« Conservatives for Hillary | Main | How can you spot a good professor? »
Are NBA referees racist?
I wouldn't have thought so, but Justin Wolfers, writing with Joseph Price, says maybe yes:
...during the 13 seasons from 1991 through 2004, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players...[the authors] found a corresponding bias in which black officials called fouls more frequently against white players, though that tendency was not as strong.
Here is the paper. The effect is big enough that an all-white team would, all other things equal, win two extra games over the course of an 82-game season. A panel of three independent experts has judged that the Wolfers-Price analysis is more convincing than a David Stern-sanctioned rebuttal that no bias is present.
The NYT web site is slow this morning, try back later if the first link is giving you trouble.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 2, 2007 at 08:10 AM in Sports | Permalink
Comments
Maybe black players really do foul more often that whites?
Posted by: Mike at May 2, 2007 8:27:07 AM
Sorry, my comment above got posted too soon - I intended to add "... If so, perhaps we are measuring the reluctance of some refs to call fouls against players of a different race."
Posted by: Mike at May 2, 2007 8:32:26 AM
Did they account for differences in position? I suspect there are more white shooting guards than power forwards.
Posted by: Steve R at May 2, 2007 8:34:32 AM
Here is the abstract: "The NBA provides an intriguing place to test for taste-based discrimination: referees and players are involved in repeated interactions in a high-pressure setting with referees making the type of split-second decisions that might allow implicit racial biases to become evident. Moreover, the referees receive constant monitoring, and feedback on their performance. (Commissioner Stern has claimed that NBA referees “are the most
ranked, rated, reviewed, statistically analyzed and mentored group of employees of any company in any place in the world.”) The essentially arbitrary assignment of refereeing crews to basketball games, and the number of repeated interactions allow us to convincingly test for own-race preferences. We find that—even conditioning on player and referee fixed effects (and specific game fixed effects)—that more personal fouls are awarded against players when they are officiated by an opposite-race officiating crew than when officiated by an own-race refereeing crew. These biases are sufficiently large that we find appreciable differences in whether predominantly black teams are more likely to win or lose, according to the racial composition of the refereeing crew."
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at May 2, 2007 8:42:25 AM
Ah, I misunderstood. Never mind.
Where's that coffee pot...?
Posted by: Mike at May 2, 2007 9:05:06 AM
Is a player with one black parent and one white parent classified as black or white? What about with one white grandparent?
Posted by: Anon at May 2, 2007 9:10:52 AM
I'm not sure if there are enough white players in the NBA to make this sort of comparison possible. There generally aren't more than two white players (out of ten) on the court at any given time during a game, and it's not at all unusual for there to be only one or even none at all.
Is a player with one black parent and one white parent classified as black or white? What about with one white grandparent?
You're obviously not from the United States, or otherwise you'd never ask this question. Here in America, a basketball player (or anyone else for that matter) would be legally considered black if he had merely one black great-great-great grandparent (all others being white) even if his physical appearance was completely white.
Posted by: Peter at May 2, 2007 10:11:00 AM
I read the paper a few days ago and it is very well done. All the objections raised by the prior comments are well taken care of. Note that the identification of the tested hypothesis comes from comparing the difference between the likelihood of a black referee calling a foul on a black and on a white player against the same difference for a white referee.
The one statement in the NYT that I object to is that the paper was evaluated by three "independent" experts: Larry Katz was one of Justin Wolfers advisors and is a close friend to Justin. Ian Ayres is a frequent co-author of John Donohue, who in turn is a co-authors of Justin Wolfers. I'd be very surprised if Wolfers and Ayres didn't know each other pretty well. None of that changes the merits of the paper, but I would have picked differently if I had chosen the independent experts.
Posted by: Commenterlein at May 2, 2007 10:29:47 AM
The coefficients on the instrumental variables in table 4 are also interesting. For example, all-stars receive 2 fewer fouls per 48 minutes than do reserves. Also, fewer fouls are called on black players as a group (.763 fouls per 48 minutes), but 90% of this difference is explained by “observable characteristics” including position, starter-status, and physical stature.
As the authors note, some effects – fewer blocks and steals – may reflect less aggressive play. Assuming the players respond optimally to the racial composition of the referees, the data could also illuminate the trade-off between fouls and aggressive play: What is the marginal cost of a foul?
Individual-level referee data might shed additional light on peer effects as well: How do referees respond when working in mixed or uniform-race crews? I suspect some social monitoring occurs.
Posted by: blink at May 2, 2007 10:35:56 AM
The effect is big enough that an all-white team would, all other things equal, win two extra games over the course of an 82-game season
This is actually a nice lesson in explicating the practical size of statistically significant effects. When was the last time an all-white team played 82 NBA games in a row?
Posted by: Kieran at May 2, 2007 10:40:44 AM
The paper seems to be making a fundamental ecological error of attributing community level behavior to individuals. The study suggests that having more white refs on a three-man referee team leads to more fouls on black players, but it has no means by which to imply that white referees call more fouls on black players.
While not as elegant an explanation, a black referee with two white referees in his group might be more likely to call a foul on a black player, and the white referees might make no distinction.
The proper conclusion of the study is that a community-level effect exists, and another study needs to be performed addressing which of the individuals makes the call to create strong evidence for any individual level bias hypothesis. As the NBA has that data and will not release it, and no grad student probably has the time to watch 1500 basketball games a year to generate the data, I doubt we're going to get an answer.
Posted by: Garrett at May 2, 2007 11:16:26 AM
Garrett -
I was going to write something similar but you said it better. The authors do NOT have data on which referee called a foul on which players, although one might be able to find undergrads who would watch 1300 basketball games (per year, times however many years of data the authors have) to gather the data if one would pay them appropriately. And one could always fastforward to the fouls.
By the way, the general public is going to think that the authors do have this kind of individual data (I did before I took a look at the paper) so they are really going to believe that the authors know how many times Joey Crawford called a foul on Tim Duncan, which we don't know. All the general public is going to see is "White referees are racist", which may or may not be true (I believe the authors mention alternative hypotheses in the paper that they cannot distinguish between but those hypotheses do not sell newspapers - wait, does anyone buy newspapers anymore?).
So, while Wolfers might do better analysis of the data than David Stern, I'd bet David Stern has better data.
Posted by: AZ at May 2, 2007 11:42:30 AM
Here in America, a basketball player (or anyone else for that matter) would be legally considered black if he had merely one black great-great-great grandparent
Is the one-drop rule still on the American law books? I can't think of any currently active legislation that would depend on it. From Wikipedia:
In 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ruling on the case of Loving v. Virginia, conclusively invalidated Plecker's Virginia Racial Integrity Act, along with its key component, the one-drop rule, as unconstitutional. Despite this holding, the one-drop theory is still influential in U.S. society. Multiracial individuals with visible mixed European and African and/or Native American ancestry are often still considered non-white
Well, a black great-great-great grandmother is probably enough to check the minority box on a college application or the census, I'd be somewhat surprised if basketball referees are conducting blood tests on players so that they can call more fouls on some dude who looks completely white but really isn't.
Posted by: Tyler Simons at May 2, 2007 12:18:54 PM
Note that their difference-in-difference estimators (table 3) show that the effect is driven by different behavior of black and white referees with respect to white players. That is, black and white referees call fouls on black players at roughly equal rates.
Posted by: Isaac at May 2, 2007 12:34:53 PM
Tyler S. -- The authors assigned players labels as "black" or "not black" by viewing photographs. They also enlisted a former referee to determine how referees would likely "see" the players. The analysis does not depend on anything like a "one-drop rule."
Posted by: blink at May 2, 2007 12:46:17 PM
By the way, here's an article on a much more significant historical case of self-defeating ethnic bias in professional sports that didn't get vastly publicisized on the New York Times:
http://www.isteve.com/Sports_Baseball_Hidden_Ethnic_Bias.htm
Posted by: Steve Sailer at May 2, 2007 12:52:27 PM
Regarding ice hockey, I vaguely recall a study that suggested that teams which wear brighter colors are called for more penalties than those which wear darker uniforms. The thought was that perhaps the brighter colored jerseys make infractions more obvious to referees. On the much smaller playing surface used in basketball, with so much less contact, could there be some sort of related effect that outweighs other effects of race? I doubt it, but it's worth considering before dismissing.
Posted by: false_cause at May 2, 2007 2:06:38 PM
You can't trust Stern about something like this for one second. The man is a pimp, and you can disregard his 'study' completely.
It's a really interesting possibility. I agree with the other comments by Garrett, and Issac.
Posted by: Bill at May 2, 2007 3:05:57 PM
A much bigger example of ethnic bias in sports is how baseball managements were long biased against black and white American players and in favor of Latin American players because -- before the Bill James / Billy Beane / Moneyball statistical analysis revolution -- they overrated batting average and underrated on-base percentage, and thus statistically overrated Latins on average.
As I wrote in 2003, after the Toronto Star denounced the new management of the Blue Jays for trading high priced Latin players like Raul Mondesi for cheap white players:
The reason that scientific general managers like Ricciardi are modestly more likely to sign more white players than traditional general managers is because the old, less logical norms for evaluating ballplayers tend to slightly overrate Latin Americans.
For example, players with Spanish names (lumping both foreign and American-born Latinos together) ... are on average less likely to accept walks than whites or African-Americans. "It's not easy for a Latin player to take 100 walks," said Sammy Sosa early in his famous 1998 season.
In 2002, Hispanics had a combined batting average of .264, while everyone else together hit .260. On the other hand, the Hispanic "walk average" was 0.060, while the non-Hispanics' bases on balls ratio was 0.069, a significant 14 percent higher, leaving the non-Latinos with a better on-base percentage.
The patience gap has declined somewhat, from 16 percent in 1992 and 19 percent in 1982, probably because Latinos have largely closed the power gap. Twenty years ago, non-Hispanics hit home runs 42 percent more often than Hispanics, but that difference was only 4 percent last year.
The last 15 years have seen the emergence of Hispanics with excellent batting eyes like Delgado, Edgar Martinez and Rafael Palmeiro...
Still, this huge increase in slugging has not made the Hispanic shortfall in walks disappear.
Nobody is sure why this inequality exists, but it's been around for decades. American Negro Leaguers playing winter ball in the islands back in the 1930s were amazed at the kind of pitches at which their hosts would swing.
In the past, Latinos tended to cluster at the positions where fielding was more important than power, but that does not fully account for the patience gap.
In one of the few sabermetric studies ever done of the discipline disparity, David Marasco looked at American League hitters during 1994-1996. He found that American-born "glovemen" (shortstops, second basemen and catchers) were 24 percent more likely to walk than Latin American-born glovemen, while at the more offense-minded positions the gap was 7 percent.
http://www.isteve.com/Sports_Baseball_Hidden_Ethnic_Bias.htm
Now, any thoughts on why this NBA study made it big in the NYT, but this quite obvious long-term systematic irrational ethnic discrimination in baseball has, as far as I know, never been mentioned in the NYT?
Hmmmhmmmhm ... I wonder what the reason could be?
Posted by: Steve Sailer at May 2, 2007 3:29:13 PM
Now, any thoughts on why this NBA study made it big in the NYT, but this quite obvious long-term systematic irrational ethnic discrimination in baseball has, as far as I know, never been mentioned in the NYT?
Well, first, the NBA story is in the Sports section and not even the leadoff story there; not exactly "making it big" by New York Times standards.
Second, how much coverage any issue gets partly depends on whatever else was happening that day.
Third, the issue you cite isn't a single study but just a collection of disparate statistics, anecdotes, and opinions, that singly or together are nowhere near as sophisticated as the NBA study. In fact, they amount to nothing more than the fact that Latin American players have marginally lower base-on-balls percentages than US-born players. The managerial bias you mention is nothing more than the general bias in favor of hits vs. walks in the pre-Moneyball days, which you yourself attribute to a poor understanding of the important statistics, and not racial preference.
Fourth, and most obvious, the issue you raise is not a question of racial bias, but of group differences in performance that track with race, which is a much less socially salient issue, especially since the differences are so small. In addition, the differences you note arise from the players' own choices of behavior (to swing or not to swing at pitches), not from external decisions made about them by people of another race - which also dramatically flattens the impact you seem to think the story has. Finally, the phenomenon you note is well-known (as you point out, Sammy Sosa publicly discussed it as a matter-of-fact issue 5 years before you wrote about it), and is commonly attributed to a well-known but entirely non-racial cause: Latin, and especially Caribbean, players grow up swinging at a lot of pitches because they are desperate to be noticed by MLB scouts, and they know that making a big showing at the plate is the only way to impress them. The few who do get scouted and go into the US leagues retain the habit that brought them there because it's the hitting style they know, and because they know it worked for them. That dynamic is so well-known that it has become a cliche among Dominican players: "You can't walk your way off the island." Together, these factors remove any overtone of racial unfairness the story might have had, even if the issue amounted to more than a one-half-percent difference in on-base percentages.
Posted by: Kevin T. Keith at May 2, 2007 4:39:30 PM
solid post ktk
Posted by: anonymous at May 2, 2007 5:07:32 PM
You need to study up on "disparate impact" rulings by the Supreme Court, such as Briggs v. Duke Power that requires strict scrutiny of objective factors that have disparate impact in hiring on different ethnic groups. That an employer was bull-headedly using a statistic that had been shown to be biased and inferior would be a classic violation.
And how much indignant media agitation would there have been over the last 20 years if Bill James, et al, had shown that baseball's old guard was persisting in using an obsolete statistic that discriminated _against_ a minority?
Posted by: Steve Sailer at May 2, 2007 5:26:55 PM
Indeed, that Latin players benefited from the use of dumb statistics was, as far as I can tell, _never_ mentioned in the press until the 2003 "White Jays" crusade by the Toronto Sun against G.M of the Blue Jays, Bill James' acolyte J.P. Ricciardi, for dumping high priced Latin players with low on-base percentages like Raul Mondesi, in favor of cheap Moneyball players, who turned out to be overwhelmingly white.
The Toronto Star newspaper ran a series of articles on June 28, 2003 under the heading, "White Jays: In a city of so many multi-cultural faces, Toronto's baseball team is the whitest in the league. Why?" Nineteen of the 25 players on the Blue Jays' opening day roster were white Americans, three were African-Americans, and three were Latin Americans. (The average major league team has about three American blacks and seven Latinos.)
In late 2001, the Blue Jays hired as general manager J.P. Ricciardi, who is a follower of maverick statistics analyst Bill James. The Star documented that Ricciardi's quantitative acumen has had what civil rights litigators call a "disparate impact:" "Of the 39 players Ricciardi has since acquired through trades, free agency or waiver claims, 36 of them -- 92 percent -- are white," the newspaper reported.
The Star's sports reporter Geoff Baker claimed that this "raises the issue of whether the Jays truly need to be more representative of the city they play in at a time when they are satisfying fans by winning." ...
It's easy to criticize the Star's series, yet, although blinded by its political bias, it was groping toward the germ of an important idea. There's a revolution going on in how teams evaluate talent, and this growing sophistication is, on the whole, likely to benefit previously overlooked U.S. players at the expense of Latin Americans with flashier batting averages and stolen base totals.
Defending the Star's much reviled "White Jays" series, columnist Richard Griffin wrote the next day, "Jays General Manager J.P. Ricciardi along with Oakland's Billy Beane and other new-wavers believe in building offense through patience at the plate and taking no chances on the bases."
My UPI article "Baseball's Hidden Ethnic Bias" was published in response to "White Jays."
http://www.isteve.com/Sports_Baseball_Hidden_Ethnic_Bias.htm
Posted by: Steve Sailer at May 2, 2007 5:32:16 PM
By the way, the economists' paper also brings up the legal issue of "disparate impact:"
"Thus, this analysis yields intriguing evidence that the league’s historical tendency to hire white referees has a disparate impact on black NBA players. While disparate impact may be the relevant legal standard under Title VII of the Civil Right Act,15 the more interesting social science question remains: what behavior is causing this disparate impact?"
Posted by: Steve Sailer at May 2, 2007 6:20:13 PM
Steve--I'm still not entirely sure what point you're trying to prove in your posts, but I think it's something along the lines of liberal msm promotes some sports stories involving discrimination but ignores others?
You ask, "how much indignant media agitation would there have been over the last 20 years if Bill James, et al, had shown that baseball's old guard was persisting in using an obsolete statistic that discriminated _against_ a minority?"
I'm guessing not much for the simple reason that using power and and batting averages as metrics for choosing baseball players is prima facie a perfectly logical screening method, especially considering the majority of gm were former players, not statisticians.
Also, this is fairly obvoiusly not a case of "disparate impact." From first google hit: "Disparate Impact: Even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class."
Guess what? On-base percentage is not a "facially neutral employment practice" in the sport of baseball. In fact it's pretty important. So regardless of what that moronic Star article posited, this is not a case of disparate impact. I think all you proved here is that the Toronto Star is not a very good paper, or at least lacks good editors.
Posted by: VM at May 2, 2007 6:41:00 PM
VM
Don't be obtuse. You are totally misinterpreting what the phrase "facially neutral employment practice" means. Go back and reread it slowly.
What is relevant in the quote is that the law only applies to a "protected class" -- i.e., some are more equal than others. That baseball teams long discriminated unwittingly against African-Americans by using the wrong statistics, which overrated Latins, falls under the law, but not the discrimination against non-Hispanic whites.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at May 2, 2007 7:41:14 PM
"Business necessity: If the plaintiff establishes disparate impact, the employer must prove that the challenged practice is "job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity."
Whether you chose power metrics or the new moneyball statistical analysis, I don't you'll convince any court in the land that the relevant statistics are not "job-related for the position in question."
Posted by: vm at May 2, 2007 8:13:44 PM
The foreigners quota for baseball teams is 35.So if you have one Latino with good glove and poor bat you are losing the chance of having a good glove ,good bat Latino.If you have a White or Afroamerican with good bat /bad glove your lost oportunity is lower.
Seattle´s roster today: 7 Latinos , 2 From Japan, 2 American (one pinch hitter)
Toronto have played with four and five venezuelans in the roster.They have an agrreement with Lara´s Cardinals.That s why Joss Barfield was born in Venezuela , his father played there.
Posted by: carl at May 2, 2007 9:01:02 PM
Speaking as an evolutionary psychologist - the underlying assumption behind this study may well be biologically incorrect.
The underlying assumption is that race has no relevance to performance in professional sports, and therefore that differences between races are due to prejudice. This assumption is incorrect - obviously - since there are big race differentials in terms of sports participation, presumably related to the fact that races on average look different and (therefore) have differently-structured bodies.
Since the effect size described here is so small, I would guess that there is still an element of uncontrolled confounding at work.
I believe that confounding cannot be fully-controlled by multivariate statistical analysis (mainly due to the imperfectly true assumptions of those techniques). What is needed are bottom-up controlled bioscience-type studies, which select subjects for inclusion using highly stringent criteria (ie. smaller studies which match subjects, analyzed using simple comparative statistics).
In other words, answering this question needs a more controlled 'biological' approach than this multivariate economics approach.
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton at May 3, 2007 1:39:53 AM
John Hollinger over at ESPN has a good point on the finding that teams with white players win more games. Perhaps there is still underlying racism with the officials, but it doesn't impact the outcome as much as they seem to think?
From ESPN:
While we're talking about this [race and officiating] study, one other item in it drew my attention: the finding that during the 13-year study period, teams with the greater share of playing time by black players won 48.6 percent of games. The authors seemed to imply some kind of mild institutional racism against black players by this result.
In fact, there's a much more obvious explanation -- the league imported a bunch of talent from Europe during the study period, almost all of it white, and the poorly run teams were the last ones to figure out there were good players on other continents. Thus, by default they ended up with more black players on their rosters.
Look back on the drafts of the mid-to-late '90s and you'll see what I mean. Players like Peja Stojakovic, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Manu Ginobili, Dirk Nowitzki and Andrei Kirilenko were all basically stolen in the draft by smart, forward-thinking teams. That their teams won more games than average is an effect of their superior front offices, not the officiating.
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=2855205&name=hollinger_john&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d2855205%26name%3dhollinger_john
Posted by: Ryan Webb at May 3, 2007 10:29:43 AM
Re: Comments. All I can say is "Wow!" I'd like to bring this one back to B-ball if no one else objects. I often find sports being overanalyzed in the comment section of this blog. Point of fact, the NBA has always treated players differently in the way they are officiated. All one needs to do is re-watch the 1998 NBA Finals (Bulls v. Jazz) and MJ's game winning shot (I believe in Game 6) and his blatant push-off on Bryon Russell. Or how about the number of freethrows D Wayde shot in last year's finals. Superstars are often treated diffently. So really what we're saying is that officiating is more art than exact science (otherwise every single play would be reviwed, and wouldn't that be fun to watch). So why are we arguing about how an "exact" science is being applied to an inexact profession. It's just basketball people! It may be fun to debate this topic, but every single player and true fan pretty much have the same response...."What?! Who cares?!"
Posted by: Chicagoan at May 3, 2007 10:50:58 AM
"An all-white team . . ." winning an extra two games. The Times summary quotes the paper as measuring on-the-floor player-minutes as 83% black.
The top-of-the-range estimate is 0.2 fouls per player per game. The imaginary team of five white players would get an edge of one foul per game (one guy hacked no doubt while attempting a two-hand set shot, then going to the line and shooting his free throws using the underhand scoop technique).
With the average 17% white team, it's less than one foul in five games.
Posted by: Jay Livingston at May 3, 2007 2:33:09 PM
Chicagoan made a point: Jordan Rule and Ben Wallace Rule.Both afroamerican
Posted by: Mja at May 3, 2007 9:53:59 PM
I'm a little late to the party here but Sailer's obsessive focus on baseball's "hidden ethnic bias" needs a truth check. When you're dealing with wingnuts of all stripes, start first by asking if they are telling the truth. Sailer isn't.
I've written a little up on my blog, where I'll be posting more. But the essential fact is that the core statistic from the 2002 season cited by Sailer does not in fact show the trend which he alleges to actually exist. The difference is 0.7%, well within the standard deviation for a subset of the baseball playing population. And when you control for position, Latin-born playes actually have BETTER statistics based on sabermetrics.
Here's a link:
Freeslinging fun with statistics, Sailer style
Sailer just wants progressives to argue against disparate impacts theory. The thing is, he makes up a fake case to try to compose his argument. Just like the wingers always do.
Posted by: Jed Lewison at May 9, 2007 4:50:04 PM
I just saw a study which states that black people get more wet than white people when they go out in the rain.
Posted by: Enough Already at May 13, 2007 10:26:53 PM
they are forgetting one very important fact. it is that there are WAY more black players then whites. look up the "laws of probability" and you will understand that this isnt racistism, its reality. its like a 7:3 ratio. if you have 10 balls in an urn, 7 are green and 3 are red, and you take out one and put it back and take out another and put it back and so on, in the end you will have picked out more green balls then red balls.
logic wins. end of discussion.
Posted by: sam at Jun 2, 2007 11:56:54 PM
It would be really nice the see the statistics year by year to see if there were any outlying years and see if there is some kind of trend.
Posted by: Paul at Jul 5, 2007 11:42:49 PM
Posted by: 鑽石 at Apr 2, 2008 8:34:03 PM
Maybe the hard fouls should be tallied. That would certainly make your brown eyes blue. More likely blue eyes blackened.
Remember the Olympic Dream Team. Their racist bullying went unmentioned in the 1992 Olympics.
Posted by: Michael Smith at Jul 17, 2008 3:08:20 AM
The real racists here is the entire NBA. Why in a nation where blacks make up only 13% of the population, is the NBA 77% black??? That is not representative or democratic. Therefore the entire NBA needs to be appealed. If a black boy doesn't get a free job, free money, free sub-prime loan, or free degree from a university, that institution is automatically labeled racist. Basically, I'm saying that the NBA needs to pay reparations to asians and whites for their pain and oppression.
The argument goes that it is racist if the proportion of minorities in a company is not nearly equal to the makeup of the society at large, because blacks are just as smart as asians and whites (so the argument goes) therefore any difference in the demographic of a business from the mainstream is due to discrimination..... Blah blah bla, you know the story we've heard it all before.
But are not asians just as equally gifted athletes as blacks? And if they are NOT as talented in sports, wouldn't we have to conclude that there ARE REAL differences between races? So might not intelligence and industriousness be one of those differences, which would explain why blacks don't have income parity with asian households, and why asians are in general the most industrious and intelligent people? And if you don't buy that Asians are more intelligent, just check out our SAT scores which are much higher than blacks. If you believe in evolution, AND ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT, you are aware that it's not even remotely probable that different groups of people (races) in different environments with exposure to different external influences developed the EXACT same wiring in their brains, the wiring that determine our personalities, the molecular and chemical compositions that determine our DNA and therefore our traits and qualities.
If you don't buy that then your probably one of those people who thinks it is JUST A STRANGE COINCIDENCE that FANNIE MAE, which has been an American fixture for decades, was driven utterly into the ground in just 3 short years after Jesse Jackson forced them to hire his black buddy Franklin Raines as the CEO. It is JUST A STRANGE COINCIDENCE that Fannie Mae is crashing faster than an American commuter train since it is composed of 52% blacks. 52 PERCENT!!! THAT, my asshat friends, is RACIST RACISM RACE, race race race race race, all day in your FACE!
P.S.
Don't believe that Fannie Mae is 52% minority? ( Minority, that's a new word, like racist, that means whatever the hell people want it to mean. Whites are minorities in CA and NY, so I guess that means they deserve free sh!t now. )
Anyways, here is the current CEO of FANNIE MAE, the HORSE's MOUTH for all you idiots, Daniel Mudd was the man brought in to replace Franklin Raines at Fannie Mae after an accouning scandal - yes, a black CEO was stealing, incredible I know! ) boasting that FANNIE MAE is 52% black, yet their racist black employees STILL arent happy according the following Washington Post article ( I guess the washington post is part of the far-right now, huh morons?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/17/AR2008021701821.html
So Asian countries, whose economies are so intertwined with the American stock and bond market, deserve REPARATIONS from all the blacks in America for the financial meltdown caused by the incompetent black employees at FANNIE MAE and the idiot black congressmen like Gregory Meeks who oversaw this financial trainwreck, as well as the millions of blacks who received sub-prime home loans that they were not qualified for, simply because they were black and banks were forced to loan to them under the rules of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, in order to avoid "redlining" - which is defined as when a bank does not give free, unqualified and unlimited loans to any black person who asks for it simply because he is black. So blacks need to get together and write a check out to CASH and mail it to all the Asian people.
Posted by: isawher at Oct 16, 2008 8:36:42 PM
