Was Darth Vader a Liberal and Feminist?

After reading the staggering number of Democrats that thought that the president ought to be able to ignore court rulings that he (or they) felt they didn't agree with and wasn't "best" for the country, I slept with that on my mind. This morning I woke up with Star Wars Episode III on my mind and realized that maybe, Darth Vader really wasn't the embodiment of right wing evil as it has been popular to think but was actually what happens when liberalism runs unchecked. Hear me out.

Understand that in Episode III, indeed the entire prequel series there are two agents. The Emperor we see as a power hungry sith who wishes to consolidate power. He does so by getting the senate to grant him more and more "temporary" powers until he has enough power to essentially banish the senate itself. Why does the senate need abolishment? Because it is too tied to rules, discussion, deliberation and all the stuff that gets in the way of "I know what's best for everyone."

Then we have Anakin. Anakin descent into sithdom comes not because he is necessarily power hungry but because he wants what is best for the people he loves the most, who just happen to be women. Anakin cannot deal with the loss of his mother and faced with the threat of losing his lover/wife, he deems that he must get as much power as possible to save her. Anakin is the ultimate captain save a ho.

Anakin was warned many times about his attachments and that they would be his undoing. Similarly, if one listens to the rhetoric of liberals, they talk endlessly about "ending" things that will never be ended. And to get to this unattainable utopia they gain more and more power and restrict the rights of those who oppose them.

Recall that the rebels were those who were fighting to maintain proper order: Civil liberties and the structures of democracy. It was Anakin who saw that such things conflicted with his ability to create the "perfect system" where he could end suffering, as if that was possible.

So it is with modern liberalism. Women want someone other than themselves to pay for their birth control. Forget the rights of those who object and have a constitutionally protected right to not be forced to do so.

Business doesn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple but will serve them anything else? Forget their rights make em do it or shut 'em down.

Illegal immigrants flooding the country and displacing citizen workers? Forget the citizens, lets pass laws and appropriate money for the illegal entrants. If you object YOU are the problem.

Man accused of rape? Believe the [no even so called] victim, punish the accused. Why have an investigation or trial. These men have no rights a woman or government must recognize. We have to stop rape you know!

Black guy beats on a store owner while stealing, Assaults a police officer and goes for his weapon? Lets ask for a lynching of the police officer, officers in general and try to change the laws so that we can get the results we want, not the results the facts call for. Black lives matter, unless killed by other blacks.

And so it goes. And on it goes. Darth Vader may have been envisioned as a fantasy Bush Jr. with his "you're either with me or against me." But the more we look we see that this sentiment is more in line with modern American liberalism.

Should Obama Ignore the Federal Courts?

This is what happens when the courts do not rule on the basis of the law, but rather on the basis of personal or public opinion.

But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

On the one hand I think that there are a number of recent decisions that the states ought to simply refuse to recognize because they were plainly done in contravention to precedent, misstating of prior law, or plain unwillingness to stand up for certain principles. But I completely understand what would happen if states and presidents up and decided to ignore rulings whenever they felt like it (even if the reasoning is sound).

This is why it is paramount that the courts be run by people of uncanny respect for the Constitution first and foremost. With a keen eye on things like enumerated rights, separation of church and state and the like. Also a clear understanding that US law comes from English Common Law and should be referred to whenever applicable (gay marriage for instance).

​Europe ‘feels like Nazi Germany,’ says Madonna

You know..this is the reason I think artists should generally speaking, simply not speak on certain topics.

Rising intolerance and anti-Semitism have reached the point when “it feels like Nazi Germany,” pop icon Madonna said, adding that France, in particular, no longer encourages diversity and freedom.

Why should France be "diverse" in the first place? How about Madonna go to China and talk about diversity. Or Japan for that matter. I have said it before and I will say it again, France and the rest of Europe are for the French and those respective natives. France and the rest of those countries are not settler, or nation of non-native immigrants. France belongs first and foremost to the French where they should and ought to be free to be and promote French culture above any and all other who may choose to reside there.

That's the general problem with Americans in general. They wander all over the world telling people what their countries should be like. You shoudl have X type of government. And X type of laws and like X,y z types of behavior. We're Americans and we know best.

The French people, the natives that is, should tell Madonna to fuck off.

The 56-year-old singer also pointed that France has totally lost its tradition of welcoming diversity and honoring freedom, saying that "anti-Semitism is at an all-time high" in the country.

Madonna should find out that a large part of these anti-semitic actions are actually the activities of non-native French (though native French have their own behavior to account for).

The pop icon added that France was once a country “that accepted people of color, and was a place artists escaped to, whether it was Josephine Baker or Charlie Parker."

While I'm sure "color" and the associated linked traits are an issue to many French, I think the fact that those non-French that the French have a problem with are the ones who insist on pushing their religion and culture upon the French in their own homeland. I don't recall Josephine Baker running around France in a burka. Did Charlie Parker run around France talking about how it would submit to Sharia?

Personally I wouldn't be so welcoming to folks like that in my home either. I wonder if Madonna allows such persons on her personal property. For their differences with French in their politics (decolonialism and racism) folks like James Baldwin actually fit in to a large extent with the dominant home culture and most of the French, even those what disliked black people strongly, would admit that they posed no cultural threat to the French republic. The current issues? Not even remotely the same.

I am against colonialism and the threats against native populations by outsiders whether they be in Africa, Asia and, yes, Europe. And I cannot speak ill of those native who object to such threats whether they be in Africa, Asia and yes, Europe.

Trayvon Anniversary

One of the consequences of reading across the ideological spectrum is that one has to deal with material, from both the left and right, that is outright racist. Those on the far right tend to think black people are generally stupid criminals who are just looking for the opportunity to kill and maim white peopple. Those on the left, think that black people have no agency and that everything we do that is negative is the fault of some white person(s) somewhere at any and every time, ever. I have a strong stomach so most times I chuckle and move along. On occasion I have to respond. This is one of those occasions.

This week being the anniversary of the Trayvon Martin killing, the dissident right has had an ongoing tribute to Zimmerman while defaming the name of Martin. No doubt the failure of those on the left to properly discuss that incident (Stand Your Ground was irrelevant) has given these folks ammunition, but I am still bothered by the commentary coming from the right on this matter as it reflects growing trend of cart before horse thinking as has been seen in the issue of campus sexual assault.

Jared Taylor of Ameren.com posted a video a few months ago asking us, black folks in particular whether "facts matter". While it was triggered by the Ferguson matter to which the clear answer from the left was "no, they do not". He brought up Martin as an example of denial of facts. I came about this close to posting a response but didn't. Today however I'm going to address the issue of Martin, yet again for those who simply don't get why Trayvon's demise was so troubling.

The right has spent a lot of time perusing Travon's Facebook and whatever to show him smoking weed, calling himself 'no limit nigga" and whatever else they could find as if any of it was actually relevant to the events on that night. Yet there was a total failure to understand why Trayvon was the victim. Lets go over the sequence of events:

Trayon left his father's house to get some sugary treats at a local store. He is seen on video tape completing his purchase without incident because unlike the late Mike Brown, he wasn't out trying to rob anyone.

It was a misty rain outside and Trayvon was wearing a hoodie. He put the hood up while walking to protect his head from the water. Some on the right have taken this as evidence that he was a criminal because wearing a hood in the rain while outside is evidence of intent to do wrong. George Zimmerman, armed George Zimmerman happened to see Trayvon walking back to his father's apartment and decided that Trayvon looked suspicious. I emphasize armed because I am of the belief that a person who is armed has a larger responsibility to not initiate or escalate conflicts.

What was Trayvon doing to be seen as suspicious. Allegedly it was because he had his hood up and was looking at the homes he was passing along the way to the place he was residing. To even allow oneself to think this is acceptable shows a mind that is possessed. Why? Because who walks down a street and doesn't look at one's surroundings? Matter of fact I would find it odd if a person was walking down a street and not looking around. Situational awareness anyone?

The trial showed that Trayvon was on his cell phone talking to his friend Rachel. We know that while on that phone call Trayvon indicated that Zimmerman was following him and that Zimmerman came across as creepy. That Trayvon called Zimmerman a cracker is irrelevant. The fact that Trayvon thought of Zimmerman as "creepy" IS highly relevant. We can induce that it is likely that Trayvon's head swiveling was in likely him looking to see what the creepy guy in the car is doing rather than actually looking at the homes. But that is supposition. We do not know this because Trayvon was unable to be questioned and no one else has evidence to offer to back up this idea.

What we do know, and what is a fact is that armed Zimmerman was following Trayvon. Trayvon noticed this "creepy" person following him. We know that Trayvon had not, was not in the process of, or intending to commit a crime. He was lawfully going about his business. These are facts. whatever it was that Zimmerman thought was suspicious about Trayvon existed entirely in his head. Whether the audio recording of Zimmerman's phone call said "coons", "goons" or "guys" doesn't really matter. That he used a term that indicated that he assumed criminal activity where there was none does matter. There was no criminal activity and Zimmerman had no rational basis for later confronting Trayvon.

I have said to many people that if one EVER thinks one is being followed that one should NOT go to one's home. Why would you lead a potential killer to your place of residence? The police say that Trayvon was hiding behind a sign (and/ore bushes) when he finally confronted Zimmerman. In terms of self-defense Trayvon's hiding makes perfect sense.

Meanwhile, armed Zimmerman calls the authorities to report suspicious activity. Mind you, as we stated before Trayvon hadn't done anything suspicious. He was lawfully walking to the place that he resided, while on the phone with his friend and observing his surroundings.

The authoritites, being professionals, told Zimmerman to not follow the "suspicious" person. There are two major reasons for the professionals to say this to Zimmerman:

1) Zimmerman may be harmed by the criminal and they do not want to place a civilian in harm's way.

2) The alleged criminal may in fact be an innocent civilian who is alarmed by armed Zimmerman who is not an offical and uniformed law enforcement officer and a conflict may arise that may cause harm (or death) to that civilians and/or Zimmerman.

Zimmerman decided to disregard the directions and handle things himself. This is what we call "negligence". That Zimmerman, armed, decided to take the law into his own hands, on a person who had not committed a crime, was not in the process of committing a crime meant that HE was escalating the situation.

Looking at it from Trayvon's perspective, as we should, he sees a person following him in a car. He tries to shake the person by hiding and that person leaves their car to follow him on foot. To Trayvon this is potentially life or death situation which has escalated from a person in a car to a person on foot. . He doesn't know Zimmerman. What reason does Trayvon have to believe that the stranger who is following him means him no harm? None!

Then we have the conflict. We only have Zimmerman's story to take but there is a confrontation. On one hand we have a report that Trayvon says "Why are you following me!?" and on the other Zimmerman says that Trayvon simply jumps out the bushes and says "you're going to die tonight" and starts to beat on him.

. Since we have no video or eyewitness at this point, I have to make assumptions. I think Trayvon probably said BOTH things. I think that Zimmerman flashed his gun while demanding of Trayvon to explain "what he was doing here". I cannot prove it but given his behavior after the trial, we can surely believe that Zimmerman is the type to have brandished his weapon. I think once Trayvon caught sight of the weapon, he decided that he would take on Zimmerman physically and it was during that fight that Zimmerman was able to shoot Trayvon (lesson, always control the hands of your opponent and ALWAYS end the fight quickly, an eye jab and groin kick would have ended this fight in favor of Trayvon).

So we come to the jury decision. Due to the total fuck up by the prosecution, the jury was lead to focus on the end fight that claimed Trayvon's life. Indeed without argument Zimmerman shot Trayvon in self-defense. But that self-defense is like the self defense a gang member who assaults another gang member during a turf dispute could claim. Yeah, you defended yourself, but YOU initiated the conflict. And here, the facts show that Zimmerman initiated the conflict.

It was Zimmerman that stalked Trayvon. Zimmerman made Trayvon fear for his safety and life by following him for no good reason. It was Zimmerman who disregarded the professional safety personel's advice to not exit his vehicle. That was negligence. It was the armed Zimmerman who decided to up the ante and stalk Trayvon on foot and confront him (while possibly showing his weapon which would be menacing).

The problem I have with those acting like the actual criminal in this case was Trayvon was their total disregard for the idea that one can be stalked by an armed man. That an armed civilian, emphasis on civilian, has the right to demand to ask you why you are on a public street or public thoroughfare and if you resist that and get shot, YOU are the criminal.

Of course I've read enough on these websites to know that many of them are of the opinion that black people, males in particular ought be subject to interrogation by any white person who find their presence disturbing. Yet these individuals do not realize that such an idea poses a threat to general law and order (supposedly a conservative platform) whereby citizens can stalk and harass and threaten other citizens going about their lawful behavior.

As a postscript I find it very interesting that the same people who scoured the net for Trayvon's childish web postings often ignored the frequent interactions with police that Zimmerman has had, which often involved his gun. If Trayvon's antics at his school and on Facebook and Twitter are to be evidence of his "racist" and "criminal intent" towards Zimmerman, the it would stand to reason that Zimmerman's activities with his gun are also evidence (although late) of the likelihood that he did in fact threaten to use his weapon against Trayvon (menacing) and it was THAT escalation that lead to the fight and Trayvon's death. Which would be legally felony murder (a homicide that occurs during the commission of or result of another crime).

The Oscars and That Selma Movie

Something bothered me about the “Glory” Oscar last night. I stumbled upon the performance and award when I turned for news. There was the replica of the bridge and folks sangin' Glory! With John Legend doing his gospel thing. It was a spectacle and I mean that in the best sense of the word.

So I saw that Legend and Common won an Oscar for best song. Well OK. Look, Gospelly stuff is generally not my thing. The song is decent but honestly I've heard better. I suppose in the subjective world that is movie award shows one can say it was best. But knowing that for example Mo' Betta Blues had IMO far better music, I would say standards have come down some. But even then, I don't even think that is the case. See I think this was a clear example of award via white guilt.

Prior to this I was under the impression that the movie Selma had been totally ignored by the Academy. That was my fault. The actual problem some people had was that the director and main character wasn't nominated for an award. The basis of this anger was that since both of them were black and made a film about a person who black people love to death, it should have been nominated. By not nominating it for best director or actor was a snub and insult to all black people.

Really.

Look, I'm old enough to remember when Denzel Washington did Malcolm X and didn't win shit for it. He was nominated but didn't win. And as far as I'm concerned the lengths to which Washington went to portray Malcolm through his various stages was far more of a stretch than playing King in one phase of his. And certainly, IMO, the effort gone into 23 years a slave also trumps Selma. But that's my particular bias.

But it seemed to me that the whole “controversy” was a non controversy made to attract attention and I think that it was a bad reflection on all involved. For example, after all the charges of racism made about the non-nomination, imagine if Glory had not won. Would it have been accepted as a matter of merit or would it have been yet another claim of racism? And since Glory won, can we honestly say it was given because of merit or because the Academy didn't want to deal with charges of racism....again?

And when the audience gave Legend and Common that standing O. What were they to do? Imagine a room full of mostly non-black people staying seated and applauding politely after the show. What then? “White Crowd Barely Responds to Oscar Winning Song. Racism!” There was an ony one way to win situation. You don't applaud the black folk on stage you are a racist. Were there folks who truly were moved by the performance? Sure. But can you imagine what would happen if one of those folks did a Kanye and were like, yeah, I don't know...I think so and so (white) was better.

Lastly, let me comment on the little speech Legend made, in particular his commentary about how many black people are in prison relative to slavery.

Firstly if you want to make such a comparison you could say that there are also more white people in Prison than were ever under indentured servitude (slavery with an out clause). The point being that historically, given, you know, the population growth, you would expect more [pick a category] people now than then.

Secondly, I don't get why folks think that pointing out the prison statistics is something to applaud when the fact of the matter is that black folks who are in prison are there largely because they have voluntarily committed crimes that get you locked up. And also contrary to popular opinion, it is not because of drug laws like the crack cocaine laws. Nope. It is because of assaults, robberies and murders that black persons, mostly males commit 7x more than whites on a national level and has high as 22x that of whites in certain locations such as Los Angeles.

Of course had someone pointed that out they would be called 'racist” if white and a “sellout” if they are black. But of course nobody is going to challenge Common or Legend on the reasons for the high incarceration rates. And that's the problem. Nobody wants to challenge black folks when we say dumb and unsupportive shit. And because we go unchallenged we do not get to grow as a group.

Oh and it is significant that Legend didn't point out that since that march there are more black people in the middle class than there was during slavery. More black people with college degrees than during slavery. More black representatives and, oh yeah, that black president.

But see none of that would get keep the guilt trip going so all of that goes unsaid.

But back to the movie and non-nomination. I understand that Interstellar was the studios expected nominee and that fell through and so they went with Selma. Here's the thing to me, though Interstellar had some serious story flaws. I found that far more interesting than a movie about Selma. One reason was that it looked to the future rather than the past which in the case of Selma has been covered in many, many documentaries some of which I have watched (and I've also been there). Secondly the entire concept of space-time and relativity is hard to portray in a movie in a time compressed format without boring people to tears. So to me, that was a better effort.

Does that make the events of Selma less important than they were? No. It means that IMO a movie about it has to do more than trade on guilt and emotion to get an award. That is some tiring thing. Seriously, another black director made another movie about black folks being mistreated by white folks and wants an award for it.

Now had ol' girl came up with and did Interstellar THAT would have been different. Or, I don't know a movie about Dubois, Fredrick Douglas, Garvey, Turner. You know folks other than King. Then perhaps we can trade on originality rather than guilt. It was Carter G Woodson, father of Black History Month that said that the Negro needed to delve into his own history and his own mythos' and createnew works. Here's a quick result of a search for movies on Dr. King. Here is a search for movies on Fredrick Douglass.

Can we do something else now please?

3 Out Of 4 Isn't Bad

Australia has decided to "get tough" on terrorists.

SYDNEY, Australia — Prime Minister Tony Abbott of Australia said Monday that the government would seek to revoke the citizenship or curb the rights of Australians involved in terrorism and tighten immigration, visa and hate speech laws in a crackdown on terrorism.

1) Revoke Citizenship: Absolutely. One should ask why citizenship was given in the first place. How did they fool the authorities? Who were the authorities who were fooled?

2)Curb the Rights of Australians Involved in Terrorism: I believe the law for that is called treason. Nice to know that Australia has figured that out.

3)Tighten Immigration: Exactly what any nation should do if the people who declare war on you say they'll use immigration as a means of infiltration.

4)Tighten Hate Speech Laws: Ummmm....no. restricting speech beyond that which is an immediate danger to the public (fire in a theatre) is wrong, wrong and wrong. And European countries with special speech codes to protect Jews and the like should be held accountable for that and have those laws revoked. Yes, we have to tolerate the site of Nazis, Klansmen and the like in order to maintain this basic and essential freedom.

James Bovard Leaves Something Out In His Piece About Holder

James Bovard discusses USAJ Holder's non-actions in regards to the DC police back in the early 90s.

The number of killings by D.C. police quadrupled between 1989 and 1995, when 16 civilians died owing to police gunfire. D.C. police shot and killed people at a higher rate than any other major city police department, as a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post investigation revealed in late 1998. But Holder had no problem with D.C.’s quick-trigger force: “I can’t honestly say I saw anything that was excessive.” He never noticed that the D.C. police department failed to count almost half the people killed by its officers between 1994 and 1997.

Of course there is a very obvious thing missing here. Well a few things: First is that DC has a huge black population and we already know that where there are huge black populations there is a higher level of violent crime, meaning more interactions with police who are dealing with a hostile population. That's not to excuse police brutality but it is relevant. Secondly we know that the DC police at that time had actually allowed gang members (and some ex-gang members) to actual join the police force. Those persons were then able to use the "color of law" in order to do their own dirty business.

The tale of how a drug dealer served 18 months as a D.C. police cadet is part of a larger story of breakneck hiring and training by the department in 1989 and 1990 with still unraveling consequences.

The most obvious of those consequences is the worst: An investigation by The Washington Post found that graduates in those two years alone, who make up about one-third of the force, account for:

More than half of the 201 D.C. police officers arrested since 1989 on charges ranging from shoplifting and forgery to rape and murder. Some have been arrested more than once and in more than one year.

More than half of those involved in departmental disciplinary proceedings for breaches such as neglecting duty, making false statements and failing to obey orders, which have doubled since 1989.

Half of those on a list of 185 D.C. officers so tainted by their own criminal problems that prosecutors won't put them on a witness stand as officers of the law...

Yet the rates at which officers are arrested in other large cities, including New York, pale in comparison with the D.C. figures. In 1993, there were 79 arrests of officers on the 4,220-member D.C. force, a rate of nearly 19 per 1,000 officers. There were 90 arrests that year among the 30,000 New York City officers, a rate of 3 per 1,000 officers.

Detroit police, with 4,000 officers, handled 69 arrests through the department's internal affairs section in 1993, but some of those arrested were not police officers. The same year, there were 20 arrests of officers in St. Louis, which has a 1,500-member force.

Now you would think that James Bovard would inform the reader of some of this highly relevant information. Why not disclose the background of the officers in question? Why not discuss the hiring bing and the reasons it was done?

I suggest it is for the same reason 1400 girls got the official coverup behavior in Rotherdam. Don't wanna seem racist and talk badly about the black folks who can do no wrong. Better to just say "police" when we know full well if the issue was white police they would have been identified.

Race

Vox Uses Anti-Affirmative Action Arguments to Defend Women

One sign that a group that has previously been discriminated against has arrived and is feeling themselves is when they don't even realize they are using the same arguments that they have previously considered [insert ism of choice]. Here's Vox with one Lets start with the title:

Discrimination against women is a real problem in college admissions

Now anyone who has been paying attention knows full well that women generally outnumber men in college. Generally speaking when not talking about traffic stops, drug arrests and things like stop and frisk, being over-represented in a setting is taken as a sign of discrimination. There's even an entire concept called "disparate impact" used to determine discrimination exists in the absence of anyone doing anything to discriminate. So lets follow Vox.

Two generations ago, women were in the minority in higher education. Now they're dominating it.

Seems like a case of non-discrimination to me.

Women now make up 59 percent of all college students. In 2011, they earned 62 percent of all associate degrees, 57 percent of all bachelor's degrees, and 60 percent of all master's degrees. They now even earn the majority of doctorates — the last bastion of male domination in higher education.

Bastion commentary aside, I would think that anyone quoting something like this shouldn't be writing an article about discrimination against women in college admissions. But I'm sure there is something coming to make the point.

Women are so dominant, in fact, that some colleges — particularly private colleges — overtly or covertly give men a boost in the admissions process. If you're hoping to be admitted to a prestigious private college that doesn't specialize in engineering, it helps to be male.

Wait. Wait. I've seen this before. You...you..you were standing right there....yeah...and I. I'm supposed to stand right here and...and I say...Everything that has a beginning Neo, has an end. Oh sorry wrong subject matter. No seriously. I have seen this before It goes like this:

Whites are so dominant in fact, that colleges -including private colleges- overtly give Blacks a boost in the admissions process. If you're hoping to be admitted into a prestigious private college, it helps to be Black

Yup, this is a total re-hash of the anti-Affirmative-Action argument where Black is substituted with male. In liberal circles this argument is considered totally racist. Yet here is Vox fronting the very same argument in order to argue for women.

Evidence has mounted in recent years: at some colleges, although not all, men can get in with less impressive credentials. A push for gender balance on campus means accomplished young women end up competing with each other rather than crowding out less accomplished young men.

Yet another take on the Affirmative Action argument:

Evidence has mounted...at colleges, Blacks can get in with less impressive credentials. A push for racial balance on campus means accomplished young white people end up competing with each other rather than crowding out less accomplished blacks

I mean really. Nobody at Vox noticed this?

About 25 percent of admissions directors surveyed by Inside Higher Ed in 2014 said colleges should admit men with lower grades and test scores than other applicants to create a gender balance.

May as well write:

Admissions directors....said colleges should admit blacks with lower grades and test scores than white applicants to create racial balance

This article is chock full of nuggets. I've been looking for a "satire" tag somewhere because I simply cannot believe that this was written and published with a straight face.

In 2006, Jennifer Delahunty Britz, then the dean of admissions and financial aid at Kenyon College, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times headlined "To All the Girls I've Rejected." In the opaque world of college admissions, Britz's op-ed laid out the situation candidly: talented female applicants at Kenyon were a dime a dozen, and highly qualified male applicants were rarer. It was simply harder to get in as a young woman than a young man.

Wowwwwwww. How long has there been complaints about Affirmative Action on this very thing?

"The elephant that looms large in the middle of the room is the importance of gender balance," Britz wrote. "Should it trump the qualifications of talented young female applicants?"

Rewritten:

"The elephant that looms large in the middle of the room is the importance of racial balance," Britz wrote. "Should it trump the qualifications of talented young white applicants?"

And here we have the racial angle:

The Supreme Court allows affirmative action based on race to achieve a critical mass of students of color at a university. The idea is that a college should be diverse enough that students experience the diversity of thoughts and life experiences within different races as well as among them. It's meant to avoid a situation where students of color are so rare that they become tokens who must represent an entire race or ethnicity on their own.

No actually the Supreme Court did not rule the way they have so that tokenism wouldn't happen. The Supreme Court ruled the way they have for a variety of reasons one of which is that the institution may have as it's own interest a diverse student body as well as the idea that some racial groups may have had disproportionate difficulties in education and therefore "tipping the scales" in their favor would overcome such disadvantages. And lets not forget that Affirmative Action was intended to be a remedy to past discrimination of blacks until it was watered down to include anyone not white, heterosexual and male. So no points for using the "but the blacks" argument to prop this piece of shit article.

So colleges aren't restricting women's opportunities to achieve critical mass with an underrepresented group. They're just putting a ceiling on the number of women they admit.

Once again, substitute black or white in this piece and you have another classic anti Affirmative Action argument.

Again, I looked to see if "satire" was anywhere on the page in case this was one huge joke:

Nowhere to be seen.

ISIS plans to invade Europe through Libya – report

From RT.com

The plans Libim reveals revolve around posing as illegal immigrants, to then start an all-out attack on southern Europe by seeding chaos and bloodshed. The terrorists reportedly hope to flood Libya with other fighters from Syria and Iraq, with a whole army at the ready to invade.

"We will conquer Rome, by Allah's permission,” he says in a Sunday video depicting the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christian guest workers, the video that led to Egypt organizing a bombing campaign on militant positions in Libya. He also describes the country as having “immense potential” for the terrorist group, while making references to the spoils of war left after the ouster of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 – tons of weapons, ammunition and oil. [My underlines]

Yeah. The Ghost said that US/NATO involvement in Libya on the side of the "rebels" was a HUGE mistake. A total and utter fail by president Obama, which will now pay back terror dividends, as predicted. Just like Obama has taken the wrong side in the Syrian conflict which is paying terror dividends. And the UN is not off the hook either. It was the UN that gave credibility and cover for NATO with it's "humanitarian" intervention.

IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has openly been claiming Libya for his ‘caliphate’ recently.

While still not completely submerged, the country is fast on its way, as whole cities conquered by the group now adhere to its strict form of Islam, complete with executions.

Navigating Libya’s terrorist circles is also a daunting task: some are allied with the IS, others with Al-Qaeda. All are fiercely anti-government, though some have helped install a new government in Tripoli, after banishing the internationally-recognized one to Tobruk in the east.

Say thank you to NATO for this one.

Why the Mainstream Media Is Dying

If you depend on a single news source for your information on world affairs, you are already at a severe disadvantage. If you avoid news from certain outlets because they are (or you have been told) they are: racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. you are at a severe disadvantage and I'll say severely mis-informed (if not ill-informed). The [non] coverage of events such as those in Ferguson and UVA should be evidence to any thinking person that much mainstream media is doing what some have dubbed "mega-phoning". That is they are invested in certain narratives and do their best to present that narrative, facts be damned. Those who fail to adhere to the narrative(s) are labelled all kinds of things (racist, sexist, etc.) in a crass but effective effort to distract the reader from glaring biases that compromise the reporting.

Indeed this is what Gamergate is really about (and is another example of mega-phoning). The corruption of actual reporting for the sake of keeping in the good graces of certain organizations and bodies. Today we have yet more proof:

The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril,” the letter reads.

He said the pressure put on the paper to maintain advertising from HSBC was a “sinister development,” which blurred the traditional boundary between advertising and editorial sectors, with HSBC described as the "advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend.”

He said the embargo on publishing articles criticizing HSBC had begun in 2013, after the bank suspended its advertising contract with the Telegraph following investigations into its offshore accounts in Jersey.

It took the paper a year to regain the advertising contract, Oborne recalls, but the pressure on the editorial sector became intolerable and he resigned in December. He says he fully intended to “leave quietly,” but after the paper’s “microscopic” coverage of the HSBC tax scandal, he felt a duty to speak out.

In Rotherdam, the authorities looked the other way while girls were being raped because essentially they didn't want to offend a group of people. It should never be the case that telling the truth is either offensive, cause for firing or public humiliation.

Indeed, unless there is a turnabout it is more and more likely that non-mainstream media is where actual fact based investigative journalism will be seen while mainstream press like the NYT becomes a place where people go for entertainment where the material is not taken very seriously.

Unfit For The Court

Either one believes in equality and equal opportunity (not outcome) or one does not. If one does not, then one should not find oneself on the seat of the highest court in the US. Ginsberg, who apparently didn't consider that she ought not have alcohol before sitting in the front row of the State Of The Union address, has said:

People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine.

Now some will argue that for much of its history the Supreme Court has been all male. And that was because folks did not believe in equality (under the law) and equal opportunity (not outcome). But given we have generally moved away from that kind of thinking, it is unacceptable for a supreme court justice (or any judge for that matter) to think that the court should be all female as it would be unacceptable to say it should be all white.

It is statements like that which lead me to question feminism as an ideology. Too many persons who claim such a title say contradictory (in terms of equality) stuff like that. Such as all men are potential rapists, which is technically true in so much as, because there are male rapist any man 'could" be one. Of course that idea falls down under it's logical extension that, since there are male burglars then all men are potential burglars. Same for thefts, murderers, arsonists, etc. In fact anything any human has ever done makes any other human a potential to do that same act. Thus one actually goes by the odds of such behavior. When we do that we see that since 95% of men do not engage in sexual assault, then any man you see on the street is very UNLIKELY to be a rapist.

But since many of these statements are never held to account, because apparently it is sexist to do so, they continue to be perpetuated and eventually people who should know better start saying whatever comes to mind because they are on the "right" side of the narrative.

If They Catch A Man, They Will Kill The Man

From the mouth a a girl that escaped from Boko Haram:

"And they are showing us inside (on) the laptop (videos) everyday, and they are showing us the way they are killing people, killing soldiers," she continued. "And they say if they catch you ladies, they will marry the ladies, and if they catch a man, they will kill the man."

Western Education Is Forbidden....

Western guns, cloth, video cameras, microphones, bullets, cell phones,etc. the product of said education is A-O-K.

Since When Is Telling The Truth Racist or a Fireable Offense

If I were a Republican or tended to vote Republican the following would make Mr. Bush an immediate disqualified candidate. There is a thing called principles. And one principle that I believe a person who wants to run a country should have, is to back a person's free, non-libelous speech. Particularly when that speech is fact based.

But The Huffington Post subsequently reported that when he was a college radio host in 2008, Mr. Czahor compared rappers to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King, he said, “didn’t have his pants sagged to his ankles” and did not speak in “jibberish.”

Fuck what whoever at the Huffington Post thinks but a LOT of black folks hate and despise the sagging pants phenomenon and wish it would die a quick death. This is only controversial to people who are looking for bullshit to be upset about.

Mr. Czahor also said at the time that black parents needed to get their act together — although he used a stronger word than act — “as the majority of newborn black babies belong to single-parent households.”

Firstly, the currently sitting president has said the same thing

The speech was striking for its setting, and in how Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, directly addressed one of the most sensitive topics in the African-American community: whether absent fathers bore responsibility for some of the intractable problems afflicting black Americans. Mr. Obama noted that “more than half of all black children live in single-parent households,” a number that he said had doubled since his own childhood. [my underlines]

Why then is it OK for the sitting president to say it? Why is it OK for any number of academics (black or otherwise) but because this guy says it, it is controversial?

This is all bullshit. And the worst is that this guy is apologizing. Why? Why is everybody apologizing for speaking the truth? Why are people getting fired from their jobs for speaking the truth? Why doesn't Jeb Bush have the spine to stand up to these bullies and tell them to fuck off?

There is a serious problem with democracy when you cannot tell the truth or repeat a fact without risk of your livelihood. This is nonsense. Shame on Jeb Bush and anyone else involved in bowing to these bullies in the media.

So You Voted For A Liar. What Else Is New?

So Obama lied when he said he opposed same sex marriages:

Barack Obama misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons, his former political strategist David Axelrod writes in a new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

Why did he do so?

xelrod writes that he knew Obama was in favor of same-sex marriages during the first presidential campaign, even as Obama publicly said he only supported civil unions, not full marriages. Axelrod also admits to counseling Obama to conceal that position for political reasons. “Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’ ” Axelrod writes.

Oh..To get black folks to vote for him.

See, The Ghost new about Obama's penchant for triangulation a long time ago:

Obama advanced a racist argument for attacks on Iran and Pakistan. Making a comparison between the “Islamic world” and the Soviet Union, he argued that the religious outlook of Iranians and Pakistanis made them less prone to compromise and reason and more warlike.

This would be the same dude telling the UN that the future cannot belong to those who slander Islam. I warned people that for a so-called progressive, that commentary revealed a LOT. All I got back was how it was great to have a black man in the Senate.

Just remember the lies you overlook to get your [wo]man into office, is the moral ground you cede to your opponents when they do the same.

Who Poses The Real Danger?

The question posed above is important. Recall that 1400 girls were raped in Rotherdam England and the authorities failed to investigate and prosecute because they were afraid to be called racist. Now it turns out that even more rape rings have been discovered:

Following a ‘milestone’ operation by Northumbria Police, 20 suspects appeared in court to face charges including rape, sexual assault and sex trafficking.

The alleged offences involved 12 victims, including one girl who was aged just 13, with officers vowing to continue their investigation into the abuse of vulnerable children...

In a separate case, 25 men from Halifax, West Yorkshire, were charged with a number of historic and child-related sex offences. Almost all of the men in both cases are from Asian backgrounds, prompting police leading one of the cases to warn that far-Right groups may use the issue to stir up racial tension. Northumbria Police launched Operation Sanctuary when two women walked into a police station 13 months ago and made a number of allegations.

The kicker:

Almost all of the men in both cases are from Asian backgrounds, prompting police leading one of the cases to warn that far-Right groups may use the issue to stir up racial tension.

Lets see. The rapists were not "far right". The people who didn't investigate or prosecute Rotherdam were not "far right" but the police are warning the public about "far right" groups. Seems that the police ought to be warning the public about the dangers of the other than far right groups to their children.

Silly me. I'm thinking logically again.

Never Mind The People Who Allowed The Rapes To Go Unpunished! Farage!

Fresh after the new report on the non-response of the Rotherdam service personnel to the reports of 1400 rapes of girls, The Guardian reports on people apparently upset that Nigel Farage was to show up for a ribbon cutting.

Nigel Farage has been forced to abandon a public appearance in Rotherham amid protests and accusations of “rubber-necking” at victims of child sex abuse.

The Ukip leader was due to cut the ribbon on the campaign office of the parliamentary candidate Jane Collins, but his team said he was not coming out of the building on police advice.

Never mind that the people of Rotherdam essentially sat by for decades while girls were being raped. The problem is Farage. Suddenly everyone is concerned about the victims!

“Hilarious Nigel Farage is trapped inside the Rotherham Ukip shop by people objecting to him coming to rubber neck at victims!” she tweeted.

Farage denied he was exploiting what had happened to stir up racial divisions. “We’re the one party that’s warned consistently against division within society and multiculturalism and we’ve warned against it for years,” he said.

Yeah. Never mind that the very fact that persons didn't follow up on 1400 rape reports because they didn't want to look racist. Never mind that. Farage! UKIP!

“They are more interested in keeping power than serving the people, which is what led to the cover-up.”

Spot on. The gall of these protestors. Shame on them.

Outperformed By "English Learners"

My last post on SF School "resegregation" included the following: For the sake of comparison, Thurgood Marshal HS:

I didn't notice it at the time, partially because I wasn't looking for it, but the English Learners scores are of interest relative to the "Black or African-American" scores:

English learners had a range of 587-629 with an average of 611.
Black students had a range of 468 - 517 with an average of 495.
You know what the question is don't you?

Why are "Black or African-American" students, for whom English is supposed to be their primary (or sole) language doing WORSE academically than those deemed "English learners"? Wouldn't it be the case that aside from Math problems (non-word problems) English learners would be at a significant disadvantage academically since they have to deal with the mental gymnastics of language translation and then problem solving?

Shouldn't "native speakers" outperform those with such a heavy handicap?

Only The Black Schools?

The SF Public Press has an article entitled "As Parents Get More Choice, S.F. Schools Resegregate" In which we find the following:

Why does it matter whether schools are diverse? One reason is academic performance. Recent studies from Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley, show that many students do much better on tests when placed in integrated classrooms, and that all kids are much less likely to grow up with racial stereotypes and prejudices. Far from being opposed to each other, excellence and diversity go hand in hand. [my underlines]

Many students do much better on tests when placed in integrated classrooms. This is almost verbatim from the Brown V. Board decision. But then look at what was said after:

In 2009, San Francisco Unified asked Linda Darling-Hammond at Stanford University to study the academic effects of racial isolation. She found that black and Latino students did better at diverse schools than they did at ones where their race was in the majority.

So it's not "students" but certain students. Since:

Not all racially isolated schools underperform. KIPP Bayview Academy, a charter middle school, outperforms the other predominantly black schools, making it one of a handful of outliers. In addition, almost all of those dominated by Asian students test in the upper third — the inverse of the picture at black- and Latino-dominated schools. [My underlines]

Oh so the "certain students" who apparently "need" to be in integrated schools are only Black and Hispanic (who can be of any race) students. The data is pretty clear that neither Asians or Whites "need" to be in integrated environments to do well.

Therefore it's pretty clear that the subtext of this piece is that Black and Hispanic students, therefore Black and Hispanic people need the presence of Whites (and/or Asians) to do well in school/work. Doesn't that strongly imply that the authors believe that Black people are inferior to the rest?

Seriously. If only one group does horribly in a test when isolated from other groups one would come to the conclusion that something is wrong with the group since ONLY that group does horribly.

Mind you the article discusses living patterns and income. But we also know that income and intelligence (doing well in school) are linked (higher paying jobs usually require more schooling)

But a San Francisco Public Press analysis of school district statistics found that achievement correlates with income, not race. On average, Asians at racially isolated schools are more affluent than blacks and Latinos. Class seems to matter for all groups. Poor Asians struggle almost as much on standardized tests as do other impoverished students.

Cart meet horse. Income correlates to achievement because high paying jobs require relatively high academic achievement. Poverty is highly correlated to low academic achievement (and intelligence). The data on that is clear. Hence the "discovery" that poor Asians struggle academically would make sense as it is highly likely that those poor Asians are not as academically gifted as their richer peers. Also a part of the problem with the SF study (linked in the article) is that it uses school lunch qualification as an indicator of poverty. The problem with that is that the school lunch programs have been expanding and no longer simply include the poverty stricken. But lets look at this:

Asian students may also fare better at diverse schools. At the city’s most diverse high school, Ruth Asawa San Francisco School of the Arts, the academic performance index (which rates schools on a scale of 200 to 1,000) for Asian students is almost 900. But at the two high schools where the Asian population is highest, Galileo and George Washington, they score closer to 800.

Looking at the API 3 year average for Ruth Asawa we see:

1) Notice the black scores:439 - 577 average 541. Far below the school average of 844. So much for being in close contact with white students. And if being close to white students is supposed to help then what would the scores be like in their absence?

2) Asian scores: 876 - 926 average: 897. Above the average for the entire school as well as above the white average.

Now for Galileo High:

1) Do you notice one HUGE difference? The sample size at Galileo is an order of magnitude larger than that of Ruth Asawa. Seems to me that such a large difference implies an entirely different demographic set between the two schools. That said:

2) Black scores: 488-537. Average: 509. 0ver 200 points below the school average. Apparently being near so many Asians didn't help.

3) Asian scores: 803-827. Average: 818. Above the average for the school and above the average for the white students. Only 79 points behind Ruth Asawa.

In either case, trying to "concern troll" for Asian students when in both systems they outperform Wayyyyyy better than their peers (hard using that term with some of those disparities). I also want to bring the reader's attention to the following schools:

Gordon Lao
Charles Drew
Malcolm X Academy

Notice that the Asians in this highly Asian elementary school average 859. This school is about 90% Asian.

Notice the black scores at this all black school: 646. higher than the previously mentioned HS scores but well below the Asian scores.

Notice the black scores here at this small charter school. 684. Better than the HS scores previously mentioned but still way behind the Asians in their Asian only schools or where they are "integrated". And this is a charter school with presumably highly motivated parents and students AND a very small student body which guarantees a high level of interaction between students and teacher.

For the sake of comparison, Thurgood Marshal HS:

Blacks: 488 517. Average 495. Nearly 200 points off the school average of 645 (showing that Asawa and Galileo are schools of an entirely different class.

Asian: 714-766. Average: 737. Significantly lower than their peers at either highly Asian schools or in the "diverse" Performing Arts school. It could be argued that Asians in 'highly diverse" schools actually "suffer" Academically compared to their performances where they are in the vast majority or where certain other students are a small minority. Still though, as with every other school, Asians perform higher than the school average and about 300 points higher than the black students (at a school named for Thurgood Marshal!!!!)

Again, there is a strong implication in the data presented. Time to be clear eyed about it.

Not Really All That Good

Yesterday I saw (and commented) on this piece in the NY Times Which featured the following:

On the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress, the average reading and math scores of eighth-grade black boys are barely higher than those of fourth-grade white girls, and Latino boys score only marginally better....Only 57 percent of young black men and 62 percent of young Latino men graduate from high school in four years, compared with 79 percent of young white men.

The teenagers in Chicago’s math-tutoring-on-steroids experiment fit this dismal profile. They were as many as seven years behind in reading and 10 in math — 16-year-olds with the skills of third graders. [my underlines]

Looking at the underlined text one sees a devastating set of facts as well as a question: How did those kids stack up to white boys and Asians (male and female)? This is particularly important because we know that Asians tend to outperform whites of either gender, particularly in STEM subjects. So if the black boys are doing that badly compared to whites, who statistically do poorer than Asians, then compared to the TOP of the pile, these boys are VERY far behind.

Now lets look at the "results":

Here’s why you should pay close attention to this experiment. After just a single year in Chicago’s intensive tutoring and mentoring program, known as Match, participants ended up as much as two years ahead of students in a control group who didn’t get this help [my underlines]

Now lets recap. The boys were originally 4 years back (and "as many as seven years in reading and 10 in math") of their grade level. After one year in the program these students were ahead two years compared to students who were not in the program (control group). That would mean the following:

7 years back became 5 years back.
10 years back became 8 years back.
4th grade level became 6 grade level, for a student now in the 9th grade!!!!

This is an improvement? Maybe some, but nothing I would be writing a glowing report about. Essentially they were REAAALy REALLY REALLY far behind in the beginning and now they are just Reaaaally, reaaaly far behind.

What this article actually does is provide ammunition against the argument that the problem with the schools are the teachers. Can we really say that a kid who is 16 reading on early grade school level is the fault of the teacher? Is a 16 year old who is 10 years back on math the fault of the school? I say it is not. Particularly when there are people in third world countries without any of the things that the poorest urban school child takes for granted (ready access to pen and paper, a library with free books on all manner of subjects and reliable 24-7 electricity) who do better than these kids.

It's time to take a non-ideological look at what is going on in Chicago and elsewhere.