Angry citizens fight ethnic lobbies in Austin, Tex.

By David Paulin

Angry citizens in Austin, Tex. are giving local ethnic lobbies a taste of their own medicine.

It's the latest twist in a controversy that has gripped this liberal and open-borders city -- the state's capital --since last week. That's when two local radio hosts engaged in a politically incorrect discussion of illegal immigration during their morning talk show.

Last Monday, the radio station canceled the "Todd and Don Show" following vocal complaints from a local Hispanic group and self-appointed "Hispanic leaders" who felt insulted by the show. But since then, some angry listeners who felt the cancellation was a case of political correctness gone amuck have fought back. They began boycotting one of the radio station's big advertisers, according to an article in yesterday's Austin American-Statesman.

Ironically, the station, KLBJ-AM, had caved into the vocal Hispanic lobbies after they had threatened to boycott the radio station.

The KLBJ advertiser being boycotted is a mortgage broker and small-business owner named Chris Penders. He has "lost out on $28,400 from four clients who chose not to close on mortgage refinance loans because they were upset with KLBJ owner Emmis Austin Radio for canceling the talk show after protests from Hispanic leaders," the Statesman reported.

The paper also noted:

Callers upset over the cancellation of the show far outnumber the other side, said Penders, whose business has about a dozen full-time employees. Penders said he's fielded about 20 e-mails and 15 phone calls about the controversy since Tuesday. He said he is worried that the boycotts will put him out of business.

Referring to the boycotts, Penders -- a long-time KLBJ advertiser -- told the Statesman: "What's really outrageous here is we haven't done anything wrong."

That some Austin residents are taking on the city's bullying ethnic lobbies calls up an observation that Thomas Jefferson once made: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." And in Austin, that means public-spirited citizens have decided they've had enough of ethnocentric ethnic groups that have traditionally gotten their way, until now. Those lobbies and self-appointed "Hispanic leaders," to be sure, do not speak for every American of Mexican descent in Austin, far from it. In fact, many have themselves left comments at the Statesman's website complaining about the talk show's cancellation.

An earlier article at American Thinker's blog -- "Ethnic Lobbies Handed Victory in Austin, Texas" -- provides additional background about the controversy.

America's New Surgeon General: Is she 'Fat with Hunger'?

By David Paulin

President Obama's pick of Alabama physician Regina Benjamin as Surgeon General -- a woman whose ample figure has raised eyebrows -- comes amid news reports that obesity among black Americans is at an all time high and is far more problematic for blacks than for other ethnic and racial groups.

How times change. In the early 1960s, socialist author Michael Harrington discussed obesity among poor Americans in his seminal book on poverty, "The Other America." Harrington, though no dietitian, explained away an odd contradiction unique to America: Why were so many poor folks fat – not skinny? It was, he wrote, because they were "fat with hunger, for that is what fat cheap foods do."

Harrington's book came on the eve of President Johnson's ill-fated "War on Poverty." Some observers credit Harrington's book with having been a "driving force" behind the epic program's initiatives that changed American's culture and helped expand its deficit -- Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, expanded Social Security benefits.

Today, interestingly, hardly any credible discussion of obesity does what Harrington did – positing a singular link between obesity and the claim that millions of Americans are "fat with hunger" because they're able to afford only "cheap foods." Indeed, recent reports about America's obesity epidemic -- which is hitting blacks and Hispanics the hardest -- focused attention mostly on behavior and culture.

As a recent article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported:

Here are the hard numbers: Blacks have a 51 percent greater prevalence of obesity than whites, and Hispanics have 21 percent greater obesity prevalence than whites, according to researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Obesity rates also vary geographically. Among blacks and whites, the highest rates of obesity are in the South and Midwest.

Among Hispanics, obesity rates were highest in the South, Midwest and West, according to the July 17 issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, a CDC publication.

"There are at least three reasons for these findings," said study author Dr. Liping Pan, a CDC epidemiologist. "The first is individual behavior." For example, blacks and Hispanics are less likely to engage in physical activity compared with whites, she said.

There are also differences in attitudes and cultural norms, Pan said. "For example, black and Hispanic women are more accepting of their own body size than white women," she said. "They are happy with their weight and less likely to try to lose weight."

The third factor is the limited access to healthy affordable food and safe places to engage in physical activity....

Presumably, neither Regina Benjamin nor many other members of the comfortable black middle-class suffer from the third (and least common) cause for the obesity epidemic: "limited access to healthy affordable food and safe places to engage in physical activity."

Perhaps it's time for Harrington's publishers to issue an updated edition of "The Other America."

This was originally published at The American Thinker.

Global Warming and Giant Squid

By David Paulin

It was bound to happen: Some jokers in the mainstream media would make a connection between global warming and all those giant, monster squad swarming off San Diego. Sort of reminds me of one of those 1950's sci-fi movies on atomic monsters. Here's a link to Google hits. It seems that global warming is not only responsible for the giant squid swarming off Southern California's shores, but global warming is responsible for their huge size, too.

This sort of news must be really scaring the hell out of little kids. Just think of all the bad publicity the Bush administration would have gotten if the squid had showed up a few years ago.

Nobody is saying how these sea monsters taste, incidentally. Personally, I love fried squid.

My favorite Op-Ed on the psychology of global warming comes from the Wall Street Journal: "Global Warming as Mass Neurosis." The Journal, however, is not the sort of paper that young journalists read who rush to make connections between global warming and giant squid.

A slightly different version of this was originally published at the American Thinker.

Ethnic lobbies handed victory in Austin, TX

'Hispanic leaders' enraged over ethnic 'slur scandal' -- a controversy hyped by politically correct newspaper

By David Paulin

A radio station in Austin, Texas, has canceled a talk show after local ethnic lobbies expressed outrage over politically incorrect banter on the show concerning illegal immigration.

KLBJ-AM announced on Monday that it had canceled the “Todd and Don Show" following complaints and lobbying from local "Hispanic leaders" and the Austin-based U.S. Hispanic Contractors Association.

The entire show may be heard here. Radio hosts Todd Jeffries and Don Pryor, during their morning broadcast last week, frequently uttered the term “wetback” when discussing the political correctness of illegal immigration and, specifically, the terms used to describe illegal immigrants.

The radio personalities, who'd already apologized for their comments, had been on unpaid suspension for two weeks. The men, who are white, will reportedly be reassigned.

According to the local newspaper, the liberal Austin American-Statesman, the use of the term “wetback” by the radio hosts had deeply offended local “Hispanic leaders” and members of the Austin-based U.S. Hispanic Contractors Association. The paper described “wetback” as an “ethnic slur.”

Unfortunately for the radio hosts, the contractors' group and local Hispanic leaders” said there were not satisfied with their mere two-week suspension. Accordingly, the contractors' group threatened a boycott of the radio station's parent company. Emmis Austin Radio, its six local stations and their advertisers.

Interestingly, the radio hosts had not engaged in name calling. Their use of the term “wetback” was part of a wide-ranging discussion about illegal immigration and the terms used to describe people who cross the nation's borders illegally. At some points during the show, the two hosts even expressed sympathy for illegal immigrants. They even gently upbraided a listener for having, they said, made unfair assumptions about Spanish-speaking families standing in lines at local grocery stores. (She said she knew they were illegal immigrants.)

But no matter.

The radio show was too much for politically correct and ultraliberal Austin -- an open-borders and “sanctuary city.” Here, local media outlets avoid terms like “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien.” More often than not, a person's status as an illegal immigrant is not even mentioned when that person is arrested by police.

In its hyperventilating news stories about the ethic "slur scandal" -- as the Statesman called it -- the paper frequently referred to “Hispanic leaders” being outraged over the radio show. Those Hispanic leaders included a former Austin mayor Gus Garcia and former Texas Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos.

Interestingly, they and other Hispanic leaders involved in the "slur controversy" were at the center of another controversy last year -- one in which when they reportedly pressured Austin's new city manger to award city contracts to Hispanic contractors. The meeting between the city manger and Hispanic leaders had racial overtones, because the newly hired city manger is black.

Describing what occurred, local Statesman columnist Alberta Phillips, who is black, contended that City Manger Mark Ott was not insensitive toward Hispanics. She condemned the Hispanic leaders for having “tried to pressure Ott into steering more city contracts their way and promoting Assistant City Manager Rudy Garza to the position of deputy city manager — never mind that the post does not exist.”

The uproar over the politically incorrect radio show take a strange twist when it emerged that the website of the Hispanic contractors group contained a video clip making fun of the local gay community. The contractors' association, however, did not suffer any of the fallout that befell KLBJ-AM and its two radio hosts.

While the Statesman frequently referred to the outrage of “Hispanic leaders” over the show, there was a more muted reaction from many of the Statesman's readers who – in comments left at the paper's website – identified themselves as Mexican-Americans or as Americans of Mexican descent. Many said they either were not offended or felt that many people were overreacting to the alleged “ethnic slur.”

Beyond that, many readers said the uproar over the radio show – a controversy the Statesman hyped to the limit – was a case of political correctness gone amuck and a defeat for free speech.

Some noted that members of the local “Hispanic community” use terms like “wetback” and “gringo” - terms that also are heard on local Spanish-language radio shows.

Two comments underscored the political and cultural divide in Texas regarding illegal immigration.

One reader wrote:

I voiced my opinion several days ago that I believed Don Pryor should be fired for repeatedly saying "wet****" and then asking what's wrong with using this good old word. I remember hearing that insulting and derogatory word here in Austin in the 1950s. I couldn't believe it when I heard on the local news that this word had been aired!! Don must also be ignorant of history. The U.S. government imposed that border after waging an illegal and immoral war against Mexico in 1846. Indigenous peoples had been migrating back and forth for thousands of years. This is their sacred Motherland and not somewhere across oceans and thousands of miles away. That's why it's erroneous and ironic to call them "illegal immigrants" as soon as they cross over that scar on Mother Earth.

Another reader responded:

And what history book did you read...? The official biased history of Mexico? Try reading some *real* history books and you'll see that the Revolution against Santa Ana and Mexico in 1846 was justified, and Mexico is damn lucky that the US didn't decide to conquer everything between Panama and the Rio Grande when that scumbag hero of yours, Pancho Villa, started raiding the border. We should have taken over Mexico, added about 10 more stars to the US Flag, and then run that part of the world properly instead of the total clusterf*ck it is now.

UPDATED: The Austin American-Statesman finally did a story about what many in politically correct Austin see as a double standard by the U.S. Hispanic Contractors Association. The Austin-based ethnic lobby has been in a rage over the use of an alleged "ethnic slur" ("wetback") during a local radio show last week. Yet the contractors' group, ironically, had itself crossed the line of political correctness: On its website was a video clip making fun of gays. Whether anybody at the contractors' group suffers the same fate as the radio hosts, who are white, remains to be seen. The contractors' group pulled the gay-bashing clip from its website after finding itself in the glare of the political correctness spotlight -- a spotlight the politically correct Statesman

belatedly turned on the contractors' group late Tuesday afternoon.

This was originally published at the American Thinker.

Liberal economics: Utility hikes will pay for 'Green' energy in Austin, TX






By David Paulin

In wacky Austin, Texas, liberal elites in city government have for years promoted "Green energy" -- including wind-generated and solar power -- to fight global warming. And no matter if "Green energy" was more expensive than power generated by fossil fuels: Fortunately, those who wanted the more expensive "Green" energy were -- under long-standing policy -- the ones who paid for it.

Now, however, the cost of the city's "Green energy" -- specifically, its wind-generated power -- has gotten so expensive that ALL of Austin's utility users will, it seems, have to pay for the cost of going "Green," according to liberal elites on the Austin City Council. Thomas Lifson, American Thinker's publisher and editor, previously warned of this when liberal greenies refused to pay the higher costs voluntarily

As the Austin American-Statesman reports:

The council's ambitious goal of getting 30 percent of the city's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 could be in jeopardy if Austin Energy relies exclusively on its landmark GreenChoice program, which offers wind-generated power at a cost that recently spiked to more than 50 percent higher than that of the standard electricity generated by fossil fuels.

Now, City Council members say, all Austin Energy customers may need to shoulder the cost of going green.

"If we have to spread the cost" to sell enough renewable energy, "that's something we should do," Council Member Sheryl Cole said. "Austin should move forward in its leadership role in heading off global warming."

The mentality here calls up a famous quote from William Graham Sumner, an influential academic in the 19th century. He wrote:

The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.

That phrase -- "The Forgotten Man" -- is also the title of Amity Shlaes' recent book -- a fascinating revisionist history of the Great Depression. It provides a good read for those who want to understand how big government under FDR prolonged America's dark economic troubles rather than easing them. That liberal media elites have dubbed President Obama the "black FDR" says much about the direction the country is heading. --originally published at The American Thinker.

Venezuela newspapers under siege

David Paulin

Hugo Chavez has apparently found a new way to crack down on Venezuela's press -- by denying newspapers the chance to buy U.S. dollars needed to import news print. In one sense, this is business as usual in Venezuela -- albeit with much more ideological bullying and dictatorial impulses on the part of the Chavez administration.

Venezuelans and foreign companies -- under the exchange controls implemented by the previous administration of Rafael Caldera -- also had problems obtaining dollars under exchange controls. But those who were politically well-connected, or who kissed the rings of the right bureaucrats, were able to go to the front of the line and buy all the dollars they needed to import goods needed to keep their businesses afloat --and profitable.

Chavez, when campaigning for office in the late 1990s, had promised to stop widespread corruption, restore living standards, and make Venezuela's government accountable. Instead, he repackaged three bad ideas from Venezuela's past -- Statism, populism, and authoritarianism -- and took them to new heights. What's more, he rebranded these bad ideas under a socialist, anti-American banner. Not surprisingly, this has made Chavez a hero to the international left, even as Venezuela sinks deeper into chaos and poverty. The latest causalities are Venezuela's newspapers. (This was originally published at The American Thinker.)

Among other articles on Hugo Chavez and Venezuela at this blog, also see: "In Perspective: Hugo's Anti-Americanism."

Texas radio hosts suspended for 'ethnic slur' (updated)





David Paulin

Responding to outrage from the city's ethnic lobbies, a local radio station in ultraliberal Austin, Tex., has suspended the two hosts of a local radio show. The men, during some morning banter on illegal immigration, uttered what's being called a hateful "ethnic slur" -- "wetbacks." An excerpt from the program, as described by the politically correct daily paper, the Austin American-Statesman, related:

(Don) Pryor began using the word during a discussion at the outset of the show about the language used to describe people who are in the country illegally. (Todd) Jeffries noted that the USA Today newspaper uses the term "illegal immigrants" but not the words "illegal" or "illegals" as nouns, and avoids using the term "alien" unless it's in direct a quote.

"OK, so that's not PC," Pryor said.

When Jeffries said the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic advocacy group, encourages the use of "undocumented immigrants" or "undocumented workers," Pryor asked: "Whatever happened to the good old word 'wetback' ? What was wrong with that?"

"Inappropriate," Jeffries responded.

Later during the discussion, Pryor, the son of local radio legend and humorist Cactus Pryor, said he was merely trying to come up "with a more efficient way of saying it, that's all, and just bring back a little of good ol' classic Americana."

According to Statesman writer Juan Castillo, "many Mexican Americans consider (the term "wetback) hurtful and highly offensive, on par with the n-word for African Americans." However, in a section for readers' comments, some Mexican-Americans say they have no problem with the word to describe Mexicans who are here working and living illegally. One reader, summing up the controversy that has attracted a massive number of reader comments that reflect Austin's cultural divide, wrote:

I know plenty of Hispanics who use that term regularly to describe Hispanics that come across the border illegally. It's apparently a well-used term in the Hispanic community. But, when a white person uses the term, it's politically offensive. Thank god we have the PC police working to keep everyone in line. God help us. Don't we have more important things to worry about???

The Austin American-Statesman ended up taking down all 290 readers comments -- all made since this morning -- regarding its story on the alleged "ethnic slurs" (i.e. "wetbacks") made by two hosts of a local radio program. Apparently, strong comments by readers regarding illegal immigration -- together with the use of politically incorrect terms such as "wetbacks" -- were too much for Austin's ethnic lobbies. And so the comments had to go: A case of self-censorship by politically correct editors.

Meanwhile, the Statesman has posted audio of comments with this statement: "Editor's warning: Contains offensive language." You can judge for yourself whether the comments are hateful and offensive given the context in which they were made.

Incidentally, Statesman author Juan Castillo, in his article, mentioned alleged abuses evolving from an Eisenhower-era deportation program known as "Operation Wetback." Some quick research I did shows there were indeed some abuses. However, the program also appears to have been a huge success, as this fascinating article notes in the Christian Science Monitor.

Update: Well, wouldn't you know it. The Austin American-Statesman is reporting that the city's "Hispanic leaders" are "not satisfied" with a two-week suspension (without pay) of two radio hosts who used an allegedly hateful word on the air -- "wetback." Accordingly, they're demanding that a local radio station take "further action." As usual, the readers' comments at the end of this article are illuminating. Read'em while you can before the politically correct Statesman deletes them!

This was originally published at The American Thinker.

How Obama is good for business

By David Paulin

Who says the Obama administration is not good for business? This article refutes that claim: "States awash in stimulus money to weatherize homes." And no doubt about it: weatherizing homes would be a good racket to get into right now -- especially with concerns rife that the program will "stimulate" lots of waste and fraud.

How does one get started in the "weatherizing" business?

In ultra-liberal "sanctuary cities" like Austin, Texas, you could go to one of those city-run "day labor" sites, and pick up some illegal immigrants to do the work. To transport them around town, you could trade in your gas-guzzling SUV and get a $4,500 tax credit. And besides weatherizing homes, you might check out projects that the city offers to businesses that are "certified (as) Minority or Women-Owned Business Enterprise." (Those are businesses that are "51-percent owned by "minorities".) If your "minority-owned" business is short of cash, the details on how to get startup funds are laid out right here: "Minority Business Grants - How to Get Free Government Money You Never Pay Back."

Of course, the one pitfall of such business opportunities is that you'll need to make sure you're company is not too successful -- or you'll be taxed to death to support a slew of "green" initiatives. Not to mention "social programs" for the nation's growing ranks of the unemployed. The Obama administration giveth -- and it taketh away. But business people who know how to play the game are sure to win.

As the old saw goes: "It's an ill wind that blows no good."

This was originally published at the American Thinker blog.

Out of the Past: Ordeal by Newspaper

By David Paulin

Americans were shocked by the story of a petite 72-year-old grandmother getting “Tased” during a routine traffic stop in Texas last month. Dash-cam video of the screaming grandmother and strapping, Taser-wielding deputy was a YouTube hit.

Now, a second story from central Texas has emerged involving the “Tasing” of an elderly woman. However, this was what might be called a journalistic “Tasing.”

The victim was 81-year-old Lori Adams of Smithville – a town of 4,400 residents about 40 miles southeast of Austin, the capital. Adams' tormentors were a young newspaper reporter, Andrea Lorenz, and her editors at the Austin American-Statesman.

What happened to the 81-year-old in the space of three days is a parable on how easily the news media can hold up people to public admiration, and then destroy their reputations – all for the sake of the public's right to know. It raises questions about the ethics and values of Lorenz and her editors. And it provokes larger issues related to forgiveness, redemption, and how one should measure a person's character.

Readers of the Statesman, an influential Cox newspaper, were recently treated to a front-page feature by Lorenz: “81-year old pilot still flying high."

The 750-word story described how Adams -- a “bubbly and energetic” 81-year-old -- is an active pilot and flight instructor with 29,000 hours of flying time. Calling her the “Queen of the airport bums,” it noted the spunky redhead enjoys hanging out with the guys at Smithville's small airport.

On top of that, the story noted Adams enjoys doing aerobatics in a single-engine airplane, a Citabria that she co-owns. She even took the plane up for a solo flight -- doing loops for the benefit of the Statesman's reporter and photographer. Adams had for years operated the “Lori Adams Flying Service” in the Houston area, until selling the business in 1982. She returned to Smithville, her hometown, nearly 20 years ago.

“When she gets into an airplane, she goes into her own world,” Smithville resident Austin Wampler was quoted as saying. A friend of Adams, he's one of her flight students and co-owns the Citabria.

The story's first paragraph started cheerfully:

"As the saying goes, there are no old, bold pilots. And 81-year-old Lori Adams said she certainly isn't bold."

In the newspaper trade, such stories are called “feel good” or “puff” pieces. Generally, they rely on what the reporter is told by the interview subject and maybe one or two of the person's friends and associates.

Soon after the story ran, somebody sent the Statesman an e-mail revealing a dark episode in Adams' life. Forty years ago, police in the Houston area charged Adams, then 42, with beating her 5-year-old stepson to death.

The Statesman checked out the allegation, and sure enough, it learned Adams had pleaded “no contest” to such a crime in 1973, 36 years ago. Lorenz and her editors were intrigued: Some follow-up was definitely needed. So the next day, Lorenz phoned Adams to get her side of the story.

Adams told me, during an interview, that she was shocked to hear Lorenz on the phone -- urging her to talk about the tragic episode in her life: Nobody in Smithville even knew about it, she noted. “I said: 'That's 40 years ago!” You're not going to bring that up, are you? Why would you do that? It has nothing to do with that story (on my flying) that you did about me.'”

Adams grew concerned that Lorenz was irritated at her refusal to give her side of the story – and would write something if she refused to talk, she said.

'Skeletons in the closet'

What happened next provoked much controversy in central Texas about the Statesman's ethics. It also highlighted a clash of values – the small-town values of Smithville's residents verses the urbane values of the Statesman's editors, who fancy themselves as guardians of the public's right to know. In a sense, this was a dispute over "journalistic values" verses "human values."

For the rest of the article, go to the American Thinker.

The roots of Sotomayor's ethnic chauvinism


By David Paulin

Sonia Sotomayor, a self-described “wise Latina woman,” is an ethnic chauvinist if her own words are anything to go by. What are the roots of her chauvinism?

Was it her upbringing by parents who immigrated from Puerto Rico? Or her supposedly hardscrabble girlhood in the Bronx? Or perhaps it was her education at a private Catholic school, Cardinal Spellman High School?

As it turns out, it was none of the above. Judge Sotomayor's obsession with her ethnicity began during her undergraduate years at Princeton University. As Sunday's New York Times explained in a fascinating front-page article:

According to friends, Ms. Sotomayor was not active in her high school’s small Latino club. Ethnicity was not something to be ashamed of, they said, but they did not really celebrate it either.

But on Princeton’s manicured campus, Ms. Sotomayor explored her roots in a way she never had on trips to Puerto Rico or in “Nuyorican” circles back home. In a Puerto Rican studies seminar, she absorbed the literature, economics, history and politics of the island, and by senior year, she was writing a thesis on its first democratically elected governor. In its dedication, she sounds newly enchanted with her heritage.

“To my family,” she wrote, “for you have given me my Puerto Rican-ness.”

“To the people of my island, for the rich history that is mine,” she continued.

It's a fascinating revelation. Above all, it underscores how Princeton and other universities over the past few decades have helped to create the “hyphenated identifies” by which many Americans now identify themselves (especially from Mexico and Latin America) rather than assimilating into a common nationality.

The subject of hyphenated identifies was explored by Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in his fascinating book “Who are We? The Challenges to America's National Identify.” In it, Huntington described how young college students, the offspring of immigrant parents or grandparents, arrived at college fully assimilated. They regarded themselves as Americans, period – at least until their professors got hold of them. That's when they “rediscovered” their ethnic roots. Giving up their beliefs that they were Americans -- part of a single identify and culture -- they thereafter defined themselves as hyphenated Americans in a country that was “multicultural.”

And in the case of Sonia Sotomayor, ethnicity became an obsession. In college, as the Times notes, she became a passionate advocate for “Hispanic causes.” As a judge, she later complained about the lack of “Hispanics” sitting on the bench.

Sunday's article offers another interesting tidbits about Sotomayor. Until now, the Times and other media outlets have portrayed her as having been a brilliant student who got into Princeton and Yale Law School by dint of her superior intelligence and hard work.

As it turns out, there was another reason – affirmative action. The Times cites no sources for this revelation, but it seems like a no brainer to assume that Sotomayor got a boost from affirmative action. What's interesting about this is that Sotomayor herself has never described herself as being a beneficiary of affirmative action, as the Times noted in an earlier article. And when a Washington law firm with which she interviewed dared to ask if her if she'd benefited from affirmative action, she filed a complaint against the firm with Yale, according to Sunday's article: “For Sotomayor and Thomas, Paths Fork at Race and Identify.”

That Sotomayor apparently was an affirmative action student explains a strange inconsistency – how she got into the Ivy League despite lacking basic writing skills; skills which she supposedly would have learned at a good Catholic high school.

Interestingly, the Times' Sunday piece claimed that Sotomayor overcome her inept writing all by herself at Princeton -- after shuttering herself in her dorm room and studying “grade-school grammar textbooks.” Yet an earlier article in the Times offered a different version of this story of hard work, stating: “Only with the outside help of a professor who served as her mentor did she catch up academically, ultimately graduating at the top of her class.”

Sotomayor, during her confirmation hearing, is bound to hear her most infamous words repeated to her: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion" than a white man.

It's a remark, of course, that applies a stereotype to "Latina" women – a good stereotype. It's interesting that Sotomayor has no problem using stereotypes, but absolutely bristles when she perceives that others (conservative white men in particular) would dare to define her with the same stereotype by which she defines herself. Or as the Times explained in its concluding paragraphs:

"Judge Sotomayor saw a hitch in her own confirmation for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a not entirely dissimilar light. Senate Republicans had held up her nomination for a year, and shortly afterward, she said they made assumptions about her views simply “because I was Hispanic and a woman.”

“I was dealt with on the basis of stereotypes,” she said.

This was originally published at The American Thinker.

Somali immigrants remake Minneapolis

UPDATE: "Death of Somali Teen A Mystery to Minnesota Family"



By David Paulin

In case you missed it, the New York Times has been running an in-depth series examining the impact on the country of massive levels of immigration, which is unprecedented both in numbers and fact that many of the newcomers are from the Third World, not from Europe as in the past.

"Remade in America," as the series is called, implies that America is remaking the immigrants. But if you read between the lines in the Times series, just the opposite seems to be the case.

The immigrants are remaking America!

Consider what has happened in Minnesota, a place the Times snidely calls a "once lily-white city on the prairie." Today, foreign-born people from places like Mexico, Somalia, and other Third World countries now constitute 5 percent of the population.

As in many other American cities, "Hispanics" -- mostly poor Mexicans here legally and illegally -- make up most of the new immigrants. But in Minneapolis, there are as many as 80,000 refugees from war-torn Somalia, as well. They were resettled in politically liberal Minneapolis because the State Department felt the city's splendid social services system could accommodate them, the Times noted. State Department officials also were impressed with the city's many civic groups that help newcomers.

So how are the Somalis doing in their quest for the American dream? Defying the "Remade in America" theme of the Times series, it seems that they're been remaking Minneapolis.

For the rest of the article, go to The American Thinker.

The OAS sham vote on Cuba

David Paulin

"OAS lifts ban on Cuba after 47 years," trumpetd the Associated Press. "Imposing Conditions, O.A.S. Lifts Its Suspension of Cuba," declared the New York Times.

And so it went...

Two examples of the news media's breathless and upbeat reporting on the OAS's disgraceful vote on Cuba last Wednesday. If you believe the headlines, the Obama administration has demonstrated how much can be achieved through "compromise" and "dialogue." Now, Stalinist Cuba will surely take its rightful place in the Organization of American States, the 34-member regional body supposedly committed to democratic values and human rights.

And all will be right between the U.S. and Latin America.

That's the fairy-tale ending being presented by the U.S. news media regarding the OAS meeting in Honduras. In fact, the OAS's decision was a hollow vote. A sham. An embarrassment.

After all, as a result of terms insisted upon by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's team, Cuba must meet certain "conditions" to return to the OAS -- namely, it must embrace basic democratic values and stop the thuggery that promoted Human Rights Watch, a rights group, to protest the return of Cuba to the OAS. What's more, Cuba will itself have to initiate the process of "dialogue" that will allow it to return to the regional body. And Cuba, for its part, has said it's not interested in anything of the sort, calling the OAS a tool of the U.S.

In other words, the OAS vote maintains the status quo.

Yet the Obama administration, together with the boot-licking U.S. news media, are portraying the vote as a great turning point in relations between the U.S. and Latin America. A great victory for hemispherical peace and understanding.

So just how did the Obama team succeed in putting "conditions" on the OAS vote despite the best efforts of left-wing Venezuela, Nicaragua, and like-minded OAS members to admit Cuba, no strings attached?

Chalk it up to President Obama and his magical powers of persuasion, which he brought to bear when phoning his counterparts to urge a “compromise” after tense negotiations. What could he have said? It appears there may have been some George Bush-style arm twisting going on. Or as the Times notes:

A Latin American diplomat said that the risk of losing United States support for the organization, which gets 60 percent of its funds from Washington, weighed heavily on the group’s thinking.

According to the Times, the "stunning" OAS compromise vote ended "an intractable stalemate that threatened to polarize the hemisphere."

My goodness! Just imagine all those American flags burning outside U.S. Embassies across Latin American if the U.S. had dared to stick to its principles. According to the AP, the compromise vote will usher in a "more collegial relationship between the U.S. and Latin American countries.”

In reality, the OAS vote was much ado about nothing. And it certainly was no victory for the Cuban people, especially its political prisoners. These are non-issues for left-leaning elites in the OAS and U.S. news media.

"Now we know where the priorities of the OAS lie," fumed U.S. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, in a statement regarding the OAS vote, Reuters reported.

"Rather than upholding democratic principles and fundamental freedoms, OAS member states, led by the OAS Secretary General, could not move quickly enough to appease their tyrannical idols in Cuba,” said the Cuba-born representative, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

She added, "Today's decision by the OAS is an affront to the Cuban people and to all who struggle for freedom, democracy, and fundamental human rights."

And it certainly seemed to embolden the thugorcracy in Cuba if the opinion of an anchorman for a Cuban state TV channel means anything. He told Reuters that the vote "recognizes the political courage, the symbolism and defiance" of the OAS members. In this context, of course, he means the OAS's defiance against America!

Fidel Castro, for his part, was unimpressed by the OAS vote, calling the organization an "accomplice" to crimes against Cuba.

All in all, Fidel and little brother Raul must be laughing it up today.


From Human Rights Watch:

Cuba is the only country in the hemisphere that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. For nearly five decades, the Cuban government has enforced political conformity with criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions, mob harassment, physical abuse, and surveillance. These abuses have persisted since the handover of power from Fidel Castro to Raul Castro in July 2006.


This article was originally published by The American Thinker.

Illegal Immigration, Liberal Elites, and Obama


By David Paulin

Millions of Hispanics, mostly poor and uneducated, have immigrated to America illegally since the early 1990s. Most are Mexicans and most of them are high school dropouts. Compared to what they might have had in a slum or impoverished rural area of Mexico or Central America, these immigrants have done well here.

It has been different story for their neighbors -- middle-class Americans. For them, illegal immigration has often meant a deterioration of their neighborhoods, public schools, and their quality of life -- especially across America's Southwest.

Some have watched their culture erode: It's not uncommon to see Mexican flags flying in Spanish-speaking enclaves in towns and cities from Texas to California. This includes "sanctuary cities" like Austin, the Texas state capital, where until recently I'd lived for the past few years.

Most middle-class Americans are fed up with illegal immigration. They get no sympathy from liberal elites, however, including the open-borders elites at that lofty bastion of American journalism, the agenda-setting New York Times.

There is some amusing liberal hypocrisy going on here when you consider where top editorial staffers and executives at the Times and many of their affluent readers live. It's in trendy parts of New York City: places like gentrified Brooklyn and SoHo and Manhattan's posh Upper East Side. You definitely won't find any Mexicans crowding into low-rent apartments in those areas, creating Spanish-speaking enclaves resembling shabby parts of Mexico.

For the rest of the article, go to The American Thinker.

New York's Art World Meets Cuba's Communism


By David Paulin

At the heart and soul of being an artist is freedom of expression. So how to explain all those chic American artists now having a jolly good time at an art festival underway in Cuba? How, in short, can these sophisticated folks reconcile the fact that artistic freedom does not exist in Cuba so long as Cubans do not enjoy the kinds of freedoms that Americans take for granted?

Well, don't look for an answer in a lengthy and upbeat article about the festival in the “Art and Design" section of the New York Times. The 10^th biannual festival, as the Times cheerfully notes, is now in full swing after recently opening in Havana, and among the 300 artists on hand from 54 countries is “the biggest exhibition by American art galleries in Cuba since the 1959 revolution.” Also in attendance are American painters, critics and buyers.

All in all, 30 American artists are having their wares presented in an exhibition called “Chelsea Visits Havana,” put on by Megan Projects Gallery, located in Manhattan's trendy Chelsea section -- a hotbed for the city's trendy art scene. “The hope is that this will be a first step toward normalizing U.S.-Cuban relations,” gallery owner Alberto Magnan, a Cuba-American, tells the Times. “Chelsea Visits Havana” includes works from more than two dozen trendy American art galleries.

As to the festival's theme, it's appropriate for one held in the hemisphere's last bastion of communism: “Integration and Resistance in the Global Age.” Of course, there's apparently nothing in the exhibit about resistance to Cuba's communist government, which owns nearly all of the island's property and businesses and tolerates no serious non-violent dissent. In a brief paragraph, Times author Ian Urbina only hints at Cuba's repression, noting that a Cuban skate boarder whom he interviewed didn't want to be named. He was afraid he'd be “pegged as a dissident,” Urbina explained.

While Urbina steers clear of criticizing Cuba's government, he does take some jabs at former President George Bush's administration, noting it had denied many Cuban artists travel visas so that they could sell their work in the U.S. He writes:

Before the Bush administration stopped giving visas, many of Cuba’s top artists spent months at a time in the United States or Europe. They stayed linked to the island partly because collectors are typically more interested in works produced by Cuban-based — not immigrant — artists.

Now, with a new administration in Washington, many in the art world say they believe that there will be a loosening on restrictions, and that the Cuban art market will benefit.

Of course, there's another side to this. Those who do well in Cuba, those who make a good U.S.-style living (including artists), are those who play along with the communist charade to one extent or another.

All in all, the Times article (“Havana Biennial, in Which Chelsea Takes a Field Trip to Cuba”) is an interesting commentary on America's sophisticated art world: collectors and galleries are more interested in the work of artists based in Cuba -- as opposed to those of Cuban expatriates who are free to express their creative impulses!

What explains the cognitive dissonance of all these sophisticated American artists, buyers, and collectors who are frolicking under the watchful eye of Cuba's secret police? Sarah Thornton, an art historian and sociologist, provides something of an answer in her book, “Seven Days in the Art World.” As Publishers Weekly notes:

The hot, hip contemporary art world, argues sociologist Thornton, is a cluster of intermingling subcultures unified by the belief, whether genuine or feigned, that nothing is more important than the art itself. It is a conviction, she asserts, that has transformed contemporary art into a kind of alternative religion for atheists.

No wonder, then, that America's trendiest artist find it so easy to overlook and apologize for the regime that's providing them such a rollicking good time in Havana.

This was originally published at The American Thinker.

Two US Airways Accidents -- Then and Now

By David Paulin

It will be months before the NTSB releases its accident report on US Airways Flight 1549, the "Hudson Miracle," captained by America's newest hero, Chesley B. Sullenberger III. Until then, one thing can be safely inferred about the January 15 accident: its pilots were far better prepared to deal with the unexpected than were two US Airways pilots departing LaGuardia Airport 20 years ago. Flight 5050, a Boeing 737-400, ran off the runway and into Flushing Bay after an aborted takeoff. Two of 57 passengers died. Coincidentally, Flight 5050 used Runway 31 and was heading to Charlotte, North Carolina, just like the "Hudson Miracle" flight.

Sometimes, fate seems to conspire against pilots -- or smile on them. "Hudson Miracle" copilot Jeffrey Skiles, for instance, observed that "we were lucky" in several respects. One is that it was a clear afternoon -- as opposed to a pitch-black night. The Hudson River was calm, allowing for a smooth splash down. And Flight 1549, he noted, had just the right crew to handle the emergency that presented itself. "Really, after hitting the geese, everything worked in our favor," he said, speaking on PBS's "Charlie Rose Show."

On Flight 5050, on the other hand, just about everything that could go wrong for the pilots did go wrong. Moreover, in the weeks after the accident they encountered as much grief from the news media as from their ill-fated flight. The "Hudson Miracle" flight has handed US Airways an unintended public relations bonanza, allowing it to show off the professionalism of one of its air crews. On the other hand, Flight 5050 was a public relations nightmare.

A look at the two flights reveals much about changes over the past 20 years in the nation's airline industry and US Airways -- changes concerning flight operations, flight training, and cockpit design. One thing, however, remains the same -- the news media and what sometimes happens to those whom it praises as heroes.

For the rest of this article, go to The American Thinker

AP's terror photographer honored in NYC


By David Paulin

It was during Iraq's most savage violence that a former shopkeeper named Bilal Hussein proved an invaluable asset to the Associated Press as one of its hastily trained photographers. His chummy ties to terrorists --“insurgents” as the AP's stories called them – enabled him to produce remarkable close-up photos of them and their grisly handiwork. In 2005, one of Hussein's photos of the Battle of Fallujah helped the AP snag a Pulitzer Prize for a package of Iraq photos in breaking-news photography. Like other Iraqi AP photographers, Hussein had the uncanny ability to show up just as an attack occurred.

As Iraq was gripped by unspeakable atrocities and violence that many likened to a civil war, U.S. military authorities detained Hussein, citing what they described as his troubling links to terrorists and terror-related activities. They called him a “terrorist media operative,” much to the outrage of AP executives and lawyers.

What ever became of Hussein?

After two years in prison, he escaped the possibility of a criminal trial when he was freed under a general amnesty that took effect seven months ago. He did not, however, return in disgrace to his old life as a shopkeeper in Fallujah, selling phone cards and computers.

Instead, Hussein returned to the AP in good standing, and last week he was honored by a glittery audience of media elites and celebrities at Manhattan's posh Waldorf-Astoria Hotel.

Hussein spoke to the captivated audience on a subject dear to his heart – journalism ethics.

For the rest of the article, go to The American Thinker.