View Full Version : Hate Crimes--Surprising Results

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 12:25 PM
The FBI published it's report on hate crimes, which contains some startling information.

The majority of victims of religiously motivated hate crimes were . . . .

If you said Moslem, you were wrong.

Jews accounted for 56.5% of all such crimes.

Moslems accounted for 26.2%

In other words, Jews, who are the smallest religious minority in the US (about 2% of the population), were the victims of more than half of the religiously motivated hate crimes. There were more hate crimes against Jews than against all of the other religions combined.

However, the largest number of hate crimes overall, including race, religion, national origin, etc., was against Blacks.

The perpetrators of hate crimes are predominantly white, at the rate of 5/1.


11-26-2002, 12:45 PM
Monday, Nov. 25, 2002
'Hate Crime' Statistics Lie

Law enforcement agencies reported nearly 10,000 so-called "hate crimes" in 2001, the FBI said today. As usual, whitey is listed as the biggest offender - but check out what is, and is not, considered a "hate crime."

"Apparently motivated by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, hate crimes caused by ethnicity and national origin doubled over the previous year," United Press International said today. The headline by the Associated Press: "Hate Crimes Targeting Muslims, Middle Easterners Surged in 2001, FBI Says."

Police agencies reported 553 "hate crimes" caused by "bias toward the Islamic religion" and said the jump came about "presumably as a result of the heinous incidents that occurred on Sept. 11."

The FBI reports that 2,899 blacks, almost 1,400 homosexuals, more than 1,000 Jews and 891 whites were victims of "hate crimes" in 2001.

"Whites comprised [sic] the vast majority of known offenders for all cases, at 6,054, followed by blacks at 1,882," AP reported today. It failed to note how many "hate crimes" were carried out by Muslims.

The great majority of these "hate crimes" were mere cases of intimidation and vandalism, according to UPI.

Those Who Forget History ...

Let's see, something seems to be missing. Wasn't there a major crime that occurred in this country in 2001 that isn't accounted for here? Something a tad more serious than intimidation and vandalism?

It's coming back to us: It was in early September. Yes, that's right, it occurred in New York City, rural Pennsylvania and Arlington, Va., on - oh, what was that date again? That's right, Sept. 11.

So: Nearly 3,000 people (most of them white, by the way) die at the hands of Muslim extremists on 9/11 in the most hateful crime imaginable. Yet the thought police who judge what is and is not a "hate crime" refuse to acknowledge historical reality.

Do the politically correct consider the 9/11 atrocities to be "love crimes"?

But wait, there's more. As the Wichita Massacre illustrates, prosecutors often refuse to classify vicious attacks against whites as "hate crimes." Many people know about the evil murder of James Byrd, but very few could identify the victims of Reginald and Jonathan Carr.

Likewise, many Americans know about the despicable murder of Matthew Shepard, but few know about the equally vile murder of young Jesse Dirkhising. Be sure to thank the P.C. media establishment.

Violence is equally immoral against anyone: Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, animists, agnostics, atheists, homosexuals, heterosexuals, whites, blacks, Latinos, etc. So how come some victims are more equal, and some perpetrators less equal, than others? Has the United States turned into one big Orwellian "Animal Farm"?

Footnote: As one NewsMax reader from Texas observed: "Whites outnumber blacks 6-1 in the population. According to the watered-down stats quoted, white 'hate crimes perps' only outnumber black ones 3-1. So wouldn't a fair summary be: 'Blacks commit hate crimes at double the rate of whites'?"

A fair question, but the same media that ignore Jesse Dirkhising and the Wichita Massacre won't raise this issue either.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Alan D. Hyde
11-26-2002, 01:31 PM
A point well taken, Conrad.

As Mark Twain said: "There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics."


Ian McColgin
11-26-2002, 02:43 PM
Point not even close to much of anything.

The September 11 was a horrific set of acts by a small number of people. This is an act of terrorism rather than (hate) crime. That's why the whole controversial homeland security laws set varying standards for, as we saw in another thread, wiretapping, etc.

We white protestant guys are not oppressed and we should not whine when efforts are made to end the oppression of those who are.

11-26-2002, 03:02 PM
There is a possibility that Jews, a throughly integrated, fairly self-confident group of people on the whole, may be more inclined to report crimes against them to the Police, whereas recent immigrants and perhaps even blacks may doubt if talking to the police is a good idea.

That does not make such crimes less heinous.

Terrorism is a different sort of thing, I think. Not that that makes it any nicer.

11-26-2002, 03:10 PM
It's even possible that hate crimes against jews get a disporportionate amount of reporting in the jewish dominated media.

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 03:21 PM
I included the link to the FBI's report, which discusses the methodology.

Because it depends on voluntary reporting by victims, it is subject to being skewed, as ACB points out.

One of the "crimes" included in the statistics is "intimidation." It is possible that some groups are more likely to report incidents of intimidation to law enforcement authorities.

Meer, you are way too cynical. You are also not thinking for yourself. The FBI's statistics are not based in any way on media reports. But you sure didn't miss the opportunity to repeat the long running lie about the so-called Jewish dominated media. I suppose you've personally taken a head count of the members of the media to determine their religious affiliation? Or maybe you've been spending too much time surfing the site of The World Church of The Creator.

11-26-2002, 03:32 PM
Long running lie? HAH! Try reading the credits on the national news programs (when they bother to run them) and the McNeil Newshour and see just how many recognizablely jewish names there are. Take a look at who's on TV shows in numbers far disporportinate to their population statistics. Unless its one of those sad black comedies (of course, it may be that I just don't understand them, but they mostly seem to be parodys of black people not unlike the old minstrel shows), there's a lead or supporting actor who's jewish in many of them.

BTW, before you retort with the typical "anti-semitic" rant, forget it. I have had jewish friends in the past, and may again in the future. It bothers me that there are so many in the public view compared to their population percentage and that that is bound to have an influence on how some issues are portrayed. When was the last time you read or saw anything in the mainstream press/media that was even remotely supportive of the Palestinians for example? Perhaps you approve (or don't disapprove) of the use of military weapons against civilian targets such as the Israelis have done?

Of course you, having posted the majority (all that I know of) of pro jewish posts on the forum, are without any of that sort of bias - right?

BTW, I didn't suggest that the FBI reports where in any way connected with media reporting.

[ 11-26-2002, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

gunnar I am
11-26-2002, 03:32 PM
I offer this thought cautiously. Someone once pointed out to me, the amount of coverage the Palestine/ Israely situation was given ( this was well before things really heated up) by National Public Radio. Once pointed out, There didn't seem to be balance in international coverage. I had the BBC to compare with, who had a better balance, with more reporting on countries critisized by Amnesty International. So I would be interested in hearing more aboiut this subject on another thread,one in which I would watch and listen. It has been facinating,reading the different viewpoints here. Added: I see Meer beat me with a second post. As the Middle East heated up,NPR has strived for more balance.In their history of the conflict, It was the first I ever heard of the practis eof Israely soldiers to break the arms of stone throwers. Meer, I'm not sure name in the credits is a plausible way to dentify special interests. Anyway, how bout another thread on this guys.

[ 11-26-2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: gunnar i am ]

Bruce Taylor
11-26-2002, 03:47 PM
Conrad, there are a few useful points buried in the sloppy opinion piece you posted. These points would have been much stronger without all the huffing and puffing about political correctness and media bias.

Concerning the Dirkhising case...

The media like to report on "issues." If Mr. Smith kills his daughter in a drunken rage, the event, typically, gets local coverage and the story disappears quickly. If Mr. Smith kills his disabled daughter in order to end her suffering, the event will likely receive months of tiresomely detailed coverage, with ample commentary from all sides on the "euthanasia" question. It's all very programmatic and dull, but that's the way these guys work.

The "issue" in the Matthew Shepard case was the idea of "hate crime" itself. The question raised in the media at the time was whether violent "hate crimes" (however defined) should be considered worse than "ordinary" crimes of violence? And there was plenty of opinion spilled on both sides of the question. Sheperd was merely the focus for a debate on the idea of making crimes of hate a separate category.

But what was the "issue" in the Dirkhising case? Whether homosexuals can be violent rapists, just like heterosexuals? Whether we're seeing an upsurge of sexual sadism by homos that needs to be identified and placed on the public agenda? Whether parents should let their kids hang around with hairdressers? In short, is there anything to discuss there? Is there anything you can get two talking heads to argue about in prime time?

The national media didn't think so, and chose not to follow the story, much to the chagrin of certain groups who would like to publicize this awful case as evidence of....of what, exactly? Just what do we learn from dwelling on the sordid details here?

For a report on the coverage of the
Dirkhising case, see the following:


[ 11-26-2002, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Bruce Taylor ]

11-26-2002, 03:53 PM
I forgot to mention that I don't care whether or not these people are jewish in the regular scheme of things, but I am suspicious when so many are behind the scenes at news organizations. Am I suggesting an organized conspiracy? Nope, but I would expect people of any specific ethnicity (for lack of a better term; cultural view, religious background...) to have filters that biased a presentation towards their world view. I would be, and am, equally suspicious of other more easily identifiable sources of bias like the Christian News Network etc.

There's a lot of information out there. If you take a look at foreign media sources, you get a significanly different view of what's going on in the world then that which you get from US sources (including the sadly castrated version of BBC World News (tailored to the US market) that now shows on some PBS stations).

Bruce Taylor
11-26-2002, 03:55 PM
Long running lie? HAH! Try reading the credits on the national news programs (when they bother to run them) and the McNeil Newshour and see just how many recognizablely jewish names there areI can think of no activity more small-minded than counting up Jewish-sounding names in news credits.

It seems like everyone is making lists and checking them twice, these days. You've got guys like Daniel Pipes counting pro-Muslim academics, and posting their names on his online bad-trick sheet. You've got disgruntled conservatives counting up Gore supporters in the cultural industries. And you can always rely on somebody to count up the number of Jews in the legal profession or the media.

I despise this kind of thing. I'm sorry, David, but I do.

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 03:55 PM
Meer, you're a bigot and you don't even know it.

"Recognizable Jewish names," you say. So you base your comments on the credits of news shows? You have radar for Jewish names.

Would you say "Rosen" is a recognizable Jewish name?

Do a Google search on Scott Rosen and see what you find. Or let me save you the trouble. Of the few names that pop up, a couple are protestant ministers. Another has a family Christmas album. Ooops.

Do a search on another "typical" Jewish name, like Hoffman. See what comes up.

Then there was my friend Steve Weitz. When I asked him what he was doing for Rosh Hashanah one year, he looked at me like I dropped in from another planet.

Then there's the Donnely family and the Smith family at my synagogue.

Most of what you think of as Jewish names are Germanic, Polish or Slavic. If you think you can identify a person's religion by their name, you need some re-education.

"It bothers me that there are so many in the public view . . ."

It's amazing that you have no shame about saying such a thing. You can't help yourself, can you? You think we're different, so you're afraid, or "bothered" as you put it. There aren't that many of us in public view (less than 1% in Congress), but we're here to stay, so you might as well get used to it.

I didn't raise the issue of anti-semitism. I made the post because I was surprised by the report. I expected to see crimes against Moslems as the largest group. I expected to see crimes against Jews in the smallest group. This report does not support the notion, promoted by a few people here, that there is a backlash against Moslems in the US.

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 04:01 PM
I would note, however, that crimes against Moslems are up for the year, although they are still a small percentage of overall hate crimes.

I think that's relatively good news, given the environment. It shows the basic open-mindedness of most Americans.

As to the crimes against Jews, it shows that there is a small core of violent anti-semites in the US that is unaffected by current events. The good news is that it has not grown. That bad news is that it exists at all, which is true of any hate group.

If you read the FBI report, you'll see that it DOES include crimes against Whites, mostly commited by Blacks. Hate crimes against Whites exist, but they are a very small percentage overall.

[ 11-26-2002, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Scott Rosen ]

11-26-2002, 04:07 PM
Riiight... and Issac Goldbaum is a good old baptist boy from Texas tongue.gif

By "public view" I meant influencing the public, not public figures.

I don't sit around spending my time counting up "jewish sounding names" when the Newshour credits roll at the end of the show. I merely noticed them at one point and was surprised. Then I started noticing just how many jewish sounding names pop up on TV. Are they all jewish? Probably not. Are many of them jewish - probably! Do jews, like other identifiable cultural/religious groups, share common interests and viewpoints? Would such interests and views tend to act as filters (biases) on how they present information?

Having lived in Germany; having lived in a jewish neighborhood in Pittsburgh, PA and having had jewish friends, I'm quite aware that not all germanic and/or slavic names are automatically jewish names. I no longer have jewish friends because I no longer live where those friends I had do live. I have no jewish friends, not because I avoid them or think them alien, but for a far simpler reason: I just don't know any jewish people at the moment. Sorry, it's not sinister or bigotted, just the fact of the matter.

Funny how you instantly start calling me a bigot and (by implication) a racist (cheap creator church remark) without addressing WHAT I SAID. Is what I said a lie (no)? Is it debatable (yes)? Did I suggest some sort of conspiracy (no)? Have I made any inflamatory remarks (no)?

I guess YOUR agenda is clear enough.

[ 11-26-2002, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

11-26-2002, 04:14 PM
Alright, alright. Here's a homework assignment for all of you (I'm too lazy to do it). What is the prevalence of Jewish people in controlling positions in the US media?

The question of whether it matters can be left for later. If we don't have the facts in front of us then we are just a bunch of wind bags.

And I know Bruce, you find the question repellant, but I think you are wrong.

[ 11-26-2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

11-26-2002, 04:19 PM
I'll grant you that the bit I posted has its own set of problems. What I thought valuable was its usefulness in reminding all of us that there are decisions and methodologies behind the statistics. Intimidation doesn't seem to fit in the same "crime " category as personal injury, etc. I've always found the definition of a "hate crime" to be a curious distinction at best. Crime is crime, and motivation difficult to discern but easy to imply, leaving the whole question open to charges of political correctness and hence the bias that seems to tag along.

There's no doubt the behaviors discussed need to be discouraged and controlled, but I'm not convinced the concept of "hate crime" is the best approach.

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 04:20 PM
Let's see. I tried to imagine what meer would think of as a typical Jewish name. Goldberg came to mind. I did a Google search and the first item was the Goldberg Evangelical Church Records, complete with Baptismal information going back to the 1800's.

The fourth item was a publication called The Patriot, which is a Christian publication with a strong anti-Israel bent. It's publisher is Lewis Goldberg.

I'm glad you know what my agenda is. That makes one of us.

Bruce Taylor
11-26-2002, 04:22 PM
Meerkat, I don't think you're a racist or bigot.

However, it's one thing to notice, in passing, that there are a lot of East Indians working at the Post Office. It is quite another to speculate that this is why your mail is always late. And if you were to float this unsubstantiated theory in a public place, you would be a little irresponsible, I think.

Ian McColgin
11-26-2002, 04:23 PM

Anyone who can actually write "jewish dominated media" with any level of belief really does need to reevaluate whether he or she is bigoted. And having had a jewish friend does not establish that one is not bigoted.

This is an internal matter for each of us to search in our own consciences. I find that my own personality makes me a natural authoritarian, so long as I'm in charge, and it's huge work to really listen to others. It's also huge work to not fall back on racial and religious and regional and class stereotypes. Regretably being bigoted is a natural human condition. People who think they are not subject to being bigoted are simply both bigoted and unaware.

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 04:26 PM

I agree with you. I don't like creating a new catagory of crime called hate crime. Most of what is considered a hate crime, would be a crime anyway. Calling it a hate crime allows the FBI to get involved in what would normally be local matters. It also allows enhanced punishments based on questionable premises. Why should the law treat you differently if you assault someone because you want to do harm to a human generically (sp?) as opposed to a human of a particular race or religion.

11-26-2002, 04:31 PM
"A" jewish friend? heh. When I lived in Pittsburgh, my employers where jewish, nearly all of y friends where jewish and I lived in a very jewish neighborhood, right down to the yeshiva (sp?) school, the orthodox russian jews and the stores that where closed on Saturday and that had Shabat specials every week.

If "jewish dominated media" offends, ok - i'll retract that and substitute "A media dominated by a lot of people with jewish sounding surnames" tongue.gif

Bruce Taylor
11-26-2002, 04:34 PM
I know Bruce, you find the question repellantI do, I do!!

"As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs--
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs--
All children who are up in dates, and floor you with 'em flat--
All persons who in shaking hands, shake hands with you like _that_--
And all third persons who on spoiling tete-a-tetes insist--
They'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed!

CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list--he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed--they'll none of
'em be missed."

W.S. Gilbert, of course.

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
Regretably being bigoted is a natural human condition. People who think they are not subject to being bigoted are simply both bigoted and unaware.Words of wisdom, Ian. I live in a decent middle-class racially mixed neighborhood about 5 miles from the slums of Hartford.

When the house next door went on the market, and I saw a Black family looking at the house, I had a shot of fear. My first thought was, "oh no, there goes the neighborhood." Shame on me.

On Halloween, I caught two kids trying to vandalize my house. One was Black, the other White. I thought, "see what happens when Blacks move in." Shame on me. I went and talked to their parents. The Black family was responsible, kind and insisted that their child clean up the mess and apologize. The White family couldn't care less about what their kid was doing. A couple of weeks later, the Black kid's mother called on us to say hi and make sure everything worked out okay. Never a word from the White family.

There's a Muslim family down the street. The wife wears traditional clothes. I must admit to being irked and a little scared about having them on the street. But they are my neighbors, and despite my fears, I try to be a good neighbor.

I try to recognize my bigoted ideas before I act on them. I don't always succeed. But I try. My kids are less bigoted than I am. I hope that's a trend.

[ 11-26-2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Scott Rosen ]

11-26-2002, 04:38 PM

It is a simple question, though I'm not sure I would know how to answer it. I've heard stats saying that 60% of media executives are Jewish. Is this true?

Whether one is biaed against Jews or not, such statistics, given only 2% of the population is Jewish, are food for thought -- IF THEY'RE TRUE!

How would one find out?

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 04:52 PM
Jack, you're headed into a dead end.

American media include thousands of broadcast radio and tv stations. Thousands of cable networks. Hundreds of newspapers from the Wall Street Journal to the East of Nowhere News. It includes every company that ever produced a syndicated program. Every free-lance writer who ever sold an article to the East of Nowhere News.

Most of those media are locally and independently owned, even though there is a recent trend in the radio industry to condolidate. Broadcast licenses are controlled by the FCC. The airwaves themselves are "owned" by the federal government.

It's also wrong to assume that people who share a religion are going to have identical interests to each other. That will be true as to some issues. For example, Irish Catholics can be expected to oppose British rule of Northern Ireland. Americans of Hindu descent can be assumed to oppose US aid to Pakistan. But on other issues, they may, and probably do, disagree.

For example. Charleton Heston, a Jew (the name fooled you, huh?), is the head of the Conservative NRA. On the other hand, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, also a Jew, avidly supports gun control: "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
Associated Press 11/18/93

11-26-2002, 04:53 PM

I can only answer by saying I think our racial heritage has been given short shrift by our social scientists, and psychologists; and myevidence is myself.

I've felt for some time a strong affinity with the struggle of Israel to survive. I've formed a strange sort of brotherhood, and sisterhood, with Jew's I've known, close beyond compare, all without knowing, until recently, that I was a Jew.

Oh, I learned the tabla rasa of the socialistic scientists, and even believed it for a long time. But I've come to believe that if we are going to move beyond this sleazy corner of race and politicking we find ourselves on, we, all of us, are going to have to face some very much deeper issues...issues of blood, inheritance and biology of psychology.

It is a mystery that has been mis-used horribly in the past. But that doesn't make the "blank slate" crowd correct.


gunnar I am
11-26-2002, 04:56 PM
We indeed all do harbor prejudices and view things stereotypically. You wouldn't survive if you didn't .It's a natural function of the brain.But its how we rationally break them down,anilyse and interpret.And its what we show our children .I'll never forget when David Duke said something to the effect of, "Its what you all discuss over your dinner table, but not in public.Whit people,age 47 ,that like wooden boats,can't spell for sh**. :D

11-26-2002, 04:59 PM
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I don't think that I, or Scot for that matter, are intolerant - partial: yes, intolerant: no. I do think that people are partial, even strongly partial, to their group/religion/politics beliefs, else why have them? I think the crucial difference is how one acts on them. I notice differences and am influenced by them, but I stop short of acting intolerantly, except towards intolerant people. I prefer not to be around such people or have them around me and I'm not shy about calling them on their own intolerances.

11-26-2002, 05:01 PM
All crimes of violence against another person are spurred by hate. Inventing a new category ( ie Hate Crimes) does nothing but give statisticians and cry baby speacial interests some thing new to complain about. It does nothing to stop such crimes from occuring in the first place.

Ian McColgin
11-26-2002, 05:04 PM
Yeah, it's like folk who grouse about liberal dominated radio - who can even name a rocking liberal except some regional eccentrics like jim Hightower down there is six gun country.

There are lots of cultural and historical reasons why different groups are 'overrepresented' or 'underrepresented' in various walks of life. Sometimes a bit sinister, like oppression or certain fields the only allowed. Sometimes just what folk do.

But jewish dominated - 60% - nonsense.

11-26-2002, 05:10 PM
Okay Ian, it may be nonsense. I would like to know. Donn seems one of the best researchers here, maybe he could start with television and major newspapers, and report back.

11-26-2002, 05:13 PM
Nice bit of disembling there Scot. "People" magazine reported a few years ago (2,3?) that there are now fewer then 150 people in the country who control the vast majority of the media. There are not "thousands" of national TV, Radio and Newspaper chains. As an example, ONE corporation (Clear Channel Communications or something like that) now owns over 70% of ALL radio stations in the country. Knight-Rider and Hearst are examples of other media dominators (newspaper chains). AOL Time Warner dominates a large segment of the movie and TV business, with more then 70 corporations under their umbrella. Most "independent" TV stations take a lot of news feed from a very few news agencies like AP, UPI and Roueters. It can take a relative few people to dominate/influence a very large percentage of what people see on a day to day basis.

BTW, the federal government does not own the airwaves, the people of the United States do. Another trust violated by the government.

Bruce Taylor
11-26-2002, 05:13 PM
Jack, you don't have to choose between Locke's tabula rasa and racial determinism. There's a lot of territory between and around those positions (which are, in any case, not opposite termini on a spectrum).

Like most people who have kids and don't want to be blamed for their faults, I'm a pretty strong defender of genetic determinism.

Which is, of course, quite a different thing from what you seem to be describing...some sort of racial consciousness passed along in the genome.

An old hippy friend of mine (Jewish, now that I think of it) had a funny way of putting it: "Nature? Nurture? Not sure!"

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 05:34 PM
Here are the Facts. This information was taken from the websites of these media giants. Meer, turn on your Jew radar, and tell us what percentage of these execs are Jewish.

Clear Channel: Publicly owned. Executives: Lowry Mays
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Mays
President and Chief Operating Officer, Randall Mays
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Herb Hill
Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Office, Kathryn Johnson
Senior Vice President, Corporate Relations.

AOL Time Warner: Stephen M. Case Chairman of the Board, AOL Time Warner Inc., Richard D. Parsons Chief Executive Officer, AOL Time Warner Inc., Kenneth J. Novack Vice Chairman, AOL Time Warner Inc., Ted Turner Vice Chairman, AOL Time Warner Inc.


Chairman of the Management Committee since 1995; Knight Ridder chairman and CEO since 1995.

President/Newspaper Division since 2001. Responsible for all Knight Ridder newspaper operations. Also directly oversees newspapers in Akron, Charlotte, Columbia, Contra Costa, Detroit, Fort Worth, Kansas City, Lexington, Miami, Olathe, Philadelphia, St. Paul and San Jose; publishers report to him. Served as senior vice president/operations Knight Ridder, 1998 to 2001; executive vice president and general manager, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 1992 to 1998. M.B.A., The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 1974; B.A., economics, Ursinus College, 1971.

Vice president/senior labor and employment counsel since 1998.

Vice president/news since 1999.

Senior vice president/human resources since 1996; vice president/human resources 1989 to 1996.

Vice president/circulation and regional call centers since 2002.

Senior vice president/CFO since May 2001.

Vice president/research since 1989.

Vice president/technology since 2000.

Vice president/corporate relations since 1994 and corporate secretary since 1999.

Vice president/internal audit since 2002.

Vice president/production and facilities since 1998.

Vice president/staff development and diversity since September 2002.

Vice president/marketing since 2001.

Vice president and controller since 2001.

Vice president since April 2002 and president and chief executive officer of Knight Ridder Digital.

Vice president/human resources/compensation and benefits since 2000.

Vice president/shared services since 2002.

Vice president/operations since 2000.

Vice president and general counsel since 2000.

Ed Harrow
11-26-2002, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
..."People" magazine reported ...You are not serious... ROTFLMHO

11-26-2002, 05:44 PM

I'm not speaking of determinism, racial or otherwise. But in order to be free to choose, one must have the cards, unmarked and face up, in front of one.

I think of the IQ studies you and others mentioned earlier. Ian spoke of a transitor scientist named Shockley, who became enamoured of the shifts in the bell curves of IQ by race, back in the sixties and seventies. His analyses showed a slight shift in the bell curves of the IQ's of blacks, whites and Asians. I don't remember how his figures played out; doubtless some took them as reasons for their racist views, and others dismissed them as reactionary ravings. But let's say they were correct: Asians test slightly better than whites who test slightly better than blacks, in America.

So freeking what? All of them overlap, to a large degree. In an egalitarian, meritocracy it shouldn't matter. But in an imagined utopia, promulgated by many social theorists, it matters a great deal. We must have equal number of each race assigned to each level of merit, from janitor to CEO.

All such windy, sickening BS! Not to dismiss an inherent complexity given this countries history of horrific racism -- not just toward Blacks, but Asians, Amer-Indians.

But, that is a poor example for what I was speaking of. What I was speaking of goes much deeper than arbitrary testing. I was saying that part of my heritage, as a Jew, is biased in the blood, in the genetics, and that if I fail to recognize it, I will fail to treat others fairly. And, if I gain some kind of power, I may promulgate it way beyond my small sphere.

That's all! Laugh.



Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 05:45 PM
Some more facts.

Associated Press: Not for profit company. The present President and Chief Executive Officer is Louis D. Boccardi.

Reuters: Here's a partial list of directors.
Charles James Francis Sinclair
Ed Kozel
Roberto Mendoza
Richard Lake Olver
Thomas Henry Glocer
Philip Nevill Green
David John Grigson
Andre-Francois Helier Villeneuve
David John Grigson
Sir Christopher Anthony Hogg
Robert Rowley
Charles Sinclair
Sir Christopher Hogg
Sir Peter Job
Philip Green
David Grigson

Bruce Taylor
11-26-2002, 05:51 PM
Polk Laffoon?!!

I don't know if these fellas are Jewish, but they do seem to be a bunch of men -- or women named Mark.

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by ishmael:
ARE THERE A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF JEWS IN CONTROLLING POSTITIONS IN OUR MEDIA?Based on what I've found, some of which is posted above, there are a very small number of directors and executives in major media companies with ethnic/Jewish sounding names. I suppose if I kept searching, I'm bound to find more. Perhaps in the movie industry?

It would appear that any fears that information is controlled by "Jewish interests" are unfounded.

gunnar I am
11-26-2002, 06:00 PM
The cover of my "Watchtower" magazine left by a roving band of Jehova's ,shows a black,an Oriental,some whites,there's a beautiful garden,I don't know if they let Jews ,or for that matter anyone that's not a Jehovah in. There's a cow , a tiger and a dog. Well,Dammit!! I hates friggin tigers! When I see a tiger, I go to the other side of the street. And the day I hire a tiger, is the day I'll retire. Incidentally, I asked the guy who was kind enough to "just leave this for you." about what the tiger would eat.He wasn't sure but told me not the cow. Did they have a class about heaven and discuss diet of carnivours there? And then maybe he wasn't listening?Oh well, back to the racist forum,that ,thankfully ,is for all non-tigers only. :D :D

11-26-2002, 06:04 PM
You really do disemble very well Scot. The facts you posted didn't adress the facts I posted, but they're close enough to create enough smoke to cover the original. Oh well.

Before I drop this, I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT 'JEWISH INTERESTS' CONTROLLED THE MEDIA. There's a significant difference between influence and control.

11-26-2002, 06:05 PM
Look, if indeed the media is "dominated by Jews", (which I take leave to doubt) I cannot think of a better group to dominate it. My second choice would be the Chinese (aka "the Jews of East Asia")
on similar grounds - both groups contain disproportionately large numbers of well educated, thoughtful, hard working people.

I would not be happy if the media were dominated by Israelis, or Taiwanese, incidentally. That would be quite another thing.

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 06:13 PM

I tried to respond with concrete facts. Influence is a slippery concept. Control is not. If a media company is owned by the public, with a board of directors and executives made up of a representative cross section of the community, then I don't understand what you mean by Jewish influence. What would be your solution to this perceived problem? Are you concerned only with Middle Eastern events, or something broader?

I found this research to be enlightening, because, frankly, I too thought there were more Jewish sounding names at the top of the media companies. I guess the best lie is a big lie.

Memphis Mike
11-26-2002, 06:13 PM
This thread started out on the percenteges
of hate crimes and now it's about who
controls the media.

Just another pissing contest. :rolleyes:

Bruce Taylor
11-26-2002, 06:21 PM
But in order to be free to choose, one must have the cards, unmarked and face up, in front of oneJack -- Perhaps you read my comments on genetic/racial determination as having something to do with that other popular tap-dancing team, Free Will and Determinism.

Now we're really getting our feet tangled up. Genetic determinism (as opposed to social determination, much beloved of Marxists) is simply the notion that we are what our genome says we will be. Very comforting to anyone whose kids misbehave...the wife's bad genes, you know.

The notion of "race" itself is, of course, exceedingly slippery. The idea that there is a "black" race is, from a genetic point of view, meaningless. Within the "black" population there is more genetic diversity than you will find in all of the other so-called "races" combined. This is true even within the American black population, most of which passed through the bottleneck of the slave trade. Within Africa itself, the range of genetic diversity is staggering. An Rwandan is apt to be closer to you, genetically, than he is to another so-called "black" from, say, Ghana.

Genetic diversity among Asians and Caucasians is much smaller, but the same objections apply. The old notion of "race" is genetic balderdash.

This isn't to say that genetic inheritance is irrelevant or uninteresting. Quite the contrary. There is much to be learned from studying genetically distinct groups like the Icelanders, or the French Quebecois. No need to conceal our shortcomings, either. There's no question that pygmy bushmen are ill-equipped for Olympic high jump, and for all I know they might be poor chess players too. Study the subject, if it interests you, but Philippe Rushton is not the man to follow in this. His premises are faulty.

[ 11-26-2002, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Bruce Taylor ]

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 06:28 PM
I think, Bruce and Jack, that Jack has discovered some new and surprising roots in his spiritual tree, roots that have challenged his notions of identity. I don't take Jack's concern to be one of genetic determinism or anything like that. For Jack, this question didn't arise because he has Jewish ancestry; it arose because Jack became aware of his ancestry. Nothing in Jack has changed except his knowledge.

I imagine it's similar to an adult first learning that he or she is adopted. It would raise profound questions of identity. As Ian said in another context, such questions are a matter of personal conscience. Only Jack can know what his discovery means to his sense of self.

Bruce Taylor
11-26-2002, 06:36 PM
And Donn pisses ROCKS!!

11-26-2002, 06:42 PM
Far as Im concerned ya can all piss off

Cap'n R an R
11-26-2002, 06:44 PM
I have always found it fascinating that over one billion people on this Earth worship and pray to a Jew with a non Jewish sounding name....in turn many of these people dont like Jews or like to ridicule them.....I wonder what Jesus Christ would say?...I do believe Hitler was a Christian and was proud of the fact that he murdered millions of the descendants of Jesus Christ....as a matter of fact Jews are more geneticlly linked to Jesus then non Jew Christians...would Jesus object to Jews occupying numerous important positions?...I doubt it...however I know Cap'n Ron would never vote for the likes of Joe Lieberman for President or dog catcher...I find the man repulsive..he's a whiny,sing song ...uh well ...forgive me ...extreme Orthodox Jew...it's not the Orthodox Jew that is irritating.it's his approach ..his voice...his mannerisms...and his politics...so be it...any minority that becomes very succesfull in important areas will be a target...and will be resented ...I doubt that will change ..that is until the Asians particularly the Chinese surpass us all...

Bruce Taylor
11-26-2002, 06:49 PM
Scott (and Jack), when I dismiss identity politics I'm not dismissing the idea of identity itself. I don't want to slight the feeling of biological connectedness that people seem to feel for others who were carved from the same wood.

My adopted sister recently discovered that she is Ojibway, which gives her something to brood about. I don't know why this is (I don't dwell much on my Scottishness) but it would be foolish to ignore it. Certainly, there is no denying that she is deeply different from her three siblings.

gunnar I am
11-26-2002, 07:07 PM
Just herad this on NPR in a story on animators! They control the toons too!! The guy in the interview's name? Jeffrey Katzenburg!

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 07:09 PM
Leiberman would consider himself a "Modern Orthodox Jew." Relgiously speaking he's slightly to the right of center.

Bruce Taylor
11-26-2002, 07:09 PM
Gunnar, I don't mean to alarm you, but they're also controlling your signature!

11-26-2002, 07:10 PM
On a lighter (and wholly irrelevant!) note, three men have colleges at both Oxford and Cambridge named after them - Jesus, St John and Sir Isaac Wolfson.

You are allowed one guess at what all three have in common!

Anyway, hate crime is something that we must, all of us, do our utmost to stamp out.

[ 11-26-2002, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: ACB ]

Joe (SoCal)
11-26-2002, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by LOON:
Hey dumbcrud...you anywhere near Long Island? I have a special course in forum behavior for idiots, and I'll give you a special discount...free. Warning...it's a highly physical course, don't enroll if you can't take pain.Hey Donn you almost forgot about the Forum Annex Learning center here in Putnam County we can handle the tri-state aria. But because it's an immersion class it tends to be a bit tuffer than the general class :D

By the way everyone how about we all agree hate crimes agents anyone is stupid and wrong. There now let the pissing cease smile.gif

Oh and I think I may actualy piss farther than anyone given the proper quantity of BEEEEEEEEEEEEEER :eek:

[ 11-26-2002, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 07:13 PM

Check out Sponge Bob's nose, if you know what I mean. Rumor has it that he changed his name from Shlomo Bobrowitz.

Scott Rosen
11-26-2002, 07:17 PM

They just can't get anything past you, can they? :D

11-26-2002, 07:23 PM
Ah, so a spell checker is not Harry Potter's aid to revision, and maybe I should get one (or type more accurately, at least).

11-26-2002, 07:24 PM
Look, this is a very complex subject, and my pea brain has a hard time keeping up, finding something to latch onto or argue with. It all happens at the speed of light.

I'm a mutt. I've got Scot, English, French, German and Jewish blood.

It behooves me to meet each individual according to their character, how they act, their ethics, rather than what their skin color, or national origin, of racial heritage is. That is the promise of the egalitarian West, and I believe in it with all my heart.

But I also see my reactions colored by my heritage and genetics, and I fully expect anyone I meet to be the same way. That's not prejudice, it's experience, and all the stupid attempts to equilibrate our genetics out of us, by judicial decree, are bound to fail.

All men are created equal in their opportunity, not in their inherent gifts; an ideal we doubtless have a ways to go on. Dangerous is a quasi-scientific "truth", promulgated by the various media, and in the halls of the academy, that we are all the same--and must be made somehow equal by social experiment.

Where there is descrimination because of things other than ability and character, let the bastards be punished, severely. But let us be honest, and generous, and fearless, in facing our differences.


Cap'n R an R
11-26-2002, 07:27 PM
Donn I guess I was extreme in my use of the word extreme when describing Lieberman's Religious pursuits....Russian Orthodox Jews....hey.. how about that Russian Mafia...remember Murder incorporated...with Lepke Buchalter at the head of that outfit....Myer Lansky...Bugsy Seigel...even Dutch Shultz....Man alive we Jews reach the top in all endeavours...now I know Al Capone was not a Jew but it was said he really liked Jewish cooking...actually better than Italian cooking...go figure...

11-26-2002, 08:10 PM
It aint yer genes, Ish, it's yer memes.


11-26-2002, 09:05 PM
Hmmm... and all this time I thought Jesus was a Mexican name ;)

Memphis Mike
11-26-2002, 09:27 PM
All of yall are wrong! Everyone knows
Jesus wuz Black. Just ask the Rev. Green.

Yeah, that's the ticket. He'll tell ya.

Frank Hagan
11-27-2002, 01:39 AM
Not to change the subject back to hate crimes or anything, but was anyone else struck with the same idea I had ... that in a nation of 260 million people recovering from the largest single terrorist attack in history ... an attack that was clearly and prominently identified with a particular religious group ... that we had so FEW crimes listed as hate crimes against them?

While one is too many, America today is a marvel. We are a better people than we let ourselves believe sometimes.

The Uniform Crime Reports are published each year, and represent reported arrests from police agencies all over the country. They are good to see trends, but don't serve well as a detailed study, since you don't know how many convictions there are. They are in almost every library, so you can take a gander at them. Crimes are listed by gender and color of perp, and same characteristics of the victim. Eye opening, but then you think ... are the results cause for racism, or a result of racism?

Back to hate crimes: I hate the category, unless it is used as a "special circumstance" on top of another crime. A racist has a much greater chance of acting yet again on his beliefs than the man getting into a fight because he sees his wife dancing with another guy. So in terms of allowing us to lock up people longer, to help reduce recidivism, hate crimes may help. But used alone for things such as "hate speech", I think they cross the line into unconstitutional laws.

Scott Rosen
11-27-2002, 08:52 AM

That's why I made the post. I was struck by the same sense of awe that you have. It's something to be proud of that we Americans have not turned on or targeted our Moslem neighbors.

Chris Coose
11-27-2002, 10:01 AM
I've got a dilema.
I've got this father-in law who sends along lots of pro-Israel e-mails. I recently got one regarding boycotting all things German (and a few other countries). I'm tempted to write back and make an offer on his BMW station wagon, just to take the relieve him of the conflict.
He'll be visiting Friday night to kick of the Chunuka festivities, maybe I should wait to then and see if he'd offer it up as a Christmas gift.
I'll meditate on it.

Scott Rosen
11-27-2002, 10:33 AM

That's a good one. You can remind him that for the past 20 years, a huge number of the tourists to Israel have come from Germany. You can also remind him that the Germans have paid reparations and have apologized for the harm they caused.

My grandparents' generation had an aversion to anything German. Funny thing was, they'd never consider buying a VW or a Mercedes, but they had no qualms about buying the $50 Braun razors or the Grundig radios, or lots of other German stuff that was less than $100. They bought Bavarian Cream pies and made German Chocolate cakes. Go figure.

Someone once figured out that if you boycot every company or country that ever was anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, you'd be starving, naked, have no roof over your head, no car to drive, and no country to live in.

But if your father in law persists in being stubborn, then you should offer to relieve his conscience and take the BMW off his hands. You're not doing it merely for you own selfish interest. You're doing it for the good of the Jewish People. It's the least a son in law can do.

11-27-2002, 12:18 PM
My friend Dieter Z.. would prefer it if you did not boycott German products. He is marketing director for a very large German engineering group. He is of course German. He is also an observant Jew.

James R
11-27-2002, 04:38 PM
I was exposed for the first time to anti-Semitic crap at the age of 10 in my native Portugal. At the time the country was governed by the fascist Salazar regime and schooling was controlled by the Catholic Church.

History was taught using comic books. I vividly remember one of the drawings depicting the expulsion of the Jews from Portugal in 1497. A priest, bathed in light, floated above the ground and held the Bible in one hand and the Cross raised in the other. He was flanked by two crusaders with swords raised. Fleeing from them were six Jews, hunched over and dressed in dark and dirty robes. Their faces were bony, dark and evil-looking, their noses large and curved. When I asked the teacher why the Jews were expelled his answer was to grab the fingers of my left hand and hit my palm six times with a ruler, once for every syllable of "Porque eram judeus." (Because they were Jews).

I didn't learn to hate the Jews that day but I did learn to keep my mouth shut. About five months later, courtesy of a sympathetic bookstore owner, I got ahold of two books on the Holocaust, one in english the other in french. Treblinka by Jean-François Steiner is still in my library. In the intervening years I've read thousands of pages on Jewish history and the slave trade.

Where do we get the idea that the Jews control the media? Simple, that statement was repeated ad infinitum in Enciclopedia cattolica, L'Osservatore romano, L'Osservatore cattolico, L'Unità cattolica and countless other daily, biweekly and monthly Vatican publications (500+ in Italy alone at the start of the 20th century). After the fall of the Papal States and the emancipation of the Jews follwing the French Revolution, the papacy blamed the Jews for the Church's loss of influence. What followed, towards the end of the 19th century, and well into the middle of the 20th, was a flood of anti-Semitic articles in Church publications. These articles were not only used as guidelines for sermons by the local priests but were widely read. The blood libel and all the other conspiracy theories resurfaced and quickly became accepted as fact. It saddens me to hear them repeated here.

Dan McCosh
06-29-2005, 06:35 AM
Last I looked, the New York Times was the only major media outlet run by a Jewish family. The rest are run by WASPs. Time Warner, the Washington Post, and Tribune Co. account for virtually all the major outlets. None are Jewish run.

Dan McCosh
06-29-2005, 04:49 PM
I have noticed that a disproportionate number of magazine publishers are graduates of Michigan State University. I would look into that.