Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.
Sooo… flavored vape cartridges are verboten for youths:
They’re illegal. So why is it so easy to buy the disposable vapes favored by teens?
But if they want to take puberty blockers and sex-change hormones – even on the public’s dime – no problem:
Puberty Suppression Now A Choice For Teens On Medicaid In Oregon
Or shoot heroin, of course:
New York City allows the nation’s 1st supervised consumption sites for illegal drugs
For a review of recent Supreme Court rulings, in particular on affirmative action, a good source is this story from The Free Press:
Weekend Listening: Supreme Court Roundtable
Now, on to my rant…
First, let’s set up the premise: Assume that race-based affirmative action is continued, specifically so that college admissions are based on race such that each admitted class is comprised of race consistent with the population (the actual goal may be different, but let’s assume this one for now). The race fraction can be based on local or national populations depending on the typical source of applications. For instance, if the national population is 13% African-American then each incoming class of a national university should be comprised of 13% African-Americans. Got it?
So, you might ask, what’s so wrong with that? Plenty. But we only need one good reason, so here it is: It will never result in equality between the races – ever. It will only result in increased racism. This is such an obvious outcome that I find it hard to believe it isn’t the actual goal of affirmative action defenders.
Picture an elite university where only the best students – those with the highest test scores, the greatest academic achievement – are offered admission. In such a system all the applicants would be roughly equal; all would be in the same small upper fraction of achievement and capabilities. They would have had to compete against each other for entry, and thus would have similar academic backgrounds, resources (good schools, good support systems), and ability. In such a system no one would need to consider race when evaluating the abilities of these students. Regardless of their race, each admitted applicant would be assumed to be fully capable of excelling in this university setting.
Now picture a system where 13% of the admissions are reserved for African-Americans, consistent with the population of the United States. Also assume – for reasons that we do not need to consider just yet – that African-Americans do not score as well on standardized tests or academic achievement measures typically considered for college admissions as some other racial groups. (Note that this must be true; if not, then affirmative action for college admissions would not be needed.) Can you see the problem yet?
The problem is that African-Americans will not have to be among the highest-achieving students to obtain admission to this elite university; they will only have to be among the highest-achieving African-American students. As a result, such an affirmative action system will simply create multiple tiers of admissions based on the applicant’s race. This creates a multitude of unintended consequences, such as:
The “dumbing down” of our elite education institutions. How can you teach to a group of students with widely varying knowledge and skill sets? You have to teach to the lowest common denominator. This is critical, otherwise the minority admits with lower test scores (as a result of competing only against their own race’s scores, rather than the highest applicant scores) risk failure, which would defeat the purpose of the affirmative action program.
A permanent racial caste system for education. Without an incentive to improve test scores or pre-admission academic achievement, why would race-based applicants improve to the levels of the highest-rated students? After all, they only compete with the highest-scoring students of their own race, not necessarily the highest-scoring students. The result will require an ongoing, permanent, race-based admissions system – in direct contradiction with Sandra Day O’Connor’s prediction in Grutter v.Bollinger et al. that:
“…25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary…”
Ongoing racism. Recognition of the lesser skills required of minority students, in both admissions and achievement, will result in ongoing racism (unintentional or not), and fuel the intentional racism of those who see affirmative action as racism aimed at their own identity.
So what then is the solution? Well, it’s definitely not to lower the bar for applicants of specific races. Our goal must instead be to raise all applicants – of all races – to the the same high bar. Only then will race become irrelevant.
Easier said than done, but race-based admissions just got a lot more complicated, too….
This is why I seldom read NPR; sometimes their coverage tends to leave out critical information disparaging to their position. For example, their take on this mass shooting:
A suspect has been charged with murder in a Philadelphia shooting that killed 5
As of July 8th 2023 the NPR story makes no mention that the suspect is allegedly a cross-dressing BLM supporter, per this New York Post story:
Interesting how the affirmative-action and transgender supporting NPR failed to report on THAT little tidbit of information, isn’t it?
I was listening to the radio the other day and heard a story regarding a self-proclaimed mediator who is working to stop violent crime (in particular, shootings) in Chicago. It was weird, to say the least.
The focus of the story was a man who sounded quite a bit like Huggy Bear from the old 70’s TV series, “Starsky and Hutch“. An example of his work that he chose to share for the radio show was simply bizarre. I’ll repeat it below in my own words, as best I can remember (any tone or snarkiness is mine, not original).
So a violent drug-dealing criminal was recently release from jail. He was mad that the crew who took over his drug territory didn’t send him any money while he was in prison. To express his rage, upon his release he went through the neighborhood shooting up houses (cause that’s what people do when they’re upset …?).
Anyway, the mediator got involved when a local woman called to tell him that her sons were in their bedroom loading guns to go take this guy out (cause that’s what people do when they’re upset…?). The mediator then contacts the recently released criminal to discuss the problem.
He explains to the criminal that shooting up the neighborhood is just going to get him killed. He also talks to the drug dealers who took over his territory, and they claim that they did give money – to the criminal’s brother and girlfriend, who apparently kept it (we don’t hear about their fate – because, you know, the just-released criminal still has a gun…). Finally, he explains the drama to the to kids who were going to hunt the criminal down for shooting up the neighborhood, and all agreed to not shoot each other (for a while, anyway).
The self-proclaimed mediator spoke proudly of his accomplishment, and I don’t want to take away from his success. But the words, “Are you fucking kidding me?!?” come quickly to mind.
The solution isn’t to come through after-the-fact and ask people to stop shooting; the solution is to put career criminals who are willing to shoot up neighborhoods back in prison – forever. Clearly such individuals will not respond to laws, only threats to their own well being – and in the process endanger anyone who comes across their path. While I appreciate the efforts of “Huggy Bear”, it’s a little too late (the neighborhood has already been decimated by the criminal’s activities). The only true solution is to remove such individuals from society forever once they’ve proven their danger to the rest of the law-abiding citizenry.
Sometimes I think that the solution from the movie, “Escape from New York” was actually not too bad. If you recall, they took all the criminals and placed them on the island of Manhattan, which had become a lawless, isolated wasteland. If you were sentenced there and tried to escape, you were shot. Either way, your impact on society is eliminated.
If you won’t live by the laws of civilization, then live without them in isolation or die. It’s that simple.
I am sick and tired of *all* main-stream-media outlets. Left-wing publications refuses to print stories on topics critical of the administration, while right-wing stories stretch the truth to make their stories seem more outrageous – particularly when they are about the current administration. Try centrist publications you say? WHERE?!?
Here’s a perfect example from ol’ reliable (as in reliably poor writing and reliably sensationalized headlines), Fox News:
Biden wanders off set as Nicolle Wallace wraps softball MSNBC interview
Now, the first thing to note is that the headline above is for the article, but the banner headline (on the Fox News main web page, the one you click on to get to the story) says something else:
President bizarrely wanders off set as MSNBC host wraps up interview
So first off, that’s annoying. The “clickable” headline is far more outrageous than the actual article headline. But of course it is; so much better to suck you in, foolish click-bound readers…!
Second, I watched the end of the interview when Biden walked away and it was not “bizarre” at all. It seemed perfectly normal to me – they concluded their discussion, said their goodbys, shook hands and then Biden left. What’s the big deal here? He’s the PRESIDENT; maybe he has better things to do? It’s not like he’s Meghan Markle or Prince Harry. Hell, it could have been nap time for all we know. But there was nothing special about his exit – no matter what Fox implied in their headlines.
So where the hell is my centrist, un-sensational, just-the-facts news source? I mean, I like Bari Weiss and what she’s done at The Free Press, but these are mostly special interest stories. I want NEWS!
Remember the news? When important things happened and reliable, honest people reported on them without (obvious) bias or agenda? Remember Walter Cronkite; Mike Wallace; Harry Reasoner; Tom Brokaw; Peter Jennings; Dan Rather (oops – scratch that last one…)?
WHERE IS MY RELIABLE, UNBIASED NEWS SOURCE!!!
OK, so isn’t this a “…public statement of position…“, or a statement “…in opposition to any candidate for public office…“? And for a 501c3, isn’t this against the law? If so, why isn’t the IRS investigating?
Seattle Pride parade booth encourages kids to throw toy bricks at pictures of Republicans
Oh, right…. this administration selectively enforces the law (as an end-run around the law). A well-learned lesson from George Soros – if you don’t charge someone, they can’t be convicted! Not that the IRS needs lessons in political bias…
How did our government devolve from “by the people” to “by the elite” in only ~200 years? Is this the natural order of the universe, a result of the political analogue of entropy? Are all political systems doomed to eventually decay into a system of despotic, oligarchic rule? And what can be done about it?
I am reminded of a quote from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, the now-cancelled (!?!) 3rd President of the United States:
What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
I’m not advocating that we overthrow our government, nor do I believe that this is necessarily implied by Jefferson’s words. I am, however, suggesting that perhaps we remind our political overseers that they govern by the consent of the governed – all of them, not just the 50.1% needed to keep them in office.
You can’t make this shit up:
Randi Weingarten Gets a New Gig in the Federal Government
Really – the head of the United Federation of Teachers, the organization that has chastised parents for attempting to block the woke agenda of the education system – is now a member of the (Department of ) Homeland Security Academic Partnership Council. Per Mayorkas, the council is:
“…helping us counter the evolving and emerging threats to the homeland…”
Hell, just that sentence alone makes my skin crawl; the use of the word “homeland” here is just too reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s “fatherland” tag.
But the point remains that placing a teacher’s union president with a history of demonizing parent on what is essentially a school security council for a police agency – well, that’s just not going to end well. I can visualize the result as nothing less than arming the teacher’s union with effectively police powers in their drive to silence parents. I don’t understand how people can fail to recognize the potential damage this can cause – to both our children and our right to raise them as we see fit.
It’s unfortunate that the current political climate is “us vs. them”, with people voting for their “team” rather than for what is right. It’s time we put aside our “team” banners and do what is necessary to preserve our way of life and defeat those willing to sacrifice the primary tenets of our Constitution. If it’s not too late…
First, read this article from Fox News:
Sounds pretty serious, yes? Scary, even? Parents who investigate the schools curriculum being attacked by said school? Now, read the denial from the school:
The school categorically denied all allegations in a statement to Fox News Digital, saying, “These allegations are entirely without any legal merit or factual basis whatsoever.”
Here’s the interesting part – an allegedly earlier statement on their “false and misleading” statements policy:
“[A]ny parent who waged a public campaign of false and misleading statements and inflammatory attacks harmful to the employees, the reputation, or the financial stability of Columbus Academy would be in clear violation of the Enrollment Agreement and would be denied re-enrollment for the following school year.”
Besides the obvious use of the Bart Simpson defense (“I didn’t do it, and you can’t prove a thing anyway”), the sense that they are providing justification for allegations that are “…totally without merit…” is telling.
However, the statement itself is also troubling because it provides only subjective criteria for taking the actions noted in their policy. “False and misleading statements”? As determined by who? What if the statements are “…damaging to the reputation and financially stability of Columbus Academy” but are also true? What then?
I just hope more parents have the wherewithal to fight against the education system and its attempts to politically indoctrinate our children in their one-sided brand of politics. We may not be able to undo the damage they cause – at least not until it is too late.