Michelle Obama failed the bar exam
Steve Sailer reports that Michelle Obama failed the July 1988 Illinois bar exam.
The bar exam is extremely easy. I just passed the New York bar exam again this summer, despite having not studied any law for more than a decade. So I’ve taken three bar exams, and passed all three of them.
This information indicates that Michelle Obama was either (1) woefully underqualified to be admitted to Harvard Law School (no doubt being black helped); or (2) exceptionally lazy; or (3) both. It should be pointed out that she had a job lined up at Sidley Austin (BIGLAW), and those jobs don’t start until after the summer bar exam, so she had the opportunity to study full-time for the bar exam and thus she has no excuse for failing it.
This type of stuff really pisses me off because I was clearly more qualified than Michelle Obama to work at a firm like Sidley Austin, but she got the prestigious high-paying job and not me because of her blackness.
Sigma,
Do you see why I like qualification testing in various fields?
Its not fair or right or just in any sense of the word to give someone an advantage just because they graduated from Harvard or Yale. Alot of kids enjoy themselves in high school man. They chase girls or boys, go to parties, play sports, and enjoy being young in general. Alot of these same kids dont buckle down until they are in college. Many of these kids are the genetically gifted amongst us. Some almost despicably so as they will be large, nice-looking, happy, and smart all in the same package.
Some nerd who studies his butt off from the time he is 13 might do better on the SAT at 16 years of age, but he might have already reached much of his potential by that time. That nerd deserves to get into Harvard, but it does not mean that nerd does not get "passed up" in college by that secretely smart jock who was dating cheerleaders during the early years. A good standardized test for various professions and trade schools can seperate the wheat and the chaff. Just imagine the deliciousness of seeing all those critical theorists, sociology, psychology, and art history majors fall on their ass when they take it----letting them know in no uncertain terms that "yes, you are kinda dumb as compared to others". I'd enjoy knowing that they were MADE to know this as I still resent having to sit through some of those lefty-professors classes all those years ago. I think that people's scores on these occupational-exams should be made public, so that everyone knows if you are really a dumbass despite your degree. It would bring so many lefties down six or eight notches, that it would be worth it no matter the cost.
At our company we have a few folks from some prestigious places and a few from some very unprestigious places and a handful from some podunk colleges nobody has ever heard of. Guess what? There really is not much of a difference in them at all, and the all time screw up that I can think of came from Vanderbilt (he's fired), and a couple of our very best came from directional schools (ever heard of Eastern Kentucky University? me either for the longest).
Once one throws in racial-scholarships in this mix.............it equates with the Ivy league not meaning what the name implies anymore.
Posted by: miles | February 23, 2008 at 04:14 PM
You were also born with brainy Jew genes and she wasn't. In what way is that fair??
Anybody that thinks black people got dealt the unfair upperhand in the life lottery is crazy.
Posted by: Rain And | February 23, 2008 at 04:14 PM
Actually, Sailer was speculating re whether Michelle Obama failed the bar exam because she was admitted to the bar in May 1989, but graduated law school in May 1988. There are many reasons why her admission date may appear "late" -- she may have submitted her bar application late or signed up for one of the swearing-in ceremonies late. One cannot reasonably infer that she failed the bar the first time (i.e., in July 1988), without actual proof of that fact.
Posted by: Republican Patriot | February 23, 2008 at 04:16 PM
"Illinois bar exam"
Half Sigma...I'm pretty sure you know different states have different difficulty levels for their bar exams correct?
Did you pass the "Illinois bar exam" without studying?
What is the pass rate difference between NY, CT, NJ, and IL?
Have you looked? Are you being "lazy"?
Where you equally as outraged and upset when JFK JR kept failing his law exam...I believe 4 or 5 times? I doubt it.
Posted by: Dragon Horse | February 23, 2008 at 04:57 PM
"This type of stuff really pisses me off because I was clearly more qualified than Michelle Obama to work at a firm like Sidley Austin, but she got the prestigious high-paying job and not me because of her blackness."
If you feel that way then why don't you take advantage of your "Jewishness" and go to Hollywood and become a entertainment lawyer or agent. I've been to L.A. a couple of times and I can't count the Goldbergs, Steins, etc that are out there.
Don't pretend like they don't have internal affirmative action either, I know better. I have a cousin in the music industry who is a record producer and he has seen it over and over and over again...
I guess Jewish old boy networks are fine, as long as the government is not involved though right?
Posted by: Dragon Horse | February 23, 2008 at 05:01 PM
"Where you equally as outraged and upset when JFK JR kept failing his law exam...I believe 4 or 5 times? I doubt it."
No, HS is only outraged when blacks get a head up.
Posted by: Zeek | February 23, 2008 at 05:03 PM
81.4% of applicants passed the July 1988 Illinois bar exam, so that was not a difficult bar exam.
JFK, Jr. never pretended to be a great legal scholar. He got a job at the DA's office, not BIGLAW. Everyone knew he was a lazy rich kid.
Everyone in the legal community knows that New York has one of the more difficult exams.
And finally, there's no such thing as a Jewish old-boy network. Jews have no loyalty to other Jews.
Posted by: Half Sigma | February 23, 2008 at 05:05 PM
Everything I've read about Michelle Obama convinces me she was an affirmative action admit to college and law school. My guess: had she gone to Stuyversant or Bronx Science in NY, she would have been intellectually humilated.
Posted by: Independent Accountant | February 23, 2008 at 05:15 PM
"And finally, there's no such thing as a Jewish old-boy network. Jews have no loyalty to other Jews."
That's a lie. I know better. You don't have loyalty to other Jews, but I know Jews with plenty of loyalty and solidarity on key issues even if they argue about what it is to be "Jewish" among themselves.
Michelle Obama said she was a legal scholar?
She should have turned down a good paying job? LOL Your a working class girl from the Southside and someone offers you 6 figures in the late 80's...uhm...what would you do..."oh I don't deserve this position because I failed the bar once (if she did)"??
Yeah George W. Bush deserved to go to Harvard Business School with his "C" average and Kerry deserved to go to Law School with is "C" average right?
Did that upset you? Did you feel cheated?
Posted by: Dragon Horse | February 23, 2008 at 05:16 PM
"I know Jews with plenty of loyalty and solidarity on key issues"
Jews vote the same on certain issues, but they have no loyalty to other Jews when making hiring decisions.
Your buying into conspiracy mumbo-jumbo, assuming that because Jews are successful, they must be helping each other. They are not.
I wish it were true, then I would have gotten a good job because I was Jewish.
Posted by: Half Sigma | February 23, 2008 at 05:22 PM
Truth is Michelle Obama is the wife of the candidate. She is not running for anything. She doesn't want to be co-president like Hillary did.
What is Cindy McCain's education level?
"Cindy Lou Hensley grew up in affluent circumstances[4] in Phoenix, Arizona,[1] the daughter and only child[5] of James and Marguerite Hensley,[6] who founded Hensley & Company in 1955.[3] She attended Madison Meadows Elementary and was a rodeo queen in 1968.[7] She went to Central High School[5] in Phoenix. She graduated from the latter in 1972,[8] having been a cheerleader there.[9]
Hensley received her undergraduate degree in education[10] and a masters in special education from the University of Southern California.[11]S"
She grew up rich and that is the best she could do?
Yep...typical blond. Gonna post about that Sigma?
I also would like to see an article on the Affirmative Action George W. Bush and John Kerry got, because they definitely got some from someone. Michelle Obama's grades (at Princeton) according to her professor were quite good.
If you bothered to read the Newsweek article on her and not the Steve Sailer guessing game.
Michelle got into Princeton, not due to racial AA but due to being a legacy candidate due to her brother...
"Michelle recalls things differently. A campaign spokeswoman says she had an edge getting into Princeton not because of affirmative action, but because her older brother was there as a scholar athlete. She was a "legacy," just like any other applicant with family ties to Princeton. Her aides say Michelle earned her way into Harvard on merit by distinguishing herself at Princeton."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/112849/output/print
Posted by: Dragon Horse | February 23, 2008 at 05:22 PM
"Your buying into conspiracy mumbo-jumbo, assuming that because Jews are successful, they must be helping each other. They are not.
I wish it were true, then I would have gotten a good job because I was Jewish."
Nope, no conspiracy theories. I have Jewish friends. I have all my life and I have heard their parents talk.
I will admit the ones I've heard talk this way were very liberal and were often the type who say "Never Again" and complain about antisemitism and send money to the Anti-defamation League...but I have seen this more than once, and my cousin I has definitely seen it.
Reality is there is no way there would be such a high concentration of Jews in the Entertainment industry in 2008, with the lack of antisemitism (which initially drove many of them their) if someone was not looking out for someone.
If the entertainment industry was disproportionately Italian-American to the point ever 4 people had an Italian name no one would even question what was going on.
The fact Jews may be innately more intelligent does not explain the concentration in one industry to such an extent.
Posted by: Dragon Horse | February 23, 2008 at 05:27 PM
Dragon Horse,
Careful - while being a race realist is welcome here, being a Jewish realist will get you tarred and feathered. While Hispanics and Blacks and WASPs engage in ethnic nepotism, Jews are atomistic and don't engage in such behavior. And if you don't think Israel should get billions a year in US aid, you are an anti-semite.
See how it works?
Posted by: hugh go naught | February 23, 2008 at 05:58 PM
HS - I agree with 90%+ of your material, but disagree with your assertion that Jews have not loyalty to each other. What about Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz?
Posted by: SirTallRem | February 23, 2008 at 06:02 PM
"What about Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz?"
In 1965, the old firms discriminated against Jews, which is why four Jewish guys had to start their own firm.
This is not an example of a Jewish old boys network, but rather an example of how the gentile old boys network kept the Jews out.
There's absolutely no evidence that their current associates are any more Jewish than any other NYC BIGLAW firm.
Posted by: Half Sigma | February 23, 2008 at 06:18 PM
HS,
Next time you ride the subway look at the ads for personal injury lawyers. You'll see plenty of them. With the notable exception of Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald ("We fight for brain damaged kids!") they're basically a collection of Jewish names.
Posted by: Peter | February 23, 2008 at 06:45 PM
Peter, PI is the slimy end of law, for people who couldn't get BIGLAW jobs.
I'm not sure how it proves a Jewish conspiracy if there is an over-concentration of Jews in the least desirable area of law.
Posted by: Half Sigma | February 23, 2008 at 06:54 PM
And she's resentful, in spite of all the breaks she's had, to boot.
Posted by: tommy | February 23, 2008 at 07:01 PM
Who is suggesting that? I hear some arguing that maybe Michelle Obama got the upperhand in the life lottery, not blacks generally.
Posted by: tommy | February 23, 2008 at 07:06 PM
re: ""Michelle recalls things differently. A campaign spokeswoman says she had an edge getting into Princeton not because of affirmative action, but because her older brother was there as a scholar athlete. She was a "legacy," just like any other applicant with family ties to Princeton."
Legacy admissions at the IVYs for white males has been suspect in my experience since the mid 1960s. A good friend of mine at that time had a Grand father who had been the Head of the Rockefeller Institute went to Yale as did his father and Uncle, both of whom were full professors at an IVY ( not Yale ). He had brothers and cousins who went to Yale as did he. One day we met and my friend was visibly in an emotionally depressed state. His younger brother had been turned down by Yale. The boys SATs were circa 1350 ( if I remember correctly ) which gives an IQ estimate of circa 140. All of the legacy grease did not help him get in. This was over 40 years ago. Over the ensuing years I have seen similar fates meted out to legacy connected bright white boys ( some Jews at that ) who did not get in to their parent's IVY.
However, it may work for girls. My wife's breast surgeon, a Yale College graduate not Yale Medical School, just had her daughter accepted to Yale. I did not ask the surgeon what the SAT scores of her daughter had been but asked her what major is she taking as a surrogate for the SATs. The answer: Drama! The surgeon has two boys neither one got into Yale although they tried.
Dan Kurt
Posted by: Dan Kurt | February 23, 2008 at 07:21 PM
"This type of stuff really pisses me off because I was clearly more qualified than Michelle Obama to work at a firm like Sidley Austin, but she got the prestigious high-paying job and not me because of her blackness."
White people that complain about black people 'taking' their job make me laugh. Yes, the ONE Michelle Obama is responsible for the TENS of THOUSANDS of white, male lawyers that did not get a job at Sidley Austin. So each one of those guys is entitled to blame the SINGLE Michelle Obama for taking their job because obviously if she did not exist they would all have had a job at Sidley Austin (whatever this is).
A SINGLE AA hire can not explain why you did not get that job. It can't even explain 0.1% of why you didn't get that job!
That's right! Your chances of getting that a job at that establishment would have been 0.00001% greater if they weren't so commited to giving that job to a black person. Logically, you can't salve your ego with this one. But if you aren't so commited to logic then sure the black woman took your job. Damn the man.
Posted by: Vim | February 23, 2008 at 07:46 PM
"That's right! Your chances of getting that a job at that establishment would have been 0.00001% greater if they weren't so commited to giving that job to a black person. Logically, you can't salve your ego with this one. But if you aren't so commited to logic then sure the black woman took your job. Damn the man."
Half Siggy just likes to whine. He went to ASU Law School (and basically wasted 3 years) and is bitter about it.
What I don't understand is why he didn't get a good job out of college (he did get an bachelors degree from Wharton). I guess HS is proof that a high IQ is not a ticket for success.
Posted by: Zeek | February 23, 2008 at 08:01 PM
Envy is not a useful emotion.
Posted by: Gannon | February 23, 2008 at 08:05 PM
I made it through the Michelle Obama thesis. She sounds really angry, but the poll results are interesting if I read them correctly (appendix).
One finding was that when blacks went to college, their intellectual comfort level with whites dropped by two-thirds, and never recovered. Social comfort with whites dropped by 90%. Political comfort with whites dropped by half. General comfort with whites dropped by 93% after attending Princeton.
Her conclusions section did not touch these findings.
Posted by: Bill | February 23, 2008 at 08:22 PM
My second problem with this line of thinking is he wants to blame a black woman because white people like to give black women jobs. Why don't you go find the Jews and Whites that like to give black women jobs and highlight them. Name and shame them. By all means, go right ahead.
If I get offered money, I'm going to take it! In a capitalist society, how exactly is Michelle wrong to take a job offered to her? Why are you criticizing her and mentioning her by name (seems unfair to me) for doing what any other American would do ie taking a prestigious job if offered?
Or do black people secretly control the hiring at majority white and Jewish firms?
Posted by: Vim | February 23, 2008 at 08:22 PM
"Or do black people secretly control the hiring at majority white and Jewish firms?"
According to white supremist sites, Jews are the enforcers of political correctness and multiculturalism.
I wonder how HS feels about this? He never seems to comment on how exactly black people have all this power to control affrimative action and political correctness, despite being a "low IQ" minority (to paraphrase his thinking).
Posted by: Zeek | February 23, 2008 at 08:35 PM
Yes, because Michelle Obama is, after all, the only person to have ever benefited from racial preferences. In any event, Miss "Thank-You" almost certainly got a job at the expense of someone in the United States who was more qualified than her. But such obvious injustices have never bothered liberals in quite the same way many nebulous claims of "institutional racism" have.
Posted by: tommy | February 23, 2008 at 08:36 PM
You were also born with brainy Jew genes and she wasn't. In what way is that fair??
Anybody that thinks black people got dealt the unfair upperhand in the life lottery is crazy.
But the brainy Jew thing isnt an end unto itself. The hot job is the goal. HS is pointing out a clear case where someone less qualified than himself (and I dont know anything about his qualifications so lets assume its true) got what might be a 'plum' position.
I dont think her failing the bar exam has anything to do with her being First Lady, but why shouldn't HS be entitled to feel some resentment that he has spent a career having to use a tiny monitor instead of getting a Sidley Austin job just because of his skin color.
Posted by: Turambar | February 23, 2008 at 08:38 PM
tommy:
"Yes, because Michelle Obama is, after all, the only person to have ever benefited from racial preferences."
He named her in particular.
"In any event, Miss "Thank-You" almost certainly got a job at the expense of someone in the United States who was more qualified than her."
This is unproven. If she really was such a crappy hire then she couldn't have possibly done the work of a 'real' lawyer. Therefore, it is logical to think they actually hired a real lawyer to pick up the slack. So basically her whole paycheck might have just been some cash they were willing to throw away on public relations. If they didn't hire blacks for PR reasons, there perhaps would have been no job. White people can't fill the job of "token black woman" so that job would just be lost to the ether.
Posted by: Vim | February 23, 2008 at 08:53 PM
Yes, Rawls Jr., better we compound the injustice by (a) denying a better qualified person the job on grounds unrelated to ability and (b) reducing the quality of lawyers the rest of society can select from.
You see, the question can easily be reversed: why shouldn't the brainy, studious Jew get the job because he was born with the right genes? And why should the rest of society to have to suffer along with him to make way for an incompetent?
Rawls should have dubbed his theory "Collective Injustice as Fairness."
Posted by: tommy | February 23, 2008 at 08:57 PM
Hardly, unless you seriously want to argue that someone would not have been hired at all for the positions she got. Otherwise, there is exactly a 100% likelihood that someone else didn't get the job that Michelle Obama got.
That's ridiculous. It's like arguing that if she was really such a crappy student then she couldn't have possibly been admitted to Princeton. What's to stop her from doing the same mediocre work, aided by her skin color, that got her through college? As any employer knows, the choice isn't always between having a terrific employee or an incompetent who must be fired immediately.
Posted by: tommy | February 23, 2008 at 09:06 PM
Yes, and I'm sure the money they paid her would have just disappeared into the ether along with her. Good God, you can't be serious?
Posted by: tommy | February 23, 2008 at 09:16 PM
Another thing that occurs to me is: Does HS really want to be saying he's competing with the AA hires for jobs? He is basically saying he is worse than EVERY white who managed to get a job which is pretty sad.
tommy:
"Yes, and I'm sure the money they paid her would have just disappeared into the ether along with her."
Maybe they would have put it to advertising to achieve the same goal, maybe put a picture of a black guy smiling and hugging his Jewish lawyer. You know the ads I mean. ;)
"Good God, you can't be serious?"
Haha. NO. Not as serious as you. This kind of complaining comes from a bunch of guys that claim that black people should stop complaining and just accept their bottom rung in society like it was nothing. However, they think not getting a single job is a huge personal wounding. It's amusing to me.
It's unfair to be born dumb and it's unfair to be smart and not get a job for which you are qualified. The second scenario is the status quo in your mind. However , there is no compelling reason to move from one form of unfair status quo to another. At least in this version, we have less chance of race wars.
Posted by: Vim | February 23, 2008 at 09:35 PM
From Catalyst Award
The Committee on Retention and Promotion of Women and the Committee on Racial and Ethnic Diversity work with the Recruiting and Compensation Committees to design and support programs and policies that maintain a culture of inclusion, bring diverse talent into the firm, and develop and promote women and people of color to partnership and positions of authority within the firm. ....
Sidley partners are required to, among other things, annually account for their personal efforts to improve the diversity of the firm. This accountability—along with a strong, inclusive culture, leadership, and innovative programs and policies—ensures that the firm’s diversity efforts are sustained.
On the other hand, their New York offices were in the world trade center so, HS's life would have been in danger if he had gotten the job.
Posted by: Turambar | February 23, 2008 at 09:56 PM
Rain And and others pretend that:
Anybody that thinks black people got dealt the unfair upperhand in the life lottery is crazy.
The reality is that blacks are perfectly selected (well, except for the introgression of white genes here in the US) for a life in sub-Saharan Africa.
In that sense, they did get an upperhand in the life lottery, just not for competing in these complex societies that white people have created here in the US and in most of Europe nor those created by East Asians in certain corners of the world.
Posted by: Tiger Woods (I am mostly Thai and Chinese, Damn it!) | February 23, 2008 at 10:03 PM
The compelling reason is competence. As I mentioned earlier, there is no reason why everyone should have to suffer so that a single token incompetent of any race can get ahead. Even blacks not named Michelle Obama don't benefit from inferior legal representation in this country.
We need affirmative action to prevent race wars? Good grief! I guess I need to hang out at Stormfront.org and VNN more frequently to find out what's really going on. ;-)
Posted by: tommy | February 23, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Heh, tommy, in dispatches from China it seems that White power is so great that it has managed to get the Chinese (practically every one of them) discriminating against people of color, well, NAMs at at least.
Posted by: YellowFeverDude | February 23, 2008 at 10:34 PM
At the risk of pissing off some of you black-apologists, here's a link to stroy about a black woman who graduated from Harvard, was given a great job, and basically "F"'d it up by being an "angry black woman", sort of like Michelle Obama:
Judge Rejects Race Bias Suit Against DLA Piper
I do believe that it provides a good example of what HS was hinting at in this post.
Posted by: slwerner | February 23, 2008 at 10:48 PM
"We need affirmative action to prevent race wars?"
Hyperbole my friend. I have a weakness for rhetorical flourish! I was more thinking the French style riots of late. Culturally distinct people who have no social mobility tend to revolt over time. I also think interethnic crime is more vicious in relation to the extent of social isolation. I think if you are going to get robbed by someone from the lower class, you would hope that they would just take your watch and leave because all they want is money. What you probably don't want is for them to have so much seething resentment that they get something out of tying you up and torturing you for three days before killing you. I think increasing numbers of the second sorts of incidents are the price we pay for dehumanizing the poor and reducing open dialogue and connection between classes.
YellowFeverDude:
China is definitely not a democracy. Saying what is done in China is what 'the Chinese' want is a bit much. It's what the unaccountable ruling class wants.
Besides everybody wants to manufacture products in China. Very few non-Chinese want to live in China. Neither the Taiwanese, the Tibetans nor the Uighurs want to live in China.
But more importantly, the Chinese don't claim to aspire to racial harmony while the US rides around the world on a perpetual high horse raving about how commited they are to it. It is completely valid to critique the US on its stated ideals.
Finally, your argument is an argument to pay more attention to racism in China not to reduce attention paid to racism in America.
Posted by: Vim | February 23, 2008 at 10:50 PM
slwerner:
There is nothing for which to apologize. From the 'race realist' perspective people of low IQ are driven to crime by forces out of their control. Yes?
Posted by: Vim | February 23, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Thus spake vim:
China is definitely not a democracy. Saying what is done in China is what 'the Chinese' want is a bit much. It's what the unaccountable ruling class wants.
I think you missed my sarcasm. There seems to be plenty of NAMs who think that their treatment in China is all whitey's fault.
Don't get that job they want because it went to someone white, it must be discrimination.
Posted by: YellowFeverDude | February 23, 2008 at 11:07 PM
YellowFeverDude: Oh I see. My apologies. Sounds like an interesting phenomena.
Posted by: Vim | February 23, 2008 at 11:29 PM
"There is nothing for which to apologize. From the 'race realist' perspective people of low IQ are driven to crime by forces out of their control. Yes?"
Vim,
I take it from your off-subject reply that you didn't bother to read the article.
What I was hoping that the article would elucidate is the way in which some people (and I certainly limit it to any specific group) become convinced that they are entitled to not only getting a good job, but also entitled to be made to feel that they are doing a good job and to remain free from any criticism.
As with the example of Charlene Morisseau, I believe that what we are seeing with Michelle Obama is a deep seated resentment of whites - the "angry black woman" complex. With Morisseau, it seems that she didn't believe that she should "accountable" to the whites in positions of authority, nor that it should be required of her to actually perform her job functions. She didn't feel gratitude towards them for being given a chance to an associate.
If you'd have bothered to read the items that I provided you links to a couple of ays ago, you'd have learned that Ms. Obama has a similar deep-seated resentment towards whites because she felt as though they were entirely responsible for making her feel inferior. Now, today, she still bears a grudge for not being made to feel as though she was only at Princeton as an AA/Legacy.
She has been given a great opportunity in life beyond her natural ability, yet she has no gratitude to those who provided her that opportunity nor to the nation which gave rise to her being extended such privilege in life.
It has no bearing on her ability to be a candidates wife, nor even a first lady; but it does show the low-quality person that she is.
I say the same thing to rich-privileged white Ivy legacy entrants who are just as inclined to be handed great positions due to family connections, and who proceed to do a half-assed job, yet demand that people treat them with great respect and deference for regarding their poor efforts. Chelsea Clinton and JFK, Jr. pop quickly to mind.
Posted by: slwerner | February 23, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Thus spake slwerner:
She didn't feel gratitude towards them for being given a chance to an associate.
You know, where I work I don't feel gratitude for being given a chance to work their either.
However, you can bet I work hard and am constantly looking for ways to add value and justify my existence.
This is because I early a lot and have shares in the company, but also because I know we have let whites go who did not perform, we have let Chinese go who did not perform and we have let Indians go who did not perform. What we have left is people from four groups and these people all perform.
No one had a sense of entitlement where I work.
Posted by: YellowFeverDude | February 23, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Jews have no loyalty to other Jews.
Sure they do. Jewish scientists are 40% more likely than non-Jews to cite papers with Jewish authors.
Posted by: Rain And | February 24, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Getting cited is important for tenure decisions:
http://doi.apa.org/?uid=1995-26878-001
Posted by: Rain And | February 24, 2008 at 12:13 AM
slwerner:
Why be so hard on Michelle? At least she doesn't have a blog where she complains about white people stealing jobs from black people and advocates policies like reducing white immigration. Even if she did, do you think that would make her a racist? Maybe she's just a 'race realist' and she knows whites and blacks just can't get along. Wouldn't it be great to have a 'race realist' in the white house?
Posted by: Vim | February 24, 2008 at 12:16 AM
"Why be so hard on Michelle?"
Vim,
I gone on the record (on this forum) as pulling for Obama to be president. I've also pointed out that I am fully aware that he is certainly a race realist.
My point is merely that Michelle Obama represents a personality type which I have had the misfortune to have had to deal with in my own life - the angry black woman. She the woman who blames whites for anything and everything.
In every day life, blacks are far more frequently quite obvious in expression of their resentment and hatred of whites than is seen in the reverse.
For the record, I don't buy whites "crying" about how the system has "cheated" them. I'm quite certain that I've lost out to lesser qualified persons at times. It's something that one must find the character to move beyond.
I feel the same way to black "whiners".
As for Michelle, if see was of any "quality" at all, she'd simply come right out and name some of the obvious things that she could be proud of her country for, rather than have her PR folks awkwardly and ineffectively trying to finesse her statements. Her actions and attitudes scream, "I hate this country because it full of white people, who I hate".
I'm still pulling for Obama though. I'm counting on the Great Black Messiah being a Carteresque failure in office - swooning bimbo admirers notwithstanding.
Posted by: slwerner | February 24, 2008 at 12:37 AM
re: "Jews have no loyalty to other Jews."
This is IMHO unlikely to be true. Jews are boosters of Jews as much as ROTARIANS boost ROTARIANS and Masons boost Masons. ( Note: the RAISON D’ÊTRE of ROTARY and MASONRY is boosting each member! ) Below I will give a true story as an example.
I am 2nd Generation German both sides and Catholic to boot. Talk about a background where no helping hands can be expected.
While in college my father, an industrial engineer, was fired as he was just completing the construction of a new manufacturing plant. Years later the company begged him to return and fix the plant which had been screwed up by incompetent managers ( not engineers ) hired as a cost saving ploy after my father departed. My father declined the offer. My father who had built two plants and revised a number of other older plants vowed never to work for a company again. He decided to find an equity position instead. What he did was after many months of searching take a 50% stake in a company and attempt to rescue the company from bankruptcy. It was touch and go but he succeeded and eventually sold his 50% ownership for enough money to have a comfortable retirement. His co-owners were Jews and the banker involved in the rescue and other businessmen involved were all Jews. My father has only good stories of his dealings with Jews even with him being a Goy.
Well the son of the Jewish co-owner at some point after my father joined the business graduated from high school. He wanted to be an engineer. His SATs and high school transcript were not of high order expected for admission to a first rank engineering school. The next door neighbor of the Jewish co-owner was a professor of engineering at a high ranked engineering school. This professor managed to get him admitted and shepherded the boy through 4 years of Engineering to the point where the boy graduated, at or near the bottom of his class, but did graduate with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. My dad's business associate bragged to my father that his neighbor, the professor, made possible his son making it through with a degree being awarded.
Goys in my experience don't do this for other Goys. I am using the term Goy as meaning a non Jewish white.
Well how did the boy do? He was given a job by G.E. in Cincinnati, OH and managed to keep the job for 3 or 4 years at which time he was let go. Currently, according to my father who still is in contact with his ex-business associate the boy, now a man, is doing well selling antiques.
Dan Kurt
Posted by: Dan Kurt | February 24, 2008 at 04:38 AM
The thing you guys are missing is that ethnic favoritism works through social networks like any other kind of favoritism. So, yeah, there's a Jewish social network just like there's an Italian social network, a WASP social network, etc. Being a member of the appropriate group is a necessary but not sufficient condition for entry, particularly if the group in question is dominant in the area; i.e., you might get a job from the only other Jew in Plano, but good luck using your Jewishness alone to get a job in Hollywood. For that you have to be the director's cousin, etc. HS probably wasn't tied into the Jewish social network (maybe he wasn't too popular in Hebrew school; who knows?), so for his purposes, it might as well not exist.
Posted by: SFG | February 24, 2008 at 07:43 AM