that it is racist to point out someone who may be a foreigner.  How is it racist to claim that someone is a foreigner, if one really believes the person is a foreigner?

And isn't it fair to assume that a foreigner would not view America as Americans would?  Why would they?  And isn't it fair to make that point?

And why would it be odd to portray Obama as a secret Muslim, given that Obama himself basically admits that he is a Muslim?  Obama admits his father was Muslim, and Muslims aren't baptized; they become Muslims automatically if their father is Muslim!

And why does Tim refer to Dinesh D'Souza? He isn't white.  Of course, one doesn't have to be white to be racist, but given the title of Tim's article, and given his reference to whites just a few words after his reference to D'Souza, isn't it fair to assume that Tim was referring to white racists?


9) He writes:

"No white president has ever had their citizenship questioned in this way, nor would they."

Yes, perhaps no white president would ever be likely to have their citizenship questioned as much as a black president.

But it's ridiculous to imply that treatment equal to that given Obama would result in white presidents (at least recent ones) having had their citizenship also questioned.  I don't recall any other white presidents refusing to release a document of which its provision is mandatory for children who wish to enter Little League baseball!  So why would the citizenship of white presidents have been questioned?


10)  He writes:

"Now, with the birth certificate thing settled among remotely sane people..."

Sane?  Would a sane person make the arguments Tim Wise does? Perhaps a sane but biased, hateful and/or less intelligent person!


11) He writes:

"Trump has switched gears, casting doubt on Barack Obama’s academic performance and suggesting he didn’t deserve to get into the Ivy League schools he attended; namely, Columbia and Harvard Law. Although this plays directly into the long-running narrative so common on the white right for the past forty years, to the effect that black folks are getting things they don’t deserve because of racial favoritism, Trump insists it has nothing to do with race. Of course not. "

Apparently Obama graduated from Columbia without honors.  I think it would be reasonable for Trump to wonder how a graduate without honors could gain admission to one of the top law schools in the world.  I think it would be reasonable for Trump to wonder about the Columbia grades, given that Obama refuses to release them.  Don't you?


12) He writes:

"Neither could it possibly be about race that Trump would question Obama in this way, despite never having raised the issue of academic merit with any white president or politician, like, for instance, George W. Bush, who was a mediocre student (at best) in prep school and Yale, and actually bragged about his piss-poor performance to Yale students when he gave the commencement address there after becoming president."

Did Tim ever think that perhaps Trump raised the issue of Obama's academic merit simply because he dislikes Obama having censored his documents? Isn't one more likely to question someone they dislike, regardless of their race?

Isn't it possible that Trump might not have questioned Bush's entrance into Ivy League schools not because Bush is white, but because Trump understood how Bush gained entrance (perhaps through his family connections).  In contrast, isn't it possible that Trump questioned Obama's admission simply because Trump didn't understand how Obama gained admission?

After all, although affirmative action assists unqualified blacks, it's reasonable to question whether affirmative action would go so far as to provide a very unqualified black, like Obama, with entrance to Harvard, as opposed to providing a boost to a mildly unqualified black, such as a black who graduated with honors but with a GPA lower than otherwise academically identical whites.  And given that Trump may have found it hard to believe that affirmative action would've provided Obama with such a huge benefit, wouldn't it be natural for Trump to question how Obama was admitted?


13) He writes:

"By suggesting Obama might not have deserved to be in the Ivy League (despite that whole Magna Cum Laude thing at Harvard Law, which is not awarded, after all, by pulling names out of a hat)..."

So let me get this right. Tim believes that someone is deserving of admission into a school based on the grades they earn after admission, and not the grades they earned prior to admission!  Wow!

I'd love to see a world like that, because it would mean that every single person admitted to an Ivy League school would graduate with above average, A and B grades!  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could achieve that?  In Tim Wise's world, apparently we already have achieved that!


14) He writes:

"He might be, but that isn’t the point: it’s that he, like far too many white Americans seems to buy into a narrative that people of color are getting things for which they aren’t qualified: slots in good colleges, positions on the Supreme Court, or even the presidency itself."

How could one not believe many blacks have gotten things they didn't qualify for?  After all, that's the definition of affirmative action, to provide an artificial boost. Now, other than the blacks whom received an artificial boost, there have been many blacks that were unfairly discriminated against.  But that's beside the point, because the point Tim Wise made was simply to question whether some blacks have received an unfair boost, not to question whether other blacks have been discriminated against!


15) He writes:

"Rush Limbaugh, for instance, insists that Obama only won because he was black and that a combination of racially-motivated African Americans and guilt-ridden white liberals voted for him on that basis."

Obama won the election with 54% of the vote (The electoral vote is actually the vote that counted, but my point is still valid, for argument's sake).

If 4 percentage points of people (4 among the 54) voted for Obama for race related reasons, then it's true that Obama's victory was a result of his race! That's indisputable!

It's not unreasonable to believe that 7.4% (4/54) of those who voted for Obama did so for those reasons.  Is it?

Now, it wouldn't be correct to say that Obama only won due to his race, because other aspects of his character influenced voters, but if 7.4% of those Obama voters did vote for him because of his race, it is nevertheless true that Obama would've lost the election had he been white!


16) He writes:

"That a guy whose only physical exercise in 20 years had been washing down oxycontin with water would deign to weigh in on who was and was not a talented football player was precious to say the least."

So is Tim Wise saying that only athletes should be allowed to be coaches, because it's impossible for a non-athlete to ever be a better coach than any athlete?


17) He writes:

"Never mind that according to a Century Foundation study from a few years back, for every student of color who benefitted at all from affirmative action at a selective college there are two whites with lower scores and grades than the average, but who were admitted anyway because of family connections or parental alumni status."

That's a strange comment.  "Average" what?  There are two whites that are admitted with scores lower than the "average" admission score?  Of course there would be!  Don't almost all averages have that characteristic?

There will always be many people with grades above and below the average scores who are admitted for legitimate reasons.  Otherwise, every single admission would have the exact same grade! Have you ever seen that occur?

But let's assume, for arguments sake, that Tim actually meant something other than what he wrote.  Let's assume he meant that for every affirmative action receipient there were two unqualified whites admitted due to family connections and family alumni.

That's a problem.  I don't agree with using that criteria for admission!  But what does that necessarily have to do with racism against blacks? Nothing!  That has to do with faulty criteria!

It's natural that more whites would benefit from family connection and family alumni criteria simply because...there are more whites living in the USA!

Actually, given that the ratio of whites to blacks is about 6 to 1 in the USA, wouldn't Tim's citation of the 2 to 1 ratio actually suggest that the family connection criteria does not, for any reason, favor whites (if it did, you'd expect to see a >6 to 1 ratio), but rather suggest that family connection criteria favors blacks (as you'd expect to see with a ratio of <6 to 1)?  Why did Tim Wise cite research that claims that family connection and family alumni criteria favor the admission of blacks over whites?

It's bizarre to see Tim presenting an argument that contradicts the point he attempts to make.


18) He writes:

"Never mind that even when job applicants are equally qualified in terms of experience and education, applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely than those with black-sounding names to get a callback for an interview.

Never mind that white male job applicants with criminal records are more likely to get called back for an interview than black men without one, even when all other qualifications are indistinguishable.

Never mind that African Americans with college degrees are twice as likely as their white counterparts to be out of work, Latinos with degrees about fifty percent more likely than comparable whites to be out of work, and Asian Americans with degrees about 35 percent more likely than similar whites to be unemployed."

I'm not surprised to read that these scenarios are occurring.  And the scenarios are unfortunate.  But does he not think that if blacks were in the majority blacks would discriminate against those with white sounding names?  Why rail against whites specifically?  Why not rail against any group that does this? 


19)  He writes:

"Never mind that corporations run by white folks receive far more taxpayer largesse (in the form of subsidies and specialized tax breaks) than all poor folks combined, let alone the poor of color."

Without providing figures to compare the percentage of taxes each group pays, his statement offers little.  Tim might have a good point; but you could never know based on the limited amount of information he provides.


20) He writes:

"Never mind that General Electric paid less in taxes last year than undocumented immigrants, despite record profits."

The statement itself tells you little.  Along with knowing how much tax was paid, you need to be able to compare the income levels between the two groups, and you need to examine what positives society may have gained in exchange for GE receiving the tax credits!


21) He ends with this: 

"And never mind that Richie Rich, who was set up in business by his father and inherited tens of millions of dollars from his daddy to help him build his own fortune, thinks he is somehow qualified to pontificate on the extent to which others may or may not have earned what they have — which really is the textbook definition of irony, and by irony, I mean balls." 

Why would whether someone receives an inheritance be a factor that limits their ability to determine whether others have earned what they have?  What a bizarre statement. 


Conclusion 

Similar to the findings in Part One, I think it's fair to say that one must conclude that Tim Wise is either 1) Not that bright, 2) Bright but not bright enough, 3) A liar, regardless of his intelligence level 4) Irrational, regardless of his intelligence level.

In fact, wouldn't it be reasonable to claim that Tim Wise is at least fairly likely to be a racist?  When you think about it, doesn't he seem to make negative, unfounded, illogical statements about whites based on their skin colour, regardless of their accuracy? 

If the negative statements he makes about whites aren't simply based on their skin colour, aren't made regardless of whites' individual actions, then why does he make such illogical statements? Is it a lack of intelligence?

And to think that such a person does (I assume) provide such bizarre views to audiences, it's very disturbing indeed!

Coming soon: Part Three