Wednesday, December 03, 2008
As an agnostic and a libertarian, I've come to realize that the simple fact is that very few Californians of any political persuasion operate with even the slightest degree of rationality, compassion, tolerance or respect for liberty. There should be equal outrage over the passage of Prop 2 and the failure of Prop 4 to pass. But the fundamental rights of farmers and parents are deemed unimportant and open to fascist oppression by the left. But look at how they sing and whine when the rights of their special interest groups are curtailed by the same democratic election process.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
In a nutshell, rather than making any attempt to address the problem of poverty itself (and what the government should be responsible in that regard, of course, is up to much debate), any system of "objective measurements" was considered racist and discriminatory, and the Feds encouraged riskier business practices to make the system more inclusive. In other words, common sense and thoughtful, objective business practices were to blame, not actual individuals personal responsibility and incomes.
Rather than make the fundamental reforms needed to help the bottom half actually become economically productive and domestically stable enough to afford to buy a home, the government tried to juice the home-ownership rate directly.
This is completely analogous to how affirmative action thinking has warped the education system. Objective measures like GPA and test scores are increasingly considered racist, and the responsibility for achievement has shifted from individual students to the institutions themselves. Rather than address any problems with academic preparation prior to college, whether with the students or the K-12 schools, universities are expected to create a level playing field, shifting the blame to an objective system, vilifying real success, diluting the quality of education for all, and creating unfairness all around.
Something to keep in mind as the Federal government, both Democrats and Republicans alike, contemplate a $700 Billion dollar bailout, at least.
Also, Michelle Malkin notes that:
"Student loans, car loans, and credit card debt have been snuck into the bailout proposal."
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.Right, because all that money they've been paying all along doesn't count as being "part of the deal." Only by paying even freaking MORE can they then be considered "patriotic." Sorry, rich folk, your previous outrageously high tax payments didn't reach the threshold of patriotism. Not even a thank you do you deserve.
How much does Biden, or Obama, make? And with this statement, is he not suggesting that neither he nor Obama have been patriotic yet?
Biden also noted:
We want to take money...Yeah, that just about sums it the fuck up.
...and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.Back? Playing Robin Hood is hardly "back."
I'm all for lowering taxes on the middle class - and in general - though. But if you want to use the word "back," you should say something more like "we Senators are sorry for taxing the crap out of you America, and squandering it on worthlessness. Instead, we're going to lower your taxes, reduce government waste, and give you some of your money back in the form of rebates."
Biden acts like rich people somehow stole from the middle-class, when it's really the government that's been stealing from everybody.
If you were a high school teacher in San Francisco, and told students to write a paper undermining Barack Obama, (or say a radio host on a PRIVATELY owned radio station) you'd be labeled a fascist who abuses his position for the unethical purposes of brainwashing. But, hey, if you're being paid by state funds, and your students are a year older, then, hey, there should be no accountability at all.
Students in an English class at Metropolitan State College in Denver have been told to assemble criticisms of GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin that "undermine" her, and students say they are concerned about the apparent bias.
"This so-called 'assignment' represents indoctrination in its purist form," said Matt Barber, director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, whose sister, Janna, is taking the class from Andrew Hallam, a new instructor at the school.
The instructor also, according to students, is harshly critical of President Bush during his classroom English presentations. He reportedly has allowed students who identify themselves as "liberal" to deride and ridicule those who identify themselves as "conservative" or Republican.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Extending the state's longest budget fight, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Tuesday that he will veto a proposed state budget that "takes our problems and makes them even worse."Story here.
While I was in no way happy with Schwarzenegger's plan to "temporarily" raise taxes, I am pleased to see him take a stand on this boondoggle of a compromise. Kudos to Republican legislatures for at least preventing any substantial tax increases. Somehow, and this is probably pure fantasy on my part, these morons, especially the Democrats, in Sacramento need to learn that taxation, especially outrageously high taxes, are an affront to personal liberty and responsibility, and that high taxes along with reckless spending and waste only further slow the economy. It is disgraceful that our elected officials have been nothing but irresponsible with their spending - throwing away money disgracefully and irresponsibly on ineffective program after ineffective program, special interest handout after special interest handout.
At a news conference, Schwarzenegger initially said that he would kill all the bills on his desk if legislators override his budget veto.
Pressed on the issue, Schwarzenegger seemed to soften his stance. More than 800 bills await his approval or veto this month.
Initially, Arnie found both his balls, then lost one as it rolled back under his dress. Girly man.
Probably the scariest reminder in this article is that while these dipshits in Sacramento cannot balance the budget (hint, dumbfucks: CUT, CUT, CUT - SPEND ONLY WHAT YOU HAVE - THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH BLOOD LEFT IN THE TAXPAYERS YOU FUCKING VAMPIRES), the idiots managed to pass 800 NEW bills that they'd like to see passed into law. It's like watching a retarded child continuously running into a sliding glass door, unable to learn from his own mistakes and pain. 800 fucking times. A year! For fucking decades!!!
Thanks for the highest taxes in nation!!!! And thanks even more for pissing it all away. Hell, pissing away more than is even in the bladder!!!! YAY! I'm thrilled to be living under your iron fist and your vast stupidity. I mean, if you actually spent the money on something USEFUL, like roads, or law enforcement, or fire protection, I might even not complain as much. But, shit, even as you rape our increasingly starved asses, you can't even provide us with the basics. No, no, no.
Oh yeah, quit banning everything under the sun, like foie gras, lightbulbs and trash bags, you ignorant, totalitarian nazi fucks.
PS: As long as I'm ranting, Rage Against The Machine is totally the suckiest band in the universe.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
As it stands, and I've seen this in action at the state university where I work, affirmative action/social justice political litmus tests have been put in place in the hiring practices of faculty and staff.
As Daphne Patai puts it:
"It's hard to say just when universities ceased to believe that education was a worthwhile mission. But that they have done so is beyond question. Among many signs of this reality is the anxiety to redefine the university's task. After all, educators who no longer expect or demand serious intellectual effort from their students are bound to look elsewhere for ways to justify their existence and that of their institutions. Enter the language of "community engagement," "outreach," "social justice," and "equity" (to name just a few of the terms now used as rallying cries on many campuses)."
Read this now!
Thursday, September 04, 2008
I'll tell you what, similar bullshit is going on at the other University of California campuses as well. Especially San Diego, where you are even beginning to see political litmus tests in hiring practices.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama proved himself again to be very good at dodging the issue, piling on the fluff and avoiding talking about specifics of his own views and plans. So much of the speech was about how other people, even his grandmother, think and have behaved, and why - but hardly really touched upon HOW voting for him, as opposed to Clinton or McCain, would in any way bring more positive CHANGE on race relations in America. Well, he did evoke the specter of educational funding at some point. Obama is well-versed in double-speak - all the while decrying divisiveness (which I suppose to him means people not completely agreeing with him), there were plenty of implications of societal or structural blame tossed around, at conservative pundits, at “segregated schools,” etc.
Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. ..... He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.Sure you can, Obama, you liar. Despite painting Wright as some super-metaphor representing heterogeneous Black America, and all its varied views - Wright is nothing of the sort. He is NOT the entirety of the "black community," he is merely one black man with a following - a man and a congregation with ugly, vile, malicious ideas. This is all part of Obama's eloquent subterfuge - he danced around the issues without really saying anything of substance or committing to a stance.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.
And, he implies that somehow disowning this psychopath is equivalent to disowning the entire black community? This is the same piss-poor logic applied so often by minority apologists who claim that holding a minority up to any standard (like, say, OJ Simpson) is somehow the same as condemning the entire race. Any criticism of one, for holding someone accountable for his views, opinions and/or actions, is to be viewed as an attack on the entire race. And, somehow, it's everyone BUT Obama that is racist or "divisive."
Sadly, a lot of people with their eyes closed will be fooled by his smooth, empty rhetoric, and will believe just that.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Now anyone familiar with the activities of affirmative action advocates and the Orwellian left-wing indoctrination techniques common today in higher education will hardly be surprised - outraged, for sure - but not shocked. The Big Brother of the diversity movement has become increasingly totalitarian and outright fascist in its desire to control and punish Caucasians for being white, and to expand power over individual thought and opinion.
What sort of justification do these bigot-nazis give for their behavior and strong-arm tactics? Take a look, for instance, at this wretched document on the website of the AAO of IUPUI, entitled The Myths and Facts about Affirmative Action, to gain some insight in their irrational thinking.
For example, they claim:
MYTH: Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, it gives preferential treatment to people of color and women.
FACT: Racism is power plus discrimination.
Using the "to be" verb does not make it so. Racism is defined as "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." Discrimination, or more specifically racial discrimination, is the practice of applying that attitude by the use of power via policy and/or oppression. Racism is the attitude that, with power, can lead to discrimination. But the attitude can exist regardless of discriminating behavior or application of power.
The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetrating the discrimination. An Urban Institute study shows that less that 100 of 3000 cases could be considered reverse discrimination. Less that six of those cases were deemed by the court to be substantiated.
The last two sentences here completely annihilate the assertion made in the sentences preceding them. Regardless of how accurate or up-to-date the findings of this vaguely referred to study may or may not be - showing that "reverse racism" is not as prevalent as "forward racism" (for lack of a better term) is in no way equivalent to showing that it does not exist at all. The implication that "people of color are not in positions of power" is of course a bogus point, as there are people of color (to use their phrase) in power over others not of the same ethnicity as themselves, even whites. And, the study only seems to address non-institutionalized, direct discrimination, rather than affirmative action as institutionalized discrimination. So, the AAO is using a study that already assumes that affirmative action is not reverse discrimination to prove that there is no reverse discrimination. Convenient.
Affirmative action has been mislabeled "preferential treatment" for certain members of society. ... Affirmative action is an attempt to facilitate a more level playing field.
The level playing field metaphor is an old chestnut amongst affirmative action advocates - but the problem here is that it is just that - metaphor. These people's conceptions of what constitutes a level playing field can only be described as nothing but "preferential treatment" for certain groups. It is not enough to provide equal opportunity, in their eyes, which is all a level playing field really is. Affirmative action supporters wish to rearrange the rules of the game played on the field so that one team is favored, and to do so in a manner in which individual talent, training and hard work are disregarded in favor of team preference and membership. A "level playing field" would not assume all players must play at the same level - only that the rules do not favor one team or another. They don't want a level playing field - they merely want to switch which team is favored.
Affirmative action recognizes the interconnectedness of race, class, gender. Many of the symbolic gates are beyond reach due to economic disparity which in turn is one of the effects of racism. We cannot divorce these interconnected issues from one another.
But one must, if one is truly to be equal and fair. The fact of the matter is that economic disparity is not solely caused by racial discrimination, past or present, and affirmative action only assigns group blame and preferential treatment on this one potential cause out of many for poverty. In such a systematically racist approach, all people of one race are given extra credit for their ethnic or gender status, regardless of whether or not they are of a low income. And, people of another race are assigned blame, and are punished for their status, regardless of whether or not they had any hand personally in ever engaging in any sort of racial discrimination, and, even worse, regardless of their own economic status. Poor whites - who may or may not be in that boat for racial reasons - are not given the special consideration rich blacks are. If economic disparity is truly unfair, it should only be judged on the level of the individual. Assumptions cannot be made as to who benefits and who does not based on race.
How do you divorce all these issues from one another? By treating people as individuals rather than as members of groups. Asserting connectedness based on race only furthers a racist, or group-membership, mentality.
In the UC system, race and ethnicity are not solely considered for admissions.
For the past decade, thanks to a change in California law, race and ethnicity are not considered at all for admissions - although the quota mentality is still prevalent amongst UC administrators who look for back-door alterations in the admissions process in order to achieve ethnic quota goals - using now alternative, "holistic" (i.e., bullshit) criteria to put academic success and individual achievement on the back-burner in favor of squishy "background characteristics."
Other criteria such as socio-economic level, state residency, special abilities, disabilities, familial ties and athletic ability are used in determining admissions. These supplemental criteria benefit everyone, not only people of color.
Such criteria hardly benefits everyone - but of course, equating every group with every individual is the bigotted, racist failing of most supporters of affirmative action. These criteria benefit those who fall into all those specific categories. Just because they're not race-based does not mean they benefit everyone - they merely benefit a few from all ethnic groups. That's a very big difference. They're confusing subsets for the whole.
MYTH: I have a friend/brother/sister/____(fill in the blank) who was qualified for the job/college but didn't get it because the position went to a person of color or a woman.
FACT: Many of us have heard this statement or made it ourselves. It's a logical error to apply what happens to a few individuals to the entire society.
Of course, statements such as these are made to highlight the effects of societal policies upon real-world individuals - to reveal the injustice faced by real people as a result of what the entire society does.
Oddly, though, the AAO does not apply this same logical standard that they present to their own justifications for affirmative action programs. It would be a logical error, by their own claim, to assign the blame for discrimination, when it does occur, to the entire society - in other words, it is illogical to create policies that assign blame to everyone rather than anyone who directly discriminates.
When it comes right down to it, affirmative action supporters cannot see the individual, and have no regard for a person's rights - they are as racist as the Klan, seeing people only as segments of a "group," where all groups members are to be accountable for the actions of the others, and oppressed accordingly.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Whatever the benefits of affirmative action, one undeniable downside is the element of disrespect it introduces onto our campus.
This week’s appointment of Professor of the History of Science and of African and African American Studies Evelynn M. Hammonds as Dean of Harvard College was greeted mostly with disinterest; students tend to ignore the vicissitudes of administrative hiring.
But on one Harvard mailing list to which I subscribe, an impassioned 28-message e-brawl broke out. The subject was the relevance of the most visible attributes of our new dean—her race and gender—to her appointment.
“Who…is Evelyn Hammonds?” the provocative e-mail began, “I’ve never seen her even mentioned in connection with undergraduate affairs, and it seems…crazy that they passed over people like [Harvard College Professor] Jay [M.] Harris to choose her.”
This was followed by a coda intended to provoke: “Wait, hold the phone, she’s black? And a woman? Oh, nevermind then.”
A reply arrived within six minutes. “Right, you know nothing about her, ergo it’s affirmative action. Why don’t you try engaging on substance instead of crass identity politics?”
It is interesting to see how those that advocate affirmative action in hiring and university admissions hypocritically turn around and consider any mention of these often institutionalized and legislated practices "crass" and taboo when discussing specific hires. If one sees affirmative action as a necessity of some sort, then why decry mention of such standards when they may benefit a particular candidate? They want elements such as race, gender and orientation to be considered, yet fail to see how logic dictates that if group status is not only a legitimate but in many cases a required factor in the selection process, then it is hardly unreasonable to conclude that such may well have played a role in the final decision.
Of course, despite institutionalized affirmative action, or even just non-regulated external pressures to make decisions that "promote diversity," one should not assume, without concrete evidence, that in any particular case group status is ever the sole reason for a decision, or even the deciding factor. But what affirmative action and "diversity" advocacy do, since the process is never entirely transparent, is generate suspicion about the validity and fairness of the process. This in turn leads to a disrespect of the system and misgivings about the decision-makers. It is misguided to simply assume Hammonds was hired because she was a black female - but it is no way misguided to question whether or not her race and gender played a role when advocates and often regulations suggest they should.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
[One] speaker said that directors in res life should simply declare what the "learning outcomes" are for first year students. She offered a six-point model: self-awareness, inter-personal skills, diversity, citizenship, social appreciation, sustainability. Lesson plans could be created to realize each of these. Yet another participant suggested that a good learning outcome would be, "Students must acknowledge power and privilege." Still another participant pointed out that res life need not focus all its energy on proving what it accomplishes with freshmen. After all, "We keep them on campus their freshman and sophomore years, so we have a captive audience for two years."Modern University Resident Life administrators are increasingly seeing themselves not as administrators or landlords, but as educators equal to faculty who have the right to turn living areas and student's personal time into classroom-like indoctrination centers:
Said one speaker, "We are educators, and we do not need permission [from faculty] to educate, and we certainly do not need to apologize for it."The NAS assesses it thusly, and I agree wholeheartedly:
The mischief that ACPA invites and encourages is its prescription for a regimented combination of intrusive techniques, single-minded focus on the race-class-gender-sexual preference, and ecological friendliness of students, and a highly ideological stance to what kinds of identities and social attitudes it would like to flourish. The result is an asphyxiating microcosm of the nanny state moved into the campus dormitory.
It is an ironic outcome for many res-life officials who pride themselves on their political progressivism, but who in their workaday lives have become ardent apostles of social control. They condone without a second thought many kinds of social license that would have been anathema to an earlier generation of college officials, but at the same time they deny freedom of conscience and freedom of speech to many in their charge. Res life officials at the Frazer meeting complained about helicopter parents who remain an intrusive presence in the lives of their college-age children. But it appears to be a kind of professional jealousy, since the res lifers themselves are a constant, hovering presence in the lives of the students.The time has come to demand "academic freedom" and individual rights for students at the university level. The purpose of higher education is to educate, not indoctrinate or even attempt to shape the personal and political beliefs of individual students. A tolerant, open environment should be encouraged for each to find and follow their own path. Counselors should be available for those seeking assistance - it should not be assumed that those that may think differently or have different agendas are necessarily in need of help, especially if they don't think the way administrators believe they should.
It simply amazes me how many times liberals in this country scream "fascist" whenever discussing right-wing, conservative or libertarian ideals, but when given a position of even the slightest power, these same liberals engage in the most totalitarian, anti-freedom activities they are able to get away with (and often many they cannot for very long).
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
I didn't quote the entire article in full, but it is really worth a quick read. The scariest thing about this is that these are unelected state bureaucrats who are circumventing state law, common sense and the will of the voters with their bigoted, dumb-shit plan to put pigmentation before talent, intelligence, academic achievement and hard work. Beyond how just plain stupid, unfair and destructive this plan is, what is even more troublesome is that these morons really believe they have a right to put their weirdo political bias above the will of the people whose taxes and student fees pay their for their salaries and ivory tower fantasy-world isolation..
The world gets more competitive every day, so why would California's education elites want to dumb down their public university admissions standards? The answer is to serve the modern liberal piety known as "diversity" while potentially thwarting the will of the voters.
The University of California Board of Admissions is proposing to lower to 2.8 from 3.0 the minimum grade point average for admission to a UC school. That 3.0 GPA standard has been in place for 40 years. Students would also no longer be required to take the SAT exams that test for knowledge of specific subjects, such as history and science.
Instead, the UC Board of Admissions proposal sounds like a declaration of academic surrender. It's one more depressing signal that liberal elites have all but given up on poor black and Hispanic kids. Because they don't think closing the achievement gap is possible, their alternative is to reduce standards for everyone. Diversity so trumps merit in the hierarchy of modern liberal values that they're willing to dumb down the entire university system to guarantee what they consider a proper mix of skin tones on campus.
A decade ago, California voters spoke clearly that they prefer admissions standards rooted in the American tradition of achievement. In the months ahead, the UC Board of Regents will have to decide which principle to endorse, and their choice will tell us a great deal about the future path of American society.