Pride in the Name of Racism

The ignorance of Andrew Sullivan is shocking. A decade later, he still has no clue why the publication of racist pseudo-science reflects not a man who is "interested in the truth," but rather, as I said, a bigot, a fool, or both. Sullivan's inability to comprehend the numerous flaws in that book is a testament to the fact that one needs not know much of anything to have edited one of the nation's premier magazines.

I consider it a public service to occasionally warn people of the Bell Curve. It's a book which has managed to seduce a lot of people, and it's for their own good that they're steered away from that foolishness as quickly as possible.

Sullivan also writes regarding my criticism of his claim that they ran a piece before anyone "dared touch it":

He's wrong. TNR ran the only advance piece by Murray on the subject. And the cover-date for TNR is always a couple of weeks ahead of the actual published date (it keeps its shelf-life on news-stands), which may account for Atrios' error. The magazine was certainly not alone in covering the controversy. But we pioneered it. I have the scars to show for it.

That may be true, but the idea that there's anything courageous in publishing fraudulent racist pseudoscience which clearly had no problem being promoted and discussed throughout the media is ridiculous.

Courage would be to admit that you fucked up badly, and continue to fuck up, as you justify your promotion of racist propaganda as an interest in "truth."

Tell James Heckman, nobel prize winning University of Chicago econometrician, that his criticism of the Bell Curve was a "hysterical far-left response" to the book.

What a sad, sad, fool. What a sad, sad commentary on our media that the ranks of elite media are populated by these idiots.