Featured Post



Thursday, November 24, 2011

Affirmative Action: Reply to Kahlenberg

What Should Obama Do on Affirmative Action?
November 21, 2011, 5:53 pm
Chronicle of Higher Education
See Chronicle for his article proposing a method for President Obama to save affirmative action.
My reply:

There is an unreality about this article.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant for hiring, promotion, admission to university, etc. all based on merit.  Sen. Hubert Humphrey declared in the debate prior to passage that hiring to fill quotas or to achieve a racial balance would be illegal under CR law.  However, personnel is policy, and soon the EEOC required preferences and racial preferences and quotas (using euphemisms like goal and timetables).  Liberals became so brazen that Mary F. Berry, then on the CR Commission, announced that the CR laws did not apply to whites.  So much for equal opportunity for all.

Now Obama's Dept. of Justice does not believe that the Voting Rights Act applies to white people.  Whistleblower J. Christian Adams exposes the ideology that now pervades the Obama-Holder Justice Dept. in his new book, INJUSTICE.  Even under Bush, some Leftist DoJers opposed taking to court a Black Democrat in Mississippi who violated the Voting Rights Act with various types of fraud.  And the same crowd became more determined with Obama's victory in 2008.  They demanded the DoJ lose the case against the New Black Panther Party and one of its operatives who flagrantly sought to intimidate voters in Philadelphia with their Party uniforms, the batons, and threats.  Most charges were dropped because Obama's crew was not interested in defending the right to vote of white people.  Just as the CR law of equal opportunity became the race preference law, now the Voting Rights law will be the "right of minorities to vote" law and not apply if whites are intimidated.

How does Kahlenberg expect Obama to abandon race preferences in university admission?  Remember, Obama has marched with leaders of the New Black Panther Party - some of whom call for the killing of the white race.  Obama's campaign rhetoric may have been race neutral, but his appointments and his policies have been consistently anti-white.  And any kind of affirmative action, enforced by the present crew in place, would continue to be just as anti-white as it is now.------Hugh Murray

Monday, November 21, 2011

"J. Edgar" Movie AND Man

“J. Edgar” - Home Movie?
Rev. by Hugh Murray
            Basically, the film was a love story.  Unfortunately, it is not told in a linear manner, and at times one must guess as to the time a scene is occurring.  It did show some of the pettiness of Hoover – requiring agents to dress in a certain manner, cut mustaches, etc.  The earliest event shown is the bombing of Attorney General Palmer’s home after WWI.  Hoover is clearly anti-Bolshevik, and aids in the round-up of radicals for deportation.  The film might have devoted more to the role of his bureau during Prohibition.  The anti-gangster campaigns of the late 20s and 30s indicate how Hoover increases the power of his agency.  However, more should have been shown how he vindictively sought to destroy agents who did more to capture the gangsters and yet were destroyed by Hoover out of jealousy.  Nothing is shown of FDR’s campaign against pro-German elements as WWII approached.  All know that Japanese were rounded up and interned in the US, but so were German and Italian nationals.  Was the FBI involved?  I don’t know, but possibly.  Communists spies stealing atomic or other secrets is ignored in the film, as is the whole Cold War era.  And to protect the US from subversion, the FBI researched to ferret out homosexuals from government jobs.  Had Eastwood included this crusade, the movie would have had a certain irony.
            Hoover’s hostility to ML King is emphasized, but nothing about the surveillance of the Communist operative that led to the FBIs wiretapping King.  The assassination of John Kennedy is passed quickly, with nothing about the FBI’s role in investigating the killing.  It is clear in the film that Hoover used files to blackmail President’s, - Eleanor Roosevelt who had a close (lesbian) woman friend, JFK who romanced a beautiful East German gal (possible spy), etc.  Hoover’s blackmail files (without specifics) are used to threaten President Nixon to keep Hoover on the job.
            Nothing in the film extends far beyond the generally accepted story.  What did the FBI know about Lee Harvey Oswald, for example?  Various agents have alleged Hoover knew much more, but Eastwood does not speculate on this issue.  Did Hoover use the media to out suspected Communists during the Cold War?  Was his relation to Sen. Joe McCarthy as condescending as the one-line in the film?  Jim Marrs alleged that in the 1930s the Mafia had proof of Hoover’s affection for his assistant Tolson, and the mob blackmailed Hoover so the FBI would ignore the Mafia.  For whatever reason, Hoover did maintain that there was no organized crime in the US.
            Instead, the film focuses on the love story of Hoover and Tolson, and the efforts of Hoover’s mother to prevent him from being a daffodil.  Happily, Eastwood did not have Hoover attending a party in a bright, red dress, as alleged by a woman with mob connections.  But he does place Hoover in his mother’s dress and beads.  It seems clear that Hoover was gay, but there is little evidence that he was a cross-dresser.
            For several decades Hoover was among the most powerful men in America.  And for decades, he was accompanied by another man; all this in an era when homosexuality was deemed a crime and a pathology.  At times, Hoover’s FBI was charged with ridding the government of subversives and homosexuals.  Yet, Hoover and Tolson were an item aat race tracks and restaurants.  Communists hated Hoover and the FBI.  I recall in the 1960s how a radical friend sneered that three leading conservative, anti-Communists, Cardinal Spellman of New York, Sen. Joe McCarthy, and J. Edgar Hoover were all homosexuals.  (McCarthy had married, but a bit later in life).  At the time I discounted the charge as simply an example of smearing the political opponent (all sides do it).  However, now I wonder.
            This film “J. Edgar” is not a bad one.  However, Hoover was far too powerful for so long and was so complex that this effort fails to do the subject justice.  Eastwood’s attempt might better be retitled, “J. Edgar Hoover: the Home Movie.”
                      ADDITION    ADDITION   ADDITION

I posted this review on amazon.com.  Then I read another review by Herbert Calhoun who judged Hoover a monster.  I commented on his review, he replied, and the debate ensued.  Below are the comments from amazon.com:
Your initial post: Nov 21, 2011 11:40:26 PM PST
Comparing Beria of the Soviet secret police to J. Edgar Hoover simply shows how much better we in the US were. While Beria and his predecessors in the NKVD were rounding up and killing millions of Soviet citizens, Hoover's reign seems extremely mild by comparison. There were in the US spies aiding the USSR, to build atomic bombs and steal our military and economic secrets. Some were caught. Few were executed. It was far easier to be a dissident in J. Edgar's America than in Beria's USSR.

In reply to your post on Nov 22, 2011 3:50:23 AM PST
I did not miss this point. 

My reasons for drawing the "loose" comparison was that eventually Beria was brought to task for his excesses. But in the U.S. no one who makes a political (or an economic) mistake -- no matter how damaging to our democracy -- ever pays for it? My point is that it was a difference in degree, not in kind. And Mr. Hoover's was a perfect case in point.

And further to your point. Hoover would not have caught the atomic spies if Elizabeth Bentley had not for her on reasons exposed the cell she was in. Only after that was Hoover able to wrap-up most, but not all of the group. Claus Fuchs, you may recall, finally confessed under MI-5 pressure, many years later after he had lived a long trouble-free life.

I would not be the one to defend Miss Hoover under any circumstances.

You replied with a later post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 9:19:18 AM PST 
Last edited by you on Nov 22, 2011 9:19:50 AM PST
J. Edgar was not Miss Hoover. Marx noted that quantitative differences when large enough become qualitative differences. The massive numbers rounded up into gulags and killed by Beria's agency were of a qualitative difference from Hoover's infractions in the US. And some of his attacks on civil liberties came at the orders of Presidents like Truman, whose Attorney General's list of subversive organizations led to firings and discrimination. That is a long way from Beria and Stalin.
Even if Hoover were connected to a plot in Dallas that resulted in the JFK assassination and cover up, and I do not assert that he was, then he was involved in a coup - but still nothing so deadly as the Soviet secret police.
From the 1920s until 1972 with J. Edgar in power, America was still one of the freest nations on earth. Had he been the monster you portray, America might be a different, dismal, regimented state.

In reply to your post on Nov 22, 2011 12:07:19 PM PST
The film was not about Russia, which at the time was a communist country, but the U.S. which reputedly throughout Hoover reign was a democracy. I suppose you think of Ms. Hoover as a hero. That of course is your prerogative. But based on his record, he was little more than a monster -- who had no respect for democracy, or for the U.S. He was a sick racist, as are most of the people who see him as a hero.

You replied with a later post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 3:44:40 PM PST
Consider those who held similar positions elsewhere during J. Edgar's leadership in the US. It is clear that the Soviet system and Beria were incomparably worse. And what about Europe? For some of Hoover's time in leadership, the chief of Interpol was a gentleman by the name of Heinrich Himmler. By comparison, Hoover was certainly no monster. Was he racist? Probably no more so than Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who instituted segregation in federal agencies. Probably no more so than Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt who vacationed in segregated Georgia and was allied with Democratic Senators like Bilbo of Mississippi. Probably no more so than Democratic President Truman, who denounced Martin Luther King, and said if agitators came into his store like the sit ins, he would throw them out. Was Hoover sick? He was vindictive toward possible rivals; he created an agency with rigid rules. He was gay and had his agents investigate if federal employes were gay, which might cause their termination. But he was following the rules of the time.
We do not live in a perfect world. Hoover had his faults, but he was no monster. He created an agency that outlived him and that has been relied upon by the nation's leaders. They found that he had performed a good job. And sometimes doing a good job is heroic.
Edit this post | Permalink
1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to your post on Nov 23, 2011 10:00:37 AM PST
Mr. Murray,

Unless it is the Communist, I see you do not told those responsible for not making a mockery of our values very high. You have a very peculiar way of defending Hoover, our highest law enforcement officer who was most probably being blackmailed as a closeted homosexual by the very mob he was mandated by the American people to catch.

A man who while he was supposed to be catching spies, but instead was racking up stats on car thefts. A man who had all of Washington fearful of the sexual dirt he had accumulated in his files on others, while the mob had pictures in their files on him sucking on his boyfriend's private parts. Our chief law enforcement officer, who was implicated in assassinating American citizens, including even possibly the President?

Maybe by your way of thinking and according to your rules of morality, that is not a monster. For mine, it is.

We thus must agree to disagree.


Hugh Murray adds - The great courage and determination of the bureaucrat, J. Edgar Hoover

There is another aspect to Hoover utterly neglected by the film. Under President Franklin Roosevelt, many Communists and others obtained jobs in the federal government. Some were spies. When some Soviet operatives turned, and told the FBI, Hoover believed them. He sought to alert other agencies that spies were in their employ. Under Roosevelt, it was clear, the government did not want to know about such matters. Hoover pressed on.  A good bureaucrat often seeks to please his superiors. Hoover had the courage to continue to annoy them, warning them of the danger.

Similarly, when the Roosevelt government sought to return Soviet dissidents to our ally, the USSR (and probable death), Hoover intervened to save some.

Of course this is not in the movie. When does Hollywood ever criticize Franklin Roosevelt?

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Gov. Perry's Gaffe

Below are some of my comments at various web sites.

In a previous Presidential debate Reagan went blank and did worse than Gov. Perry.  Yet, Ronald Reagan was an excellent President.  I am not a big defender of Gov. Perry, but attack him on issues, not because he abolished a Cabinet post in his brain before he might do so in reality.  His gaffe about 3 cabinet positions is the kind of forgetfulness every public speaker experiences sometimes.  Unfortunately, the liberal media seek to spin this against Perry in all of Obama's 53 states.
And a “senile” Reagan was still a better President than Carter and many of the others.

Thursday, October 13, 2011
At the Border, on the Night WatchBack to Article »
It is quieter than it used to be for Border Patrol agents at an outpost in Arizona, but a night on the swing shift was still plenty busy.

Hugh Murray
October 13th, 2011
1:09 am
If a small country like the German Democratic Republic could maintain its borders so that almost no illegals could get in, then surely the US can and should do the same. Build the fence, electrify the area, use mines if necessary, and shoot those who cross illegally.
Expand the border patrol, providing more jobs for Americans. Deport the illegals, providing even more jobs for Americans. (A real jobs bill, unlike that of Obama.) Shoot the invaders. And America could begin to prosper once again.

The New York Times
Single-Sex Schools: Separate but Equal?
A new study debunks the benefits of segregation by sex in the classroom, and says the practice does more harm than good. Should it be illegal?
A Necessary Option
October 17, 2011
Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Her books include "Who Stole Feminism?" and "The War Against Boys."
October 17th, 2011 11:49 pm
A friend's young boy was enrolled in a New York public school. The woman teaching, undoubtedly a staunch feminist, refused to call on boys even when they held their hands up showing they knew the answer. After some time of this attempt to encourage girls by discouraging boys, my friend withdrew his son from the public school. Even if that class was theoretically a co-ed one, in reality it was meant to demean young males. One hopes it was an exceptional case.
For thousands of years, education was segregated by sex, and mankind made progress. Mixed schooling is the experiment of the last century, and it is too early to really judge the results. The educrats seem to believe it more important that a child learns not to stereotype and accept a liberal world-view, than that the pupil learn the fundamentals of math or science. I contend learning the basics in math, history, science, language is far more important than learning the politically correct lessons required by social engineers. And this can be done in traditional same-sex classrooms, or in the newer co-ed ones. The parents, not Washington, should decide.

New York Times
Friday, November 11, 2011
Readers' Comments
In College, Working Hard to Learn High School MaterialBack to Article »
The City University of New York has started a program offering intensive remedial instruction for reading, writing and math.
Hugh Murray
October 24th, 2011
9:42 am
Why does America waste money on high schools? If the students who have such high grades and do so well on the Regents cannot pass into regular university courses, the previous years of education have been a waste. Why not eliminate high school? Students could go from 8th grade directly to CUNY. And then CUNY could change its name to the City High School of New York. This would save the taxpayers millions of dollars; the students years of wasted life; and employers time wasted trying to understand why graduates know so little.
New York Times
Readers' Comments
The Court and the Next PresidentBack to Article »
The makeup of the Supreme Court is an important issue in the presidential race, and it is not being truly addressed.
Hugh Murray
October 29th, 2011
8:43 am
All can agree that the next presidential election is important for the composition of the US Supreme Court and the quality of life for all citizens. Will illegal aliens continue to pauperize America because courts have dictated that hospitals must tend to their afflictions, schools must educate them (though often poorly accomplished), and their children transformed into citizens? Will anti-white and anti-male discrimination continue and expand under the banners of affirmative action and diversity? Will professors continue to be bullied, fired, or not hired because they discuss or research controversial topics like IQ? Will the courts continue to obstruct the deterrent effect on criminals of public executions? Will the courts continue to encourage crime by creating unreasonable rules for law officers?
To restore sanity to American society, to revive the American nation, the court needs more judges like Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Thus, the way to a better America is through the defeat of President Obama and his progressive (in the tradition of Henry Wallace) government.

New York Times
Readers' Comments
Flat Taxes and Angry VotersBack to Article »
More Americans are questioning the Republicans’ flat tax plans, which keep rewarding the rich.
Hugh Murray
October 31st, 2011
10:58 am
A few decades ago Dem. Jerry Brown also proposed a flat tax. The reason is clear that many Americans of all parties demand a flat tax - it will be fairer to all. With the monstrous tax code of today, who believes that the rich pay more? The loopholes on hundreds of pages of fine print make it impossible to know what people pay or should pay. The present system of exemptions for this, for that, and for hundreds of pages more of this and that is a lobbyists dream. A flat tax will make everyone pay their fair share - a given percentage of their income.

New York Times
 - New York Times blog
readers' Comments
Science, Faith and First Principles: A Response
Why our faith in reason is not blind.
Hugh Murray
November 4th, 2011
9:54 am
In my review in Polity, 1990, "Nazi Science," I accepted the research of others like Proctor, who stressed that the Third Reich published more medical journals than those of any other nation, that more medical doctors headed universities there than elsewhere, and research was encouraged and subsidized. I concluded by remarking that it is a cliche that the victors write the history; AND we should add that the victors also determine what is science. For example, all see a problem in growing unemployment and poverty. Suppose a scientist suggests the best way to end poverty was to kill the poor, and proposed scientific methods to aid in the project? Or to determine if the disabled feel pain by inflicting pain upon them? Most readers immediately reject such experiments? Yet, such experiments can surely be justified on a "scientific" level. And if one replies that a majority reject them, what happens when the majority have accepted similar outrageous acts (at least by today's fashions)? I've read that in one country today one can dine on a human fetus. Who would object? The majority do not object.
Science does not stand alone. It is part of a wider culture and partakes of the wider values. It is a dialectical process, whereby the culture determines what science is allowed (can a dead body be cut up?), while science can in turn change the values of the culture. They interact.
New York Times
Readers' Comments
Our Reckless MeritocracyBack to Article »
The ruling class proves, again, that it is too smart for its own good.

Hugh Murray
November 6th, 2011
6:12 am
There is an elite, but is it determined by merit? Soon after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 64, enforcement was turned on its head. A bill meant to insure hiring based on qualifications and merit was quickly turned into one demanding hiring of "marginally" and un-qualified minority and female applicants over the best qualified white male. The elite, on the EEOC, the US Supreme Court, and Presidents beginning with Republican Nixon demanded this. No wonder the American workforce declined in quality. No wonder factories moved abroad. No wonder employers abandoned inner cities. Merit was denied in favor of racial balance and diversity. Corruption is not new and is part of the Fannie May-Freddie Mac schemes to allow politicians to grant housing to those who cannot afford it and do not merit it according to their credit histories. The elite of the past was not always merit based; the elite of the present has done everything possible to prevent real merit from going to the top. Instead of merit, "diversity," quotas, and corruption reign.
The New York Times
Should Voting Be Mandatory?
Or are there already too many people casting ballots?
November 8th, 2011 12:08 am
Recall the great success of the mandatory approach: think of the Soviet Union! If one did not vote, there might be consequences concerning one's job, one's apartment, one's "freedom." And while we're at it; make mandatory voting for the party of the Left. Then we could really enjoy a Stalinist revival.
Or, we can continue the old, messy American way of voting for whom we want; and if we don't care much about any of them, then not voting at all.
Let those who care about voting, vote. Those who have to be forced to vote, probably don't care, and will probably vote for all the wrong candidates for all the wrong reasons.