Stuart Taylor has an angry piece in the National Journal about a lawsuit in which New Haven, CT, is being sued for refusing to promote a fireman who passed the lieutenant’s exam because he’s white.

Frank Ricci, a firefighter in New Haven, Conn., worked hard, played by the rules, and earned a promotion to fire lieutenant. But the city denied him the promotion because he is not black. Ricci sued, along with 16 other whites and one Hispanic firefighter. After a 7-6, near-party-line vote [PDF]by a federal Appeals Court to dismiss the lawsuit, the plaintiffs petitioned for Supreme Court review.
…
Ricci studied for eight to 13 hours a day to prepare for the combined written and oral exam in 2003 that he hoped would win him a promotion. He spent more than $1,000 buying the books that the city had suggested as homework and paying an acquaintance to read them onto audiotapes. (Ricci is dyslexic and learns better by listening.) And he got one of the highest scores.

But Ricci and other would-be lieutenants and captains with high scores did not get the promotions they expected. The reason was that—because not enough black firefighters had done well enough to be eligible—New Haven decided to discard the test results and make no promotions at all.
…
Five of the majority judges, including Sotomayor, retorted that New Haven’s decision to discard the test results and deny what would otherwise have been virtually automatic promotions to the highest-scoring white and Hispanic firefighters was “facially race-neutral.” The reason? Because none of the low-scoring, ineligible African-American firefighters was promoted either. These five judges also endorsed Judge Arterton’s conclusion that the city’s decision was justified by fears that promoting the high-scoring whites might violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and bring a discrimination suit by the low-scoring blacks.
…
But even so, failing to award a roughly proportionate percentage of promotions to African-Americans could subject New Haven, or any other employer, to Title VII liability—depending on the identity of the judge—unless it could prove that it could not possibly have found another exam on which blacks might have done better.

Indeed, large racial disparities in performance on written tests used by employers and others have long existed throughout the country. That’s what one might expect, given data showing that the average black high school graduate has learned no more than the average white or Asian eighth-grader.[Emphasis added.] But the law treats these disparities as evidence of racial discrimination. Many employers, therefore, seek to avoid liability by giving racial preferences to minorities, and they will continue to do so unless and until the Supreme Court modifies, or clarifies, the law.

[New Haven's Injustice Shouldn't Disappear |The Supreme Court should agree to hear the case of a firefighter who was denied a promotion because he is not black. by Stuart Taylor, December 13, 2008(If the link goes down, try here.)]

I’ve written that the message of Griggs vs. Duke Power, 1971,and “disparate impact” theory is that “[I]f minorities fail tests at a higher rate than whites, it’s the test that’s wrong.” This is not the case, and it’s good to see the National Journal saying that.

Last year, Citigroup sponsored 413 H-1b visas–which makes them one of the top 40 users of that program in 2007. Citigroup has consistently been a strong user of that program since it was expanded in 1998–and has sponsored almost 6000 visas since 2000. The CEO of Citigroup is an Indian immigrant.

This year, Citigroup has laid off 23,000 workers–and has announced layoffs of 50,000 more workers.

There is a pattern emerging of companies “needing” lots of H-1b visas-and then having serious problems. Enron is another prominent example.

Earlier in my career, sometimes I found myself managing some very sensitive information–including information that could have been used to defraud my employers or blackmail folks in powerful political positions. We now face a situation in which similar information is in the hands of foreign nationals who are facing bleak job prospects in the US–and have no real connection to this country or its people. I wonder what they and various foreign intelligence agencies are doing with this situation?

Frankly, I think any bank that puts a bunch of young men far from home and from countries where they can’t even do a decent background check in charge of sensitive data–and large sums of money–needs to go bankrupt so somebody competent and sane can come in and pick up the pieces. It saddens me a lot of innocent bystanders may get hurt in the process.

Somehow, I can’t help but wonder what the connection is between the recent outages at Citigroup and the fact that many of their recent layoffs will be guest workers that are realizing their American dream is really a nightmare.

Lee Howard at the Connecticut newspaper The Day is keeping on top of the Pfizer issue. This won’t be his last article on Pfizer either.

One of the coolest things about the article, besides my colorful quotes, is the way Howard tied the influence peddling of the US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) to Connecticut Senators.

Howard also mentioned that Lieberman is an original member of the Friends of India caucus (FOI). Their members are listed on the FOI unofficial site, but it hasn’t been updated since 2004. Perhaps that’s because the Senators that joined in 2004 are still there and will continue their membership as long as stupid Americans keep electing them to office. To see the list of members click this link.

I don’t know if Dodd is an official member of the Friends of India (FOI), but it’s almost a moot point because he does whatever they tell him to do. For an example see this letter he signed with other FOI members:“31 Congresspersons request Vajpayee be invited to speak at Joint Session of Congress.”

Lee Howard’s statement below is probably in error only because Lieberman’s campaign donations are probably intentionally deceitful:

Lieberman, in the same period, has received slightly less than $14,000 from the Pfizer PAC. A database search showed he has not received any money from the U.S. India PAC.

I suspect that Lieberman accepted money from USINPAC or one of their proxies somewhere along the line because he sucks up to them big time. Check out this letter that Lieberman wrote in praise of USINPAC:“LETTER FROM SENATOR LIEBERMAN TO THE MEMBERS OF USINPAC.”

This newsletter first reported on Lieberman’s letter in 2003 and it can be found in the newsletter archive: “Tandoori Democrats”, December 08, 2003″. Lieberman wouldn’t have written this letter unless there was a payoff somewhere. In it Lieberman wrote: “I also oppose any efforts to eliminate or diminish the H1-B visa program.”

TheDay article below has a link to Pfizer’s letter to Dodd and Courtney. I’ll have more to say on that soon.

Pfizer In The Middle Of Visa Debate

By Lee Howard

Published on 12/14/2008

Over the years, U.S. Sens. Christopher J. Dodd and Joe Lieberman have collected tens of thousands of dollars from Pfizer Inc.’s political action committee. Critics say that not so coincidentally the two Connecticut senators have supported expansion of the United States’ guestworker visa programs like the H-1B that Pfizer, among other companies, has used to systematically outsource hundreds of American jobs.

View Pfizer’s letter to Dodd and Courtney

“If you think that any Democrat is going to stop the flood of illegal and legal immigrants that take American jobs, well, you must be fresh out of the box,” said Paul Streitz, director and co-founder of the Darien-based Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, which includes a picture of former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on its Web site along with a pitch to “Vote Sarah 2012.”

Neither Dodd nor Lieberman, both Democrats, would directly address questions about their records, but each, in statements through their press offices, defended their votes on guestworker visas.

“Sen. Dodd expects Pfizer - and all Connecticut companies - to both fully comply with the intent of the H-1B program and to do all they can to preserve jobs in Connecticut,” Dodd spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said in a statement. “Dodd will continue to work on this issue in the new Congress and work toward reforming the H-1B program.”

….

”While it’s wonderful that Courtney wants to do another GAO study of H-1B, he could use the ones that have already been completed, and then he could actually propose legislation that actually does something to alleviate the problems,” said Rob Sanchez, a former Arizona software engineer who lost his job to outsourcing, writing in his Job Destruction Newsletter last week. “The sad reality for the Pfizer people is that studies and new legislation will come far too late to save what’s left of the jobs there.”

Similarly, Sanchez, who now runs a think tank focusing on guestworker visas and outsourcing issues, said he appreciated a letter Dodd and Courtney sent to Pfizer questioning the company’s use of guestworker visas, “but it does nothing to stop Pfizer from replacing its U.S. workers with H-1B visa holders.” Furthermore, he said, “it would be even better if Dodd sponsored some serious legislation to stop the abuse.”

The anti-immigration group Americans for Better Immigration has given both Dodd and Courtney a D-minus grade on guestworker-visa votes during their careers, though Courtney’s grade is based on only one vote. Lieberman has earned an F.

Sanchez is among those who have been critical of the Connecticut delegation’s votes on the H-1B issue. He particularly points to Dodd, who once sponsored a bill that “would have put some mild restrictions on offshoring government contracts” - a bill that died quickly and, in any case, included only “superficial reforms.”

”Dodd … has consistently voted for H-1B increases as well as other types of guestworker visas,” Sanchez said. “Dodd has given lip service to protect Americans from unfair competition due to the use of H-1Bs or offshoring, while voting to make the problem worse.”

[More]

What is the news slant when a foreign national appears and prevails on an American hospital to help when she proceeds to plop out five little anchor babies? The MSM cheers, of course, as illustrated in the headline from the Washington Post (Below).

The woman called the hospital and said she had traveled from her home in war-torn Sudan to the United States. She was seeking her mother-in-law’s blessing of her pregnancy, but now that she was here, she feared there was something wrong — and any trouble would be multiplied by five.

So the staff at Anne Arundel Medical Center told her to come in right away. When physician William Sweeney gave her an ultrasound, it showed all he needed to know: quintuplets at 19 weeks of development.

If mother and children were to survive, the doctor concluded, they would need all the help they could get. That began 11 weeks of intensive treatment involving more than 30 physicians, nurses and other specialists at the hospital in Annapolis.

Yesterday, doctors and the woman’s family announced the good news. Mother and the five babies, born Dec. 2, were just fine. They were the first quintuplets in the hospital’s 106-year history, the first in Maryland in more than three years. And although they will spend the next three weeks in the medical center’s neonatal unit, the prognosis is good. [Happiness Times Five, By William Wan, December 17, 2008]

She travelled all the way from Africa to get a blessing? Right, I believe that. She didn’t come to Uncle Sucker’s America to avail herself of all the free medical goodies she could grab.

The Post can’t get any stupider or more credulous, as it accepts her BS explanation in its effort to create a feel-good diversity story. The paper drops hints about the cost ($1,150 a day for a baby in the intensive care unit) but doesn’t remind you to multiply that by FIVE, plus the Post is vague about how much time she spent in the hospital prior to births.

The morning of Dec. 2, doctors went to Malual’s room with a wheelchair. But she said no.

“I will not be wheeled to my babies’ birth. I will walk,” Malual told them. “I am from Sudan, and we walk in Sudan.”

How noble of her. However she is quite willing to have the taxpayer’s money wheeled in her direction.

Word of the day: the “bezzle.”

“At any given time there exists an inventory of undiscovered embezzlement in—or more precisely not in—the country’s businesses and banks. This inventory—it should perhaps be called the bezzle—amounts at any moment to millions of dollars.”[John Kenneth Galbraith,The Great Crash Of 1929 ]

This dynamic also applies to the recent mortgage crash, Galbraith’s point being that it tends to come out during the crash.

Various laws attempt to protect and reward insider whistleblowers who call to public attention wrongdoing by the institutions that employ them. But little incentive exists for outsiders to point out big shots’ fraud and misinformation, other than public approbation. So, let’s take a moment to salute Harry Markopolous, who first brought Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s awareness in 2000 and then wrote them a 19 page letter in 2005 listing 29 Red Flags (you can read it here; thanks to Clusterstock).

Of course, the SEC didn’t do anything substantive about it (other than one SEC official marrying into the Madoff family). Markopolous tried to talk the SEC into taking action by warning them that if they didn’t move fast, Elliot Spitzer would beat them to it. (But now we know that the Spitzer family real estate firm, like so many New York real estate businesses, had money with Madoff.)

One thing that stands out is that Markopolous wasn’t alone. He was just the guy who kept complaining about it. Markopolous’s 2005 letter cites numerous experts, either by name or by position, who figured out this was a fraud. But Markopolous was one of the few to do anything about it.

Also, at least two journalists, one for Barrons and one for a trade paper, exposed this scam early in this decade, but nobody cared.

There’s just not much of a market for debunking. People want to believe in geniuses. Look how many people believe Malcolm Gladwell is a genius. If he isn’t a genius, everybody asks, how come he’s so rich? Hunnh? Hunnh?

Malcolm, himself, is dimly aware that he’s kind of an idiot, but he believes that the true geniuses are the people he profiles so credulously. In turn, the folks Malcolm writes up probably had doubts about their own brilliance, too, at least until they saw themselves acclaimed in The New Yorker. After all, you can’t put anything over on The New Yorker–they’ve got a hung-over Jay McInerney checking the facts! So, they must be legit.