When it comes to pilots, there are a number of different breeds. There are fixed wing or fixed wing carrier-based, fighters or fighter carrier-based, helicopter or helicopter carrier-based.

You can’t fake flying a fixed wing aircraft or fighter where the pilot has to land/take-off on a carrier. You can never fake flying a helicopter. Based on anecdotal observations, you find very few Black pilots in helicopters or flying an aircraft that works off a carrier. In the Navy, most Black pilots are flying P-3 ASW aircraft or other non-carrier based aircraft. In the Air Force, you will be hard pressed to find many of the 270 Air Force Black pilots in fighters or helicopters. The Air Force, Navy and the Army must field Black pilots but they only do it for the most forgiving, most automated aircraft that land on improved, fixed airfields……otherwise people die.

I would really enjoy seeing what the actual breakdown is for the distribution of Black pilots in the various aircraft types between all the services. Even with all the money spent on diversity, recruiting minority pilots and giving them extra time and training to qualify (as compared with White pilots) they still can’t meet their overall diversity numbers.

We have no problems seeing Black admin officers, supply officers, etc but I would tell the military that they can’t hire any more Blacks in jobs they can fake until they hire the same numbers in jobs they can’t fake (Pilots, EOD, Special Warfare, Infantry, etc).

One additional comment.

There is a great article that was written Jan 10, 2010 by "Frank G." and titled "Testing standards lowered by affirmative action". The URL is:
http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/1354710

It won’t make you happy but it is worth reading. It highlights how affirmative action has adversely impacted civil service exams, exams for police and fire fighters, university entrance exams, university, medical and law school admissions, and gifted child programs. It has driven quality performance to its knees in the name of equal opportunity. It is long but take the time to read it. It is well written and well documented. It highlights that Affirmative Action pulls down standards rather than raising people to meet demanding high standards. Unless we do something soon, it is going to get even worse.

The Department of Interior (DOI) was called out by the EEOC and Blacks in Government (BIG). DOI has 57,700 employees and is in trouble because the Relevant Civilian Labor Force (RCLF) percent of Blacks determined by OPM should be 9.2%. DOI only employees 5.6% but is the only federal organization that does not exceed Black RCLF. The EEOC and BIG don’t say a word about over-employment of Blacks. The Federal Workforce (FW) is 2.1 million of which 373,000 (17.8%) are Black. The RCLF is 10% so there is an overage of 173,000 Blacks. Even sadder, OPM states Blacks should be 8.3% (200) of the EEOC workforce. However (diversity be damned), Blacks are 42% of the EEOC (1,008). Blacks also are over 51% of all federal job series that deal with “civil rights” and “equal opportunity.” Those numbers are not diverse.
What Jobs are for Black employees of State Department (DOS)? DOS has 12,600 employees; 3,800 (30%) are Blacks. The OPM RCLF for DOS is 9.5% (1,197) which means DOS should be shedding 2,600 Black employees. 30% of employees are Black yet, when you look at Foreign Service Officers (the “Bread and Butter” of State), only 6.5% are Black. A US Diplomat has no credibility when are they are less educated and speak worse English than their foreign counterparts. 22% of State’s legal workforce is Black but they don’t highlight that only 3.5% of their attorneys are Black. 22% of their passport examiners are Black (Wonder why it takes so long to get a passport?). Only 5% of training instructors are Black. AT DOS Public Affairs only 22% are Black. 61% of employees in “personnel management” and 30% in “administration” are Black. 36% of IT jobs are filled by Blacks but there is a low entry bar. The majority who get IT training and advanced certification are not Black.
There is a reason why Blacks are employed by the feds in marginal numbers in jobs such as air traffic control, aircraft operation and maintenance, intelligence, foreign service, engineering, science, real medicine, high tech repair or as CIA, FBI or Secret Service Agents. These are jobs someone can’t fake and when they try, people die or the US is damaged. When you get a job series or an organization that is 10%-12% or higher for Blacks, you have real problems. Damage control is a daily “challenge” and you find contractors (or overburdened competent, non-minority employees) cleaning up the mess.
The federal government is responsible to the taxpayer to hire the best and brightest. However, when it comes to Blacks, the only thing that matters today is skin color. Why aren’t they qualified? Every test under the sun, from the military Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) to SAT to ACT to GRE to MCAT to Bar Exams to every dumbed-down “civil service exam” tells us they aren’t educated and lack requisite critical thinking or analytic reasoning skills. 46% of Black HS graduates are functionally illiterate; 38% read between the 5th and 8th grade levels. 5% of Black college graduates are functionally illiterate; 25% have between a 5th grade and an 8th grade education. 39% of Black HS graduates fail to achieve a qualifying score of 31 (out of 100) to join the Army. Before the Carter Administration left in 1981, it threw out the PACE, a federal civil service exam with a high degree of validity for predicting job performance which was race and gender neutral. 13.0% of whites and 0.6% of Blacks achieved a score of 90 which gave a good chance of being hired. 42% of Whites got a passing score of 70 vs. 5% of Blacks. Intelligence, not race, was the metric but it was thrown out for “disparate impact” on minorities. Since then, all federal hiring tests (except for the military, CIA, State, FBI, Secret Service) have disappeared. Government had no right to hire Blacks at two or more times their representation in the RCLF. Federal employment is a profession, not a jobs or entitlement program. If the Black middle-class is losing their government jobs, it is their own fault. Many weren’t qualified to begin with and they still aren’t qualified.

SBPDL,

I suggest you read the columns written by Fred Reed, especially the older ones as well as his "cop" columns. He is a true journalist (and a curmudgeon)who has written very real world columns on race in this country for the last 30 years or so. He reports facts and bases his observation on facts. He doesn't sink to the level of using abusive language and name calling. His older columns on the negative impact of Affirmative Action are especially timely today. He is NOT a racist but a realist and it might be helpful for you to look at some of his older columns and do some updates.
Continue ensuring your column is fact based and neverdeviate from that. Encourage your audience to move from name calling and emotion and stick to hard facts. It will enhance the impact AND credibility of what you are doing. You are doing great things and you can make a greater impact with just a little bit more work by using people like Fred Reed as positive examples to follow.

I read the 1999 RAND report as to why there weren't more minorities in SOF. It covered the range from GT scores to swimming ability to biases to lack of desire by minorities to service in special operating forces. There was one very telling paragraph though that both made my day and (I thought) would be the reaction any minority service member would have in the front of their minds.

“Many participants were vehemently opposed to quotas or the lowering of standards to achieve greater diversity. This was true across majority and minority personnel, operators and source population. Minority groups especially opposed lowering standards and instituting quotas because such policies create an atmosphere where ALL minorities are viewed as substandard and suspect."

"The following quotes from both majority and minority participants highlight these concerns":
• Can't have people who give up in the middle of a hump in the jungle
• You can't force people into it; quotas are very bad. No guarantee a guy will carry out his job if forced into it…..lives are at stake
• Take whoever is most qualified. Cannot compromise someone's life because of minority representation issues
• If you make it easier on minorities, there will always be a stigma that they made it through only with help"

"Finally, a related question that has plagued the military to mirror society. How does one define "enough?" Should SOF mirror society or the service with which they are associated? Should we set some other representational standard?"

Don’t our military leadership and the people pushing "diversity" (and those who are benefiting from it) realize the damage they do to all minorities and Our Services by forcing double standards to exist?

BTW, the SEAL Officer who complained of racist remarks he heard during his selection process. Basic Underwater Demolition and SEAL (BUDS)instructors will do and say anything to get BUDS trainees to get p***** off and demoralized. If someone can't put up with harrasment during training, how can they lead in war?

For Stuff Black People Don't Like.

Here are the references I used. Sorry, I only have the documents but not the links. However, you should be able to find them on line at the OPM and EEOC websites.

1. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics “Occupation of Federal White-Collar and Blue Collar Workers As of Sept 30, 2006. The September 2007 survey of the occupational characteristics of civilian employees in the Federal Government covered full-time Federal civilian employees, excluding the U.S. Postal Service and foreign nationals (noncitizens) employed overseas. This workforce included white-collar employees (86 percent) and blue-collar workers (14 percent). Information from this survey can help in the analysis and evaluation of workforce composition, the projection of workforce requirements, and the determination of policies dealing with national labor resources; it also may be used as a basic reference for guidance and counseling personnel concerned with the effective matching of jobs and people.

2. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Annual Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) Report for fiscal year (FY) 2010 to Congress. Prepared in accordance with the requirements of title 5, United States Code, section 7201, this report provides statistical data on employment in the Federal workforce (FW) and highlights some human capital practices Federal agencies are using to recruit, develop, and retain talent.

3.United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS, Annual Report on the Federal Work Force, Fiscal Year 2009. The FY 2009 Annual Report on the Federal Work Force, submitted to the President and Congress, presents a summary of selected EEO program activities in the federal government, including work force profiles of 59 federal agencies. The report provides valuable information to all agencies as they strive to become model employers.

OK,there are some things that need to be added to any dicusion when it comes to Black employment numbers.

The percent of Blacks in the general population doesn’t matter. Blacks make up 10.8% of the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) which consists of all people 16 and older (including both legal and illegal immigrants) who are considered to be in, or wanting to be part of, the labor force (less people who are incarcerated and in the military). The CLF is about 153 million people.

However, according to the most recent Office of Personnel Management (OPM) report (2010), the skills-relevant,non-government Black workforce, when compared to applicable government-skills workforce, is only 10% so 10% Black is what should be seen as the correct “diversity measure” for federal employment. Blacks, however, make up 18% of the federal government workforce (7.7% Black Male, 10.3% Black Female) and nearly 22% of the Postal Service (USPS).

Blacks make up over 50% of all federal employees who are involved in “equal opportunity compliance” and “civil rights” analysis. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) employs about 2,525 people. Blacks are 1,045 (about 42%) According to OPM, the EEOC should only be 8.3% Black which means that the EEOC should be getting rid of about 750 Blacks to meet its 8.3% “fair share” of 211. Remember, the EEOC is the primary federal organization chasing down everyone else for not having “diversity” in the workplace.

Based on what OPM (2007 figures) provided below, notice any trends?

Examples of federal jobs series that contain a large percentage of Blacks include:
59%-Equal Opportunity Assistance
53%-General Legal and Kindred Administration
52%-Equal Employment Opportunity
50%-Civil Rights Analysis
49%-Nursing Assistant
49%-Equal Opportunity Compliance
48%-Agricultural Commodity Aid
48%-Claims Assistance and Examining
48%-Agricultural Commodity Aid
48%-Claims Assistance and Examining
43%-General Services and Support Work Family
43%-Food Preparation and Serving Family
43%-Archives Technician
43%-General Services and Support Work Family
43%-Food Preparation and Serving Family
43%-Archives Technician
35%-Security Guard
35%-Mail and File
34%-Human Resources Assistance
33%-Legal Assistance
32%-Contact Representative
31%-Management and Program Clerical
31%-Tax Examining
30%-Social Services
29%–Miscellaneous Clerk and Assistant
29%-Practical Nurse
28%-Human Resources Management

Examples of federal job series employing the most Blacks are:
43,000–Mail Clerks USPS (24%)
38,000–City Carriers USPS (19%)
21,000–Mail Handlers USPS (40%)
16,000–Misc Admin and Pro (19%)
12,000–Misc Clerk and Assistant (30%)
11,000– Info Tech Management (17%)
11,000–Management and Program Analysis (23%)
9,000–Compliance Inspection and Support (25%)
9,000–Secretary (28%)
8,000–Miscellaneous Clerk and Assist (25%)
8,000–Contact Representative (32%)
7,000–Nurse (14%)
7,000–General Services and Support Work (43%)
7,000–Human Resources Management (29%)
6,000–Social Insurance Administration (21%
6,000–Food Prep and Serving Family (43%)
6,000–Contracting (21%)

Examples of federal job series, each employing more than 1,000 people, with the lowest percentage of Blacks are:
10%-Program Management
9%-Education and Vocational Training
9%-Aircraft Overhaul Family
9%-General Education And Training
8%-Intelligence
7%-Industrial Engineering
7%-Electronics Technician
7%-Mathematical Statistics
7%-Mathematics
7%-Computer Engineering
7%-Engineering Technician
7%-Economist
6%-Electrical Engineering
5%-Air Traffic Control
5%-Electronics Engineering
5%-General Engineering
5%-Aviation Safety
5%-General Physical Science
4%-Chemical Engineering
4%-Aerospace Engineering
4%-Foreign Affairs
4%-Civil Engineering
4%-Mechanical Engineering
3%-Materials Engineering
3%-Physics
3%-Aircrew Technician
2%-Nuclear Engineering
2%-Meteorology

For those who are really interested in what happens when there are high levels of racial mixing, it is worthwhile to look at the data for UK, Canada and Australia where immigration have drastically changed the face of the countries in the last 30 years. 
 
The data will have to be corrected by the factors listed here, and some other ones like generational effects. 
 
Without seeing the data, if I were to bet, I would say that once the data is normalized, the ‘excess’ of ‘Asian’ males disappears pretty quickly.

Here is an interesting aside to Indians who move abroad and abandon their “brides” or “spouses”. Is it not reasonable to assume that at least some Indians living abroad in places like the US have family back home — whether they acknowledge it or not to census takers? 
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022203178_pf.html 
 
“With an estimated 30,000 brides being abandoned every year, usually by husbands living abroad, India’s Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs also recommends that families hire private detectives to vet suitors and avoid being conned into giving away dowries, which are officially outlawed here but are still common among the wealthy. The ministry estimates that hundreds of thousands of brides are lied to or misled each year.”

Well, Lucy Liu can be attributed to Hollywood’s sense of quota. 
 
What is fascinating is how few Bollywood and Chinese actresses / actors have made a big name internationally outside of their home markets. Some of this can be attributed to the power and capabilities of the Western marketing machine, but not all. 
 
Another way to look at the ‘ugly white’ spouse is that there is a well documented phenomena where Chinese / Oriental women (and men) shows the signs of age at different paces / rates. Baldness is far less common, and grey hair often do not show until age 50 for Asian males, Asian (Oriental, not Indian) females tend to age slower until about 45, whereas white European females tend to show that level of aging (fatter figure, thinner and greyer hair, wrinkles in face, bulging belly, flabby skin, etc.) by 35, and you have another phenomena, which is Asian orientals generally look younger, fitter and trimmer even after a few kids at age 45. So the part of the mating game based on looks goes in an Asian male’s favor over time (age 30 to 40). 
 
Compound this with the fact that the average Asian Oriental in America (broadly speaking) is thinner and smaller frame to begin with because migrants to the US have been overwhelmingly dominated by people from areas of Asia with shorter people, (true in the southern Chinese and Japanese, not true for Korean, etc.) and you run into another well documented phenomena with preferences for mates. 
 
Regardless of race, females will go for a male that is at least the same size or larger. The need for a larger male is well documented across species where competition in mating involves males fighting each other for the ‘prize’., which favored the bigger, physically stronger male. Mind you, a corollary of that rule might be that it favors the smarter male since much of the fight now is not physical, but intellectual! 
 
There is a mismatch in the US between Oriental males originating from areas of Asia that are smaller and shorter and white females who are on average, taller and fatter because they originated from places with larger frames (Northern Europe, etc.) 
 
So a bit of inherent negative selection goes on based on physical attributes. This is not a racial phenomena — you rarely see a 6ft+ woman married to a 5’5″ male of any race. So to be fair, the data would need to be corrected to remove this kind of non-racial bias based on size and body shape, and also of the inherent competitive advantages / disadvantages caused by different rates of visible aging across different races. 
 
As for the perception that Asian males have to marry ‘fat and ugly’ white women, oh, well, how much of that is true, how much is blunt, prejudice based on annoyance at another race ‘stealing’ a good man or woman, I don’t know. A good bit of that can be attributed to the fact that White Europeans of both sexes in general do age faster than Asian oriental unless they spend considerable time and effort in exercise, plastic surgery, etc.  
 
How many balding Asian males have you seen with big, fat beer bellies?  
 
How many Asian women have you seen that wears size 3X or larger, weights over 300lbs on a 5′ 5″ frame? 
 
For those who care, take out the race dimension for a second — look at the hostility directed at European women (English, French, Italian, German) who came to the US as war brides during / after World War II. It is amazing the hostility directed at them in the USA — because they are seen as competitors to women in the US. The hostility was / is also directed at men who took such women as spouses — look at the annoyance at seeing a fat, balding, working class middle aged white male with his 30 year younger blond, blue eyed, Russian bride.

The $250k is number thrown up from a few speed dating trials, where people are trying to make relatively quick decisions.  
 
However, most mating decisions, even for the President of France, take more than the 3 to 8 minutes typical of speed dating organizations.  
 
The data tells you very little about more enduring mate choices.  
 
What is missing / absent is speed dating data from other countries — then it makes for real interesting compares.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8293975 
 
 
Illegal emigres defy the image 
FASTEST GROWING SOURCE? IT’S INDIA 
By Mike Swift 
Mercury News 
Article Launched: 02/18/2008 01:30:47 AM PST 
 
 
 
The Bay Area has a piece of the nation’s fastest growing group of illegal immigrants. But don’t assume you know who they are. 
 
Turning stereotypes on their head, a recent federal analysis of unauthorized immigration says the most rapidly growing source of illegal immigration is India – the same country whose engineers and programmers help power Google and other Silicon Valley companies, whose doctors heal the Bay Area’s sick, and whose entrepreneurs and venture capitalists have become a force on both sides of the international date line. 
 
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimates that there are 270,000 unauthorized Indian natives in the United States – a 125 percent jump since 2000, the largest percentage increase of any nation with more than 100,000 illegal immigrants in the United States.

Ahhhh but historically, if you wait long enough, there are things like amnesties and immigration lotteries, or people who have been living together for quite a while (kids and all) finally decide to take the plunge and go legal…. Many are never legalized, so to speak, and just stay underground. 
 
That is especially easy to do if you are female and a stay at home mom — until the 9/11 crackdowns, illegals like that had little difficulty getting a drivers license, ID, and all the other things. 
 
FYI, the fastest growing category of illegal immigrants are from India, who typically arrive here legally on a short duration visa like a H visa, and then overstay the visa. These illegals are overwhelmingly male except in select occupational categories like Nursing.  
 
If these people are counted in the ‘mix’ by the census, you can be rest assured that it skews the mix toward a male surplus.

Don’t call it ‘mail order’, call it spouse from abroad (which properly would include persons who come to the US for one reason or another (from students to illegal immigrants and ended up staying in USA through either marriage or other means — which include getting a job that gives them legal status beside via the marriage route.) and you have quite a larger number than 1/2 of 1% of all marriages. 
 
The illegals in country are known to be quite a bit larger. I am not knowledgeable enough as to whether what is referred to as ‘visas by marriage’ would include those who arrived (legal or not) in USA, and then get married and get an ‘adjustment of status’ to permanent residence status. Add all these figures up… and they add up. 
 
On that subject, 1/2 of 1% of all marriages on an annual basis do add up cumulatively. Furthermore, the number of marriages is much larger than the raw number of persons because of the persistence and prevalence of multiple (serial and the occasional parallel) marriages. So detune the number somehow to bring it back in line with the population… and again, you get a different picture. 
 
The point is, I really think the idea of ‘Asians’ losing out is a statistical oddity that may have a lot less ommph to it once it is subject to real detailed analysis of the numbers.

The breakdown of “Asian” into subgroups is a very good start to getting some facts into this debate. 
 
Let me throw a few casual observations here to interpret the numbers: 
 
1. Asian Indians 
 
That is a ‘catch all’ category that include people of huge differences not only in nationality, caste (for Hindus and Muslims that converted)… etc. e.g. is this where an Indonesian would fit? 
 
Having said that, male ‘Indians’ often import their spouse from ‘back home’ that are properly matched in terms of social standing, wealth, a good dowry, and other things that a ‘non-resident Indian’ professional can command. So it can be argued from the perspective of an Asian Indian woman brought up / born in the USA, there is a shortage of eligible Indian males — so they ‘outmarry’.  
 
While this phenomena affects almost all ‘Asian’ males who have a large pool of potential spouses to draw on from their home country, the Indian phenomena is particularly because the selection of spouses is so bisected by the need to not marry out of faith and caste PLUS get a good dowry. 
 
2. Chinese 
 
With Chinese, caste is not an issue (mostly), but class, social standing, rank, etc. are. Furthermore, a lot of 1st generation Chinese males may show up as ‘single’ on the census here, but are in fact, ‘married’ and have spouses (plural) and children back home. So the data is skewed because it doesn’t ask the obvious question: do you have a concubine back home? 
 
If you control for, a) generational effects (i.e. only count genuine ABCs (American Born Chinese), and also for socio-economic standing, you will find that the intermarriage rate is actually quite comparable for both males and females. There is a certain myth to the Asian male that keeps losing the competion…. 
 
Another factor that skews the number in the last 20 years is the large importation of Chinese women to the US as spouses of non-Chinese males— via dating / marriage agencies that again, skew the numbers. Rarely are husbands imported even by Chinese women — comes from the tendency of women to want to marry UP, not down. 
 
3. Fillpinos 
 
This data is totally skewed by the large numbers of Filipino women that have been imported as spouses by non-Asians (mostly white), and also spouses of serviceman — courtesy of the long term US presence in the Philippines. 
 
Drop those two categories out of the equation, and how does the number look? 
 
4. Japanese 
 
This data is perhaps the most interesting — large scale migration of Japanese ceased early in the 20th century, and the importation of Japanese spouses slowed to a trickle by the 1960s.  
 
What is fascinating is the ‘out marriage’ rate is strikingly similar between males and females and the slight difference between males / females do not suggest a huge imbalance between males and females. 
 
5. Koreans 
 
Military spouses is a huge explanation here. See discussion above. 
 
6. Vietnamese 
 
Here, it is socio-economic as many Vietnamese males are not in well paying professional jobs. Control for this factor, and you will see that accounts for a large amount of the ‘out marriage’ rate by females. 
 
Finally, there is another issue: Most ‘Asians’ are pretty picky about not out marrying outside of their own narrow group (i.e. Cantonese prefer Cantonese, an ‘out marriage’ is regarded as marrying a Shanghainese), or outside of their caste (for Indians or Muslims who converted from Hinduism), or their own socio-economic classes. 
 
Once you start to do micro analysis, especially controlling for the large scale importation of foreign born spouses, these big brush demographics break down. 
 
For example — it is well documented that white women over 45 have terrible marriage prospects. Could this be because men (white etc.) opted for younger spouses? Especially as such younger spouses are available from the Ukraine, Russia, etc.? 
 
Details, details, please.