sports, race, and IQ... • 'Blacks' do not have a genetic advantage in sports. • 'Blacks' do not have a genetic intellectual disadvantage. • Human races do not exist. • The IQ literature is a series of frauds. BOOK SUMMARY Some academics and others peddle pseudo-science in order to allege that blacks are good at sports and bad at thinking. Resurrecting Racism answers them with proper science. The first half of the book shows that blacks do not have superior sports ability and that biologists, using the latest genetic data, have concluded that human races do not exist, contrary to what racists would like to believe. The second half of the book (beginning in chapter 6) traces the history of IQ testing, documenting that the IQ literature was built by committing outright fraud. IQ 'research' has been used to allege that blacks have inferior 'intelligence,' but those who developed the IQ literature turned the purpose of the original tests upside down, twisted their statistics, made up their math, and invented nonexistent researchers, publishing fake studies under phony names. These 'researchers' were also the major propagandists of the eugenics movement, which movement is responsible for creating the German Nazis. This is also documented in the second half of Resurrecting Racism, as is the fact that today's IQ 'researchers' continue this fraudulent and dangerous tradition. |
|||
|
Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people using
phony science. © 2004 Francisco Gil-White Table of Contents: http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrcontents.htm |
|||
|
Chapter 11 Who is behind the current onslaught of racist pseudo-science? If we can conclude that Rushton and Entine are racists, the next question is, do they act on their own, or are they part of something bigger? By ‘something bigger’ I have in mind an organized campaign to attack black people with big money behind it. In this chapter I will demonstrate that behind Entine and Rushton are the vast powers of the American Establishment, and that indeed, big money is behind this. I shall begin by first taking a look at the activities of the Pioneer Fund.
The Institute for the Study
of Academic Racism (ISAR) pointed out in 1998 that, “For
the past few years, University of Western Ontario psychology professor J.
Philippe Rushton has replaced [Arthur] Jensen as the top individual
beneficiary of Pioneer largess. Since 1981 he has benefited from more than a
million dollars in Pioneer grants.”[1] That’s real money that the
Pioneer Fund is dispensing. If Rushton is now getting more of it than Jensen,
it must be because Rushton is doing more of what Pioneer wants, or doing it
‘better’ than Jensen. We have already seen what both Jensen and Rushton do.
Could it be that Pioneer is a racist organization? It certainly was when it
was founded. ISAR explains that Pioneer is “a foundation established in 1937
to ‘prove’ that whites are genetically superior to blacks.”[2] This matters because institutions
survive the passage of time when those who run them recruit people ideologically
like themselves as replacements. So it appears that Pioneer has not been
funding Jensen and Rushton by mistake. The date of Pioneer’s
founding, 1937, is significant, because this was the heyday of the American
eugenics movement. Could it be that Pioneer is a eugenicist organization?
Well, IQ ‘research’ was invented by the eugenicists, so the funding of Jensen
and Rushton suggests that it might be. In fact, a definitive answer can be
given to this question. As you may recall from chapter
7, Harry Laughlin was the second most important man in the
American eugenics movement—Charles Davenport’s right hand man (unless he was
Davenport’s eminence grise, his Richelieu). Well guess what? “The
Pioneer Fund has been involved in the history of race science since its
establishment in 1937. One of its founders, Harry Laughlin, wrote a model
sterilization law widely used in both the United States and Europe.”[3] As we also saw in chapter 7,
Harry Laughlin’s “model sterilization law” formed the basis of the Virginia
eugenics law, which in turn led to the sterilization of Carrie Buck,
subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court as a rigged fight—organized by
Harry Laughlin himself—so that Americans all over the country could also be
sterilized and/or incarcerated against their will. Fascist forces in Europe,
including those in Nazi Germany, modeled their own eugenic laws after the one
drafted in the United States by Harry Laughlin. This is who founded
Pioneer. Moreover, as ISAR explains, “The
Pioneer Fund’s original endowment came from Wickliffe Draper, scion of
old-stock Protestant gentry… Colonel Draper, as he was often called by his
friends and admirers was a man searching for a way to restore an older order.
Draper believed geneticists could scientifically prove the inferiority of
Negros.”[4] The “older order” of the
“old-stock Protestant gentry” was one in which the “old-stock Protestant
gentry” got to own people of color outright, and for this a theory of their
natural inferiority was needed. Draper recognized that, living in the time of
science, he needed to give the old racist doctrine a pseudo-scientific
veneer, and that’s what his Pioneer Fund was for. Now, given all this, making a
defense of the Pioneer Fund would seem to require a fearless racist. The
following is from pages 240-41 of Jon Entine’s Taboo: “[Stephen
J.] Gould and other critics make a lot of noise about the supposed links
between some contemporary scientists and eugenicists of the 1930s. The
controversial Pioneer Fund has provided millions of dollars to bankroll
research on intelligence at more than sixty institutions in eight countries.
It was chartered in 1937 by Wickliffe Draper, a textile magnate, to improve
‘the character of the American people’ by encouraging ‘white persons who
settled in the original thirteen colonies prior to the adoption of the
constitution and/or from related stocks’ to increase their reproductive
rates. It bankrolled numerous U.S. and German scientists, including the
biologist Harry H. Laughlin, who drew up a model sterilization law that was
used by many countries, including Nazi Germany, in drafting the Nazi Law for
the Prevention of Hereditary Ill Progeny, National Socialism’s cover for
genocide. The fund embraced ‘race betterment’ and the forced sterilization of
‘inferior stock,’ reflecting the most aggressive tenants [sic] of the
American eugenics movement. Yet such beliefs were mainstream enough to
receive the blessing of...President Roosevelt’s secretary of war, Harry I.
Woodring. Though eugenic thinking appears extreme to today’s sensibilities,
much of it was certainly considered within the boundaries of reasonable
policy in the thirties and forties.” This is so
brazen that the ordinary reader probably cannot imagine that Jon Entine could
possibly be doing what he in fact is doing, and I therefore suspect
most people read the above in a slightly confused haze, never realizing what
has happened. Entine tells us that the
Pioneer Fund “was chartered in 1937,” when Adolf Hitler was of course already
in power in Germany, and in fact only two years before the outbreak of the
World War. Since Pioneer, as Entine explains, had the same ideology as the
German Nazi Party, and therefore was interested in the demographic growth of
white people (read ‘Aryans’), including by means of “forced sterilization of
‘inferior stock,’” this naturally means that when Pioneer “bankrolled
numerous U.S. and German scientists” it was preparing the German Nazi
Final Solution. And the bankrolling of US ‘scientists’ such as Harry Laughlin
(Pioneer’s founder) had the same purpose because, as Entine also mentions, it
was Harry Laughlin who built up the legal infrastructure that became
“National Socialism’s cover for genocide.” This of course should make it
impossible to defend the Pioneer Fund. And yet Entine states matter-of-factly
that criticizing the Pioneer Fund for this history is to “make a lot of
noise” because, in fact, even the highest echelons of the Roosevelt
administration were backing all this. Okay, he says, so the extermination of
an entire people and culture “appears extreme to today’s sensibilities,” but
“it was certainly considered within the boundaries of reasonable policy in
the thirties and forties.” I stand corrected. The words
‘fearless racist,’ strong as they are, cannot begin to describe Jon Entine. Entine’s apology for fascism
and genocide is basically this: “Look, everybody was doing it, so back then
it was okay.” This is naturally false. Everybody wasn’t doing it. The
American eugenics movement was organized and funded by the wealthiest people
in the United States, and its violence was directed against the lower
classes. So the fact that Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of War was a
eugenicist does not demonstrate that ‘everybody did eugenics,’ because it was
the arch-wealthy classes, then as now, that controlled the US government. The
working classes targeted for extermination by the aristocratic eugenicists,
as you might expect, were not that crazy about this movement. So learning that Roosevelt’s
Secretary of War was a fascist makes a very different point, and it is this:
The close cooperation between US government officials and the leaders of the
American eugenics movement, covered in chapter
7, was still going on in the Roosevelt administration.
Charles Davenport had succeeded in making the Galtonian dream an American
reality: government-applied pseudo-biological theory as a tool of
aristocratic state control; and this is precisely what the Nazis, encouraged
and funded as they were by the American eugenicists, also said they were
doing: “Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess, coined a popular adage in the Reich,
‘National Socialism is applied biology.’”[4a] In what sense, then, were the US and Nazi ruling
classes and governments ideological opponents?[4b] By pretending that the pervasiveness
of eugenic thinking in the US ruling class, including in the Roosevelt
administration, supposedly excuses fascism as ‘normal,’ Jon Entine prevents
you from asking this question. It is a question that must be
asked. After all, even Entine himself concedes above that the German Nazis
were doing what the American eugenicists—backed by the US government—told
them to do. This agrees with what Edwin Black documents in War Against the
Weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race, which
is that the American eugenicists completely dominated the international
eugenics movement. “American
influence rolled across the Continent. Finland, Hungary, France, Romania,
Italy and other European nations developed American-style eugenic movements
that echoed the agenda and methodology of the fount at Cold Spring Harbor.
Soon the European movements learned to cloak their work in more medically and
scientifically refined approaches, and many were eventually funded by such
philanthropic sponsors as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie
Institution. ... Some [nations], such as Lithuania and Brazil, enacted
eugenic marriage laws. Some, such as Finland, went as far as forced
sterilization. One nation, Germany, would go further than anyone could
imagine.”[4c] There are two problems with
the above statement. First, the American sponsors of European eugenics were
not “philanthropic.” Here is the meaning of that word, as rendered by Merriam
Webster Online: “dispensing or receiving aid from funds set aside for
humanitarian purposes.” The key word is humanitarian. So Black’s use
of the word “philantropic” above completely contradicts what he himself has
documented, which is that the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations sponsored
the international eugenics movement with their eyes open, and with the
backing of the US government, because they meant to exterminate certain
classes of people (see chapter 7 of this book). Black also says above that
“One nation, Germany, would go further than anyone could imagine.” This again
is perfectly false, and once again (!) the refutation is included in Edwin
Black’s own book. There had been considerable talk about ‘euthanasia’—which
was code for mass killing—in American eugenic circles, including much
discussion of ‘lethal chambers’ using poison gas. Edwin Black gives a rather
detailed account of such discussions in chapter 13 of War Against the Weak.
So what the German Nazis did was certainly imagined by the aristocratic
American eugenicists; they just couldn’t get away with it in the United
States, as Black himself explains. And in chapter 14 of War
Against the Weak, Black documents that in everything the German Nazis
were the junior partners to the American eugenicists. Of course, in the end
it was the German Nazis who were able to get more done, while the American
eugenicists watched with a mixture of paternal pride and competitive envy. “Ten
years after Virginia passed its 1924 sterilization act [which was followed as
a model by the German Nazis], Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia’s
Western State Hospital [where lots of innocent American workers were being
forcibly sterilized], complained in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, ‘The
Germans are beating us at our own game.’”[4d] But coming back to our main
thread, I must point out that Entine has once again succumbed to his passion
for self-refutation. Why? Because even if we were to accept his preposterous
defense of American eugenics as a passing fad no longer worth worrying about,
this will not work as a defense of Pioneer. You see, at the Pioneer
Fund, eugenics never went out of fashion. As the Institute for Study of
Academic Racism (ISAR) explains, “Abandoned
by the political mainstream after World War II, [Pioneer’s patron Wickliffe]
Draper turned more and more to academic irredentists still dedicated to white
supremacy and eugenics. Most prominent among these early recruits was Henry
Garrett, Chair of Psychology at Columbia University from 1941-1955. A
Virginia born segregationist, Garrett was a key witness in defending
segregation in Davis v. County School Board (1952) one of the
constituent cases in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954).”[4] You will remember Henry
Garrett from chapter 9, where his testimony in Davis
v. County School Board was examined, and he was shown to be an
arch-racist who supported segregation. Since Henry Garrett was the “most
prominent among these early recruits” of Pioneer’s in the post-war period, it
follows that the Pioneer Fund was not embarrassed by the Holocaust and did
not abandon its racist goals. At least it hadn’t by the 1950s, when Henry
Garrett testified against black equality. Jon Entine in fact will
concede to this. Here is what he says: “Columbia
University anthropologist [sic] Henry Garrett, an outspoken advocate
of segregation [i.e. of American apartheid], consulted with the Pioneer Fund
to bolster his research on the intelligence differences between the races.
Garrett and his colleagues launched two controversial magazines that are now
considered the intellectual digests of extremist hereditarian theories of
intelligence, The Mankind Quarterly in Britain and a more recent
German off-shoot, Neue Anthropologie.”[4e] And Entine further concedes
that Mankind Quarterly “became a haven for hard-line eugenicists.” In
fact, as Entine also concedes on the same page, “Since
1978, Mankind Quarterly has been edited by Roger Pearson, a
controversial British anthropologist. He founded the Northern League (also
called the Pan-Nordic Cultural Society) in 1957, which recycled the pre-World
War II belief in the natural superiority of northern Europeans. According to
Pearson, humanity could only be preserved if we preserved ‘an aristocracy of
mankind’ by selective breeding of ‘ideal’ types. That was a code word for the
Nordic [i.e. the so-called ‘Aryan’] race.” So, given that Henry Garrett
was getting money from Pioneer, it follows that Pioneer was still in the business
of promoting eugenics. And yet I remind you that Jon Entine's apology for the
Pioneer Fund's fascist origins was that this was supposedly a thing of the
past, just a symptom of the supposedly general ideology of the first half of
the twentieth century. Nonsense. Once you take a look at who the Pioneer Fund
has been supporting over the course of the second half of the twentieth
century, and into the twenty-first, it becomes perfectly obvious that, as you
might expect, this organization has never abandoned its racist and fascist
goals. “…most
of the leading Anglo-American academic race-scientists of the last several
decades have been funded by Pioneer, including William Shockley, Hans J.
Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, Roger Pearson, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, R.
Travis Osborne, Linda Gottfredson, Robert A. Gordon, Daniel R. Vining, Jr.,
Michael Levin, and Seymour Itzkoff—all cited in The Bell Curve.”[4] What is The Bell Curve?
This is a book that caused considerable controversy when it came out in 1994.
The title makes clear why: The Bell Curve: Intelligence and class
structure in American life.[5] “Once
a relatively obscure organization, Pioneer Fund entered the spotlight roughly
two years ago following the publication of The Bell Curve, a book that
attempted to prove that race and class differences are largely determined by
genetic factors. Some critics took issue with the book’s scholarship,
focusing specifically on its reliance on research subsidized by the Pioneer
Fund.”[6] Yes. When a book argues that
“race and class differences are largely determined by genetic factors” one
has a right to become suspicious if the supporting research is funded by an
organization whose patron recruited “academic irredentists still dedicated to
white supremacy and eugenics” because “[he] believed geneticists could
scientifically prove the inferiority of Negros.” And suspicion naturally grows
when one finds that Pioneer Fund recipients have only one thing in common:
they attack blacks. Thus, for example, consider the following three people in
the list of names above: William Shockley, Michael Levin, and Linda
Gottfredson. The first of these, Shockley, was neither a psychologist nor a biologist
but a physicist: “William
Shockley. 1910-89, American physicist, b. London. He graduated from the
California Institute of Technology (B.S., 1932) and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (Ph.D., 1936). After directing antisubmarine research
for the U.S. Navy during World War II, he returned to work at Bell
Laboratories. There he and two colleagues, John Bardeen and Walter H.
Brattain, produced the first transistor in 1947; for this work they shared
the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1956. Shockley taught electrical engineering at
Stanford Univ. from 1958 to 1975.”[7] So Shockley had zero training
in psychology or biology. But that didn’t stop him from making certain
claims: “During
the late 1960s Shockley became a figure of some controversy… He held that
standardized intelligence tests reflect a genetic factor in intellectual
capacity and that tests for IQ (intelligence quotient) reveal that blacks are
inferior to whites. He further concluded that the higher rate of reproduction
among blacks had a retrogressive effect on evolution.”[8] Shockley was obviously a
eugenicist, and he went out of his way to become a public racist. In fact,
“He came to describe this work [i.e. his ‘work’ attacking blacks] as the most
important of his career, although it severely tarnished his reputation.”[8a] The Pioneer Fund
saw fit to give this man money, but obviously not because he was a good
physicist—this was a prize for using his Nobel prestige to attack blacks. Then there is Michael Levin. “…the
[Pioneer Fund] awarded $124,500 from 1991-1992 to Michael Levin, a philosophy
professor at the City College of New York who has argued that black
population growth must be slowed by ending public assistance.”[9] What does a philosopher need
$124,500 for? The answer is that he doesn’t need it. Philosophers do not
conduct expensive research. Once again, this is just prize money for being a
public racist, and for making arguments in favor of restricting the
population growth of blacks, which is one of the things the original eugenics
movement also called for. And finally, let’s take a
look at Linda Gottfredson. “[Linda]
Gottfredson [is] a University of Delaware researcher who said that blacks
were intellectually inferior to whites and have diminished capabilities in
work and educational settings. The university rejected a $174,000 Pioneer
grant toward her work, citing the fund’s racist history. Gottfredson sued,
claiming she was a victim of political correctness, and the school eventually
backed down to avoid a protracted legal battle.”[10] Gottfredson is militant. In
1990 she got together with Phillipe Rushton and with Harry Weyher, the president
of the Pioneer Fund, and wrote a letter to the British daily The
Independent saying that “governments that want ‘effective’ public policies
must listen to scientists who say blacks are genetically less intelligent
than other races.”[10a] The outspoken Linda
Gottfredson once again is neither a psychologist nor a biologist, but a
sociologist who teaches in the Department of Education at the University of
Delaware. So we have a physicist, a philosopher, and a sociologist. What do
they have in common with the IQ-testers? Other than that they attack blacks
from their academic perches and collect their rewards from the Pioneer Fund,
nothing. It is clear what the Pioneer
Fund is, then. In consequence, it is clear also what Jon Entine is, because,
despite everything he conceded about this organization, he defends the
Pioneer Fund and its recipients, as follows: “Over
the years, the Pioneer Fund has backed a virtual Who’s Who of race
scientists, many brilliant, who have published more than two hundred books
and two thousand scholarly papers, many with the view that inferior groups
are ‘dumbing’ down society by disseminating inferior seeds.”[10b] If I clip that just a little
it becomes easier to see: “...the
Pioneer Fund has backed...race scientists, many brilliant, ...with the view
that inferior groups are ‘dumbing’ down society by disseminating inferior
seeds.” This is pretty clear, but Jon
Entine is not quite done. “...The
Pioneer Fund continues to funnel money to dozens of academics... Though
almost all hold professorships at distinguished universities, it is not
uncommon for them to be vilified as ‘professors of hate.’”[11] Since according to Merriam
Webster Online ‘to vilify’ means “to utter slanderous and abusive statements
against,” Entine is saying this: To
attack the eugenicists who get money from Pioneer—and who, by the way, are
really smart—as ‘professors of hate’ is a slander. Next Jon Entine will defend
the Pope against the supposedly slanderous accusation that he is a Catholic. So what do we have? That
Jon Entine is one cog in a rather large and well-organized anti-black
movement, seeing as he goes out of his way to apologize for a well-funded
effort to make racism respectable in academia, which effort traces itself all
the way back to the odious eugenics movement (the same one that, as Entine
himself admits, bequeathed us Adolf Hitler and German Nazism). One might argue, however,
that Entine is merely cheerleading a racist movement, that he does not
directly coordinate his actions with those of Pioneer and other well-funded
and well-organized racists. But I think I can show that Entine is no free
agent. In Mexico, where I grew up, there is an old saying, “Tell me who you
hang out with, and I’ll tell you who you really are.” Of course, we have
already seen who Entine really is, but let us take a look at his buddies
anyway, for this will tell us who has an interest in promoting anti-black
racism.
Jon Entine calls J. Phillipe
Rushton “Phil Rushton” in the acknowledgments section. Sounds friendly. Guess
what? “Since
2002, Rushton has been the president of the controversial Pioneer Fund.”[11a] Really, how can there be a
debate about whether the Pioneer Fund is still a racist organization? It has
made Phillipe Rushton its president. Given that Entine defends
Pioneer, and that Rushton is Entine's friend, and one who helped him out with
Taboo, can there be a debate about Entine? Entine has other such
friends. As mentioned earlier, Jon
Entine wrote an article for Skeptic, a magazine, where he defended his
views in a full-issue extravaganza that Skeptic devoted to Taboo.
This was followed by a Skeptic symposium on Taboo at one of the
most prestigious science schools in the US: Cal-Tech. So it is time for us to
ask: What kind of magazine is Skeptic? Let us first see what those
running the magazine have to say about that. The Skeptic website
explains the publication’s ‘mission’: “Our
mission is to serve as an educational tool for those seeking clarification
and viewpoints on…controversial ideas and claims.”[12] The Skeptic website
also contains the Skeptic ‘manifesto,’ which explains as follows: “Modern
skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data
to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.”[13] Putting them together, Skeptic
says that it means “to serve as an educational tool” about “controversial
ideas and claims” by honoring the “scientific method,” which is to say
principles of “gathering data to formulate and test…explanations.” Now, the editors of Skeptic
have for years been attending the meetings of the Human Behavior and
Evolution Society, the same society whose journal published the refutation of
Rushton I cited in chapter 10. I know
they’ve been there because I have seen them there myself, and on more than
one occasion I have ended up seated at the same table with them, and
exchanged a few words. Therefore, all that the editors of Skeptic had
to do was call or email some of the many human population biologists or
biological anthropologists they have met there. This would have been the
first rational step in “gathering data” about Entine’s claims. By taking this step, the Skeptic
editors could have quickly found out just how absurd Entine’s arguments
were. Just as an example, since they have met me, it could have occurred to
them to call me. Very low cost. It’s not like they don't know me, because
they published a letter of mine protesting Vincent Sarich’s celebration of The
Bell Curve in an earlier issue of Skeptic.[13a] But it didn’t have to be me; many
others in the Human Behavior and Evolution society could have explained to
the Skeptic editors that when Entine presents his views as the
mainstream state-of-the-art in population biology, he is simply lying. At
which point the obvious editorial decision is to print a refutation of Entine
by a qualified biologist, because the Skeptic mission, they claim, is
“to serve as an educational tool for those seeking clarification and
viewpoints on…controversial ideas and claims.” But the editors of Skeptic
didn’t do that. Instead, they invited Entine to make a defense of his book Taboo.
They also invited Vincent Sarich to write another defense of the same.[14] For good measure, they
had one of the editors of Skeptic, Frank Miele, write a glowing fan
piece about Entine, once again defending Taboo and giving the full
list of Entine’s ‘prestigious awards.’[15] Did anybody take a critical
view of Entine’s book? Michael Shermer, one of the editors at Skeptic,
wrote a piece with a weak dissenting argument (compare to Carrie Buck’s
lawyer’s weak defense of her, which we saw in chapter 7), and John Hoberman, a sociologist
at the University of Texas, was also invited to write a piece against.[16] What this means is that not one
population biologist was asked to comment on Entine’s claims, even though
this was, of course, the only way to satisfy the explicit Skeptic
mission and manifesto. When it comes to Jon Entine, then, Skeptic
abandoned skepticism entirely, merely producing the aura of scientific debate
when it had in fact gone out of its way to stack the deck in Entine’s favor. What could explain this? To answer this question let
us consider again the journal Mankind Quarterly. This journal was
founded by R. Gayre. To get a sense for him, consider that he was called as
an ‘expert witness’ for the defense in a trial against several individuals
accused of publishing racist materials. “In
his evidence to the court he [Gayre] described blacks as being ‘feckless’ and
he maintained that scientific evidence showed that blacks ‘prefer their
leisure to the dynamism which the white and yellow races show.’ Largely on
the basis of Gayre’s ‘expert’ testimony the defendants were acquitted.”[17] Entine himself explained, as
you may recall, that another founder of Mankind Quarterly was
eugenicist and pro-segregation activist Henry Garrett. Entine conceded,
further 1) that this journal “became a haven for hard-line eugenicists,” and
2) that “Since 1978, Mankind Quarterly has been edited by Roger
Pearson,” who, as Entine also explains, defends the traditional German Nazi
ideology. How interesting, then, that
Frank Miele, who, as we saw above, is one of the editors of Skeptic,
has written extensively on ‘race’ for—guess which journal? Mankind
Quarterly. Two examples from his corpus are: Miele,
Frank. “Morphological Methods and Racial Classification.” Mankind
Quarterly 12 (April-June 1972): 220-227. And Frank Miele is also
associated with Arthur Jensen’s work.[18] It is now becoming much
clearer why Skeptic magazine, and Frank Miele in particular, should
have showcased and praised Entine’s book Taboo. Further enlightenment
is to be had by consulting the acknowledgments section of Taboo,
where, in addition to thanking Vincent Sarich for doing some heavy lifting in
making Taboo as good as Entine thinks it is, somebody else is thanked
in the same terms: “Berekely
geneticist Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele, an editor at my favorite
magazine, Skeptic, were generous enough to review the manuscript in
detail, offering up dozens of critical suggestions.”[19] [my
emphasis] So this is a friendly little
club. Small wonder, then, that the other friend, Vincent Sarich, was invited
to contribute his own defense of Entine’s ideas in the pages of Skeptic,
which ideas Entine of course got from… (?) Wait just a minute. As you may recall, Jon Entine
got his ‘theory’ from Vincent Sarich (see chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5), whom Entine falsely presented as
espousing the biological mainstream. Consulting Entine’s footnote, I find
that Entine is not quoting a peer-reviewed publication of Sarich’s, but, if
you can believe this, an email that Sarich sent to an informal internet list.
Entine is popularizing the biological mainstream? Entine is popularizing an
email. An email.[20] They are playing us for
fools, aren’t they? Now Sarich has written an
article for Skeptic defending Entine’s ideas of race. But the ideas
are his, Sarich’s, and they were written in an email, not published in
a peer-reviewed publication. Lunacy. If we wait just a bit, somebody may
write an article for a low-grade pseudo-academic journal (perhaps Frank
Miele, in Mankind Quarterly), this time citing Sarich’s Skeptic
article. Then University of California at Berkeley Professor Emeritus Vincent
Sarich can write another article for a somewhat more prestigious journal and
cite Miele’s latest ‘academic’ article, always on the same idea. It is now a
‘respectable idea.’ See how this works? It is ‘out there’ and being discussed
‘in the literature.’ This is a page stolen from the tactical manual of the
antisemites who deny the Holocaust, and whom Pr. Deborah Lipstadt has
exposed.[21] You might never suspect this,
however, if all you knew about Skeptic was that Michael Shermer, one
of its editors, had written a book in 2000 refuting the Holocaust deniers.[21a] This is much too
clever. So clever, in fact, that the publicity for this book sports a plaudit
from Jared Diamond, the same Jared Diamond who is a public anti-racist and
whose work is so infuriating to the man whom Jon Entine affectionately calls
“Phil Rushton.” This of course is the same Entine who is a Skeptic inner-circle
amigo and whose racist and pro-eugenicist views Skeptic (which Michael
Shermer edits) vigorously promotes! It’s enough to make your head
spin, and perhaps you need to read the above paragraph again. Can it be explained? The
following hypothesis springs to mind: Jared Diamond, who is Jewish and a
public anti-racist, has fallen innocently prey to a maneuver meant to give Skeptic
a pro-Jewish flavor by associating its editor prominently with the
refutation of Holocaust deniers. And what is the point of that? The point is
to get any African-Americans who discover just how racist Skeptic is
to conclude that anti-black racism is connected with being pro-Jewish—an
excellent way of alienating the African-American and Jewish-American
communities. But would Skeptic have an interest in so dividing blacks
and Jews? Certainly. As we have seen, Skeptic is pushing eugenics, and
it should not be forgotten that the eugenicists suffered a quite important
defeat at the hands of the Civil Rights movement, the backbone of which was a
strong alliance between blacks and Jews (it is not a random coincidence that
one of the five founders of the NAACP should have been Jewish: Henry
Moscowitz, the only non-black founder[21b]). Another aspect of the same
policy is that Jon Entine tells the world that he is supposedly Jewish! In an
interview he gave to United Press International about a book he is writing
(slated to be released in 2005) on Jewish history, he talks about “the trauma
of my bar mitzvah.”[21c] I have already shown that Jon Entine is dishonest, so how
difficult is it to imagine that he is lying about being Jewish? Given that he
is an apologist for German Nazism, as we saw, I would submit that this is not
too difficult. What is difficult is to imagine a real Jewish person
apologizing for those who exterminated the Jewish people. It would be like
finding a black person defending the Ku Klux Klan. Given all this, it matters
that the American Establishment is fully behind Jon Entine, because from this
we may conclude two things: 1)
eugenics never went out of fashion in the hyper-rich American aristocracy,
and 2)
these American aristocrats have learned their lesson, because they appear to
be taking quite sophisticated steps to sabotage unity between African
Americans and Jews. In the following section I
examine the widespread support Jon Entine gets from the wealthy
Establishment.
As we saw in the
introduction, Entine’s book was widely praised in the mainstream press. To
those with an understanding of the race concept, population biology,
categorization theory, and the history of IQ tests, it is obvious that
Entine’s book is one lie after another. It follows, therefore, that the
mainstream press did not ask qualified people to review this book. Is that how the press usually
does things? At least at The New York Times, the usual practice is to
ask people to review a book who are professionally familiar with the book’s
topic. I’ll give you three examples. 1)
When The New York Times needed somebody to review The Seashell on
the Mountaintop: A Story of Science, Sainthood, and the Humble Genius Who
Discovered a New History of the Earth, by Alan Cutler, it asked Kevin
Padian to do it. Why? Because the book examines the discoveries of a medieval
geologist, and Padian “teaches evolutionary biology and paleontology at the
University of California, Berkeley.”[22] Is a paleontologist a
good choice for reviewing a book on medieval geology? Sure. Paleontologists
cannot get their degree unless they understand geology. 2)
When The New York Times needed somebody to review Lost Discoveries:
The Ancient Roots of Modern Science - From the Babylonians to the Maya,
by Dick Teresi, it asked Stephen S. Hall. Why? Because this is a book about
the history of science, and Hall writes on the history of science: “Stephen
S. Hall is working on a book about the history of regenerative medicine.”[23] So this is right up his
alley. 3)
When The New York Times needed somebody to review The Great
Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic, by Frank
Bourgin, it asked Pauline Maier. Why? Because this is a book about American
history, and “Pauline Maier’s books include The Old Revolutionaries:
Political Lives in the Age of Samuel Adams,” so the presumption is that she
knows something about American history.[24] You get my drift. This
newspaper is careful to match a book it wants to review to a person with the
credentials to review it. But this is precisely what didn’t happen when it
came to reviewing Entine’s book Taboo. For this one, The New York
Times asked Jim Holt to do the review. His qualifications? “Jim Holt
writes about science and philosophy for Lingua Franca and The Wall Street
Journal.”[25] Well, that’s very nice, but if Jim Holt is a
serviceable jack-of-all-trades who writes for The Wall Street Journal,
that doesn’t make him a population biologist. And what did Jim Holt say? He
wrote that Entine had made “a painstaking case that race and genetics are
indeed ‘significant components’ of the ‘stunning and undeniable dominance of
black athletes,’” and he defended Entine’s book, believe it or not, as an
attack on racism, by suggesting that the thesis it defends “rankles white
racial chauvinists, who until the last century clung to the myth that
Africans were inferior to Europeans.” This takes some nerve,
because the “white racial chauvinists,” such as Henry Edward Garrett, have
always said that blacks are “fine muscular animals” (see chapter 9). Holt did mention in passing
that Entine might be wrong. But that’s just the problem: it creates the
impression of a debate when in fact there is none. What Holt should have said
is that Entine’s book is a long string of incoherent absurdities, defended by
misrepresenting a lot of nonsensical hogwash as the supposed findings of
mainstream biology, and for good measure citing the findings of mainstream biology—which
refute him—as if they supported him. And Holt probably should have
mentioned, too, that Jon Entine apologizes for the eugenics movement that
spawned the German Nazis. Did The New York Times make
an innocent mistake? This is quite impossible, because 1)
the topic of the book is quite sensitive—in fact, politically
explosive; 2)
among educated people it is not a secret that biologists have been saying for
some time that there are no human races; 3) The
New York Times is run by educated people; and 4)
quite a few people openly accused the book of being racist as soon as it came
out. Therefore, the obvious move
here was for The New York Times to cover its back and make sure that
an eminent population biologist reviewed the book—or at least somebody
who had some reason to know something about population biology. What
follows, then, is that The New York Times went out of its way to get
this book reviewed by a layperson, even though it is precisely this book
which, of all books, should have been reviewed by an expert. There can be little question
on this point because The New York Times—as if it were the marketing
division for Jon Entine Inc.—did not give Taboo one review but
two. Holt’s was the second, four months after the book first came out in
January 2000. The first NYT review of Taboo,
in January 2000, by one Richard Bernstein, says this: “Mr.
Entine makes a careful and reasoned case for this point of view… Mr. Entine’s
conclusion that racially distinctive features are an essential element of the
picture is part of a sophisticated argument that, whether entirely persuasive
or not, cannot be dismissed.”[26] A ringing endorsement. The funny thing is, about
Richard Bernstein The New York Times cannot even say that he writes
about science and philosophy: he is an utter layman. If you would like
to know what Mr. Bernstein does, let me get out of the way so that he can
tell you: “My
new book is a story of two journeys. One is that of a Chinese monk named
Hsuan Tsang who in the seventh century traveled from the Tang Dynasty capital
at Chang-an to the South of India and back, in search of the Buddhist truth.
The second journey was my own retracing of Hsuan Tsang’s route over four or
so months in 1999. I went for roughly 10,000 overland miles by bus, train,
and Jeep, across deserts, Himalayan mountain passes, two former republics of
the Soviet Union, Pakistan, India, and Nepal—and back.”[27] How charming. I suppose this
is why Mr. Bernstein is qualified to evaluate a book that makes claims about
the supposed state-of-the-art in population biology. So there is no doubting it: The
New York Times went out of its way to get laypersons to review Entine’s
book—not once, but twice. And why? It is obvious: if an
expert had reviewed Entine, he would have trashed it, as confirmed by how
this book was reviewed in the biological journals. Here is how a review in
the Quarterly Review of Biology wryly delivered the point that Entine
(whose book it called “maddening”) had not supported himself with the
work of mainstream genetics: “The
heavy reliance on anthropologists who support the race distinction [Vincent
Sarich] does not strengthen the case and, indeed, serves only to highlight
the pronounced and growing distance between mainstream genetics and
anthropology. Much of the cited evidence derives from secondary and tertiary
sources, and a fair amount of email, anecdotes, celebrity opinions, newspaper
editorials, and unpublished communications masquerade as evidence.”[28] Ouch. (Not that Entine feels the sting: he
posted the review on his website!) So if The New York Times went
out of its way to get a complete layperson to review Jon Entine’s book—not
once, but twice—this must be because it didn’t want a review like that in the
Quarterly Review of Biology happening in its pages. What does that suggest? That
an attack on black people, backed by the big money of the American
Establishment, is afoot. More evidence for this point
is hardly needed, because The New York Times is the king of print
media: the ‘cream of the cream’ (in terms of prestige and circulation
figures, if not quality). But if further evidence were needed, I remind you
that The New York Times was hardly alone in praising Taboo.
Across the board, all over the mainstream press, Entine received glowing
reviews. Entine, of course, claims that there was great resistance to Taboo,
but as I said in the introduction, “If
the Establishment had indeed tried to squash Entine’s book, we would expect Taboo
to have been negatively reviewed, or not to have been reviewed at all, in
mainstream publications. But in fact the opposite happened. The book was
widely reviewed. The non-scientists who reviewed Taboo wrote that
Entine had been ‘forthright enough to present hard evidence,’[29] and had ‘done a
brilliant job’[30] of
giving us a ‘balanced, comprehensive presentation of a mountain of relevant
data,’[31] which
amounts to a ‘sophisticated argument that…cannot be dismissed.’[32]
They warned that, although ‘There will be those
who will refuse to listen,…his work will be difficult to refute, given the
overwhelming nature of…the scientific evidence.’[33] They agreed that ‘Taboo convincingly argues that race
does make a difference….’”[34] These were the opinions of Kirkus
Reviews, The Montreal Gazette, The Christian Science Monitor,
The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Still not convinced that
there is a well-funded and broadly based attack on blacks going on? Then
consider where Entine’s book Taboo comes from. As Entine informs the
public on his own website, and proudly displaying the NBC logo, “TABOO
is based on the 1989 NBC News documentary ‘Black Athletes: Fact and Fiction,’
produced and written by Jon Entine with Tom Brokaw. The program, which
included an hour-long documentary and a forty-five minute discussion and
analysis that followed, was awarded an Ohio State University Award for
Excellence in Broadcasting and was named Best International Sports Film at
the International Sports Film Festival.”[35] Once again we see a
prestigious news source going out of its way to promote Entine’s claims. Once
again we see the Establishment showering praise in the form of awards. NBC is a very big deal: in
recent years the most important TV network. In fact, NBC is a much bigger
deal than The New York Times, because although that paper is quite
respected, not that many people read it, and book reviews are something that
the overwhelming majority of those who do read this paper skip anyway. NBC,
on the other hand, is watched by millions of people. Moreover, Tom Brokaw in
particular was always considered a trusted newsperson, and in fact he rose to
become the highest rated news anchor: “Tom
Brokaw’s retirement [December 2004] at age 64 ended a nine-year run as the
No. 1 network news anchor as measured by Nielsen.”[34a] A lot of ordinary people
watching Brokaw’s program with Entine were undoubtedly influenced by NBC’s
and Brokaw’s prestige, and thought to themselves that they were looking at a
report on what mainstream biology had shown—because Brokaw and NBC
would not be deliberately pushing racism, now, would they? They would. Jon Entine relates, on pages
6 and 7 of Taboo, the following comments by the former NBC news
anchor concerning the program he put together with Entine: “‘It
was probably as complicated and controversial a story as I’ve ever gotten
involved in, certainly up there with Watergate,’ Brokaw remembers. ‘There
were times right before and after it aired that I worried if the storm would
ever die down. Those were delicate moments.’ ... ‘Friends said ‘Don’t do
it,’’ recalls Brokaw. ‘But I thought that it was important enough to
address.’ ... ‘I had a friend who shall go nameless, who is a distinguished
black American, had been an athlete, and excelled at the highest levels in
other fields. He never raised the subject with me. He just quietly withdrew
our friendship for about two years.’” This is quite a lot to
digest. Tom Brokaw created such a controversy with this program that he
compares it to the Watergate scandal that forced president Richard
Nixon to resign in order to avoid impeachment! There is of course no question
that mainstream biologists informed Brokaw that Entine was a quack (after
all, the show created a storm that seemed to Brokaw like it might never die
down). And yet Brokaw went ahead with this program because he thought it was
very important—important enough that he would do it even if it
offended his black friends. Tom Brokaw cares deeply
about promoting Entine’s obviously fraudulent ideas. The same can be said about
the rest of the mainstream media, which went out of its way to praise the NBC
Brokaw-Entine extravaganza. Of this Entine leaves no doubt because he quotes
all the accolades on his website: “This
is a step forward in the dialogue on race and sports.” - Newsday “This
program—reported by Tom Brokaw and written and produced by Jon Entine—is
very good, very fair and stands on its own. And this program is
controversial, but only because it publicly suggests what countless avid
sports followers know to be true and say privately.” - Los Angeles Times “It
is the best documentary NBC has put together in a very long time.” -
Philadelphia Daily News “The
program opened the door to enlightenment on a controversial subject.” - Dr.
Harry Edwards, University of California-Berkeley Sociologist “‘Black
Athletes’ presented a strong case that there are, in fact, fundamental
physiological differences between blacks and whites.” - Houston Post “Producer-writer
Jon Entine and host Tom Brokaw offer us a thoughtful look at widely held
beliefs about black athletic superiority.” - Los Angeles Herald Examiner “The
network should be applauded for its bold venture, for the willingness to
tackle a sensitive subject such as alleged athletic superiority of blacks,
and for taking risks in the name of truth-seeking.” - Denver Post “Blacks
have suffered so much cruelty at the hands of whites, they are now unwilling
to accept what could be a compliment because they are scared to hidden
meanings and implications. That’s sad for blacks. And if you think about it,
it’s sad for whites, as well.” - San Francisco Chronicle.[35] But if you are still not
convinced that there is a big-money organized effort against blacks, I will
ask you simply to remember that the Civil Rights movement is only a
half-century old, and that almost every psychology department in the country
continues to produce and teach so-called IQ research, even though this
‘research’ has been thoroughly discredited many times over, and even though
the only point of it is to disenfranchise blacks and other minorities. This is a big deal. A lot of
Establishment support goes to convincing people that 1) human races supposedly exist; 2) that the prejudices ordinary Americans have
about so-called ‘blacks’—which are derived from the ideological needs
of those who oppressed Africans with slavery—are supposedly accurate;
and 3) that IQ tests—designed so that members of
the lower classes (where blacks are overrepresented) will do poorly as a
result of their environmental disadvantages—are valid measures of
something called ‘intelligence,’ which is held to be innate and unalterable, but
which is in fact a concept that the IQ test results themselves refute! It is high time all this was
exposed, and it is high time that ordinary black people became aware of what
is being done to them, systematically, across the board, with subterfuge, and
with the backing of big money. A defense must be mounted.
Footnotes
[2] GOP
DRAGGING BAGGAGE TO NEW HAMPSHIRE VOTE: Forbes Waffles on Ellis; Brooks
Blasts Buchanan; February, 1996; By JONATHAN MAHLER, FORWARD STAFF; http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/pioneer/forbes.htm [3] “Race
Science and the Pioneer Fund”; July 25, 1998; by Barry Mehler and Keith Kurt;
Institute for the Study of Academic Racism [4] “Race
Science and the Pioneer Fund”; July 25, 1998; by Barry Mehler and Keith Kurt;
Institute for the Study of Academic Racism [4a] War against the weak (p.270) [4b] The
following discusses US policy towards the Nazi Final Solution. The evidence
is consistent with the hypothesis that the US leadership wished for the
European Jewish population to be exterminated.
The following piece documents
that the British government tried to destroy the state of Israel in the
cradle. This included sending captured Nazi officers to the Arab armies that
pledged themselves to exterminate the Israeli Jews in 1948.
This British policy was
supported by the United States government, but loudly protested by the
American workers, as documented here:
[4c] Black,
E. 2003. War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a
master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows. (p.277) [4d] War
against the weak (p.245). [4e] Taboo (p.241) [5] Herrnstein,
R., and C. Murray. 1994. The bell curve : intelligence and class structure
in American life. New York: Free Press. [6] GOP
DRAGGING BAGGAGE TO NEW HAMPSHIRE VOTE: Forbes Waffles on Ellis; Brooks
Blasts Buchanan; By JONATHAN MAHLER, FORWARD STAFF; [7] Columbia
Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2004. [8] "Shockley,
William B.." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica
Online. [8a] William
Shockley. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [9] GOP
DRAGGING BAGGAGE TO NEW HAMPSHIRE VOTE: Forbes Waffles on Ellis; Brooks
Blasts Buchanan; By JONATHAN MAHLER, FORWARD STAFF; [10] Racist
Science; From CUNY Web Server; August 29, 1998; BY TREVOR W. COLEMAN [10a] The Independent (London), March 4, 1990, Sunday, HOME
NEWS PAGE; Page 4 , 1239 words, Academics 'were funded by racist American
trust', By TIM KELSEY and TREVOR ROWE in New York LONDON, Ont. (CP) - A letter
written by controversial professor Philippe Rushton and four other academics
says governments that want "effective" public policies must listen
to scientists who say blacks are genetically less intelligent than other
races. [10b] Taboo (p.241). [11] Entine,
Jon. 2000. Taboo: Why black athletes dominate sports and why we're afraid to
talk about it. New York: Public Affairs. (p.241-242) [11a] http://www.answers.com/topic/j-philippe-rushton
[12] Visit [13] Visit [13a] "The Flaw in Sarish's Ointment"; Skeptic;
vol.3, No.4; 1995; by Francisco Gil-White. [14] “The
Final Taboo: Race Differences in Ability”; Skeptic; Summer 2000; by
Vincent Sarich. [15] http://www.jonentine.com/skeptic.htm#intro [16] http://www.jonentine.com/skeptic.htm [17] Billig,
Michael (1979) “Psychology, Racism & Fascism,” Searchlight. (ch.3) [18] The
Institute for the Study of Academic Racism has compiled a bibliography for
Frank Miele. You will find it here: [19] Taboo (p.344). [20] Taboo (p.110, fn.47). [21] Lipstadt,
D. (1993). Denying the Holocaust: The growing assault on truth and memory.
New York & Toronto: Free Press. [21a] http://www.skeptic.de/b/0058.php4 [21b] http://www.naacp.org/about/about_history.html [21c] Q&A: Tracing Jewish history through genes, United
Press International, May 15, 2003 Thursday, 1474 words, By STEVE SAILER, LOS
ANGELES, May 15 (UPI) [22] The
New York Times, April 27, 2003 Sunday, Late Edition - Final , Section
7; Column 1; Book Review Desk; Pg. 21, 1079 words, Of Stones and Saliva,
By Kevin Padian; Kevin Padian, who teaches evolutionary biology and
paleontology at the University of California, Berkeley, is also director of
the college writing program there. [23] The
New York Times, December 1, 2002 Sunday, Late Edition - Final , Section
7; Column 1; Book Review Desk; Pg. 13, 2204 words, Mapping the Heavens,
Curing Dandruff , By Stephen S. Hall; Stephen S. Hall is working on a
book about the history of regenerative medicine and the prospects for “practical
immortality.” [24] The
New York Times, July 30, 1989, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 7; Page
11, Column 1; Book Review Desk, 1413 words, THE DISSERTATION THAT WOULD NOT
DIE, By PAULINE MAIER; Pauline Maier's books include ''The Old
Revolutionaries: Political Lives in the Age of Samuel Adams.'' [25] The
New York Times, April 16, 2000, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 7; Page
11; Column 1; Book Review Desk , 1570 words, Nobody Does It Better, By Jim
Holt; Jim Holt writes about science and philosophy for Lingua Franca
and The Wall Street Journal. [26] The
New York Times, January 14, 2000, Friday, Late Edition - Final
Correction Appended, Section E; Part 2; Page 55; Column 1;
Leisure/Weekend Desk, 1139 words, BOOKS OF THE TIMES; The Race to
the Swift. Or Is It the Swift to the Race?, By RICHARD BERNSTEIN [27] http://slate.msn.com/id/103188/entry/103189/ [28] Quarterly
Review of Biology, by Michael J. Dougherty, Biology, Hampden–Sydney College,
Hampden–Sydney, Virginia; [29] “Journalist
and award-winning TV producer Entine writes lucidly about a forbidden topic.
After O.J., it takes courage to discuss race science…Entine presents the
evidence that makes his argument unusually ambitious and
controversial…Courageous enough to ask tough questions about the uneven
playing field, forthright enough to present hard evidence.” -- Kirkus
Reviews, NONFICTION, 336 words, 1-891620-39-8. [30] “Cultural
differences play a role, but the evidence Entine assembles is overwhelming:
at the sports in which they excel, blacks are superior… Entine has done a
brilliant job of making his case. There will be those who will refuse to
listen, but his work will be difficult to refute, given the overwhelming
nature of both the anecdotal and the scientific evidence.” -- The Gazette
(Montreal), February 12, 2000, Saturday, FINAL, 1051 words,
Why black men rule the game: It’s time to admit the obvious, says author who
traces the history of racism in sports, JACK TODD. [31] “…Entine’s
balanced, comprehensive presentation of a mountain of relevant data…” -- The
Christian Science Monitor, June 15, 2000, Thursday, FEATURES;
BOOKS; Pg. 16, 795 words, Race and sports not a black-and-white
issue, Ross Atkin [32] “Mr.
Entine makes a careful and reasoned case for this point of view… Mr. Entine’s
conclusion that racially distinctive features are an essential element of the
picture is part of a sophisticated argument that, whether entirely persuasive
or not, cannot be dismissed.” -- The New York Times, January 14, 2000,
Friday, Late Edition - Final Correction Appended, Section E; Part 2;
Page 55; Column 1; Leisure/Weekend Desk, 1139 words, BOOKS OF THE
TIMES; The Race to the Swift. Or Is It the Swift to the Race?, By
RICHARD BERNSTEIN [33] Jack
Todd in the Gazette, Montreal (see above) [34] When
Race Matters * Review by Paul Ruffins, Washington Post, February 6, 2000. [34a] USA TODAY, December 3, 2004, Friday,, FINAL EDITION,
NEWS;, Pg. 13A;, 273 words, Why Tom Brokaw was No. 1 so long, Al Neuharth;
USA TODAY Founder [35] http://www.jonentine.com/fact_fiction.htm |
