The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 iSteve Blog

If The Clash had played slower and if Joe Strummer had noticed he were half Scottish, more Robbie Burns than Rudyard Kipling:

Or maybe Anthony Quinn than Robbie Burns:

Dennis Dale should write lyrics for Mike Ness. Prison Bound:

This is for the people still up Friday night rather than the good citizens up early on Saturday morning.



Bret Stephens
Deputy editor, editorial page, The Wall Street Journal.

Bret Stephens writes “Global View,” the Wall Street Journal’s foreign-affairs column, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2013. He is the paper’s deputy editorial page editor, responsible for the international opinion pages of the Journal, and a member of the paper’s editorial board. He is also a regular panelist on the Journal Editorial Report, a weekly political talk show broadcast on Fox News Channel.

Mr. Stephens joined the Journal in 1998 as an op-ed editor and moved to Brussels the following year, where he wrote editorials and edited a column on the European Union. He left the paper in January 2002 to become editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, a position he assumed at age 28. At the Post he was responsible for the paper’s news, editorial, international and digital editions. He also wrote a weekly column.

Mr. Stephens returned to the Journal in late 2004 and has reported stories from around the globe. His other awards include a South Asian Journalists Association prize for his coverage of the Kashmir earthquake (2006), the Breindel Prize for excellence in opinion journalism (2008), the Bastiat Prize for his columns on economic subjects (2010) and the University of Chicago’s Professional Achievement Award (2014). In 2005 he was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum. In 2016 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Niagara University.

Mr. Stephens is author of “America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder,” published by Sentinel Books in 2014.

Mr. Stephens was born in the U.S. and raised in Mexico City. He has an undergraduate degree, with honors, from the University of Chicago, and a Master’s from the London School of Economics. …

Mr. Stephens seems to have had a pretty kick-ass career, but he’s very, very worried:

The Plot Against America
Donald Trump alights on the Compleat Conspiracy. Anti-Semites are thrilled.

Oct. 17, 2016 7:11 p.m. ET

They meet in secret. Men of immense wealth; a woman of limitless ambition. Their passports are American but their loyalties are not. Through their control of international banks and the media they manipulate public opinion and finance political deceit. Their aim is nothing less than the annihilation of America’s political independence, and they will stop at nothing—including rigging a presidential election—to achieve it.

Call it for what it is: “A conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man.”

Astute readers will note the quotation of a speech delivered in the U.S. Senate in June 1951 by the then-junior senator from Wisconsin. We’re in historically familiar territory. Joe McCarthy inveighed against Communists in control of the State Department. For Charles Lindbergh it was “war agitators,” notably those of “the Jewish race.”

And now we have Donald Trump versus what Laura Ingraham calls “the globalist cabal”—the latest enemy from without, within. In a speech Thursday in West Palm Beach the GOP presidential nominee painted a picture of a “global power structure” centered around Hillary Clinton that aims to “plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty” while stepping on the necks of American workers with open borders and ruinous trade deals.

“There is nothing the political establishment will not do,” Mr. Trump thundered. “No lie they won’t tell, to hold their prestige and power at your expense, and that’s what’s been happening.”

Here, then, was the real Donald, fresh off his self-declared unshackling from the rest of the GOP. No longer will the nominee content himself with pursuing petty mysteries such as President Obama’s birth certificate or Alicia Machado’s alleged sex tape.

Now he’s after the Compleat Conspiracy, the one that explains it all: the rigged election, migrant Mexican rapists, the lying New York Times, thieving hedge funds, Obama-created ISIS, political correctness, women insufficiently attractive to grope, Chinese manufacturers, the Clinton Foundation. If it isn’t voting for Donald Trump and has recently crossed an international border, it’s a problem.

It did not escape notice that Mr. Trump’s remarks smacked of darker antipathies. A reporter for the New York Times suggested that the speech “echoed anti-Semitic themes.” The Daily Stormer, which bills itself as the premier publication of the alt-right, was less delicate, praising the speech for exposing the mass media as “the lying Jewish mouthpiece of international finance and plutocracy.”

But one needn’t accuse Mr. Trump of personal animus toward Jews (there’s no evidence of it) to point out that his candidacy is manna to every Jew-hater. Anti-Semitism isn’t just an ethnic or religious prejudice. It’s a way of thinking. If you incline to believe that the world is controlled by nefarious unseen forces, you might alight on any number of suspects: Freemasons, central bankers, the British foreign office. Somehow, the ultimate culprits usually wind up being Jews.

That’s why it’s utterly unwise for politically conservative Jews to make common cause with Mr. Trump, on the theory that he’d be a tougher customer in the Middle East than Mrs. Clinton. Leave aside the fact that Mrs. Clinton called privately for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities in one of her leaked Goldman Sachs speeches, while Mr. Trump has found public occasion to praise both Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad.

More dangerous is that a Trump administration would give respectability and power to the gutter voices of American politics. Pat Buchanan would be its intellectual godfather, Ann Coulter and Ms. Ingraham its high priestesses, Breitbart and the rest of the alt-right web its public trumpets. American Jews shouldn’t have to re-live the 1930s in order to figure out that the “globalist cabal” might mean them.

Nor should Jews ignore the rekindling of right-wing anti-Semitism simply because its next-of-kin—left-wing anti-Zionism—remains so potent on college campuses and in progressive political circles. The GOP’s conversion to being a powerfully pro-Israel and philo-Semitic party is a relatively recent development. No law dictates that it is destined to be a lasting one.

The title for this column is taken from the 2004 Philip Roth novel that imagines what might have been for America if Lindbergh had defeated Franklin Roosevelt for the presidency in 1940, signed neutrality pacts with Germany and Japan and initiated a re-education campaign for recalcitrant American Jews. …

Life imitates art, and vice versa. This time the plot against America is a work of non-fiction, its outcome is still undetermined, and its perpetrators are the very people alleging the conspiracy.

It’s a good thing Bret Stephens isn’t attracted to paranoid, hate-filled conspiracy theory thinking, unlike that hateful Donald Trump.


From Reason’s coverage of UVA bureaucrat Nicole Eramo’s libel lawsuit against Rolling Stone for the Haven Monahan Hate Hoax:

Day 4: Erdely gives scarring testimony

Hawes Spencer

… Erdely was to be one of the magazine’s stars. She revealed Thursday that after writing stories for Rolling Stone for several years, this one was to be her first under a new contract that would have paid her $300,000 for seven stories over the course of two years.

That’s a lot of incentive, approaching $5 per word for her 9000 word article, which is nice work if you can get.

Bizarrely, Jackie Coakley’s surname is being blocked from anybody mentioning it during the trial:

During a discussion of the days in late August when Jackie allegedly stopped replying to the reporter’s texts and e-mails, [plaintiff's attorney] Locke begins reading from one e-mail shown on a screen. When she gets to Jackie’s last name, plainly visible to the gallery, the lawyer suddenly halts and shouts to a nearby technician: “If we could take that down, please, off the screen.”

Later, the technician dims the gallery screens again when a photograph appears of Jackie’s purported facial injuries from an incident—disputed by the Charlottesville Police Department—in which Jackie was allegedly injured by a thrown bottle.

“Keeping her identity confidential is important,” said Judge Glen Conrad, to encourage “other victims” to come forward. How Jackie, now with multiple false accounts, convinced a judge as well as both sides of this litigation that she’s a “victim” has yet to be explained.

Devastatingly, Locke produced interview audio in which Erdely mentions the photo to Jackie and says the supposed facial injuries resemble “something smeared,” a substance, the reporter said, “looked like face paint.”

In response, Erdely downplayed the statement as merely a manifestation of alleged abrasions that were “so bright.”

Coakley’s fantasy about much later being the victim of yet another beer bottle attack ought to have been the straw that broke the back of Erdely’s gullibility. As I wrote in Taki’s Magazine in 2014:

A Rape Hoax for Book Lovers
by Steve Sailer
December 03, 2014

… What should we make of Erdely’s “brutal tableau” of beer bottle rape amidst the shattered glass?

As a work of journalism, it’s most interesting for what it inadvertently reveals about the bizarre legends that seem plausible to American media consumers in 2014.

… Some of the literary power of Erdely’s nightmarish retelling of poor Jackie’s saga stems from the writer’s use of glass, both broken and bottle, as an ominous multipurpose metaphor. Throughout “A Rape on Campus,” glass stands for fragility, bloodshed, loss of virginity, alcohol, littering, male brutishness, danger, violence—even a literal phallic symbol. Glass represents not the calm transparency of a window pane, but the occluded viciousness of the white conservative Southern male power structure.

For example:

The first weeks of freshman year are when students are most vulnerable to sexual assault. … Hundreds of women in crop tops and men in khaki shorts stagger between handsome fraternity houses, against a call-and-response soundtrack of “Whoo!” and breaking glass. “Do you know where Delta Sig is?” a girl slurs, sloshed. Behind her, one of her dozen or so friends stumbles into the street, sending a beer bottle shattering.

Strangely, just about the only people in America who don’t seem to have accepted at face value Jackie’s theory of a nine-man conspiracy to rape her are those portrayed in the Rolling Stone article as knowing the poor young woman well.

Much of this immense article is devoted to puzzling scenes in which Jackie’s friends and female mentors tell her to cheer up and get over it. If you read the article carefully, you’ll notice that almost everybody who knows Jackie closely treats her about the way you’d treat a friend who starts talking about having been abducted by aliens. You would try to find out what the real actual thing that happened to her was. But if she kept talking about alien rectal probing, you’d try to change the subject.

Morally, Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Rolling Stone should not have exploited an unsettled young woman.

Late in her first year at UVA, depressed and in danger of flunking out, Jackie talks to Dean Nicole Eramo, Chair of the Sexual Misconduct Board. This dean patiently explains to Jackie the three ways she can file charges, but Jackie can’t make up her mind. Eventually, Dean Eramo suggests she join a campus rape survivors’ support group. There, Jackie makes new friends who appreciate her story (even though it’s more violent than their own).

In Erdely’s telling, Dean Eramo, a middle-aged lady, is a sinister figure, a sonderkommando who shields the rape culture by getting students to confide in her instead of exposing the vileness all about. But there’s a problem with the author’s interpretation: Jackie and numerous other young women love Dean Eramo. She listens. Jackie and others responded to the Rolling Stone hit piece against Eramo by writing a long letter to the college newspaper praising the dean.

My vague impression is that Jackie seems like a troubled soul who drew needed comfort from talking to listeners who were sympathetic. She doesn’t appear to have been in any hurry over the last couple of years to talk to people who might ask her tough questions about the validity of her allegations, such as police detectives or defense attorneys. That appears to have been prudent on her part.

That was an overly nice interpretation of Coakley on my part. What we know now is that Coakley is much like Erdely’s old pal and boss at the U. of Penn student publication, Stephen “Shattered Glass” Glass: Coakley likes lying for the fun of it. Like Glass, she’s not even terribly adept at it, just brazen.

One bizarre, unexplained aspect of this whole story is the Shattered Glass motif. It’s possible that Coakley Googled Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s name and discovered she was an old friend of Stephen Glass and perhaps watched the movie about him. But I

Unfortunately, Rolling Stone was eager to use her for its own commercial and political purposes.

And so her story is now our latest national media crisis.

During her sophomore year, Jackie became prominent in the struggle on campus against rape culture. But the patriarchy struck back brutally last spring, using its favorite tool of violence, the glass bottle. Outside a bar at the Corner:

One man flung a bottle at Jackie that broke on the side of her face, leaving a blood-red bruise around her eye.

That’s horrifying … assuming it happened. Or are we deep into Gone Girl territory now? (There’s nothing in the article about anybody calling the police over this presumably open-and-shut case.) Erdely continues:

She e-mailed Eramo so they could discuss the attack—and discuss another matter, too, which was troubling Jackie a great deal. Through her ever expanding network, Jackie had come across something deeply disturbing: two other young women who, she says, confided that they, too, had recently been Phi Kappa Psi gang-rape victims.

A bruise still mottling her face, Jackie sat in Eramo’s office in May 2014 and told her about the two others. … (Neither woman was willing to talk to RS.)

Eramo had been listening to Jackie’s stories for a year at this point:

As Jackie wrapped up her story, she was disappointed by Eramo’s nonreaction. She’d expected shock, disgust, horror.

Erdely attributes this widespread ho-hum reaction among Jackie’s old friends and confidantes to a second massive conspiracy, this one to cover up the first conspiracy in order to protect that bastion of the right, UVA.

Erdely’s explanation for why those who know Jackie best didn’t rush her to the hospital or call 911 or even pay much attention to her claims over the next two years is that the University of Virginia is an alien, hostile, conservative country club with an

… aura of preppy success, where throngs of toned, tanned and overwhelmingly blond students fanned across a landscape of neoclassical brick buildings.

The Rolling Stone writer is bothered by how UVA students look up to founder Thomas Jefferson (a notorious rapist of a black body, I might add).

Erdely finds offense in the campus honor code, by which students promise not to cheat on papers. …

I suppose that Erdely’s positing two conspiracy theories is logically consistent. But Occam’s razor suggests that the real campus conspiracy may have been to gently humor the unhappy girl.

Not surprisingly, Erdely’s hate hoax about fictitious Nights of Broken Glass led to an actual Night of Broken Glass on the UVA campus as Social Justice Warriors smashed the windows of the libeled fraternity house. From the Huffington Post in 2014:

Screenshot 2016-10-21 21.59.17

Erdely’s defense at this trial is that she really believed Coakley’s BS. From Reason:

“It wasn’t a mistake to rely on someone [so] emotionally fragile,” Erdely said softly on the witness stand, as her voice broke and tears flowed in an otherwise silent courtroom. “It was a mistake to rely on someone who was intent to deceive me.”

Earlier, the judge ruled that the previously obscure Nicole Eramo was a “public figure,” which makes it a lot harder for the plaintiff to win a lawsuit just by proving flagrant negligence rather than by proving “malice.” (If you are an expert on libel law, please feel free to chime in in the comments.)

This seems like one of those situations in which the easiest person to con is a con man. Erdely, going back to her work with Stephen Glass in the 1990s, has a dubious journalistic track record. But her own corner-cutting tendencies seem to have made her more credulous.

The big issue is what does it say about our society in which a middle-aged reporter can be conned so easily by a young girly girl coed just feeding back to the reporter Law & Order SVU episodes she watched.

A close reading of the Rolling Stone article demostrates Erdely’s pervasive ethnic malice against the university founded by Thomas Jefferson, which she views as a bastion of sinister gentile culture just itching to unleash another Night of Broken Glass against the helpless.

But her anti-Gentilic malice is unlikely to be mentioned in court. After all, “anti-Gentilic” isn’t even a word …


Commenter Buzz Mohawk notes:

To me the pseudo-science of systemic racism resembles a tautology, one that hangs together with the pseudo-legal concept of disparate impact, thus:

Where (you think) there is disparate impact, there is systemic racism. Where (you think) there is systemic racism, there is disparate impact.

All of this is made possible by the tabula rasa postulate, which states that all humans are equivalent blank slates.

In other words, all differences in human outcomes can be explained by racism.

Couple this with the fact that schools are now teaching two additional postulates, 1) All white people are racists, and 2) Nobody else is, and then you arrive at the corollary: Everything is white people’s fault.

Thus the conclusion: All failures of everyone else to achieve as much as white people are disparate impacts caused by systemic racism.

It’s all one big circle jerk.


8 minutes of Highlights of Trump’s Al Smith dinner speech.


Monsieur Hulot ponders office cubicles of the future

I finally got around to watching a couple of movies by the great French comedian / director Jacques Tati, 1959′s Mon Oncle and 1967′s Play Time.

Home sweet home for M. Hulot

Tati, a successor to Chaplin and Keaton, made post-silent comedies without much plot or dialogue but with a lot of sound effects and visual gags.

Tati liked the eccentric, traditional Paris and aimed his satire at the coming wave of rationalized, Americanized modernism.

These films star his standard character, a tall, amiable pipe-smoking duffer named Monsieur Hulot who grapples, not particularly effectually, with the modern world.

Monsieur Hulot is a man well suited for life in the picturesque and extremely French working class neighborhoods of Paris.

His nine-year-old nephew, who lives in an expensive all-white modernist mansion where he is bored silly, is entranced by his opportunities to visit his uncle in his downscale French world of motorbikes, horse-drawn carts, and dubiously added-on apartment buildings.

Here’s a photo from 1966 of my father and I trying to recreate the famous poster shot from Mon Oncle on my dad’s new Honda 90:

For decades, this photo and the uncharacteristically carefree expression on my worrywart dad’s face were vaguely associated in my mind with the words “French comedian.” So I’m very happy to have finally watched the movie (even though, it turns out, we were going the wrong direction).

But Monsieur Hulot is more than a little lost when he must venture into modern International Style districts.

In fact, Play Time is set in a steel and glass skyscraper district of Paris that didn’t exist yet.

Tati went broke building a set that looked like Sixth Avenue in New York City.

One running joke are the travel posters inviting you to visit destinations such as London, Hawaii, Mexico, and Stockholm by showing the same International Style skyscraper in each:

Watching Mon Oncle and Play Time got me thinking about the Flynn Effect of rising raw scores on IQ tests.

The Flynn Effect is one of the more unexpected and interesting social science discoveries of the later 20th Century.

The Flynn Effect has been strongest on IQ subtests that are least affected by local cultures and that most resemble having to deal with electronic machine logic.

The futuristic Raven’s Matrices tend to be less culturally biased than other IQ tests but has had a very large Flynn Effect of about 3 points per decade, or a standard deviation per half-century.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the first American IQ test, Louis Terman’s Stanford-Binet, emerged in what’s now Silicon Valley and that Louis’s son Fred Terman, Stanford’s Dean of Engineering, has perhaps the best claim to be the father of Silicon Valley. My general hunch is that one cause of the Flynn Effect is that early IQ test designers had a pretty good sense of the direction in which the world would be moving: away from tacit, locally idiosyncratic patterns of behavior and toward machine logic ways of thinking, a shift in which Silicon Valley has led the world.

Much of the joke of the Monsieur Hulot movies is that Monsieur Hulot is a pre-Modernist man. He is accustomed to the Paris of the first half of the 20th Century, which in Tati’s view is about as good as human life gets. But, despite, being a curious fellow open to new things, Monsieur Hulot can’t seem to become accustomed to the global culture of the second half of the 20th Century.

In this scene from Play Time, Monsieur Hulot has ventured to a new skyscraper to take care of some business. A 75-year-old messenger boy tries to notify the man Hulot has come to see via a new message machine that’s like a Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices IQ test:

In Mon Oncle (1959), Monsieur Hulot investigates his wealthy sister’s ultra-modern kitchen (my apologies for the sound on this clip being slightly out of sync — Tati movies need the sound effects to be perfectly synced with the action):

Tati was a rich kid who was a gentleman rugby player before he got into comedy. He started out in show biz doing impressions of rugby players, so I imagine that’s what he’s doing bouncing the plastic coffee pot.

And here’s a link to a classic scene in Mon Oncle in which Monsieur Hulot’s upwardly-mobile in-laws try out their new automated garage door with the electric eye trigger that their dachshund can’t open for them when they get trapped in the garage because he feels guilty, although he doesn’t know why, and thus isn’t wagging his tail.

This is the saddest scene ever.

And then they call their maid to set off the electric eye, but she’s afraid of electricity.

• Tags: Flynn Effect, IQ, Movies

The theory of systemic racism is like a giant conspiracy theory.

But it’s not a theory, because it’s Science.

It’s Conspiracy Science!


Commenter IBC writes:

The idea that Trump’s refusal to pledge an immediate and unconditional concession to Hillary’s anticipated but still uncertain victory, is predicated on the now proven-to-be-false media narrative that his coalition of supporters is violent and incapable of tolerating political dissent. Now that we have the hard evidence that violence at Trump’s rallies was primarily the result of false-flag operations planned and approved by Team Hillary, why hasn’t the media itself conceded its own role in sowing fear and divisiveness amongst the American electorate and especially by accomplishing it through fraudulent and politically-motivated “reporting?”

There has been a lot of political violence over the last 12 months, but, contrary to the huge numbers of warnings from the media about the onrushing violence from Trump supporters, about 95-98% has come from either Hillary supporters or from groups Hillary supports: black cop killers, black rioters, Muslim terrorists, people of color attacking Trump supporters coming and going from Trump rallies, etc. etc. Some of the handful of punches thrown by Trump supporters were due to provocations by paid Hillary operatives. But the big story is that the vast majority of violence came from the anti-Trump side.

Many journalists have put so much effort into warning of Trumpian violence that they can’t remember and/or don’t want to admit it largely never went through the formality of coming into existence.

So they are off in their own Alternative Reality in which what you saw with your lying eyes since San Bernardino in late 2015 never happened and instead what they tried to conjure up with words is truth.

Any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who ignores credible reports of voting “irregularities:” whether it’s among senior citizens in Florida, independent-thinking blacks and Latinos in machine cities like Chicago, or even in districts with high numbers of working-class “white men,” endangers the expectation of fair play and justice which is the true source of political legitimacy in a democratic system founded on the principle of consent of the governed. If there are any questions of electoral wrong-doing that might tip the balance of results, candidates have a duty, not to concede at the first suggestion of defeat, but to push for the impartial investigation of what happened until the question is resolved or it becomes clear that that contest is no longer relevant to election results at large. This is one of the reasons why candidates-elect don’t actually take office until almost two months after Election Day!

I’m amazed at how the media has framed this issue; almost completely ignoring Al Gore’s legal challenge of returns in Florida only 16 years ago. On PBS, the only analogy made was to Nixon and his peaceful resignation after impeachment –an entirely different situation, the choice of which would seem to have more to do with framing a sense of guilt by association and moral aspersion than actually explaining what might happen this November. It’s difficult to tell whether perhaps some of these pundits don’t have sufficient powers of “recall” to remember Gore or whether they just refuse to mention something that might hurt their chosen candidate, but shame on them whatever their excuses!

The shamefulness of media behavior in 2016 is a big, big story.


Remember when society’s systemic bias favoring Straight White Males caused a black cop to shoot an armed black criminal in Milwaukee in August, setting off another BLM riot protest (with Undocumented Weave Shopping)? It was briefly alluded to at the VP debate:

PENCE: Senator, when African-American police officers involved in a police action shooting involving an African-American, why would Hillary Clinton accuse that African-American police officer of implicit bias?

KAINE: Well, I guess I can’t believe you are defending the position that there is no bias and it’s a topic we don’t even…


The next day there were numerous learned articles explaining that our culture’s Implicit Bias and Systemic Racism causes even black cops to shoot black crooks. It’s like a giant conspiracy theory. But it’s not a theory, it’s Science. It’s Conspiracy Science!

But now we can see how deep the sickness of Institutionalized Straight White Maleism goes in our culture: the black cop who shot the black crook in Milwaukee wasn’t just a black cop, he’s a also a black gay criminal! And yet even a gay black isn’t immune from the horrors perpetrated on the collective subconscious by Straight White Men.

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Police officer in Sherman Park shooting charged with sexual assault

John Diedrich and Ashley Luthern , Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 5:17 p.m. CDT October 20, 2016

The Milwaukee police officer who fatally shot Sylville Smith in the Sherman Park neighborhood in August sat in a bar a day later, watching coverage of the violent unrest that followed and said he did “whatever (he) wanted without repercussions,” according to a criminal complaint charging the officer with sexual assault released Thursday.

Officer Dominique Heaggan-Brown made those comments to a man Heaggan-Brown would sexually assault hours later after the man became heavily intoxicated, the complaint said.

Heaggan-Brown, 24, is charged with two counts of felony second-degree sexual assault, and two counts of prostitution, a misdemeanor. He also is charged with one felony count of possessing or distributing a recording of nudity without consent.

After the alleged assault on Aug. 14, Heaggan-Brown texted police Sgt. Joseph Hall, whom he considered a mentor: “Need your help big time… (Expletive) up big time… But need to handle this the most secret and right way possible,” according to the complaint.

Heaggan-Brown told Hall the sex was consensual, “but admitted that (alleged victim) was drunk and had ‘medical issues,’” it said.

Prosecutors allege Heaggan-Brown assaulted a second man, who also was intoxicated, on July 30, and took pictures without his consent. In addition, the complaint says that Heaggan-Brown paid for sex with men on two different occasions last year and this summer. The incidents all occurred at Heaggan-Brown’s home, it said.

The seven-page complaint portrays the young officer as a sexual predator who assaulted men after drinking with them, paying other men for sex and boasting about special privileges he had.

The sexual assault counts are unrelated to the shooting, which remains under investigation. …

A man said he met Heaggan-Brown through Facebook in July because he was looking for another musician to help with his music. Heaggan-Brown is a rapper.

Of course he is. And not just an aspiring rapper, may I add.

The two exchanged text messages with Heaggan-Brown trying to meet him. On Aug. 14, 2016 — the day after the Smith shooting — Heaggan-Brown sent a text asking again to meet up. The man agreed. Heaggan-Brown picked up the man and took him to a bar around 11 p.m. Aug. 14.

They went to the Eastsider, on E. North Ave. The owner, Jason Growel, told the Journal Sentinel Thursday that Heaggan-Brown was a regular at the bar. Growel said he cooperated with detectives looking into the assaults, which did not occur in the bar. Growel said he last saw Heaggan-Brown two weeks ago and they did not discuss the investigation.

According to the complaint, Heaggan-Brown talked to the bartender shortly after the two arrived on Aug. 14. Heaggan-Brown told the man that the bar did not sell Hennessy, but the bar keeps it on hand for him.

Although the man said he didn’t usually drink, the bartender served him a Long Island iced tea. The man later told police he thought he drank two Long Island iced teas, three shots of Hennessy and a “pink drink.” Heaggan-Brown and the man sat at the bar and watched TV coverage of the Sherman Park unrest and protests.

The man said Heaggan-Brown “bragged about being able to do whatever (he) wanted without repercussions.”

Heaggan-Brown also said he was “the boss and there are no limitations on how (he) lives.”

The man told police he had trouble recalling what happened after he left the bar with Heaggan-Brown but said he remembered waking up to Heaggan-Brown raping him.

The man said he felt drugged during the assault. Hospital staff noted the man was beginning to cry and looked extremely traumatized as he recounted what happened.

Heaggan-Brown said he and the man had been at the bar and when the man began to act “weird and unresponsive,” he brought the man to the hospital.

Hours after the man was hospitalized, at 9:21 a.m. Aug. 15, Heaggan-Brown sent the text to Hall asking for his help. When the sergeant met with Heaggan-Brown, Heaggan-Brown claimed the sex was consensual but also said the man was drunk.

Crime lab analysts later estimated the man had a blood-alcohol level between 0.19 and 0.23.

The victim went to a hospital about 4:20 a.m. Aug. 15. Heaggan-Brown reported the man had drank too much and was “completely out, zonked out of his ground.” The man “flipped out” when he saw Heaggan-Brown in the hospital and told the staff “he raped me.”

In the second assault, according to the complaint, Heaggan-Brown went to a strip club with a group on July 30 including the alleged victim, who became very intoxicated. He woke up the next morning at Heaggan-Brown’s home in bed next to the officer, with no memory of how he got there.

The man later found photos of Heaggan-Brown having sexual contact with him while he was passed out.

During the investigation, Milwaukee police searched Heaggan-Brown’s cell phone and found text messages indicating he was also attempting to pay money in exchange for sex.

The phone also had a video of Heaggan-Brown having sex with another person who recalled to police making “a couple hundred dollars” from Heaggan-Brown in exchange for sex. …

The fatal police shooting touched off two nights of violent unrest in the Sherman Park neighborhood, which many observers said had its roots in decades of systematic problems including segregation and poverty. During those two nights, eight businesses were torched, at least six squad cars were damaged, at least four officers were injured and two teens were wounded in separate shootings. Authorities estimated the damage at several millions of dollars.

Reporter Bruce Vielmetti contributed to this report.

As Hillary has repeatedly called, Steps Must Be Taken to root out the scourges of white racism and heterosexism from the deepest recesses of our minds.


Commenter Anon7 observes:

… Women want to reward Hillary for standing by her man in 1998, but they can’t accept that she did that because everything that Hillary ever got in her life she got through her husband. Feminists hate Bill Clinton as a man who groped, seduced and chased skirts throughout his marriage to Hillary but they had to accept him because Bill Clinton supported women politically.

Donald Trump is a tall, charismatic, successful, talented, dominant man – actually, a lot like Bill Clinton was in his prime. Hillary is giving women permission to do to Trump what she prevented them from doing to Bill Clinton. …


Commenter Jimi observes:

Liberal journalists can forgive Trump for the stupid things he said.

They cannot forgive him for the stupid things they’ve had to say.


The Machine Media are rigging the election and they feel ashamed about it, so they are lashing out in fury at their victim.


From the Third Presidential Debate:

CLINTON: … In the 1990s, I went to Beijing and I said women’s rights are human rights. He insulted a former Miss Universe, Alicia Machado, called her an eating machine.

As I may have mentioned once or twice over the years, Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism is: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

Hillary seems to be running on the not-quite-articulated platform that electing her President will make overweight women hotter looking.


Would Hillary peacefully accept the verdict of the polls or would she demand that Obama strike back at Russia for rigging the election?


Right as the Presidential debate ended, we got hit with what appears to have been a major Denial of Service attack.

It must have been the fault of those hackers of Putin that Hillary is always warning us about.


Some background: Yale undergraduates live in glorified dormitories known as “colleges.” The incredibly rich university is finally building two new colleges, the first since 1961, after keeping its class size the same for many decades. Yale announced in April that its two new dorms will be named after Pauli Murray and Benjamin Franklin.

Who was Pauli Murray, you may ask?

She is perfect for The Current Year: a Talented Tenth lesbian transgender black studies professor / Episcopalian priest. From Wikipedia:

In 1973, Murray left academia for the Episcopal Church, becoming an ordained priest in 1977, among the first generation of women priests. Murray struggled in her adult life with issues related to her sexual and gender identity, describing herself as having an “inverted sex instinct”. She had a brief, annulled marriage to a man and several deep relationships with women. In her younger years, she occasionally passed as a teenage boy. …

Murray struggled with her sexual and gender identity through much of her life. Her marriage as a teenager ended almost immediately with the realization that “when men try to make love to me, something in me fights”.[58] Though acknowledging the term “homosexual” in describing others, Murray preferred to describe herself as having an “inverted sex instinct” that caused her to behave as a man attracted to women. She wanted a “monogamous married life”, but one in which she was the man.[59] The majority of her relationships were with women whom she described as “extremely feminine and heterosexual”.[4] In her younger years, Murray would often be devastated by the end of these relationships, to the extent that she was twice hospitalized for psychiatric treatment, in 1937 and in 1940.[4]

Murray wore her hair short and preferred pants to skirts; due to her slight build, there was a time in her life when she was often able to pass as a teenage boy.[58] In her twenties, she shortened her name from Pauline to the more androgynous Pauli.[60] Murray pursued hormone treatments in the 1940s to correct what she saw as a personal imbalance,[27] and even requested abdominal surgery to test if she had “submerged” male sex organs.[61]

Of course, the highly problematical dorm name is not Pauli Murray, but Benjamin Franklin. From the Yale Daily News:

For some, college name impacts transfer choice

Student response to the recent announcement that transfers into the two new residential colleges will be randomly placed into either Pauli Murray or Benjamin Franklin college has shown that Yale’s campus is not of one mind on the significance of a college’s name to its community.

When its name was announced last April, Pauli Murray College — which honors civil rights activist and 20th century intellectual Anna Pauline Murray LAW ’65 — became the first residential college named after a woman or a person of color. Under the shadow of a yearlong debate over the name of Calhoun College, the decision to pair Murray with Benjamin Franklin drew condemnation from students who were both confused by the choice to recognize an individual who did not attend the University and disappointed by the Yale Corporation’s decision to honor another slave-owning white male.

Admittedly, late in life Franklin became an abolitionist activist.

But Franklin was still a white male. And that’s what can never be forgiven.

Though the two new colleges are comparable in terms of both size and facilities, their namesakes are different enough that students interviewed disagreed over the relative merits of the two colleges, with some preferring placement in Murray over Benjamin Franklin — a preference that will not be taken into account, per an Oct. 13 email from Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway regarding the transfer process.

While Holloway acknowledged last week that some students may prefer to live in Murray over Benjamin Franklin, both Holloway and Head of Benjamin Franklin College Charles Bailyn ’81 said Franklin’s legacy makes him a good role model for Yale students.

But of 21 students interviewed, only one told the News they would prefer to be placed into [Bemjamin] Franklin over Murray. Nine students reported a preference for Pauli Murray College, and 11 students reported they would have no preference for either college were they to transfer. Furthermore, as the placement by lottery in the new colleges will be nonbinding, some students told the News they would opt out of the transfer process if placed into Benjamin Franklin.

“If it turns out that some people, when they discover they are in Franklin rather than in Murray, are unhappy about that, part of my job is to talk them into it,” said Bailyn, a professor of astronomy and physics. “I hope that we would be able to persuade people that it is going to be a really exciting experience whichever college you end up in.” …

Yet many students who said they favor Murray College over Benjamin Franklin College pointed to the importance of Murray’s identity as the primary reason they would want to join the college.

“She is an important figure for visibility for queer women of color, and I think that’s important for Yale, more so than Franklin, who is similar to a lot of the other honorees of other buildings and Yale events,” said Sara Harris ’19.

Yale has not had to deal with the issue of transfers to new residential colleges since 1961, when upperclassmen helped fill in the ranks of the newly opened Ezra Stiles and Morse colleges. But despite the familiar position, the controversy over placement preference is new.

Richard Holbrook ’63, who transferred from Saybrook into Morse in 1961, said he never encountered anything similar to the current naming complexities surrounding the new residential colleges.

“I just thought it would be interesting to join the new colleges. I didn’t have any preference whether it was Morse or Stiles,” said Holbrook. “I think we were just out to try something new and expand our acquaintanceships among other students.”

Yale’s cultural climate and the issues pertinent to the student body have shifted since the early 1960s.

“In those days, of course, there were just men in the colleges … We didn’t have girls, so the whole subject [of social issues] began 10 years later,” said David Rosenberg ’63 LAW ’73, who transferred into the newly founded Morse College from Davenport College. He added that transferring into Morse entailed a “straightforward, simple application process.”

Rosenberg noted that although he had been “perceived back then as very liberal, almost radical, for Yale terms,” due to his involvement in the 1961 and 1962 sit-ins in the American South, he said that as an older alumnus he was “oblivious” to the current naming controversies surrounding Benjamin Franklin College.

Part of the controversy stems from the fact that Charles Johnson ’54, who in 2013 donated $250 million toward the construction of both new residential colleges, requested that one college be named Benjamin Franklin out of his own admiration for Franklin.

Similarly, the single student interviewed who said he would prefer to be placed in Benjamin Franklin cited the Founding Father as a role model.

“I personally regard Franklin as one of my role models in many ways, [as] he is a historical figure that I really respect, and, to be honest, I don’t know that much about Murray,” the student, who asked to remain anonymous, said. “I don’t know too much about the controversy. I wasn’t here last year. I was in the military and I just came back, so I’m one of the unusual cases.”

Obviously, this Franklin-respecting veteran is irredeemably deplorable.

Current students said they would rather be in Murray to avoid the emotionally taxing dialogue about slavery, racism and naming they expect will happen regularly in Benjamin Franklin.

After all, what did Ben Franklin ever do for America?

P.S., this Charles B. Johnson who gave a quarter of a billion dollars to build these two dorms and had the racist insolence to ask to have one named after Ben Franklin is your classic college donor: a straight white male Republican jock veteran alumnus. From Wikipedia:

Johnson attended Montclair High School, and then Yale College, where he graduated in 1954. At Yale he played offensive guard for the football team and waited dining hall tables as a scholarship student. An ROTC cadet, he later served as a lieutenant in the United States Army stationed in Germany.

With his brother Rupert Johnson, Jr., Charles served as Chairman at Franklin Resources, a mutual fund company started by Rupert Sr. in 1947. Johnson is currently principal owner of the MLB San Francisco Giants…

Johnson is one of his alma mater’s largest benefactors, having given considerable sums to athletic and student facilities at Yale. Johnson Field, used for field hockey, was opened in 2001. In 2005, he was the principal donor to a renovation of the Yale Bowl. Johnson has also funded academic programs, including the Johnson Center for the Study of American Diplomacy and Brady–Johnson Program in Grand Strategy.

In September 2013, Yale President Peter Salovey announced that Johnson had given $250 million to support the construction of two new residential colleges costing $400 million. The gift was the largest in Yale’s history in nominal terms. One of the new colleges has been named for Benjamin Franklin, a personal hero of Johnson’s whose name is borne by the family investment firm. This decision has been met with criticism by some Yale students, as Benjamin Franklin, who owned slaves, neither attended nor taught at Yale.

Johnson is one of the largest donors to Republican and Tea-Party-backed political campaigns. Since 2000, he has contributed over $900,000 to the campaigns of Mitt Romney, John Boehner, and Ben Quayle. In 2015, Johnson donated $1 million to a Super PAC supporting the presidential candidacy of Jeb Bush.

That’s the problem with Deplorables: you tell them over and over that you hate them for being who they are, and then they still turn around and give you $250,000,000.00.


Apologies for the website running slow ever since the end of the debate.

I wonder why …

What’s on your mind?

My notes on the debate:

Hillary denouncing “dark, unaccountable money” again coming into the political system. Hillary wants power so she can nominate Supreme Court justices who will stand up to the powerful.

Trump denouncing Justice Ginsburg for saying something not nice about him.

Will Trump get to immigration after Second Amendment when talking about the Supreme Court?

Trump goes to Chicago — tough anti-gun laws and enormous gun violence. Well done.

Abortion — Trump went to later term abortion.

Immigration: Will Trump tie immigration to Supreme Court? Four mothers of Americans killed by illegal aliens.

We have no country if we have no borders. Hillary wants open borders. But he doesn’t cite where Hillary says that.

Heroin pouring across Southern borders.

I want to build the Wall. (First time in 3 debates he’s mentioned Wall).

Security first.

Hillary talking about anchor baby she knows whose parents might be deported. Hillary doesn’t want to see “deportation force” in action. You’d need a massive law enforcement presence. Then you’d have to put them on trains. (Jewish dogwhistle about Nazis.) That’s not who we are.

Hillary: Of course, I am in favor of border security.

Trump: Hillary wanted the Wall in 2006 but she never gets anything done.

Hillary wants to bring undocumented workers out of the shadows.

Trump: We either have a country or we don’t.

Hillary: We will not have open borders.

Chris Wallace: You got $225k to tell Brazilian bank your dream is open borders.

Hillary: I was talking about energy. An electric grid!

Hillary: What’s really important about Wikileaks is Russian government! From Putin himself to influence our election! Russia is [rigging] this election.

Trump: “That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders.”

Trump’s best here on open borders and “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Trump: If Russia and America got along well and went after ISIS that would be good. … She’s playing chicken with Putin.

Hillary: Trump is Putin’s puppet.

Trump: Putin has outsmarted Hillary.

Wallace: We’re a long way from immigration.

Indeed, Hillary got Trump distracted from immigration with Putin because she was getting crushed by him for about 30 seconds on borders and terrorism.

Trump needed to go back to immigration, but Hillary threw out a distraction.

Hillary: “When my husband was President …”

Trump sort of linked his tax cuts to his America First trade policy, but needs to make clear that tax cuts on profits are a tradeoff for tariffs.

Wallace is asking substantive questions about the issues so far, so Trump is doing well at not talking about himself too much. Hillary keeps wanting to get him off to talking about his hotels but so far Trump hasn’t gone for the bait.

The rest of the media will be very mad at Chris Wallace if he keeps the debate focused upon the issues instead of the Kissing Billionaire regulations.

Now Trump is talking about his hotels. Uh oh.

Now he’s back to ISIS.

Now Chris Wallace is off on the Kissing Billionaire claims.

Trump: Hillary responsible for violence at my rally in Chicago.

Hillary: Trump said these women weren’t attractive enough

This whole thing is Sailer’s First Law of Women’s Journalism: it’s all about being considered hot.

Hillary “We celebrate our diversity.”

Trump pivots to Hillary destroying her 33,000 emails criminally after she got a subpeona. A general going to jail, but she gets away with it.

Hillary: Donald never apologizes for anything. Ahhhh, darn, Hillary doesn’t bring up Alicia Machado. “He incites violence.” Trump better jump on that one.

Trump: “So sad when she talks about violence at my rallies and she caused the violence.”

Wallace asking Hillary about conflict of interest as Secretary of State.

Hillary: The Clinton Foundation is a world-renown charity.

Wallace: “Pay for play”

Trump: “It’s a criminal enterprise. Saudi Arabia giving $25 million. Treating women? Why don’t you give back the money?”

Hillary: We spend 90% on charity. Haiti!

Trump: Now talking about his stupid charity. He should skip it.

Hillary: He has released his tax returns. Hasn’t paid a penny in federal income tax. Half of all undocumented immigrants paying federal income tax.

But Hillary has slipped out of talking about her Foundation.

Wallace is trying to help Trump but Trump misses Wallace’s hints.

Trump mentions his new hotel!

Trump: Media is so corrupt and dishonest. I think the voters will see through on November 8.

Hillary: FBI collected a year long investigation and found nothing. He says it was rigged. He even tweeted the Emmys were rigged!

Trump: I should have got one.

Hillary: Syria will remain a hotbed of terrorism as long as the civil war abetted by Russia and Iran continues. No-fly zones!

Trump: Whatever happened to the element of surprise? ISIS leaders are all gone from Mosul.

Hillary is trying again to get Trump off to talking about how he told Hannity that the Iraq Attaq was a bad idea. Trump not going there so far.

Trump needs to go to refugees/immigration/terrorism.

Trump: Podesta said some horrible things about you on Wikileaks: terrible instincts. Bernie: bad judgment.

Hillary: You are the most dangerous person to ever run for President.

Wallace: Mr. Trump you didn’t tell the truth about Aleppo.

Trump needs to go to border security instead of getting into the weeds about Aleppo.

Trump: We don’t know who the rebels are we’re helping. Assad is a bad guy, but you may end up with worse. We’re now taking in ISIS aligned refugees. The Great Trojan horse.

Wallace: Hillary, if you apply a no-fly zone, won’t you get into a war with Russia. Would you shoot down a Russian plane?

Hillary wants to negotiate a deal with Russians.

Hillary says she’ll vet refugees. But she won’t slam door on women and children. That little 4 year old boy’s picture! Now she is saying the Pulse nightclub killer was born in Queens, the same place where Donald was born!

[Across the country, there are people nodding along with Hillary on that last point ... Indeed, there are probably people in Queens high-fiving each other over Hillary's sick burn: the Orlando terrorism was born in Queens.]

Hillary wonders when America was great. Donald has been criticizing our government for decades! He criticized President Reagan in 1987!

Trump: I did criticize Reagan on trade.

Hillary: He started out with his dad as a millionaire, I started out with my dad as a small businessman.

Is that true?

Wallace wants to talk about cutting entitlements like Social Security. Trump doesn’t want to talk about it. Hillary wants to raise taxes on the wealth.

Donald: “Such a nasty woman.” “Your husband disagrees with you.”

Closing statements: Hillary: “I’m reaching out to all Americans to make it work for everyone. I’ve been privileged to see the Presidency up close. Children and families is my life work. I will stand up for families against powerful interests.”

Trump: Make American Great Again. We take care of illegal immigrants better than we take care of our vets.

In summary: both candidates were pretty good.

Trump was much better than in first debate, and was helped by moderator who wasn’t out to get him. Hillary was mostly running out the clock, bobbing and weaving. She didn’t land much in the way of heavy punches on Trump, but managed to distract him from too many knock out blows.

I imagine Wallace will hear a lot of “You’ll never work in this industry again” denunciations from his media colleagues for being pretty fair.

Give Trump back the first half of the first debate and he probably won the debates overall, but Hillary did a good job of getting Trump talking about himself in the second half of the first debate. She didn’t have to win the series of debates overall, just keep from losing badly.


From my new Wednesday column in Taki’s Magazine:

Rigging Elections
by Steve Sailer
October 19, 2016

Ironically, the most far-reaching scheme to rig this and future American elections isn’t being plotted in the Kremlin (as Hillary Clinton and the ruling media warn). Nor is it being hammered out in K Street offices by lobbyists, Democratic operatives, and their press counterparts (as Donald Trump suggests).

Instead, Democrats and their auxiliaries in the media routinely boast of their dream of turning America into a one-party state through changing who gets to vote in American elections.

Strikingly, this vast conspiracy to dilute the sovereignty of American voters by inviting in ringers from abroad is not covered up, nor even excused as aggressive-but-legal political hardball.

Instead, the dilution of the voting power of American citizens is praised lavishly as representing the highest value of “who we are as Americans.”

To protest, or even to notice, the open machinations to adulterate the value of your vote by importing millions of foreigners to increase the numbers of votes cast for the Democrats brands you as a deplorable.

Read the whole thing there.



Are American men getting wimpier?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and entitled to point to their own set of evidence.

With the Chicago Cubs trying to win their first World Series since 1908, but needing to get past the Los Angeles Dodgers and their (regular season) ace of aces Clayton Kershaw, it’s fun to compare how much less top pitchers pitch today than in 1908. Above is a graph showing the league leaders in innings pitched for each season since 1901.

One relatively common dataset used to argue for increasing wimpiness is the declining work loads of major league pitchers. A general trend in baseball history has been for the league leading number of innings pitched per season to fall over time. This year, for example, David Price of the Boston Red Sox led all pitchers in baseball with 230 innings pitched.

The last time anybody pitched 300 innings in a year was Steve Carlton in 1980.

And the last time anybody pitched 400 innings was Ed Walsh throwing 464 while going 40-15 for the Chicago White Sox in 1908, the deadest year of the Dead Ball Era. (In contrast, Clayton Kershaw, the top starting pitcher of the current era, has never pitched more than 236 innings in any of his nine seasons.)

Despite the dominance of pitchers, 1908 was a colorful year in baseball history. The Cubs, led by their double play combination of Tinkers to Evers to Chance won a three way National League pennant race over Honus Wagner’s Pittsburgh Pirates and Christy Mathewson’s New York Giants.

The Giants would have won the pennant except for Merkle’s Boner during a late September game in which rookie Fred Merkle forgot to advance from first to second on a walk-off game-winning hit. With fans swarming the field, Johnny Evers of the Cubs called for the ball but Giant Hall of Fame pitcher Joe “Iron Man” McGinnity threw it into the teeming crowd, but the Cubs retrieved it and stepped on second for the force out. With celebrating Giants fans all over the field, the game was declared a tie. Merkle was known as Bonehead Merkle for the rest of his long baseball career.

A makeup game was ordered after the regular season on October 8. The largest crowd so far in the history of baseball (approximately 40,000) was on hand A dead-tired Christy Mathewson, whose record for the season was 37-11 on 390 innings pitched, asked manager John J. McGraw for the day off, but was ordered to start and he gave up four runs.

The Giants knocked out the Cubs starting pitcher in the first inning, but player/manager Frank Chance brought in in relief the Cubs’ ace starter, former coalminer Mordecai “Three Finger” Brown (who could put unique spin on his sinker due to his pitching hand having been mangled in a farm machinery accident). Brown gave up only 4 hits in over 8 innings to send the Cubs to the World Series, where they defeated Ty Cobb’s Detroit Tigers.

So, are today’s baseball players not as tough as Three Finger Brown, Iron Man McGinnity, Johnny Evers, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, etc.?

Yeah, probably …

And, yet, an alternative explanation is that the overall pattern since 1908 has been for pitchers to put ever more effort into each pitch, which reduces how many innings an ace can pitch in a season.

This trend toward throwing harder and/or with more spin probably is tied to the increased threat of giving up a home run on an indifferent pitch.

For instance, in the American League in 1908, throwing for the southside Chicago White Sox, Ed Walsh set all time record with 464 innings pitched en route to a 40-15 record on a 1.42 ERA, with 42 complete games in 47 starts and a league leading 6 saves in 17 relief appearances.

How could Walsh pitch so much? One reasons is that he only gave up 2 homers in his 464 innings. That was partly due to his being a very good pitcher, but also due to playing in a giant ballpark with soggy baseballs. His White Sox only hit 3 homers in 1908.

One of the three White Sox homers, one was hit by Walsh, which is a reminder that pitchers probably were not as objectively good at pitching back then as today, and one piece of evidence for this is that pitchers could hit other pitchers better back then. In the past, pitchers were below average hitters, but they weren’t terrible hitters like they are today, which suggests pitching has gotten much better because pitchers can’t hit anymore.

For example, as a batter, Three Finger Brown was 56% below the league average productivity for hitters. Clayton Kershaw is considered an above average hitting pitcher today, but he’s 96% below average.

Because run-scoring homers were so rare, early pitchers didn’t strain themselves much until a runner got to, say, second base, at which point they’d start throwing faster fastballs and putting more torque on their curveballs.

I’m going to put a page break here for the benefit of those bored by baseball. But if you don’t mind my using baseball data to explore a general question, I have a lot more to say under the fold.

Christy Mathewson, who led the National League in innings pitched in 1908 with 390 innings while winning 37 and losing 11, entitled his advice book Pitching in a Pinch. In other words, pitching late in the game or with runners in scoring position (at second or third) was more stressful on the mind and arm than breezing along with nobody past first base. Mathewson wrote in 1912:

“I have always been against a twirler pitching himself out,” he wrote, “when there is no necessity for it, as so many youngsters do. They burn them through for eight innings and then, when the pinch comes, something is lacking. . . . A man should always hold something in reserve, a surprise to spring when things get tight.”

It’s hard to tell for sure what pitchers were throwing in 1908, but my guess is that with the bases empty, average major league pitchers threw a lot of, say, 70 mph fastballs down the middle. Let the batter hit it and see what happens. It’s not like he’s going to hit it out of the park.

Or, in the case of Walsh, he was throwing a lot of breaking balls without too much strain on his arm because he was relying on hocking a big loogie on the ball to make it curve. (The spitball was legal then.)

During the dead ball era, umpires tried to save money by not putting a new baseball into play just because the first one had gotten muddy or the pitcher was spitting tobacco juice all over the ball. (Spectators were required to throw foul balls back onto the field.)

Still, even Dead Ball pitching tired an arm out. After Walsh averaged 361 innings over seven straight seasons, he asked for 1913 off to rest his arm. But then he showed up for spring training anyway, hurt his arm, and was permanently washed up at age 32.

A livelier baseball with a cork center was introduced in 1911 and Ty Cobb hit .420 with 127 RBIs and 24 triples. But pitchers got the upper hand again by learning to scuff the ball with a nail file while on the pitching mound.

It’s widely assumed that in 1920 when Babe Ruth hit 54 homers that was because the ball was made bouncier, but that’s not exactly what happened. It wasn’t until about 1925 that the ball was made more vibrant, reaching a peak superball in 1930.

What really happened was that Ruth, all by himself, came up with a plan to hit huge numbers of home runs and eventually the authorities started facilitating changes that encouraged other hitters to follow in Ruth’s path.

In 1918, as a pitcher and part-time outfielder, Ruth led the American League with 11 homers using a radical uppercut he had invented to hit fly balls instead of the conventional level swing intended to generate line drives. Before Ruth, it was assumed to be hopeless to try to hit the ball out of the park. In 1919, Ruth hit a record 29 homers. Fans were electrified by Ruth’s innovation. In 1920, Ruth hit 54 homers.

The quality of the ball in play started improving even if the manufacturing wasn’t. In August 1920 Ray Chapman was killed by a Carl Mays pitch he didn’t see coming because the ball was dirty. Umpires started putting more clean white new balls into play over the course of the game. It was the 1920s and America could afford nice things, especially if what you were selling featured Babe Ruth.

That winter after the 1920 season, a rule was passed that no new pitcher could spit on the ball, although 17 spitball specialist pitchers were allowed to carry on until they retired.

So there were a lot of reasons that baseball offense was much higher in 1921 than in 1918, but most of them were just improvisations. The one man with a plan to make baseball more exciting back during the dreary days of 1918 had been the seemingly comical Ruth.

As more players learned to slug with Ruth’s uppercut, pitchers had to work harder or they’d immediately give up a homer. Grover Cleveland Alexander has pitched over 375 innings three straight seasons during the dead ball 1915-1917, but during the homer heavy 1924-1940 seasons, nobody in all of baseball pitched more than 330 in one season.

Lefty Grove, the finest pitcher of the Depression Era, never threw more than 291 innings in a season.

Some individual prodigies did rack up huge inning counts, such as Bob Feller’s 371 in 1946 after missing most of four seasons in the Navy, or Robin Roberts peaking at 346 in the early 1950s.

But from 1957 through 1961 nobody in either league threw 300 innings.

The most successful and sophisticated franchise of the 1950s, the New York Yankees, treated their Hall of Fame pitcher Whitey Ford a little bit like 21st teams treat pitchers these days. From 1950 through 1960, Ford never pitched more than 253 innings in a season, much as Kershaw has never pitched more than 236 innings in a regular season.

The 1950s Yankees under Casey Stengel were, despite the manager’s comic eccentricities, reflective of the Organization Man philosophy of giant corporations like IBM. Stengel experimented endlessly with using his entire roster, building a strong bullpen to relieve his starters, and often using five starting pitchers rather than the standard four. (Of course, Stengel’s innovations weren’t hurt by one bit of stability: no matter what else he was trying out, Mickey Mantle played centerfield and batted third and Yogi Berra caught and hit cleanup.)

But as the graph at the top shows, this long term trend toward the league leading innings pitched declining reversed in the 1960s, with prodigious innings pitched figures by the early 1970s, such as Mickey Lolich throwing 376 innings in 1971.

What happened? Several things around 1961-1962.

There was the first expansion in 60 years, from 16 to 20 major league teams. The schedule was inflated by about 5% as well, from 154 to 162 games, which allowed #1 starters to get two, maybe 3 more starts in a season.

The expansion draft allowed the four new teams to take lesser players from the established clubs, which meant that rosters weren’t as deep. For instance, the Yankees fired Stengel after he lost the 7th game of the 1960 World Series. The new manager Ralph Houk emphasized putting his best all-around players on the field as much as possible. The famous 1961 Yankees set home run records and Ford pitched a career high 283 innings.

During the 1960s, prestige shifted from the Yankees to the Los Angeles Dodgers as the most influential organization. In 1962, the Dodgers moved into huge new Dodger Stadium, with its 410′ centerfield fence. (Other pitchers parks, such as the Houston Astrodome, followed.)

The Dodgers had Don Drysdale pitch over 300 innings each year from 1962-1965, as did Sandy Koufax in 1963, 1965, and 1966 (years in which the Dodgers went to the World Series).

Soon other franchises were pushing their aces to new highs in innings pitched not seen since the Dead Ball era. The peak may have been the first half of the 1970s, with Lolich’s 376 in 1971 being an astonishing figure for a non-knuckleballer. (The 1970s were also a golden age for soft-throwing knuckleball workhorses like Wilbur Wood and Phil Niekro.)

Why did this trend toward huge workloads start to diminish in the later 1970s?

I’m guessing because of the coming of free agency in the mid-1970s. Before 1976, ballplayers were usually forced to sign one year contracts with their current ballclubs, which gave the clubs an incentive to overwork them because if their arms burned out, the team only had to pay one year’s salary.

In 1974, Catfish Hunter was paid $100,000 to pitch 318 innings for Charley O. Finley’s World Champion Oakland A’s. After that season, an arbitrator granted him the novel condition of free agency on a technicality (Finley hadn’t paid for an insurance contract he’d promised in an earlier contract). Catfish immediately signed a staggering five year $3.25 million contract with George Steinbrenner, owner of the Yankees. Catfish had one strong year with the Yankees, pitching 328 innings, but then suffered diminishing performance over the last four years of his expensive contract as his arm gave out under the strain of four seasons of at least 295 innings.

The next year, Andy Messersmith, who had just thrown 321 innings for the Dodgers, was granted free agency by the same arbitrator on the grounds that the infamous “reserve clause” in the standard contract was legal junk. He signed a 3-year / $1 million contract with Ted Turner’s Atlanta Braves. His first season in Atlanta was good, but his next two were plagued by arm trouble.

Good pitchers now had the market power to insist upon multi-year contracts, so baseball culture changed over time to treating pitchers more carefully.

Also, clubs were already starting to shift from four to five man starting rotations.

The obsession with complete games faded as teams figured out ever more sophisticated ways to use multiple relief pitchers. For example, in the second game of the ongoing National League championship series between the Dodgers and the Cubs, Clayton Kershaw threw 7 innings of 2-hit shutout ball, before being lifted for the closer. In the next game, Rich Hill was lifted after 6 innings of shutout ball. (Earlier in the season, Hill had been lifted after 7 innings of a perfect game.) Iron Man McGinnity would have been appalled, but the Dodger relievers held both leads and the Dodgers now lead the Cubs 2-1 in the series.

Starters stopped being used as relievers, except in the post season. Roger Clemens started 707 games over 24 regular seasons, and relieved only twice. Pitchers developed methodical routines to recuperate between starts, whereas in the past, the main routine was switching from whiskey to beer the night before a start. So teams were increasingly reluctant to use their aces out of the bullpen. Thus, Kershaw’s save in the deciding game of the first round playoffs last week was his first use out of the bullpen since 2009.

Screenshot 2016-10-19 05.04.30

My guess is that baseball gets a higher percentage of the highest potential pitcher than one to two generations ago, when tall white guys were lured away by basketball and baseball. Of the top 20 active pitchers in terms of wins above replacement 14 of the 20 are white (assuming #20 blond Bronson Arroyo is considered white and still active). Before WWII, baseball was the National Pastime, but after the Big One it had to compete with football and basketball for tall athletes. Over the last generation, however, tall athletic white guys have come to realize they have better chance in baseball than in basketball or football.

Kershaw is three years into a seven year $215,000,000 contract with the Dodgers. When healthy all season, he starts 33 of the Dodgers’ 162 games, and typically averages 7 innings per game. Kershaw has completed only 24 games in his nine season career, but that still puts him fourth among active pitchers. In contrast, 50 years ago, Dodger lefty Sandy Koufax threw 27 complete games in 1966 alone (and 27 more the previous year). And Sandy was only getting paid $125,000 that season after a famous holdout with Don Drysdale. Of course, Koufax famously retired at age 30 after putting together a 27-9 won-loss record in 1966. Drysdale was washed up at 32 in 1969.

It’s not clear that the current system of usage of starting pitchers is optimal, but it is much more responsive to financial realities than the 1971 culture.


To illustrate the decline in intellectual standards in immigration discourse during the 21st Century here’s a New York Times editorial from February 2000 cautioning against amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Hasty Call for Amnesty
FEB. 22, 2000

The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s call for the government to grant amnesty to an estimated six million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States and to eliminate most sanctions on employers who hire them in the future was a surprising turnabout. Until now, organized labor has fought hard to keep illegal workers from taking jobs from higher-paid union workers.

The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s proposal is attractive to many groups. Unions welcome the chance to go after a huge new pool of unorganized workers. Employers welcome the chance to hire cheap labor without fear of criminal liability. And illegal immigrants who have worked hard for years and raised families under harrowing circumstances would welcome access to medical care and other services denied to illegal aliens.

But the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s proposal should be rejected. Amnesty would undermine the integrity of the country’s immigration laws and would depress the wages of its lowest-paid native-born workers.

Back in 1986, Congress granted amnesty to an estimated three million illegal immigrants as part of a law that also promised to crack down on further illegal immigration by imposing sanctions on employers who knowingly violated the law. At that time, this page endorsed amnesty because it was tied to measures that promised to keep further rounds of illegal immigration in check. But 14 years later there are twice as many illegal workers, and employer sanctions are widely deemed a joke. Workers pretend to show employers proof of citizenship or work visas and employers pretend they do not know the proof is fake.

The primary problem with amnesties is that they beget more illegal immigration. Demographers trace the doubling of the number of Mexican immigrants since 1990 in part to the amnesty of the 1980′s. Amnesties signal foreign workers that American citizenship can be had by sneaking across the border, or staying beyond the term of one’s visa, and hiding out until Congress passes the next amnesty. The 1980′s amnesty also attracted a large flow of illegal relatives of those workers who became newly legal. All that is unfair to those who play by the immigration rules and wait years to gain legal admission.

It is also unfair to unskilled workers already in the United States. Between about 1980 and 1995, the gap between the wages of high school dropouts and all other workers widened substantially. Prof. George Borjas of Harvard estimates that almost half of this trend can be traced to immigration of unskilled workers. Illegal immigration of unskilled workers induced by another amnesty would make matters worse. The better course of action is to honor America’s proud tradition by continuing to welcome legal immigrants and find ways to punish employers who refuse to obey the law.

Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.