Thursday, November 08, 2007

University of California admissions process discriminates against whites and asians

The UC's current "holistic" approach to admissions is discriminating
against whites and asians, and is in clear violation of prop 209. Look no further than the new freshman enrollment numbers for UC San Diego for 2007. After remaining steady for a number of years, the number of African Americans magically jumped to 72 this year, from 44
in 2006. Mexican American numbers increased from 388 to 431. However, Asians dropped from 2,080 to 1,945; Filipinos decreased from 221 to 183; Undeclared (probably mostly white and asian) from 429 to 386. Caucasians dramatically went from 1,283 to 989. 989 is a mere 24% of
this population - it was 42% 10 years ago. Caucasians are grossly underrepresented compared to the state population proportions, high school enrollment and eligible California high school
graduates. Somehow, we are expected to believe that the system is fair and people are assessed on an objective, unbiased manner - yet, somehow, admissions evaluators managed to enroll nearly 300 less white students this year than last.

Lest we forget, 209 reads: 'The state shall not discriminate against,
or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the
operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.'

There is no clause that distinguishes between overt preferential
treatment and 'qualitative' actions specifically designed to grant
preferential treatment to certain groups. Yet, admissions officers
are intentionally reshaping admissions criteria with the declared,
expressed goal of increasing "diversity," despite that fact that to
alter the criteria for this reason violates state law. How is
reshaping the admissions process to target certain groups not
discriminatory to some and preferential to others? Academic
excellence, and verifiable evidence of academic success (test scores
and GPA) are taking a backseat to ill-defined, and mostly
unverifiable, non-academic factors. This process is given the name
"comprehensive review." In other words, biased essay readers
haphazardly assign points as they see fit, for non-academic reasons
which they cannot or are unwilling to verify. There are no real
checks and balances to ensure this process is fair or objective
across the ethnic spectrum or, as importantly, the ideological
one. There is absolutely no accountability in this current system,
and university administrators are violating the rights of California
applicants, deciding based on skin-color who deserves and does not
deserve to attend the University of California.

The UC system is clearly in danger of a lawsuit brought by white and
asian students. It will cost the state millions if this trend is not stopped.

Thursday, November 01, 2007

University of Delaware Thought Police Crumble

Breaking. Looks like FIRE! has achieved something of a victory in the University of Delaware mind control scandal:
A Message to the University of Delaware Community

Nov. 1, 2007

The University of Delaware strives for an environment in which all people feel welcome to learn, and which supports intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, free inquiry and respect for the views and values of an increasingly diverse population. The University is committed to the education of students as citizens, scholars and professionals and their preparation to contribute creatively and with integrity to a global society. The purpose of the residence life educational program is to support these commitments.

While I believe that recent press accounts misrepresent the purpose of the residential life program at the University of Delaware, there are questions about its practices that must be addressed and there are reasons for concern that the actual purpose is not being fulfilled. It is not feasible to evaluate these issues without a full and broad-based review.

Upon the recommendation of Vice President for Student Life Michael Gilbert and Director of Residence Life Kathleen Kerr, I have directed that the program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current framework will be conducted.

Vice President Gilbert will work with the University Faculty Senate and others to determine the proper means by which residence life programs may support the intellectual, cultural and ethical development of our students.

Patrick Harker

Be wary of that last paragraph, though (emphasis mine). Sounds like those cunt-sacks Michael Gilbert and Kathleen Kerr are looking for less intrusive, less obvious ways to indoctrinate. At least maybe it will be voluntary, and even less effective, the next time around. Here's a radical idea - how about leaving students alone for five fucking minutes, and not hammering them over the head with biased, left-wing, radical ideology, and worry instead about providing necessary services? With all the money blown on idiotic programs and fuckwitted administrators to come up with them, maybe you could build a little more housing for students. Or bring a band on campus or something. Stop trying to turn every fucking kid in America into zombified liberal drone-bots, and actually provide them with bit of entertainment or an environment in which to unwind. It's bad enough they have this moronic one-sided crap (masquerading as "development") shoved up their asses in just about every class they take.

Believe it or not, it is not the job of any Student Affairs organization (trust me, I work for one) to get its brainless pawns involved in the "development" of students intellect, "culture" (whatever the fuck you think that means) or ethics. In fact, Student Affairs departments in this country have proven to be so unethical in situations like this and less extreme ones, that it's insane to think they have the ability to assess and alter their own corrupt behavior much less be able to help shape the minds of university students. These are young adults, not clay to be molded into what you want them to be.

God, the hubris of my fellow university administrators. I see it all day long. Assholes.

American College Personnel Association (ACPA): How College Administrators are Learning to Brainwash Your Children

University administrators from across the country are associated with, and attend conferences put on by, the American College Personnel Association (ACPA). This vile organization, made up of like-minded individuals who feel they have the right to indoctrinate college students and shape the opinions of young people and public policy, promote conferences such as the Residential Curriculum Institute, which has been tied to the recent University of Delaware dormitory indoctrination controversy. Take a gander at some of the dreadfully Orwellian language used to describe this institute (emphasis mine):

You will have the opportunity to ... practice developing assessable learning outcomes; and examine the impact this shift in thinking and practice has on you, your department, and students. Ultimately, you will learn to uncover the opportunities to deliver educational messages in every student interaction.


Finally, we will provide you will a number of "take-away" resources to guide you and your department through the uncovering of your "essential education" for students and the process of an inevitable culture shift.

Take a gander at the goals and mission of this organization, and keep in mind that tax-payer funds and student fees are what are providing the membership and attendance fees - and that college administrators are using their positions, often state funded, to promote, endorse and advocate certain leftist positions and policies:

The mission of ACPA is founded upon and implements the following core values:

Core Values:
  • Education and development of the total student.
  • Diversity, multicultural competence and human dignity.
  • Inclusiveness in and access to association-wide involvement and decision-making.
  • Free and open exchange of ideas in a context of mutual respect.
  • Advancement and dissemination of knowledge relevant to college students and their learning, and to the effectiveness of student affairs professionals and their institutions.
  • Continuous professional development and personal growth of student affairs professionals.
  • Outreach and advocacy on issues of concern to students, student affairs professionals and the higher education community, including affirmative action and other policy issues.
The liberal bias here is incredible. This corrupt organization also puts on events such as a Conference on Multiracial and Multiple Identities as well as a Tools for Social Justice Conference.

Fear for the minds of our youth. And pay close attention at the subversive manner in which public policy is being shaped, and fairness and open-mindedness are being slowly dismantled by the fascist left.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Scumbag Michael A. Gilbert at the University of Delaware Responds

It did not take long for an idiot at the University of Delaware to respond to the recent controversy regarding the university's attempts to indoctrinate students. Here is an article suggesting that their programs actually ENCOURAGE free speech:
Residence life program encourages free speech

3:27 p.m., Oct. 31, 2007--The University of Delaware residential life educational program has been misrepresented and its goals distorted in a report generated this week by an advocacy group, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
"The central mission of the University, and of the program, is to cultivate both learning and the free exchange of ideas," said Michael A. Gilbert, vice president for student life at the University. "Far from stifling free speech, the residential life educational program seeks to encourage free speech."

Anyone who has even glanced at the "program" can see what an outrageous claim this is. The very documents used are written not to "encourage learning" nor a "free exchange of ideas," but instead encourage reprogramming of thought and a stifling of any sort of unbiased, "free" exchange of ideas. There are specific "ideas" being promoted, and a belittling of contrary, "unacceptable" ideas. This would be fine for an editorial or an essay, but it is hardly the providence of taxpayer funded administrators to endorse or promote specific modes of thought - and to viciously and systematically attack others.

And as was determined, free speech was not encouraged - were the RAs ever given the opportunity to decide upon topics, even? No, they were expected to promote a specific, and idiotic, ideology, and were expected to try to sway students to this particular point of view. There was no opportunity for free debate - students were lectured at by those in positions of power, not even educators, and told what to think.

Students who choose to participate in the residence life educational program are not required to adopt any particular points of view but are presented with a range of ideas to challenge them and stimulate conversation and debate so that students can reflect on various topics, including diversity.

Anyone suggesting that these students were presented with "a range of ideas" is a motherfucking lying sack of shit. They were presented with an extremely biased, radical, narrow set of ideas and questions - just look at the materials and first person student accounts. Was there even the slightest attempt to "challenge" students that didn't already hold the "correct ideas"? No.

"Our goal as educators is to expose students to ideas and to engage them in self-examination of the roles they hope to take in society once they leave our campus," Gilbert said.

Another lie is provided here from a braindead leftist administrator. The goal here was to expose certain students to certain ideas, not all students to different ideas. "Self-examination" was never encouraged for students that already felt the way Gilbert and his social engineering ilk feel. The phrase "they hope" here is laughable. No, it's much more about what Orwellian campus thought police - student individual hopes and conscience never entered into the equation.

Students in residence halls are not forced to participate, and certainly are not forced to agree with any particular point of view. Students are faced with questions, but the answers to these questions are their own. There are no "correct" answers.

Another lie. Students were told that meetings were "mandatory", over and over again, by university figures (the RAs). University officials promoted the program as different from "voluntary" ones. People not providing "'correct' answers" were considered troublemakers. Certain idealogical "outcomes" were expected.

"The notion that students at the University of Delaware can be coerced into any one point of view does a great disservice not only to the institution but also to the student body, which is bright, creative and represents a wide array of thought," Gilbert said.

No one claimed the students were not intelligent - enough of them saw right through this pathetic scheme to notify media outlets and FIRE! But they WERE coerced into attending these indoctrination seminars, and their rights were maliciously violated by an aggressive administration that sought to brainwash them. What's pathetic about this Gilbert fuckwit is that his very own policies and programs treat students as anything but "bright" or "creative." They were treated like sheep by a corrupt institution who felt it had the right to attack them FOR representing "a wide array of thought," and viciously attempted to reprogram this thought into a narrow, radical, leftist, homogeneous blob.

The residential life educational program, which has been developed with the express intent of helping students think critically and analytically, has had the input of student leaders, faculty and administrators and is continually assessed through feedback from individuals and through focus groups.

More lies. How are students served by being provided with a very narrow set of engagements with specific expected "outcomes" in opinion? Obviously, the people running this program are themselves INCAPABLE of critical or analytical thought. Here's an idea - leave the "educating" to the educators (faculty), which is biased enough already. Administrators and student leaders should focus on running the university and providing support services - not mind-control.

Michael A. Gilbert is deplorable scum of the worst sort, and all too typical of the mind-set of college administrators nowadays. Free thought is being replaced by "correct thought." Usually it is not so blatant, but this sort of stupidity is occurring across the nation.

Other Examples of the Orwellian Shift in Higher Education

I've been following the excellent work FIRE! has been doing for some time now. Their exceptional campaigns to protect the freedom, liberty and individual rights of students and tax-payers in higher education through increasing public awareness and direct communication with the various fascist left-wing nutwits of academia has been nothing short of impressive and admirable. Yesterday, I posted a blog entry about the chilling reeducation camps that are the dormitories on the poorly run University of Delaware campus, another case of a clear violation of individual rights by unprincipled liberal university administrators brought to national attention via FIRE!

While keeping up-to-date on this latest vileness to be spewed forth from the darkening ivory tower, I ran across another thought-provoking editorial on the FIRE! site. One thing it provides is a disquieting summary of a few of the other horrifying attempts at brainwashing by freedom hating, mind-control freakjobs infecting US university administrations and faculty which FIRE! has come across:
At Michigan State University, for instance, students were subjected to the Student Accountability in Community (SAC) seminar, a pseudo-psychological “early intervention” for students who used “power-and-control tactics,” such as “male/white privilege” and “obfuscation,” which in the eyes of the university constituted “any action of obscuring, concealing, or changing people’s perceptions that result in your advantage and/or another’s disadvantage.” Amazingly, students could be required to attend SAC merely for, among other things, playing a practical joke or engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Not only were students required to participate in SAC sessions, at their own expense, or else risk being unable to register for classes, they also were forced to answer a series of questionnaires to describe how they were taking “full responsibility” for their actions, until they used language the session director deemed acceptable. Under pressure from FIRE, the university finally put an end to its controversial program in May 2007.

In another memorable recent case, FIRE exposed the fact that Columbia University’s Teachers College utilizes an ideological litmus test for its students, requiring them to demonstrate a “commitment to social justice” and to recognize that “social inequalities are often produced and perpetuated through systematic discrimination and justified by societal ideology of merit, social mobility, and individual responsibility.” Teachers College has to this point failed to heed FIRE’s suggestion that those “dispositions” be dropped altogether as a requirement for students. Columbia’s attempt at thought reform has been covered everywhere from The New York Times to, in an article written by Greg Lukianoff, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and its ultimate resolution will certainly be tracked closely by FIRE.

Other cases abound. At Washington State University, a student was threatened with dismissal from the College of Education in 2005 for espousing “incorrect” political beliefs, such as the idea that white privilege and male privilege do not exist. The university, by contrast, required its education students to demonstrate “an understanding of the complexities of race, power, gender, class, sexual orientation and privilege in American society.” The student was therefore subjected to diversity training and ordered to sign an agreement to follow all program “dispositions” to his professors’ approval. Only when FIRE intervened did this chilling episode of compelled speech reach a satisfactory conclusion, as the university agreed to rescind the contract and subsequently agreed to refrain from forcing students in the future to abide by the same program “dispositions.”

Likewise, in 2005, Rhode Island College’s School of Social Work attempted to force a conservative student to publicly advocate for “progressive” social changes if he wished to continue his pursuit of a master’s degree in social work policy. In response to the student’s inquiry about a possible liberal ideological bias in a particular class, his professor admitted to holding certain biases, suggested that anyone who held views antithetical to his own might not be fit for a career in social work, and even told the student that if he found himself disagreeing with the school’s political philosophy, he should consider leaving or finding another line of work. Not only did the student receive a failing grade for a paper in which he advocated the “wrong” viewpoint, he was told that he could no longer pursue a master’s degree after he chose an internship of his liking rather than one that met the school’s ideal of advancing “progressive” policies. It is almost inconceivable that a school would intrude to such a great extent into one’s personal beliefs and ability to pursue the career of one’s choosing.

Finally, in 2003, a professor at Citrus College in California gave her students an assignment to write letters to President Bush, but only gave credit if they expressed opposition to the war in Iraq (no credit would be given for letters expressing any other views, including support for the war). As if one instance of compelled speech were not enough, the same professor required her students to again write letters with a specific viewpoint, this time to a state senator. To their credit, the college’s administration recognized the problem after being contacted by FIRE, moving quickly to remedy the situation. Specifically, they sanctioned the professor, apologized to the students, assured them that their grades would not be affected by the assignments, and vowed that such a scenario would never arise again on their campus. If only every college administration were that responsive and prudent!
Lest you think these are only a few isolated cases, check out this page, on which is compiled a much longer, more comprehensive list of links to similar cases FIRE! has dealt with. Obviously, these Orwellian policies and programs are a growing concern on our nation's college campuses - and likely in K-12 systems as well. It also makes you wonder, how many other similar attempts, perhaps smaller and more isolated, have not yet come to the attention of nation's public?

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

The University of Delaware VS. Freedom and Liberty

From FIRE!

For those that doubt that higher education in the United States has been shifting from being left-leaning and liberally biased to full-fledged socialist indoctrination and iniquitous brainwashing, read on:
University of Delaware Requires Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation

October 30, 2007

FIRE Press Release

NEWARK, Del., October 30, 2007—The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.
Before accusing me or FIRE! of hyperbole, I encourage you to read the entire press release. For example:
Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”
I can only imagine what sort of moronic twat-faced ass-licker came up with this definition of "racist." In fact, I can think of few statements more morally reprehensible and downright bigoted than the suggestion that "the term [racist] applies to all white people." Some of those "other things" RAs were taught:

“REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give 'preferential treatment' to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as 'reverse racism.'"

Amazing. The definition ITSELF is an example of "reverse racism," while at the same time claiming that reverse racism does not exist. It would be genius in its sheer hubris and effectiveness as double-speak, were it not so frightening and malicious.

“A NON-RACIST: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called "blaming the victim"). Responsibility for perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system rests both on those who actively maintain it, and on those who refuse to challenge it. Silence is consent." - Page 3

Even more stupid than the rest. By claiming that "non-racist" is a "non-term" (and doubleplusungood!) , they're suggesting that non-whites cannot be non-racist either, because non-racism is non-existent. That's a lot of non. Non's not just a retarded Kryptonian bent on world domination.

Since we white people are used to being called "racist" every six minutes by some leftwing fruitcup, many of us are desensitized to such outwardly prejudicial language - and this sort of crap has been promoted for so long, maybe a lot of us just ignore it. But the university's attempts at reprogramming the minds of the young do not stop with their heavy handed "advocacy" of their misguided views on race relations. The University further attacks personal liberty and intrudes upon the rights of students as free-thinking individuals in the following fashion:
The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?”
According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”
At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs.
In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.”
Terrifying. From this, I can only infer that The University of Delaware is run by insane zombies whose goal it is to turn the brains of their students to complete mush for easier undead digestion.

The University of Delaware is "a state-assisted, privately controlled institution." Oddly, they also claim that "the central mission of the University of Delaware is to cultivate both learning and the free exchange of ideas." Not a single public dollar should be going to this corrupt institution. In fact, maybe its administrators should be convicted of fraud and misuse of public funds. It's fraud to call this "education," and utterly unethical to be using tax-payer funds to enforce racist ideas about whites.

Another interesting assessment can be found here (at FIRE!).

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Yet Another Reason to Privatize Education (Birth Control for Babies)

Yesterday, I wrote in a post that "Public education and the arrogance of government-employed officials reached what may be an all time low... I'm utterly surprised every time it sinks lower, but amazingly, our left-wing nanny-overlords, who seem hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives while at the same time both destroying liberty and public security, find new ways to climb down to the bottom."

I'm happy to announce that it took less than 24 hours from writing those words for me to realize that public education could toilet-spin EVEN LOWER:
School officials have given the green light to a Portland middle school to offer birth control prescriptions through its student health center.

The plan, offered by city health officials and approved on a 7-2 vote by the Portland School Committee, makes King Middle School the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to students in grades 6 through 8... where most students range in age from 11 to 13.

Wonderful, just wonderful. Up next, nap time will be replaced with orgy hour in kindergarten. Even worse:
Under state law such treatment is confidential, and students decide for themselves whether to tell their parents about the services they receive.
Parental responsibility and rights are quickly being removed from the equation, as we see children becoming closer and closer to becoming the "property" of a socialistic state.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Socialist State School System Attacks Homeschooling Mother

On a tip from Crush Liberalism:

Check this out. Public education and the arrogance of government-employed officials reached what may be an all time low in Missouri. I'm utterly surprised every time it sinks lower, but amazingly, our left-wing nanny-overlords, who seem hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives while at the same time both destroying liberty and public security, find new ways to climb down to the bottom.
A Missouri public school is pursuing a complaint against a mother for withdrawing her son and daughter from the school and teaching them at home, after an apparent threat to the daughter's life at the school.
As concepts such as discipline and personal accountability are no longer politically correct, safety in public schools has gone down the tubes.
The case involves Moberly, Mo., mother Anita Nicoli, who withdrew her daughter and a son from Moberly Middle School recently after what she has described as a two-year campaign of intimidation by other students.

The breaking point came when another student, who allegedly had harassed and assaulted her daughter, drew a picture of herself holding a gun and pointing it directly at Nicoli's daughter. The picture was passed around among students, she said.
[Nicoli] said her children had been subjected to harassment and badgering at the school for several years. She cited incidents of being slapped, bullied, kicked and butted, as well as threatened. Her son was shoved into a metal bar. Another time a student used a seat belt buckle on the school bus to hit him.
Not surprisingly, given the violence her children had been subjected to, Nicoli "notified the school of her homeschool plans and went forward."

How did the public education system respond? Anita "now has been cited in a complaint filed by the school after she withdrew two of her children."

That's absolutely correct, boys and girls. Nicoli, fearing not just as many homeschoolers do about the quality of education in pubic schools or politico-social indoctrination, but for the very physical safety of her kids, pulls her children out of a dangerous situation, and how is she rewarded by an intrusive state?
....she is accused of "educational neglect" by social services, based on a complaint from the school.
This, in microcosmic form, is a perfect example of much of what is wrong with the liberal philosophy of big government and the insanity of the leftist concept that "the government knows better than individuals, and has the right to interfere in personal lives and choices, for their own good." From taxation and redistribution of income, to grossly ineffective and intrusive state-run programs and solutions, the left is causing much of that country to abandon common sense and respect for individuals, and is turning America into a massively totalitarian incompetent socialist bureaucracy.

I might be more sympathetic to big government interference if big government were in any way GOOD at running our lives. But this is more like a sinking ship with a retarded poodle for a captain. Over the years, after losing so much respect for the public education system in the US, I've slowly come to the conclusion that privatization would be the best answer for reform - of course, this would mean privatization WITHOUT unwieldy and useless government restrictions. The bloated beast must abandoned.

Those looking to socialized medicine as a solution for rising health care costs and the proportion of uninsured citizens need look no further than this idiocy in Missouri to see exactly what to expect in terms of adequacy, accountability and pragmatism is a government run system.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Schwarzenegger and Gun Control

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation [on Saturday] requiring that new models of semiautomatic handguns sold in California be able to stamp identifying serial numbers on shell casings."

At first glance, this might not strike one as an assault on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of California (what few we have left). The requirement that guns stamp serial numbers on casings, in and of itself, does not really restrict a person's ability to either "keep" or "bear" arms.

However, consider this:
Retooling the manufacturing process could add up to $200 to the price of each gun, warned Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association of the firearms industry. Supporters said the identifying parts could be added for as little as $1 to $2 per gun.

“Manufacturers are not going to comply with this no matter how much they improve the technology,” said Paredes of the Gun Owners of California. “They are simply going to stop selling any new semiautomatics in the state.”

In the long run, causing the cost of new types of semiautomatics to sky-rocket is only going to keep such weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens in the lower income brackets - this could be seen an unreasonable state-imposed expense that clearly violates the rights of the poor and lower class to defend themselves as they choose.

But really, his law will have almost no effect on the sale of semiautomatics for decades, if ever. With 1,300 models already on the roster in California, people will still be able to buy non-stamping semiautomatics. This legislation only effects new models that will be introduced. Of course, this simply screws over gun aficionados who might want to obtain some new type of innovative handgun. In fact, it likely makes California less safe - who knows what sort of gun features might be introduced in the future that could improve handgun safety - and we here in California will be stuck with older models only, or overpriced newer models which most people will be unwilling to pay for. Manufacturers will continue to make models already on the California roster, if just for the large California market. Basically, this law does little other than stifle progress by limiting options and fair competition. A new manufacturer with an excellent product that jams/misfires less than any gun already on the market may simply turn its back on California - a loss to the California population as well as the maker.

This legislation is simply not fair to honest, law-abiding citizens who will now be forced to pay more for new types of guns because of state interference. Sure, a few collectors will be willing to pay more to obtain the new model semiautomatics they desire or feel they need. I don't see all manufacturers completely giving up on the most populous state in the nation as a potential market for their new products. But those that stay in may even have less competition if some companies do decide the new technology is not worth it. Any production costs will be placed upon the honest consumer anyway.

Semiautomatic makers currently located in the state of California will move to another state where their business practices are less controlled by big liberal government interference. Another loss of business in California from a governor who promised to woo business back to California - so much has already left thanks to over-regulation and high taxes.

Criminals will still be able to obtain non-stamping semiautomatics illegally. They will still be able to get their hands on automatic machine guns (currently they are all over the streets), which we honest citizens cannot even get. Revolvers are not covered. Nor shotguns or rifles. Given all the illegal guns out there, given all the non-stamping models which have sold and will continue to be sold, and given the ease which with this stamping can be countered (a nail file), this legislation will have absolutely no effect on either crime or clearance rates in the state. Stamping guns will eventually be stolen, and become untraceable to actual shooters. Criminals will start stealing spent shell casings from gun ranges, and sprinkling them at crime scenes. Even if you support gun control, you have to admit this law will do close to nothing. It's government interference for the sake of interfering. It's an attack on legitimate gun owners.

Despite the high crime and violence rates in California, this state has some of the harshest restrictions of our second amendment rights - Californians can "keep" (ie, own) arms easily enough, but it is nearly impossible to "bear" (ie, carry) arms outside one's home in order to defend oneself where it is most necessary. In order to seriously reduce crime, California should repeal its overly restrictive conceal and carry laws, and make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry and defend themselves in dangerous areas outside their homes. The judicial system is failing to keep criminals off the streets, and liberal legislation and juries have seriously hindered law enforcement efforts. We need to be able to legally protect ourselves. Our right to self-defense has been restricted enough by a left-wing, totalitarian state.

I apologize for all the Ahnold posts recently, but he signed a tankload of bills this past weekend.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Green Americans Protest Frankenstein Decoration as Offensive

OK, not really, but close enough. The hypersensitive, irrational nitwits at the NAACP don't like halloween much either. I think people really have to go out of their way to feign being offended nowadays. Or has our victimization culture mutated so much that people are completely incapable of distinguishing between overt bigotry and just about anything else? I'd like to err on the side of people not being completely moronic, but it's hard not to.

Schwarzenegger Vetoes DREAM Act

In a burst of rational thought, Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed the dreaded DREAM act (endorsed by disphits as dipshitted as Barack Obama), which would have offered illegal immigrants an opportunity for tax-payer funded financial aid for higher education. How long before the race-baiters start race-baiting? I can hear the choruses of "OH MY GAWD, THAT'S RACIST" ringing in my ears already.

California Redefines "Sex"

Thanks to some new legislation signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, State Senate Bill SB777, the definition of "sex" used by the California Education system is no longer biologically/scientifically based - it's now all about your feeeeeelings. Repealed from the Educational Code is the following definition:
"Sex" means the biological condition or quality of being male or female human being.
And we are left with:
"Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.
I don't recall having a gender "assigned" to me at birth - for all, it is a simple, physical, undeniable characteristic - the rare physical hermaphrodite abnormality aside. But, according the politically correct totalitarians, actual genitalia and physical reality should be ignored in favor of what people WANT to be, not what they are. "Gender identity... and behavior" is of course to be seen as more relevant than real-world biology.

Some are claiming as a result of this legislation words like '"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools' and that 'every California school [has become] a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center.' I'm not convinced that the former will actually come to pass, although it is not necessarily outside the realm of possibility the way things have been progressing and the thought-police further attempt to legislate opinion. I do agree the former statement to be an accurate description, true even before these recent bills were signed. The California education public system has long abandoned common sense, rational thought and a commitment to actual education and fact-based learning. It instead has become a tool for brainwashing and conditioning children, forcing upon them ideals and modes of behavior far different than what their parents might try to instill.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Schwarzenegger Sells Out California (Again)

It's probably no surprise that to hear that pseudo-conservative California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a law which "prohibit(s) local governments from forcing landlords to check the immigration status of tenants." I don't really buy the argument put forth by the Apartment Association of Southern California Cities that "landlords cannot be compelled by local government to compile dossiers and become de facto immigration police." No one was asking them to become "police," they were merely asked to perform the same function as employers - insuring the legal status of those they rent to. Hardly an enormous burden, considering the background checks most landlords run perspective tenants through.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Francisco Castillo said the governor understands the emotions but still “believes that local and state governments should not be forced to assume the responsibility of the federal government.”
An actually somewhat valid sounding argument. However, the federal government is not living up to this responsibility. The costs incurred by the lack of border security are falling upon state and local governments. Communities are being damaged and bankrupt by illegal immigration, all because of the federal government's failure to act decisively. If the federal government does not step up to the plate by dealing with illegal immigration, or at least financially compensating these communities, then local and state governments have little choice but to act.

In any case, Escondido's ordinance did not punish illegals for being here illegally, it would have punished landlords in that town for renting to illegals. The city would not be entering into the realm of immigration enforcement at all. It was merely setting a standard for property renting within that community. Something perfectly reasonable and well within its rights. Well, until now. Thanks Arnie.

Butthole Obama Wants You to Pay for Educating Illegal Immigrants

America's favorite bubble-headed liberal cutout, Barack Obama, wants the California taxpayer to foot the bill for higher education for illegal immigrants. Isn't it bad enough that we're already funding K-12 education for people with a complete disrespect for our laws, culture and sovereignty? One of my major problems with shithead Democrats (and a lot of OTHER politicians) like Obama is that they seem to think money just grows on trees, and that all this "aid" and "free education" isn't paid for by some of the highest state income taxes in the nation. Thanks a motherfucking lot you stupid fuck-faced thieves. Everytime I get my paycheck raped by you bastards, I think, "oh swell, my hard-earned money is going to some piece of crap MS-13 gangsta that shouldn't even be in this country, and is here only as a result of someone breaking the law." Glad I could pay to help him learn home ec.

Dumbshit Obama had the huevos to say the following:
"We teach our children that in America you will thrive if you work hard and dream big. Governor Schwarzenegger now has the chance to demonstrate that instead of blaming one group for the challenges America faces, he can unite Californians and give children who play by the rules the opportunity to succeed."
No, fucker, what you're teaching OUR children is that if you work hard and dream big, your money is going to get stolen and redistributed by a fascist state, or if you don't work hard or dream big, then you'll be entitled to get a big, fat chunk of someone else's cash. Illegal immigrants have not "play[ed] by the rules." Taxpayers are in no way responsible for funding anyone else's "opportunity to succeed." Illegal immigrants are not "our children," they're the children of a foreign nation. And I'm sick, sick, sick, sick, sick and tired of idiots like Obama mischaracterizing the positions of people that are opposed to illegal immigration, that take issue with the idea we should reward illegal behavior, and that are against the government providing incentives which ENCOURAGE illegal immigration. No one is "blaming one group for the challenges America faces," people are "blaming" one group for the problems they cause through illegal activity - the very activity which places them in that "group" category in the first place.

Hey Obama, since you're not even a Californian, how about (1) not telling us what to do with our taxes, or (2) going to see if the people of Illinois would be willing to pay for higher education for illegals here in California. Sure, they're going to school here in California, but they're not OUR responsibility any more than they are that of people in Chicago. So why not ask Illinois to pay for this?

Monday, October 08, 2007

Latest Corrupt Scumbag Democrat

Fabian Nunez (or Nuñez, if you like squiggly, foreign lines), California Assembly Speaker, who has been romantically tied to the same TV anchor-slut, Telemundo's arch-whore Mirthala Salinas, as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio "Fidelity is For Suckers and People with Integrity" Villaraigosa, spends tens of thousands of dollars of campaign funds on shady, unjustifiable expenditures.
The spending, listed in mandatory filings with the state, includes $47,412 on United, Lufthansa and Air France airlines this year; $8,745 at the exclusive Hotel Arts in Barcelona, Spain; $5,149 for a "meeting" at Cave L'Avant Garde, a wine seller in the Bordeaux region of France; a total of $2,562 for two "office expenses" at Vuitton, two years apart; and $1,795 for a "meeting" at Le Grand Colbert, a venerable Parisian restaurant.

Nuñez also spent $2,934 at Colosseum Travel in Rome, and paid $505 to the European airline Spanair.

Other expenses are closer to home: a $1,715 meeting at Asia de Cuba restaurant in West Hollywood; a $317 purchase at upscale Pavilion Salon Shoes in Sacramento; a $2,428 meeting at 58 Degrees and Holding, a Sacramento wine bar and bistro; and $800 spent at Dollar Rent a Car in Kihei, Hawaii.
How does this slimy sack of shit explain this? To quote: "For me, it's a question of: Is my perspective on issues broad enough? Do I have enough context when I make decisions?" Riiiiiight. Obviously, this state politician's perspective is not broad enough to include something called ethical behavior, nor does his decision-making "context" seem to cover a category known as virtue. For me, it's a question of whether or not we should elect fuckwitted, unscrupulous thieves, or should we vote into office someone actually respectable. Clearly, how can we trust an elected representative to do the right thing, if they show they cannot make principled decisions in their own personal and political life? Do you really trust someone willing to defraud his own contributors to enact honorable legislation?

If you're a California voter, make sure to vote a huge NO on Proposition 93 in February, which would allow this dill-hole to stay in the Assembly another 6 years.

Friday, October 05, 2007

Conservatives VS Republicans

Rudolph Guiliani takes a necessary shot at the wolves in sheep clothing that have infiltrated the Republican Party, which, overall, has been far, far, far too fiscally irresponsible in recent times:
Giuliani criticizes GOP on spending

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential contenders on Friday scolded Congress for extravagant spending of taxpayer dollars, and Rudy Giuliani blamed the issue for losses in last year's elections.

"We lost control of Congress because we were just like the Democrats as far as spending is concerned — shame on us," Giuliani told the anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity.
Good. Another a fiscal conservative who'll stand up to the more dishonest elements of the GOP.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

The Only Real Path to Health Care Reform

Democrats would have you believe that there is something horribly wrong with health care in this country, and that the only real solution is higher taxes and a massively ineffective government bureaucracy taking over the medical system of this nation. Theirs is a socialist agenda - theft via taxation from the bank accounts of hard-working American citizens, redistribution of other people's money, and totalitarian control over the medical profession. They believe it is the responsibility of each citizen to fund the health care of other people's children, and they think they have a right to force you to do this, as you do their education. As in so many other arenas, in their eyes parents should no longer be responsible for their own children, a fascist-socialist state should be. Government paid teachers, administrators, after-school program directors, counselors, and even doctors and nurses, are the ideal proxies for the actual parent, all under the control of a leftist state - a state appropriating untold amounts of citizens' incomes to pay for its expanded power. In the view of the left, individual citizens cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, and thus the state should control choice, including how each person's income is spent (and on whom).

Democrats like uber-idiot Harry Reid would have you believe that anyone that dares questions, or in George W. Bush's case vetoes, seriously flawed socialist legislation like an unnecessary expansion of SCHIP is "heartless." Heartless we are seen for expecting individuals to take responsibility for themselves and their own children. Heartless for favoring liberty. Heartless for expecting legislation which is fair and effective. But Reid and his ilk are truly the heartless, for they advocate federal thievery, they wish to diminish personal liberty, and they support an uncaring government which would steal the money of its citizens - money which individuals could use on their own health care in a free market as they see fit. How can Reid call anyone "heartless" for expecting the government not to be wasteful, or for expecting it not to fund the undeserving?

As always, rather than have any sort of rational discussion on "reform," the liberals in this country turn to their favorite method of debate: name-calling. Bush and anyone who agrees with his rare act of fiscal conservatism is a big meanie-weanie that hates little kiddies and wants them all to get sick and die. There was never a discussion of whether or not an expansion of SCHIP was good or improved policy, and no exploration of the real causes of the high cost for medical care. It is far easier to paint opponents to their plan - not opponents of treating sick children, but opponents of one particular plan - as baby-slaying ogres. But for some reason they ignore the fact that perhaps empowering parents and doctors, rather than tying their hands with taxes and governmental red-tape, might be less cruel than their bloated "tax and spend more" plan of action. Bush did not outlaw health care for children, he merely vetoed a plan to make some of us pay for someone else's.

So, what then, is the solution the Democrats in Congress have missed? The single most useful, albeit complex, thing the government could do to improve the affordability and quality of health care in the United States would not be more governmental interference in or control of the health care system, it would be to instead improve the "state" itself, on the federal and state levels. In other words, here is my two word solution to the health care crisis in this country:

Tort Reform

Or, to put it another way:

Massive Motherfucking Tort Reform

Before you start wondering if I've accidentally combined two different blog entries, let me explain. The cost of civil litigation in America is astronomical, both directly to those caught in lawsuits and indirectly to the nation overall. And, even worse, there is absolutely no attempt to ensure that the outcome of any particular case is in any way fair or reasonable, leading to a colossal amount of unchecked abuse. The government, through its ineffective legislation allowing civil litigation exploitation, and through the seemingly out-of-touch-with-reality judicial branch, has, through its own poor law-making choices and inaction, been a major cause FOR the health care crisis. Of course, the corrupt, unethical lawyers and litigants that seek to profit unfairly from the broken system have been a major contributor to the crisis as well. But, the government itself - its laws and its representatives - has allowed this incredibly out-of-control crookedness to occur. In fact, it has even encouraged it by passing laws which make it easier to victimize businesses and individuals and by appointing worthless judges too squeamish or dishonest to put a foot down and block the rampant injustice within our system of "justice."

Not surprisingly, the deep pockets of well-paid doctors and health care providers have been a particularly easy target for the legal parasites. And, to oversimplify a bit, since those in need of health care can be, well, really "sick" (obviously) when they go to a doctor, failure to cure or diagnose, failure to be impossibly perfect and superhuman, will result in "sick" or dead patients. Thus, there is often a major envisioned "harm" to claim. Whether or not the responsibility should rationally fall in the hands of a doctor or nature itself, the medical professional will be blamed.

Sharks go for blood, and there are a lot of wounded, floating sources of meat out there. Outrageous lawsuits against medical professionals directly drive up medical and insurance costs. And this of course applies to most other businesses as well, and even agencies of our own government which we fund through tax revenues - all targets of civil litigators. It is not just medical costs which are effected. Civil litigation inflates the price of just about everything. But why on Earth have we allowed -heck, placed - sharks into our swimming pool, to feed on us while we do the breast stroke? We have let our legislators, many who have been greased by trial lawyer lobbies, make laws that have left reason, freedom and common sense at the door.

Sweeping reforms are necessary. We must make it safe to swim in the pool again.

Unfortunately, because of the way the legal system, the way our government, has evolved, it has become more cost effective to settle lawsuits rather than to go through a reasoned process of determining actual liability. It is now more costly to defend oneself from bogus or malicious claims than to just give in to legalized extortion. Rational assessment of the facts through a trial has become far too expensive, but big out-of-court settlement victories merely encourage other unscrupulous individuals to attempt similar suits. The system must be restructured so that it is not cost prohibitive to go to trial and show that no wrong-doing occurred. Or, at the very least, legislation must be revised so that the burden of proof falls back upon the claimant and it is not so easy to "win" a big settlement with so very little justification or real proof.

More must be done to prevent and dismiss frivolous lawsuits - those bringing them to the courts must be punished, claimants and lawyers alike, and should be held responsible for all the unnecessary costs of the fraudulent lawsuit, both to whomever is being sued and to the taxpayer for court expenses. The judicial system must evaluate claims on some deeper level than it currently does - simply hiring a lawyer should not be enough for a suit to go forward.

Our government has legislated into existence insanely unjust burdens of liability. Individuals are no longer personally responsible for their own well-being or common sense - instead this responsibility falls on the shoulders of other individuals and businesses. In today's legal world, if you're too stupid to realize that hot coffee is hot, and if you cannot personally prevent yourself from spilling your order on yourself, then the person making the coffee, not you, is obviously responsible because they didn't adequately warn you that (a) the hot coffee is hot, and (b) that you're a fucking moron. Businesses are also now responsible for catering to other people's disabilities (oh, sorry, differently special ABILITIES, like NOT being able to walk) and must spend inconceivable amounts of money on making businesses they own accessible and even comfortable for people that they should logically in no way be responsible for. Just as the liberals see the community (all of us) as responsible for other people's children, the liberally-corrupted government sees all of us as responsible for other people's actions AND for acts of nature. For example, according to sexual harassment decisions of the past, employers can even be held liable for the actions of third parties their employees come across. What the holy fuck? Of course, these inane, impossible-to-fulfill burdens of "liability" leave plenty of opportunities open for the legal snakes to commit ample amounts of civil litigation abuse.

Liability must be legally redefined. The doors must be shut on the serpent lawyers and their cold-blooded clients. Personal responsibility must be emphasized in reformed legislation. No one should be punished or financially burdened for other people's actions, failings and decisions. Nor for the results of nature. For example, it should not be the burden of businesses or government agencies or other people to provide "access," in other words, spend THEIR funds, on accommodating the disabled. Why should they provide funds for expensive software, translators, elevators, and such? If they WANT the business, sure, they have every right to make their institutions more disabled friendly. But the burden of responsibility should really fall not on taxpayers or businesses who are in no way responsible for these people's disabilities - it should fall on the disabled themselves. People must be responsible for themselves. Compliance with ADA-type legislation has become an incredible financial hardship upon businesses and taxpayers. But this is just one example of how we've allowed near-fascist leftist control over individuals and privately owned companies. The "workplace" and the realm of financial interaction (be it buying something, or paying for a medical service, or whatever) has become a totalitarian state. Doctors are being held liable for not being to heal the healable, or not knowing the unknowable, or not guessing correctly. Perfection is expected in impossibly imperfect situations.

This is not to say that civil litigation is always unnecessary or unjustified. Malpractice and other forms of intentional abuse or unintentional neglect do occur, and people should be held accountable for their actions. But we need to end the idea that all claims of negligence or abuse hold equal weight. We need to RATIONALLY EVALUATE; that was how the system was intended to work.

Another extremely important path to reform would be to limit financial awards in cases where people are reasonably found to be liable for some injustice or harm. Outrageously high awards are allowed by law and are far too commonplace. Given how easy it is to "win," it's no surprise to see more and more folks jumping on the cash-cow bandwagon. The health care system, and just about everyone else, is being crushed by unreasonable, excessive awards. And these costs are obviously passed along to the consumer. And yet somehow the industry itself is blamed for growing costs when they have no other choice but to raise prices to keep up with growing insurance rates and big civil litigation payouts.

On a side note, it is odd how "assumption of innocence" has become utterly ignored in civil cases, yet on the criminal side, the idea of "reasonable doubt" is beyond the grasp of too many moronic, modern juries. No substantial proof is needed in a civil case to prove "guilt" and then "fine" millions. But juries ignore facts and hard evidence in criminal cases far too often, finding murderers and thieves not guilty for the silliest of reasons.

Some might argue that lawyers are simply businessmen, hired for a service. This is certainly true - assuming they do not work for the state. They're taking advantage of business opportunities in an environment many of them had no hand in creating. But the law itself could never be considered a private, free enterprise realm. Legislation itself is the will of our state, or theoretically the will of the majority imposed by its representatives. The law, unlike say the acts of healing or teaching, is by definition an aspect of the government. Tort reform would be a form of self-improvement for the state. In fact, it is the government's responsibility to ensure laws are followable without the need of lawyer interpretation, and that defending oneself and deriving a rational conclusion about a situation does not represent a financial hardship. The legal system should be there to protect us when necessary, and not be a vampire feeding off our population.

Rather than allow liberalism to attempt to consume another aspect of the free market, like health care services, the government would be better off fixing itself. Doing so will improve the environment of the marketplace and of personal interaction. If doctors no longer fear unjustified and unreasonable civil suits, and insurance companies no longer need pay disproportionate settlements, the health care market will eventually adjust, as would numerous other markets. Society and human interaction overall would be improved, and personal liberty would again be more important than state nanny-ism.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Catch the Left Wing Media Bias in this Story

Hint, it's EVERYWHERE:

Dallas indictment raises race issues

By PAUL J. WEBER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 38 minutes ago

DALLAS - A sweeping City Hall corruption probe that has produced federal charges against a dozen black civic and political leaders is renewing suspicions of racism in a city with a long history of combative minority relations.

"It makes Dallas looks bad," said Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, who is black, "because people just have the general sense of the city being unfair to people of color."

Sixteen people — 12 of them black — were named in corruption indictments unsealed this week. Most of them were charged in what the FBI said was a kickback and bribery scheme involving the awarding of contracts to white developers to build affordable housing, mostly in black neighborhoods.

The two-year investigation — and the spectacle of some of Dallas' most influential black leaders arriving at the federal courthouse to face charges — dealt a blow to a minority community still struggling to find its political footing.

Some blacks said they suspect the case is an attempt to dismantle Dallas' black political leadership.

Among the blacks indicted are a former City Council member, a former city planner, businessmen, state Rep. Terri Hodge of Dallas, and former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill, who was considered a front-runner for mayor in June but was hurt by the investigation. He was defeated in the first round of elections. Four white developers were also charged.

The ethnic makeup of those indicted has not gone unnoticed in Dallas, a city of 1.2 million that is nearly 25 percent black and has been beset by racial tensions over the years.

"I refuse to subscribe that this was racially motivated," said Michael Sorrell, president of the city's historically black Paul Quinn College. "But given all the factors, what is the statistical likelihood of producing that ratio?"

U.S. Attorney Richard Roper and the FBI strongly denied that the probe was racially motivated. Federal investigators made their case not by setting up a sting operation but by raiding City Hall, removing boxes of documents and following the paper trail.

"I always in my career base my decisions not on race but what the facts and the law show," said Roper, who has not ruled out the possibility of more indictments.


Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, said the fact that three-fourths of those indicted are black doesn't give him reason for pause. "Unfortunately, all the actors who were in a position to make a decision ... were black," he said.

Although Dallas more recently has broken the political color barrier with its first black mayor, police chief and district attorney, some say that is deceptive.

"Our progress here is cosmetic," said Rufus Shaw, a black political analyst.

Of course, of course, if 12 black people are caught committing crimes, it must be RACISM on the part of the law enforcement enforcing the laws. Let's condemn the fact that they're out there protecting society and ignore that fact that the REASON these people were investigated in the first place was not skin-color, but, gee, the fact that they were engaged in suspicious behavior and very likely took bribes and kick-backs. But no, holding African Americans to any sort of standard akin to everyone else, and expecting them not to break the law - gee, that's prejudice.

Blame Dallas, not the criminals.

How on Earth is this any sort of indication of racism in Dallas?


Friday, September 14, 2007

Corruption & Lies: Typical at the University of California & Amongst Champions of "Diversity"

Anyone familiar with the University of California is probably quite aware that the system has been plagued by examples of dishonesty, corruption and anti-white/anti-American bias in recent years. Fairness, responsibility and integrity have taken a backseat to personal gain, political correctness and special privilege by the UC administration through various scandals and policies.

Top administrators have been basically stealing tax-payer money and lining their own pockets. Professors are allowed to insult patriots by burning American flags in classrooms and are protected by administrators under the guise of "academic freedom," but student newspapers printing satires and criticisms of Islamic jihadism are labeled "hate speech" and "bias incidents." Caucasians are currently under-represented in the student population in comparison to California population proportions, so the admissions and outreach officers stopped using "under-representation" as a justification for racial bias and special privilege based on ethnicity and began using the phrase "traditionally under-represented" (ie, historically rather than currently) so that they could continue their programs aimed at non-whites and completely ignore both the new statistics and the fact that the system was anything BUT biased against "minorities." Admissions policies have shifted away from quantifiable and verifiable criteria like SAT scores and High School GPA and moved into the realm of the "holistic," where students are awarded points for "community service" and "personal disadvantage," all of which goes utterly unchecked, so that application fraud cannot be caught and combated. California voters passed a law ending racial bias in the state admissions policies, yet UC administrators circumvent this by aiming special outreach programs at targeted ethnic groups, completely ignoring the letter of the law.

In light of all the unethical behavior and hypocrisy, is it any surprise that a charter school on the University of California, San Diego campus, the Preuss School, has been accused of handing out false grades to students in order to falsely inflate their own statistics and reputation? It should not be. When voters in California passed Proposition 209, the University of California, frustrated and angered that the California citizens who pay for the campus's existence and their salaries, dared to choose fairness and colorblindness over race-based affirmative action programs and special privileges for minorities, altered their admissions policies, but at the same time sank more energy into reaching pre-college minorities. This was at first done with "outreach" programs targeting specific races, completely ignoring the fact that voters called for the UC and the state to "not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race." But somehow the preferential treatment in outreach policies was OK to college administrators, because the will of the voter was suspect. Then, an institution charged with providing HIGHER EDUCATION decided to get into the business of 6th-12th grade education, working with the San Diego Unified School District to establish a charter school focusing on low-income children in the hopes that this would lead to greater "diversity" at the college level.

On the surface, Preuss seemed a model of educational excellence, proving that when you do away with many of the rules, statues and regulations forced upon other forms of public schools by a liberal and intrusive government, you can more successfully provide a top-notch education. In a nutshell, rather than the socialistic idea that you provide the same education to all students, you provide a high-end education only to those willing and capable of doing the work. As noted in the linked article, though, "a 2005 study by UCSD showed that Preuss students earned state test scores and grade-point averages that were no higher than their peers who applied to the charter school but weren't chosen in the admissions lottery. " Here's the simple secret of this charter school - it selects, by lottery, those students who are already college-bound in their outlook. Those students in low-income neighborhoods that don't already have an intention to go to college don't bother applying. Isn't it amazing how great your school looks if you don't have to play by the same rules as other public institutions and basically get a top-notch batch of students hand picked for you?

In any case, Newsweek named Preuss one of the top 10 high schools in the United States. But now, with these allegations of grade tampering, which if true puts their entire grading system in doubt, we are now left to wonder if Newsweek was being hasty in its evaluation. If administrators were willing to give out grades for classes not even attended, then grade inflation could be a serious problem as well - especially for a school whose administration is more concerned with promoting the image of the school rather than the business of actual education.

In principle, the charter model is a decent one - one more closely aligned to the ideal model, a privatized system, where tax-payers are no longer held responsible for funding the education of other people's children, and where merit and individual achievement is rewarded rather than thwarted. If we are to have private education funded by our taxes, we should expect a less socialist system, and one based more on rewarding success and hard work. The idea of education being a "right" should be dismissed, and we should remind ourselves that education is a privilege. Those that abuse that privilege, or fail themselves to take full advantage of it, should be removed from the system - or at least provided with an education that suits their particular skills and talents (trade schools for instance), and those that succeed should be rewarded and it should be recognized that they have earned access to the next step. A tiered education system, where 6-12 students who have proven themselves successful move on to college-preparatory schools, and those who are not move on to others sorts of training, would be highly preferable to the unmanageable mish-mash system we have now, where kids on the track to universities are paired with losers and gang-bangers.

The important thing in any system is accountability. The flaw with the charter system it seems is that is still open to the same piss-poor management and underhandedness we see in other public institutions and bureaucracies. But, hopefully, the trend of holding students responsible for their own successes and failures will eventually work its way to educators and administrators as well.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Just How Stupid Are You?

According to this article, a full
31 percent of Americans do not accept the official explanation for Sept. 11 -- that "19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught U.S. intelligence and military forces off guard."
Yes. That's right. Almost a third of all Americans lack the basic reasoning skills, intelligence, empathy, and capacity for logic to be able to differentiate between verifiable evidence and the shitload of toadshit that makes up the "9/11 Truth" conspiracy theories.

So I wonder - do you still think that the jury system is still a workable or useful one? At the very least, one-third of our "peers" have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of even discerning what "proof" or "reason" IS! How on Earth can we trust them to figure out if a person has or has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm amazed they can tie their own motherfucking shoes. Or even know what shoes are for. Maybe they sometimes manage to get their shoes on their feet, but I'm sure the footwear is covered in drool by the end of the process.

Not only are these people morons (42.6% of Democrats - that number is surprisingly low), they are despicable to the very core of their beings - only vile human beings would think that their fellow Americans could or would stoop to such a level. Or, more importantly, think this based upon the wild speculation and complete misinformation of the 9/11 Truth campaign.

One can disagree with Bush on a number of issues, but it's outrageous to even suggest he would commit such atrocities based on such flimsy "reasoning." Goodbye fact, hello imaginary fantasyland. A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And guess what? All the reasonable facts point to full doubt. Bush was not responsible for 9/11 - your friendly crazy Islamo-fascists were.

I could put a suit and tie on a tree, and it'd still be ten times smarter than anyone who thinks that "9/11 was an inside job." Jesus, these 9/11 Truther idiots make Muslim extremist-terrorists look positively sane.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Gay: Choice or Biological?

In the latest bit of pandering to special interest groups, most of the Democratic Presidential candidates decided to appear in a "debate" on gay issues on LOGO last night. To call it a debate is almost facetious, it was more like consecutive interviews. Being a cable network, they had to put some sort of minor celebrity on the panel, dipshit Melissa Etheridge, to dissolve any pretense that this interaction was to be thoughtful or informative rather than "entertaining." The most interesting exchange of the night, or at least insightful in that it revealed the empty-headedness of political correctness, was between the Moron Etheridge and Bill Richardson.

MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?

GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's –

MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition.

I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.

MS. ETHERIDGE: Well, it's hard when you are a citizen of a country that tells you that you are making a choice when you were born that way, and your Creator made you that way. And there's a document that was written 200 years ago that says you are entitled to certain rights that you are not given.
How can there be anything other than absolute equal rights for homosexuals?

Richardson of course failed to initially answer the question politically correctly, because he took a sensible, rational, fact-based approach rather than an idiotic "this is the way we feel it should be, so this is the way it is" left-wing approach. He missed the perfect opportunity to answer this question the only way it should ever be answered:


There are just so many insanely thoughtless assumptions in Etheridge's false dichotomy and in the perceived ramifications of taking one position or another. For one, why would or should choice or biology have any impact whatsoever on "absolute equal rights for homosexuals" in a free society? The assertion here is that personal choice would be some sort of secondary, inferior justification for equal rights compared to biochemical causes. But I'm going out on a limb and say that choice would be the superior justification, for choice shows conscious reasoning, sophisticated emotional responses and intelligent thought. Liberty means freedom to do as we choose, not simply be as we biologically "are." There is absolutely no reason why a man's choice to eat and enjoy foie gras should be any less important than his right to breathe oxygen. It is not the role of a government in a free society to value judge personal preferences.

Secondly, I'm utterly unconvinced one can completely divorce choice from biology - or that any action or behavior we take on can not be attributed to personal choice to some degree. I may have a biological impulse to screw every girl I see - and trust me I've seen quite a few that I've had the impulse to have sex with - but that does not mean I choose to act on those impulses every time I get them. Maybe I uncontrollably get an erection sometimes, but I choose when and where to use it. Assuming what we call "homosexuality" has any sort unique biological cause, every single gay person still makes the choice to act on that impulse and live as they do. And no, Melissa, that's not in any way insulting or demeaning to say. You're thinking human beings, and you choose your lifestyle choices as much as I choose to be monogamous. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that because any behavior could be classified as a "choice" that is somehow less deserving of being made.

Also, the idea that the only options to explain your sexual preferences are that you have to be born gay or you just pick being gay is simply silly. Why on Earth is so important that homosexuality be simply a biological characteristic, like skin color, rather than say a learned behavior or cultural characteristic or belief system, like say religion? Is it really so outrageous to suggest that there MIGHT be developmental factors that come in play that may, at least sometimes, lead to homosexual behavior?

Heck, I'm not even convinced entirely that "gay" is anything more than a social construct, derived simply from physical pleasures that could be fulfilled by other means. I've known way too many gay men that seemed far too obsessed with female "biology" to suggest to me that anyone is 100% gay. But, whatever. I probably wouldn't say that to any gay friend, because who am I to tell them how to behave or what sub-cultural decisions to make. What's important is, it doesn't matter one iota if my stupid theory is right, or Melissa's stupid theory is right, or someone else's much better reasoned and factually supported theory is right. The state has absolutely no place interfering or restricting these behaviors or feelings, regardless of their origin or consistency.

The important thing is that Richardson was right, he is no scientist. And neither are you, Melissa. Scientists are willing to admit when there is not enough evidence to draw any really realy conclusion. And they do not assume a conclusion because it justifies a political goal, or makes them feel warm and fuzzy. The real conclusions could well be interesting, but will the answers really make you feel any different, any more or less lesbian? They may seem a stupid question, but it stems from your stupid question. Why on Earth is it even important when we're talking about liberty and your own pursuit of happiness? You've set it up so that if you're wrong about biochemistry, then you're wrong about your life. And that's just inane, and shows a lack of understanding of what personal liberty and individual freedom means, and why it is important.

Did I develop a taste for foie gras at some point, did I learn to love it, or is enjoyment of the flavor hardwired into me? Who cares? I mean, it'd be interesting to know - but it should have no effect on my freedom to do and live as I choose fit.

Who is Linda Seger?

Who is Linda Seger? A liberal blogger, it seems. She wrote this blog, titled "How Do Liberals and Progress [sic] Think... about Discrimination?" And the most important element of her thesis?
Liberals and Progressives are more often apt to deal in complexity.
Well, allow me to retort. FUCK YOU, TOO. Or, to put it less blunty, are you so apt to deal in complexity that you resort to simplistic, sweeping, unsupported generalizations like this? Show some complex thought before making an assertion such as this. And if you want to insult somebody, have the courage to just come out and be direct. Don't masquerade your taunts in some masturbatory, self-aggrandizing bullshit.
In many cases, conservatives don't see the social structures that keep problems in place, but see problems as individual problems.
But, golly gee, Seger, what could be more complex than assessing this multifaceted society at its most fundamental level, that of individuals? Isn't that pointing to how complex a society really is? Isn't that dealing with a society at its most complex?

It seems to me that the less complex approach would be to lump individuals together into superficial groupings based on ethnic/cultural characteristics rather than look at each person for his or her unique talents and offerings. And what could be less complex than to blame any assumed inequities on "discrimination" without actually providing any sort of evidence of anyone actually DISCRIMINATING? And what could be less complex than also blaming these presumed inequities on nebulous "social structures," which I assume are inanimate and incapable of the act of actual discrimination? And what could be less complex than never really even theorizing what these "social structures" might be, or on what level they might exist? There is no complexity of thought in just dreaming them into existence without exploring or even hypothesizing about what policies or intergroup interactions they might be. And there is no complexity of thought in just assuming that if they exist, they exist on the overall, shared societal level, rather than solely within the subcultural level of those groups that seem to be discriminated against. For example, perhaps look at how different subcultures tend to value education rather than suggest that somehow society is keeping individuals from educating themselves. The white man's omnipotent social structures seem to have failed to keep Asians down, overall. Could it be because these discriminatory "social structures" are simply an easy myth to avoid any personal responsibility?

And is your complex thought proven by bigoted stereotypes about Conservative Christians?
Conservative Christians often say that these have to be solved through repentance and through becoming more "Christian". This is often their answer to every problem and it's easy to see that this Christian administration is no proof of this approach.
Talk about hypocrisy. Everyone is categorized into simplistic groups that behave in a single-minded, homogeneous fashion to her. Nothing really to support this assertion - it's just her biased assessment of how Christians think and act. Oh, they're religious, so they must be unable to formulate any sort of opinion based on contemplative analysis of fact and reason. If they incorporate religious morality into their analysis, then fuck, they must not have been analyzing in the first place.

This of course only applies to Christians (and maybe Jews). I'm sure she thinks Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Wiccans are more capable of logical assessment and complex evaluation, because, holy shit, they're usually less whiter - or in the case of witches, maybe more womyny.

But it's the Conservatives who are the dumb racists. I'm convinced.

America, Burying Its Head in the Sand a Second Time

Remember when 9/11 came as a big shock, despite all the previous Islamofascist jihadi-whackjob attacks on American targets before it? Remember when everyone, the public, the government, the media, ignored all the warning signs? Remember when Congress passed legislation to build a wall between the US and Mexico and Bush signed it? Remember how much of that security barrier has been built so far? Remember when those of us who pointed out the insanity of allowing millions of illegal aliens to sneak across the border, or to overstay their tourist visas, without any method of tracking them or evaluating their merit or decency or trustworthiness? Remember how we were labeled 'bigots' by the race-baiting left and turn-coat pseudo-conservative Republicans like Bush, McCain and Graham, for expecting the federal government to be concerned about national security as well as suggesting that the US actually screen and be selective about who we allow into this country, temporarily or permanently? Remember how they called us 'extremists' for daring to expect immigrants to follow the rules and for wanting them held accountable for breaking the rules? Remember Rio? That was a great album. Remember that big open space where the US and Mexico meet - a space easily crossed not just by Mexicans, but maybe some crazy Muslim extremists pretending to be Mexicans, nutty middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalists that want nothing better than to blow us all the hell up? Remember that sinking feeling in your gut when you watched those subhuman scumbags topple those tall buildings in Manhattan?

Yeah, you remember, when you're not too busy pointing fingers, dreaming up whacko conspiracy theories, or pandering to dipshit radical leftists that can't tell the difference between Mexicans, Hispanic Americans, legal immigrants, and illegal aliens - liberal fuckheads who will only use the vague word 'immigrant' in order to lump all those different categories together so that you look like a racist for your concern about the ILLEGAL segment of their moronically disingenuous blanket grouping. Yeah, you remember watching those planes hit the towers, thinking, "a lot of innocent people were just murdered by evil psychopaths." Yeah, you'll remember, when something bad happens again, and then you'll all run around screaming "Why didn't someone do something to protect us? How could you let it happen again?"

Why and how indeed? Well, your government, your mainstream media, and most of you, are completely ignoring the fact that an untold number of Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists, disguised as Mexican illegals, have crossed our border, settled down in sleeper cells, and are now planning to attack us again. The story is here. Why it isn't everywhere, all the time - why it isn't top priority for every single American - is beyond me.

Hi, everybody. Wake the fucking hell up.