Democrat economists hate Black women (NYT)

The New York Times:

Years before Lisa Cook became President Trump’s latest target in his effort to exert control over the Federal Reserve, she wrote about her experience as one of a relative handful of Black women in a field long dominated by white men.

“Economics is neither a welcoming nor a supportive profession for women,” she and a colleague wrote in a New York Times opinion essay in 2019. She added, “But if economics is hostile to women, it is especially antagonistic to Black women.”

What is the overwhelming political identity of those who are hostile to women in general and Black women in particular? “Political Affiliations of Federal Reserve Economists” (2022):

According to a new analysis of voter registration data, Democrat economists at the Federal Reserve outnumber Republicans 10 to 1. The imbalance is even larger among economists in leadership positions, among younger economists, and among female economists.

Previous studies look at the political ideologies of the broader economic profession. For instance, Langbert, Quain, and Klein (2016) report that Democrats outnumber Republicans 4.5:1 among economics faculty at 40 leading universities. In addition, Langbert (2020) finds a ratio of 4:1 among members of the American Economic Association (AEA), 4.1:1 among academic AEA members, and 2.5:1 among AEA members working outside academia and government. Earlier, Klein and Stern (2006) estimateds the ratio at 4.1:1 among public sector economists and 1.4:1 among private sector economists. McEachern (2006) shows Democrats outnumber Republicans 5.1:1 among AEA members in terms of political contributions.

I find that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans among Fed economists is 10.4 to 1. The lack of political diversity is especially pronounced at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (48.5:1). Economists at regional Reserve banks range from 3:1 (Cleveland) to 12:1 (San Francisco). The lack of diversity is also noteworthy in leadership positions (22.25:1). Economists who are 40 years old or younger at the Fed are more likely to lean left (20.33:1), as are female economists (27.5:1). This suggests the Fed is likely to become even less politically diverse in time.

We are informed that if Republicans were eliminated (liquidated?) the U.S. would become a paradise of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Yet it seems that the discrimination that has kept and continues to keep qualified Black women from assuming leadership positions at the Fed has been almost entirely perpetrated by Democrats.

Full post, including comments

Diversity tour of Shaker Heights near Cleveland, Ohio

Photos taken walking around a rich white neighborhood of Shaker Heights, Ohio back in July…

Joe Biden won 90 percent of the vote among the folks here (Wikipedia). Quite a few houses sported political signs, 100 percent of them advocating for progressive Democrat points of view. Example from a $1 million house (a fortune by Rust Belt standards!):

Maybe the owner doesn’t want to replace the sign with one that is better condition because that wouldn’t communicate that he/she/ze/they has had a longstanding relationship with Black Lives Matter. What would happen if a Black Life from Cleveland proper wanted to dip into the “public” Shaker Heights swimming pool? Unless accompanied by a resident, he/she/ze/they would be excluded due to non-residency:

We did find some genuine diversity in the Van Aken District. One visitor was dressed in a full burqa with eye slit. Her companion wore a modest abaya with parts of her face showing and everything else covered. They walked by this clothing store whose message wasn’t exactly Islamic:

None of the closeted conservatives of Shaker Heights had the temerity to display any political message outside of their homes. One of the better examples of independent thinking was this house with a “resist” sign, an upside-down American flag, and a Ukrainian flag:

A sampling of the signs in front of some other $1 million houses:

I wonder if these signs help maintain neighborhood political monoculture by discouraging anyone who disagrees with the posted messages from buying a house. This would result in an increase in happiness among residents, according to Harvard University research as covered by the New York Times: “The downside of diversity” (2007).

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

Full post, including comments

If Zohran Mamdani were Ugandan would that have made his claim to be “Black or African-American” more fair?

The New York Times, which said that anything negative about the Biden family was Russian disinformation, jumped immediately on a story regarding the progressive on track to be New York City’s next mayor: “Mamdani Identified as Asian and African American on College Application”.

The implication of the article is that it would have been righteous for Zohran Mamdani to check the “I am Black” box for a race-based preference if he had actually been Ugandan rather than part of an immigrant population from India.

Today’s question is why it would have been fair for a recent immigrant from Uganda, even one with the correct skin color, to receive preference in college admissions or hiring. America’s race-based college admissions and jobs allocation systems were advertised as reparations for past discrimination and slavery. If someone who shows up in the U.S. five minutes ago scoops up these preferences doesn’t that prevent the preferences from going to the people for whom they were intended? What discrimination could an actual Black Ugandan who arrived in the U.S. yesterday, for example, have suffered at the hands of the bad people (i.e., white Americans)?

The idea of affirmative action (race-based discrimination by do-gooders or white-/Asian-haters, depending on your perspective) was started by President Lyndon Johnson via Executive Order 11246 in 1965. This was, coincidentally, at a point when immigrants weren’t a significant percentage of the U.S. population (Pew):

(Note that the open borders of the Biden-Harris administration made the above 2015 forecast inaccurate. The U.S. became 15.8 percent foreign-born in 2025 (CIS).)

Even though Donald Trump has gotten the federal government out of the race-based discrimination business we still have private corporations and universities engaging in it. The question for today: Why are race-based preferences available to immigrants?

Full post, including comments

T-Mobile ends race discrimination, but not because it was wrong

“T-Mobile disconnects from DEI under pressure from Trump administration” (USA Today):

T-Mobile is scrapping its diversity, equity and inclusion programs under pressure from President Donald Trump’s administration as it looks for regulators to green-light two major acquisitions.

In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission dated July 8, the wireless carrier said it would discontinue DEI policies “not just in name, but in substance.”

“We recognize that the legal and policy landscape surrounding DEI under federal law has changed,” T-Mobile wrote.

Here’s the correct analysis, I think:

“In yet another cynical bid to win FCC regulatory approval, T-Mobile is making a mockery of its professed commitment to eliminating discrimination, promoting fairness and amplifying underrepresented voices,” FCC commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, wrote on X. “History will not be kind to this cowardly corporate capitulation.”

How is it possible for a company to abandon one of its sacred principles without at least pretending to have changed its mind, e.g., saying “What we did in the past was wrong”? It’s okay to say “We thought we could make more money by adopting a completely new moral system”?

In a similar vein… “Trump administration releases $175 million in federal funding to Penn after transgender athletes agreement” (CNN):

The funding release comes after the school reached an agreement with the federal government to block transgender athletes from female sports teams and erase the records set by swimmer Lia Thomas.

The university previously said “Lia Thomas is a woman”. If the Feds had threatened to take away $1 the school presumably would have continued to say “Lia Thomas is a woman”. There was some amount of money, however, at which Lia Thomas’s gender ID changed. But what was that amount of money? Would Penn have been willing to say “Lia Thomas is not a woman” for $1 million? $5 million?

Full post, including comments

The #Resistance in Bangor, Maine

What does a gathering of diversity advocates who’ve chosen to live in the whitest part of America’s whitest state look like? June 11, 2025, Bangor, Maine:

As in Park City, Utah, the city officially supports Pride with tax dollars by placing Biden-style trans-enhanced Rainbow Flags on every downtown lamppost:

The U.S. quasi-embassy in Taiwan explains, using your federal tax dollars, that these official city-purchased flags are missing the intersex circle:

I hope that the Taiwanese, thus educated, won’t make the same mistake as the City of Bangor!

Within a block of the rally, a “Pride Proud” church that believes Black Lives Matter even if no member of the congregation has seen a Black person lately (not shown: a guy coming out of the church wearing a “Let Gaza Live” button; the IDF would have a tough time indeed if Maine progressives turned their words into action!):

A fabric/yarn store a few steps away:

President Trump apparently sent tanks to Bangor to quell any unrest (spotted the next morning):

Full post, including comments

A Greta Thunberg yacht trip to California?

Greta Thunberg is back in Europe after her heroic aid trip to Gaza. There are some open questions regarding this trip:

  • why does someone who says that the Earth is being destroyed by humans choose the Palestinians, close to world #1 in fertility and population growth, as her model society? Just imagine the CO2 output if every group of humans on this planet had 4-6 children per family, as is common among Palestinians entitled to UNRWA aid (i.e., free food, health care, education, etc., even if nobody ever works at any job other than Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad soldier)
  • why was a female do-gooder visiting a group of Muslims (the noble Gazans) not wearing hijab and/or burqa?

I’m not holding my breath for answers to the above, but now that we apparently need not worry about climate change, perhaps the highest and best use for Greta Thunberg would be a diesel-fueled yacht trip to deliver aid to the Californians who are currently #resisting an occupying military.

Let’s look at some photos from my recent visit to the teen section of the central Los Angeles Public Library, which officially teaches cooperation via smartphone to evade ICE. An important way to “keep our community safe” is to prevent federal government workers from doing their jobs:

The #Science section in which we learn that SARS-CoV-2 is no match for teenagers wearing masks and voluntarily receiving an injection of an experimental vaccine that is reserved for those 75 years and older in the UK:

The library has an official “favorite drag queen” and he/she/ze/they recently performed for teenagers:

Any books for the teens to read after the drag show?

Finally, remember that Los Angeles is a hate-free zone (which is why Donald Trump and ICE are being welcomed with love?):

Readers: What should Greta T deliver to the besieged folks in Los Angeles?

Full post, including comments

Why Jew-hatred is so popular at elite universities

Young Americans hoping to stay elite or join the elites, e.g., via attending an elite university, are forced into behaviors that would have seemed completely unnatural back in the 1970s. A 1970s public school was a cruel bully-filled environment compared to today’s placid “kindness is everything” schools. Teenagers were expected to be solipsistic and certainly not expected to pretend to be committed do-gooders. Today, by contrast, the teenager who hopes to gain admittance to a decent college must feign passion for a social justice cause, helping the “underserved”, etc. Nobody seems to notice that teenagers have enough of their own problems to focus on and that folks who genuinely want to invest time and money in charity tend to be old.

If the Americans who fought World War II were the “Greatest Generation” then surely today’s college students are the “Kindest Generation” and those who attend the most elite schools are the kindest of the kindest. How to explain, then, the enthusiasm for Israel-haterd/Jew-hatred among the kindest of the kind? Here’s a theory from a friend in the Boston area (she’s a 60ish Clinton/Obama Democrat who questions the full Biden/Harris religion):

My theory is that they’re force-fed so much “kindness” that they’re desperate to be mean to someone — and, in reason #100 for antisemitism over the centuries, campus ideology and TikTok gave them the excuse…

I think that she’s on to something. Ivy League (“Queers for Palestine League”) schools demand thousands of young humans every year who are as kind as the kindest Buddhist philosopher. The U.S. doesn’t contain a sufficient size population of ultra-kind 18-year-olds. Therefore, the people admitted to elite schools are mostly those who’ve been great liars and pretenders regarding their kindness levels. They need to take their masks off occasionally (so to speak; of course, the same folks have been very diligent indeed about wearing their COVID-19 masks; #FollowTheScience). They can’t hold an on-campus demonstration to decry crimes committed by undocumented migrants or by Black Americans. They can’t rally against Muslims being reluctant to celebrate the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community. What is left? The only acceptable outlets for rage (Two Minutes Hate) are (1) anti-Trump/anti-Republican gatherings, and (2) anti-Israel/anti-Jew gatherings (sometimes layered with a “we don’t hate Jews, only Zionists” gloss).

The idea has now trickled down to some non-elite schools

Related:

Full post, including comments

Whites who fled to Latinx-free New Hampshire demand due process for the Latinx

Continuing our coverage of National Immigrant Heritage Month for those who celebrate…

Below is a friend who used to live in a 93% white part of Maskachusetts. He fled to a 95% white region of New Hampshire, a U.S. state that is perfect for those who wish to avoid encountering our Latinx brothers, sisters, and binary resisters. Wokipedia says that Keene, NH is enriched by only 1.6% Latinx. His Facebook post:

Spotted at the rally for democracy in Keene NH today. Note my hat showing support for Artificial Intelligence in our schools.

It’s a mystery to me that people who’ve chosen to live a Latinx-free lifestyle are this passionate about ensuring that other parts of the U.S. receive maximum enrichment. As part of my effort to be defriended by 100 percent of Facebook users, of course I asked “Nobody could persuade a Black or Latinx person to join the rally?” Response 1: “My wife tells me that I should just let it go and not engage with people who may not be well-informed, so I hereby disengage.” Response 2 (from one of his friends, with an unknown gender ID but a conventionally male Jewish name): “No pearls to swine!”

Here’s an all-white crowd featured by the BBC

a little farther down in the article:

Here’s a video from Portland, Maine. Even after importing half of Somalia, the righteous Mainers apparently couldn’t find a single Black person to join their (mostly unmasked) mass gathering:

Another “sea of whiteness” video:

Full post, including comments

If inequality is bad, why isn’t the prospect of rich people moving out of New York City welcome?

“Experts” are upset that the next New York City mayor might drive out the rich (New York Post):

The candidate himself seems to accept the idea that rich people moving away is bad:

Responding to the criticism of his costly plans, Mamdani campaign spokesman Andrew Epstein said, “I know the wealthy have a lot of big feelings about paying a bit more in taxes but here are the facts: working and middle class families are already fleeing because they can’t afford the cost of living.

“The rich leave less than any other income group and when they do, it’s often to other high tax states. The 4.25% corporate tax increase Zohran proposes is still far less than Donald Trump’s 14% cut. So too is the additional 2% tax on millionaires.”

I’m confused. Why is a “mass exodus” of the rich a bad thing? Most New Yorkers agree that inequality is bad. If the richest New Yorkers leave then there will be less inequality among those who remain.

According to the Queers for Palestine (Harvard), inequality is “one of America’s most vexing problems”. Wouldn’t a smaller tax base and a lower standard of living be reasonable prices to pay in order to move a community toward a solution to a “vexing problem”?

Full post, including comments