Archive for June, 2009
This is a great article. He tells it like it is and I agree with him wholeheartedly! It’s amazing to me that Obama can have so many BAD ideas but people are so ga-ga in love with him, they’ll just agree with whatever he wants!
When did the lowbrows take over the culture?
By James Lewis
I’ve been trying to grasp for a truth that is so obvious that all of us know it. But it’s not a polite truth, so we don’t talk about it. Yet I think it’s important to say it out loud, because it is a truth that haunts our national discourse.
As a nation we are under the thumb of idiots. Not just indoctrinated, or wrong-thinking, or power-hungry, or manipulative, or even malevolent people. No, I mean real lowbrows, people who constantly fall for really stupid ideas. Neanderthals. (Look at the Governor of California just running the state budget into the ground. See what I mean? That’s not just incompetence. It takes special stupidity, almost a deliberate, willful absence of real thinking.)
The Federal EPA is about to officially declare carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. That’s not just false and unscientific; it’s not just an excuse for taxing everything in sight, including breathing. It’s not merely wrong. It’s idiotic. It marks a low point in our national conversation. Scientists or engineers with a grain of sense shouldn’t be taking the EPA seriously for a second. Forget the “climate experts,” with their grossly inadequate computer models. Normally intelligent people should boggle at the EPA. They are bizarre. Only the truly ignorant could fall for this level of ignorance. Or those who just can’t think.
Or look at Obama’s unbelievable spending spree. No sane and sensible taxpayer could possibly believe that spending trillions and trillions of dollars on blue-sky fantasies makes any sense at all; the only reason Americans aren’t in open rebellion yet is that half of them can’t believe it’s happening, and the other half are idiots. We haven’t seen the effect (yet) on our pocketbooks. There’s food in the stores still, and housing has gotten cheaper. But let Obama’s budget affect our wallets directly and just watch the voters explode with rage.
The Democrats in Congress are trying desperately to put the brakes on Obama’s egomaniacal ambitions because they can see themselves going over the edge in 2010. In a self-respecting, intelligent culture, the Obama budget would be dead on arrival. It’s an insult to our national intelligence. (His foreign policy is more of the same.)
Or look at the global warming farce, still hotly pursued by the political classes in Europe and this country, although the Australians seem to be coming to their senses. China now has more millionaires than the UK, because they use all their resources, like coal, to fire their industrial plants. They will never sacrifice a single luxury car to the cap and trade fraud. Neither will India. China and India have been under the thumb of egomaniacal socialists (in the case of India) and communists (in the case of China). They’ve been there, done that, seen the suffering.
No wonder those Chinese college students fell all over themselves with laughter when Timothy Geithner assured them that Obama would never spend the United States into debt. What an idiot! They laughed because Geithner’s stupidity or mendacity was too obvious for words.
That’s how we should all react to the miserable frauds who are now in national office. You have to dull your senses with drugs or endless propaganda to fall for it. I’ve sometimes wondered how many people must have killed off their critical thinking with alcohol and drugs. I know a walking few drug casualties myself, people who just burned out their brains. I’m sure they voted for Obama.
Or maybe there’s such a thing as learned stupidity. How else can so many people be so idiotic? Our national IQ has dropped to about 75: Several standard deviations below normal.
Well, we have now voted in a President for the lowbrows. Yes, Obama himself is smart enough; even smart enough to say a few years ago that he didn’t feel ready for the presidency. Well, now we can see why he said that. But legions of idiots voted for a man who was plainly unqualified, even by his own estimation, and surrounded by a bunch of malignant sociopaths like Wright and Ayers and all the rest. How could he possibly win? Well, Obama cynically appealed to the idiots — the young, the stupid, the naive, the silly, the rock idol worshippers, and probably the drug-addled masses, all the lowbrows in the land.
That includes the idiot savants of academia. Academics have a very narrow band of intelligence, something that satirists since Aristophanes have noticed and poked fun at. The first philosopher in Western history was Thales of Elea; Thales featured in Greek folklore as a man who walked around at night gazing at the stars only to fall into a ditch. That’s probably a folksy giggle at the absent-minded professor who is constantly bumping into walls. But there’s a big element of truth in it. Academics can be incredibly ignorant and dumb outside of their small areas of expertise. Professors and media scribblers generally lack human smarts. They are sure suckers for all the con artists of the day.
Obama is a smooth-talking hustler who has specialized in charming academic liberals, like a smart graduate student who needs to impress his teachers with every word. They just dote on him, like a proud parent smiling on a favorite child. He’s their dream, a black man who sounds so smart.
In his press conferences he hypnotizes all the ink-stained wretches of the media. It’s a sight to behold. The man swats a fly and the suck-ups of the media go ga-ga with applause, and go back and write articles about it. That’s not just a reflection on their (lack of) character and judgment. It’s not just their childish immaturity. It’s a reflection on their brains, or rather, on all that empty space between their ears. Our media stars are just not very bright. They’re idiots. That single fact explains a lot. (And yes, they are also corrupt, easily seduced, haunted by deadlines, decadent in their values, and very prone to mob thinking. But if they had any brains it might be harder to manipulate them like this. The White House just pulls their strings and they dance.)
Obama’s 22 White House czars. That’s really stupid. As well as a violation of the Constitution. But it’s a Chinese laugh line. It’s so obviously wrong and power-mad that it’s not worth debating.
Legalizing drugs. That’s really stupid.
Obama’s power-grab over the medical sector of the economy? It’s profoundly stupid. We can insure all the uninsured people in the country for a tiny fraction of all that money. We just need to fix the tire on our national car, and this guy tries to sell us a brand-new O-mobile, it can practically fly off the lot, all on credit, long-term payments, no money down. It’s gonna be free! So what if you have to mortgage your wife and children? Even if we already have two national lemons in our garage, Medicare and Medicaid, which nobody likes. Now Obee is trying to sell us on a really, really expensive dream mobile that will fix our problems forever, plus it’ll be cheaper than what we have now!
Can you believe it?
That sales pitch only works for idiots.
The rise to power and fame of the real lowbrows explains a lot. It even points to an answer of sorts. Because we’ve all been intimidated by the Cult of Nice not to contradict anybody who comes out with a really stupid, destructive idea. We can no longer call a really stupid idea what it is. I know that I censor myself all the time. We have been taught to keep our mouths shut when a word in time might make a real difference. We have allowed the national conversation to be dumbed down.
Here’s my resolution for July Fourth: From now on I’m going to call idiocy idiotic. Not nastily, but as clearly as I can. It is high time for normal, intelligent common sense to become acceptable again. I’m happy to have a respectful argument with anyone who disagrees with me. But I’m going to start saying the magic words:
That’s really dumb! That’s really ignorant! You haven’t thought about that much, have you? Have you ever considered another side of that batty idea?
I promise to be nice.
Pass the word.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Can’t we just get the truth????
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill?
This was supposed to be the most transparent administration ever. Yet as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the Waxman-Markey bill, the largest tax increase in U.S. history on 100% of Americans, an attempt was made to suppress a study shredding supporters’ arguments.
On Friday, the day of the vote, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said it was releasing “an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency.”
In the release, the institute’s Richard Morrison said “internal EPA e-mail messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.”
Reading the report, available on the CEI Web site, we find this “endangerment analysis” contains such interesting items as: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”
What the report says is that the EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research by its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The research, it says, is “at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field” and ignores the latest scientific findings.
Besides noting the decline in temperatures as CO2 levels have increased, the draft report says the “consensus” on storm frequency and intensity is now “much more neutral.”
Then there’s one of Al Gore’s grim fairy tales — the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and glaciers the size of Tennessee roaming the North Atlantic. “The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such processes,” the report says.
Little evidence? Outdated U.N. research? No reason to rush? This is not what the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were telling us when they were rushing to force a Friday vote on Waxman-Markey. We were given the impression that unless we passed this cap-and-tax fiasco, polar bears would be extinct by the Fourth of July.
We have noted frequently the significance of solar activity on earth’s climate and history. This EPA draft report not only confirms our reporting but the brazen incompetence of those “experts” that have been prophesying planetary apocalypse.
“A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West,” the report says, “suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their report suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures.”
The report was the product of Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). He’s been with the EPA for 38 years but now has been taken off all climate-related work. He is convinced that actual climate observations do not match climate change theories and that only the politics, not the science, has been settled.
Thomas Fuller, environmental policy blogger with the San Francisco Examiner, wrote Thursday in a story developed in conjunction with Anthony Watts’ Web site wattsupwiththat.com: “A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.”
All this is particularly interesting because of the charges by Al Gore, NASA’s James Hansen and others that the Bush administration and energy companies actively suppressed the truth about climate change.
One of the e-mails unearthed by CEI was dated March 12, from Al McGartland, office director at NCEE, forbidding Carlin from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues such as those in his suppressed report.
Carlin replied on March 16, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. Carlin points out the peer-reviewed references in his study and points out that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.”
For saying the climate change emperors had no clothes, Carlin was told March 17: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
In other words, the administration and Congress had their collective minds made up and didn’t want to be confused with the facts. They certainly didn’t want any inconvenient truths coming out of their own Environmental Protection Agency, the one that wants to regulate everything from your lawn mower to bovine emissions and which says the product of your respiration and ours, carbon dioxide, is a dangerous pollutant and not the basis for all life on earth.
The problem the warm-mongers have is they now are in a position of telling the American people, who are you going to believe — us or your own lying eyes? Forget the snow in Malibu, the record cold winters. Forget that temperatures have dropped for a decade.
In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” Apparently not, for as he spoke those very words his administration was suppressing science to advance a very pernicious ideology.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Bravo!! I agree!
How Bristol Palin and Mark Sanford Made Hypocrites of the Left
Posted by Mr. Naron, Jun 25 2009,
A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another, so that pretty much covers all of us in the general sense. There’s a gray area, however, where some of us speak sincerely of what we ought to do and what we all ought to do, yet cannot do it ourselves. Alcoholics Anonymous is full of people who know they shouldn’t drink, who talk about why they shouldn’t drink and despite it all, they continue to drink. At what point do they cease to be hypocrites and simply become poor, fallen creatures in need of sympathy? It seems to me that as soon as someone comes clean, that person is no longer being a hypocrite, and when they speak out against the behavior in which they engaged, they are not being hypocritical.
Why, then, is the Left so able to wield the charge of hypocrisy so effectively when it comes to the sexual misbehavior of those on the Right? With few exceptions, conservatives who get caught tend to come clean and have a seat on the bench. Liberals fight the “smears” until there’s DNA or a dead body and still refuse to fade into the background. If you need an example, consider the fact that Bill Clinton got to Argentina weeks before Mark Sanford and engaged in sexual behavior rarely described as romantic outside a trailer park. Yet, does anyone expect Bill to shut up?
Some will say that liberals cannot be hypocrites because they don’t stand for anything anyway. And in a pure, philosophical sense, that’s probably true. But they do pretend to have principles and morals in order to get support from a public not quite yet ready to abandon morality and principles. Therein lies their hypocrisy. When it came out that Bill Clinton had cheated with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton went on about “the politics of personal destruction” and a “vast right wing conspiracy”. When it came out that Bill had lied about the affair under oath, there were no lasting ill-effects to Clinton’s popularity. The sex part wasn’t supposed to matter. So what did? Weren’t the liberals supposed to be more honest than the greedy fat cat conservatives who tell their underlings to be good little boys and girls while themselves philandering? Weren’t we to believe that if a liberal cheated on his or her spouse that it’s a private matter and nothing to be ashamed of? Weren’t we told that women deserve to be protected by the law against powerful members of the patriarchy? So when the legal system sought to get to the truth about Bill Clinton’s behavior towards Paula Jones, why would this good liberal paragon lie about something about which he should not be ashamed?
See the difference here?
When it came out that Bristol Palin was pregnant out of wedlock, the Left had ALREADY flung themselves headlong into a shameful conspiracy theory about Sarah Palin’s Down’s Syndrome child being Bristol’s. What speech or interview had Sarah Palin given that set her up to be a hypocrite on this issue? Had she gone on tour preaching the evils of single parenthood or pre-marital sex. The best I can recall is that Vice President Dan Quayle gave a speech on family values in which he pointed out that our perception of family had changed to the point where single-parenthood was viewed as a legitimate “life-style” choice”. And he’s still the butt of jokes for it.
Dan Quayle didn’t cheat.
And Sarah Palin didn’t cheat. Nor did she choose to be a single parent. So where is her hypocrisy when it comes to her daughter’s out of wedlock pregnancy? On the other hand, you have the Left who screams about the “politics of personal destruction” and leaving people’s private lives private going after a young woman having a personal crisis. Her mom’s moral values aren’t even relevant as a political topic by any standard or according to anything resembling logic. So how were liberals able to make so much hay of it?
The bottom line is that the Left is the party of no rules but those that provide a means to an end. And even that end may change tomorrow. We conservatives have to stop having this argument with them. We can whine all day long about double standards, but it’s not going to change the fact that the Left is going to hold us to whatever standard that does them the most good while not allowing us to hold them to any standard, even if it happens to be the one to which they currently adhere.
Mark Sanford’s affair is just another reminder of the pitfalls of life and how the Left turns it into political hay, an action they find morally repugnant. Bristol Palin became the subject of hundreds of news articles and TV reports so that the Democrats could destroy Sarah Palin. This, too, is an action the Left finds morally repugnant. Therefore, the Left is hypocritical.
And for the Left, that’s the worst thing you can be.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
They are a bunch of lying scumbags! This is why we can’t get good, accurate information on this topic. They cover up the info that doesn’t fit into their agenda!! And they want us to spend millions of dollars fighting global warming??? It’s a waste of our money on a bunch of bologna!
EPA’s own research expert ‘shut up’ on climate change
Government analyst silenced after he critiques CO2 findings
Posted: June 24, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Environmental Protection Agency officials have silenced one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee issued an internal critique of the EPA’s climate change position.
Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, or NCEE, submitted his research on the agency’s greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA’s approach to combating CO2 emissions. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research would have “a very negative impact on our office.”
His study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, “His boss basically told him, ‘No, I’m not going to send your study further up. It’s going to stay within this bureau.'”
A March 12 e-mail to Carlin warned him not to have “any direct communication with anyone outside NCEE on endangerment.”
Carlin, a researcher who earned his doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in physics from California Institute of Technology, informed officials that two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and defended his inclusion of new research on the topic.
“It is also my view that the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature,” he wrote. “I believe my comments are valid, significant and contain references to significant new research … They are significant because they present information critical to justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed [greenhouse gas] endangerment finding.”
After nearly one week of discussion, NCEE Director Al McGartland informed Carlin on March 17 that he would not include the research in the internal EPA discussion.
“Alan, I decided not to forward your comments,” he wrote. “… The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. … I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” In yet another e-mail sent only minutes following the previous one, McGartland wrote, “With the endangerment findings nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.”
CEI charges that suppression of Carlin’s study denied public access to important agency information, as court rulings have indicated that both “the evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded” must be included in the rulemaking record.
“They could come up with reasons to reject it, as I’m sure they’re going to come up with reasons to reject the scientific objections that are coming in now from outside parties in the general public and from skeptical scientists,” Kazman told WND. “But I’d say the real issue here is that this critique is coming from a career EPA insider, so it can’t be dismissed as the work of someone in the pay of the coal-burning fossil-fuel industry. The fact that someone within the EPA was taking this approach is something that would be naturally embarrassing to the agency.”
CEI also said the incident violated the EPA’s commitment to transparency and scientific honesty.
Prior to taking office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared, “As Administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.”
Likewise, CEI reminds the EPA of President Obama’s April 27 speech to the National Academy of Sciences in which he stated, “[U]nder my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”
In a memo to the EPA, Kazman wrote, “Because of ideology, however, it was this back seat to which Mr. Carlin’s study was relegated; more precisely, it was booted out of the car entirely.”
“The irony of the president and Administrator Jackson talking about EPA’s new transparency and commitment to scientific integrity, that’s really incredible,” Kazman said.
CEI is asking the agency to make Carlin’s study public, extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to his research and publicly declare that there will be no reprisals against Carlin for his research.
Kazman said the issue is “coming to a head” because the EPA’s internal commentary period just closed, and the 1,200-page Waxman-Markey climate bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions is scheduled to come to a vote Friday on the House floor.
He believes Carlin’s study could have implications on how lawmakers feel about the allegedly solid research behind the climate bill – especially if objecting analysts within the agency are being silenced.
“Any right-minded administrator would have said, ‘Fine, put it in and we’ll give our reasons for why we reject his contentions,” Kazman said. “But instead, they shut the guy up.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The narcissistic president strikes again. He just loves having these press conferences and pre-empting programming.He truly does act like he’s the star of his own show!! GAG!!
He also had a pre-arranged (planted) question posed by Huffpo. If Bush had done this, he would have been crucified! More double standards!
Stay Tuned for More of ‘The Obama Show’
Daytime TV’s newest star is good at staying on script.
The Washington Post
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted “All My Children,” “Days of Our Lives” and “The Young and the Restless.” But the soap viewers shouldn’t have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.
After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. “I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post,” he announced.
Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. “I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet,” Obama went on. “Do you have a question?”
Pitney recognized his prompt. “That’s right,” he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”
Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.
The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world — Iran included — that the American press isn’t as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn’t so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, “The Obama Show.” Missed yesterday’s show? Don’t worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting “Good Morning America” from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), “World News Tonight” from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room.
“The Obama Show” was the hottest ticket in town yesterday.
But yesterday’s daytime drama belonged primarily to Pitney, of the Huffington Post Web site. During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner — from the Huffington Post.
*snip*Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Heaven forbid we should let people into universities on their merits and hard work! This idiotic view that we let people in based on ‘diversity’ is so racist and unfair that it makes me sick! But that’s the way it is in the public universities. Apparently these university officials would be appalled if we had too many Asians in our schools. Unbelievable! It is so evident that liberals are the racist ones and conservatives are color-blind. Whoever scores the highest should get in, period!
Vicious Academic Liberals
by Walter E. Williams
Ward Connerly, former University of California Regent, has an article, “Study, Study, Study — A Bad Career Move” in the June 2, 2009 edition of Minding the Campus (www.mindingthecampus.com) that should raise any decent American’s level of disgust for what’s routinely practiced at most of our universities. Mr. Connerly tells of a conversation he had with a high-ranking UC administrator about a proposal that the administrator was developing to increase campus diversity. Connerly asked the administrator why he considered it important to tinker with admissions instead of just letting the chips fall where they may. His response was that that unless the university took steps to “guide” admissions decisions, the University of California campuses would be dominated by Asians. When Connerly asked, “What would be wrong with that?”, the UC administrator told him that Asians are “too dull — they study, study, study.” Then he said to Connerly, “If you ever say I said this, I will have to deny it.” Connerly did not reveal the administrator’s name. It would not have done any good because it’s part of a diversity vision shared by most college administrators.
With the enactment of California’s Proposition 209 in 1996, outlawing racial discrimination in college admissions, Asian enrollment at UC campuses has skyrocketed. UC Berkeley student body is 42 percent Asian students; UC Irvine 55 percent; UC Riverside 43 percent; and UCLA 38 percent. Asian student enrollment on all nine UC campuses is over 40 percent. That’s in a state where the Asian population is about 13 percent. When there are policies that emphasize and reward academic achievement, Asians excel. College officials and others who are proponents of “diversity” and equal representation find that outcome offensive.
To deal with the Asian “menace,” the UC Regents have proposed, starting in 2010, that no longer will the top 12.5 percent of students based on statewide performance be automatically admitted. Students won’t have to take SAT subject matter tests. Grades and test scores will no longer weigh so heavily in admission decisions. This is simply gross racial discrimination against those “dull” Asian students who “study, study, study” in favor of “interesting” black, white and Hispanic students who don’t “study, study, study.”
This is truly evil and would be readily condemned as such if applied to other areas lacking in diversity. With blacks making up about 80 percent of professional basketball players, there is little or no diversity in professional basketball. Even at college-level basketball, it is not at all unusual to watch two teams playing and there not being a single white player on the court, much less a Chinese or Japanese player. I can think of several rule changes that might increase racial diversity in professional and college basketball. How about eliminating slam dunks and disallowing three-point shots? Restrict dribbling? Lower the basket’s height? These and other rule changes would take away the “unfair” advantage that black players appear to have and create greater basketball diversity. But wouldn’t diversity so achieved be despicable? If you answer yes, why would it be any less so when it’s used to fulfill somebody’s vision of college diversity?
Ward Connerly ends his article saying, “There is one truth that is universally applicable in the era of ‘diversity,’ especially in American universities: an absolute unwillingness to accept the verdict of colorblind policies.” Hypocrisy is part and parcel of the liberal academic elite. But the American people, who fund universities either as parents, donors or taxpayers, should not accept this evilness and there’s a good way to stop it — cut off the funding to racially discriminating colleges and universities.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
« Previous Entries