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.

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.

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:

WHO REALLY GIVES A FLYING FUCK?

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.