It’s easy to blame technology. After all, why should teachers actual teach what students can use modern technology to do for them instead?

But They Didn’t Teach Us That In Ethnomathematics!

I don’t think it’s fair to blame technology though since the average child in America could recite chapter and verse of the Liberals’ politically correct versions of history and sociology how America was wrong and how the country was based upon the evils of: racism, xenophobia, homophobia, religion, nationalism, and capitalism.

Oh yes! Religion (except for Islam post 9/11), nationalism, and capitalism are taught as “evils” in the modern (re)education camps the Liberals demand we call schools.

That same child could also likely parrot his “teachers’” chimera that teaching math and science and testing on those subjects is racist because it can’t take into account the differences in cultural backgrounds of non-White students. He or she could also offer strikingly similar rationalizations as why all the “teaching” was done to the lowest common denominators in his or her class.

No. Technology may be an enabler in this educational failure but it’s not the cause. The cause is the Liberals’ desire to indoctrinate children into their anti-American ideology.

Race Is Always A Trigger In Politics

This is an odd attitude for a man who lost his job for speaking honestly when that honesty didn’t align with his previous Liberal masters’ anti-American agenda.

It’s an even odder attitude for the man who authored Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America–and What We Can Do About It

In Enough he wrote that too many black Americans are in crisis – caught in a twisted hip-hop culture, dropping out of school, ending up in jail, having babies when they are not ready to be parents, and falling to the bottom in twenty-first-century global economic competition.

Yet, despite his previous run in with political correctness and his previous written work, Williams’ response to Americans’ indignation at how he misconducted the Fox News/Wall Street Journal GOP Primary debate in Myrtle Beach, SC was:

Race is always a trigger in politics, but now a third of the nation are people of color — and their numbers are growing. With those minorities solidly in the Democratic camp and behind the first black president, the scene is set for a bonanza of racial politics.

The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are “entitlement society” — as used by Mitt Romney — and “poor work ethic” and “food stamp president” — as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the “Founding Fathers” and the “Constitution” also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core “old-fashioned American values.”

– Juan Williams

This from a man who spent 233 pages in Enough bluntly and forthrightly – not a dog-whistle to be heard – lambasting and execrating Black Leaders and the entirety of the “Black Community” as being perversions and debasements of Black Culture and as having squandered every civil rights gain since the Civil War?

Then again, perhaps Williams’ attitude isn’t odd at all. Williams is one of those “people of color” and, if he’s also one of the majority of them who is “behind the first black president,” what  better way to undermine the entire opposition to his boy, Obama getting handed a second term as POTUS than to decry anything and everything they say as somehow being “code words” or “dog-whistles” for racist sentiments.

Or maybe Williams is just trying to get his old job at NPR back, who knows?

No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.

~*~

The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly — and it was their progress that we need to look at.

As one would expect, the MSM has made a lot of this request to the Tennessee legislature and, as one would also expect, the Liberals and their minority tenants are frothing at the mouth over it.

But are the requests of these TEA Partiers requests for historical revisionism or merely for a restoration of the curriculum as it was before the oikophobic Liberals corrupted the school systems with their own pernicious form of anti-American revisionism?

I know what the history curriculum was when I was in school and I know it didn’t hide the fact that the Founding fathers were slaveholders. It also didn’t make that, or any other societal flaw, the focus of the classes either.

That’s not, however, how history is taught in most states these days. The Liberals got control over the curriculum years ago and shifted it to focus on the negatives instead of the achievements of Americans. I can’t say for sure though that this is case in Tennessee or, if it is, how egregious the current curriculum is.

Restoration or revision? Frankly, I don’t know. Either seems possible.

If Americans are so racist, wasn’t it the nadir of irresponsibility to install a Black man as POTUS during the current crisis-ridden times facing America and the world?

Think about that objectively for a moment. If Americans are so racist and hold such fear, loathing, and hatred for minorities that they were going to attack Obama no matter what he did or said just because he’s Black, how irresponsible or, alternatively, how much hatred for America the Liberals and their minority tenants must one have to willfully saddle America with him as POTUS in these times?

In a letter to South Carolina’s government, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez called the state law—which would require voters to present one of five forms of photo ID at the polls—a violation of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Overall, he noted, 8.4% of the state’s registered white voters lack photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.

Identifying SC’s problem is quite easy. It’s not the law and it’s not the ID requirements. It’s Obama’s boy, Eric Holder’s racism and the Obama Regime’s desperate attempt to change South Carolina’s active electorate into something they perceive as more favorable to Obama and his Liberals.

South Carolina’s Problem Is Holder

8.4% of SC’s White voters vs. 10% of non-White voters lack any of the forms of ID accepted under the law, one of which is provided free of charge – not exactly a gaping chasm, even by the false standards of disproportional effect. Yet Eric Holder and his cronies think it’s worthy of their attack.

Let’s ignore that in 2005, the DOJ approved a Georgia law with the same provisions and protections as the one  Holder blocked for South Carolina. That was under President Bush and Alberto R. Gonzales was the US Attorney general. A White POTUS and a Latino AG might be thought of to have differing sensibilities and internalization of history than a Black POTUS and a Black AG.

There’s no similar reason, however, to ignore the SCOTUS’ 6-3 decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board which stated that an Indiana Voter ID law (SEA 483) – like Georgia’s, fundamentally the same as South Carolina’s – did not present an undue burden on voters.

The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office.

~*~

Valid neutral justifications for a nondiscriminatory law, such as SEA 483, should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.

So Holder, through his proxy Perez, issued the first denial of a state’s “pre-clearance” Voting Rights request in 17 years under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act because of a 1.6% “disparity of effect” – an effect that the  SCOTUS has already ruled as not being an undue burden on any subset of voters, hence not a violation of equal protection, hence not a violation of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

No – the only point that the Obama Regime has in their assault upon South Carolina is Obama’s handlers’ use of Holder’s and Perez’s racism and grievance-mongering in the hopes of “getting out the vote” among the non-Whites in SC. This is pure political campaigning with nothing but a vaguely peripheral and tangential involvement with civil rights.

Cain-ing

Function: verb

Date: 2011

Definition(s):

1. the act of using the publicizing of unsubstantiated allegations from less than credible complainants to erode perception of an individual’s character so as to weaken their position in matters not directly related to the allegations or complainants.

But the real question and the crux of issue at hand is why the lamestream MSM willfully chose to wage a war of character assassination against Herman Cain in the hopes of sandbagging his bid for the 2012 GOP presidental nomination?

Herman Cain – The MSM’s Greatest Fear

It would be easy to write off the media’s biased attacks upon Herman Cain as “just business.” Scandals, real or manufactured, make great headlines and in the short-term increase ratings which, in turn, increase the money that the media can command from advertisers. Yet, despite Occam’s wisdom, this is too easy of an answer and flawed because it is predicated upon shortsightedness on the MSM’ part. While simple, short-term profit is certainly a factor in their attacks upon Cain, I think it is an enabling factor rather than a causative one.

Similarly, it would be easy to just right off their attacks upon Herman Cain as just another sordid example of their anti-American, Liberal hypocrisy and prejudice. That too would be erroneous though. Their bias is also more of an enabling factor rather than a causative one because, when it comes down to it, they’ll choose their bottom line over what passes for their principles every single time.

No, I think the MSM has chosen to try to destroy Herman Cain’s campaign because they’re afraid of him and what a contest between him and Obama for the US presidency would entail and would mean for them. The last thing that the lamestream media wants is to have a Black on Black race, especially when one of the Black’s, Cain, is Black-of-Black and a self-made success, violating the paradigm they’ve promulgated for decades.

The very last thing that the lamestream media wants to have to deal with is a “purebred” southern Black raised in poverty who graduated from Historically Black Morehouse College running against their well-spoken half-breed who was raised in “White affluence” and granted what can only be described as elitist educational opportunities.

 The lamestream media sold too much of what remained of their credibility portraying any all dissent to an Obama presidency – starting with the 2008 Democratic primaries and continuing unabated until Andrew Breitbart shut that down – to effectively deal with what would happen in a Cain v. Obama contest in 2012.

They certainly don’t want to be faced with the choice of either reporting upon or remaining silent upon the hideously racist and disgusting attacks from Liberals and Blacks – not to mention the dog-whistles from the Obama campaign – which Herman Cain undoubtedly would be subject to as the Republican presidential candidate.

If the Lamestream media publicized the various ensuing rants about “Oreos,” “Bootlickers,” “Sell-Outs,” “Tokens,” “Neo-Coons,” and “House Niggers” that are going to be insinuated by the Left and openly howled and jabbered by the “Black Community” they would alienate the vestiges of their viewers, crippling their already comparably meager marketshares.  They would also likely be punished with a loss of access by the Obama Regime for such a course of action.

If they choose not to antagonize the Liberals and their minority tenants who are the MSM’s customers and the Campaigner-in-Chief’s handlers they’ll be left with not having a wide breadth of election coverage insofar as juicy headlines and attention getting stories / non-stories are concerned and will later be derided and lampooned for their silence, further poisoning their already flagging brands.

Nobody and no business or industry ever wants to be in a situation where all choices are bad. Given this and that a Cain candidacy would be such a situation for the MSM, it’s easy to see why there’s been such a “Cain-ing.”

Little proves this point better than the response to the lawful executions of two men on September 21, 2011, one White and one Black.

In Texas Lawrence Russell Brewer was executed for the 1998 murder of James Byrd, Jr. This was a matter of little significance to the nation at large. Brewer was White and his victim Black.

In Georgia Troy Davis was executed for the 1989 murder of police officer Mark MacPhail. This was a media sensation and Liberals and Black grievance-mongers descended upon the area like locusts. Davis was Black and his victim White.

When a maelstrom of outcry to stop the Davis execution erupts from people such as: Pope Benedict XVI, Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton, thousands of Liberals, and numerous supposedly anti-death penalty groups but not voice can be heard decrying the execution of Brewer it is impossible for the sane mind to believe that there is even any desire for “colorblind justice” in the minds of Liberals and their minority tenants.

Admittedly, there’s little or no purpose in this odd fad. Yet, it also posed little risk and cause little harm – except to the sensibilities of a few of life’s failures which should be ignored.

Creatures, the like of which this Xzibit is just a singular example, cannot seem to help but look at the world through the eyes of victimology, irresponsibility, a envy. They are not things that humanity should pay attention to beyond taking such actions as are necessary to limit the harm they do to people.

So I say that we should revisit, revitalize, and greatly improve this harmless fad. Doing so would not be difficult at all.

The way I figure it, adding bikinis and babes to the mix will bring planking right back to fore of pop culture. It’s worked for almost everything else…

Thomas Sowell sums up how well this helped the Blacks:

Government agencies, from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Federal Reserve leaned on lenders to lower lending standards, and the Department of Justice threatened prosecutions for discrimination if the racial makeup of people approved for mortgage loans did not match their preconceptions.

It worked. In fact, it worked so well that many blacks got loans that they could not have gotten otherwise.

Now the statistics tell us, belatedly, that blacks lost out, big time, from this “favor” done for them by politicians.

Reality being what it is, these Blacks who were handed loans that they didn’t except by grace of their skin color and Liberal stupidity qualify for, were “overrepresented” among those who later defaulted on their mortgages.

Of course a certain equality of outcome or result was achieved by the Liberals’ policies. The banks’ move to shield themselves from the inherent risks in sub-prime mortgages by bundling them into securities and the federal governments’ regulations that coerced financial firms to heavily buy those securities was a large part of what led to America’s current economic woes which have affected us all.

It’s a simple fact that lowering the standards and applying coercive force to ensure any form of demographic quotas can and will only achieve an equality of results when those results are negative and such negative results are the most likely outcome.

Presenting facts backed up by numbers and charts is, by and large, useless with the Statists and Socialists that call themselves Liberals and Progressives and it’s utterly useless with their minority tenants, who foolishly see themselves as beneficiaries of this agenda. Hence, I’ll leave that aside for now.

I will instead focus on the “They can afford it” rationalization since it is not based upon falsehoods, being instead based upon utilitarianism or consequentialism. I wonder how they would respond to a similar argument on a subject that Liberals have strong and visceral feelings about – abortion.

They Can Afford Them

Let America as a nation and society outlaw the abortion of White babies but continue to allow minorities, especially the Blacks, to engage in the unsavory practice. Let America as a people go so far as to guarantee these minorities access to abortion through subsidies and funding.

Due to the striations in household economies, including access to health insurance, Whites can, more often than not, afford to have these children. While an unplanned pregnancy might be an inconvenience to them, it is unlikely to drive Whites into true poverty. Statistics show this is not similarly true for minorities.

Furthermore, there is a long waiting list for White babies. There are far more prospective adoptive parents than there are White babies up for adoption. This is sadly not true for minority babies, especially Black babies who are seven times less likely to be adopted even after their prices – euphemistically called “adoption finalization costs” – are discounted up to 33% by the various agencies.

Finally, one also has to take the modern definition of racism into account. Since 64% of the women partaking of abortions are non-White, making it illegal for them to continue to do so would cause a disproportionate impact upon these minority women. Such disproportionate impact has been held by the courts to be racist and discriminatory even if the laws or practices in question have absolutely no racial component.

As can be seen from these facts there’s no reasons based upon consequences for continuing to allow Whites to abort their babies but many reasons to make sure that minorities, especially Blacks, are continued to be allowed to do so. The Whites can afford the children and the adoption system can handle those White babies that end up in it; neither is statistically the case for non-Whites.

~*~

The arguments above are all factual within the limits of polling accuracy and statistical analysis as applied to population groups. In point of fact, these arguments make up a large part of basis for the Liberals’ ongoing fight to keep abortion legal and have the government subsidize it. That doesn’t make this “modest proposal” any less abhorrent.

It’d be an interesting thought experiment to graph the outrage of who’s more bothered by criminalizing abortion for Whites and who’s more bothered by not doing so for minorities.

Yes, the rich can afford to pay more in taxes. That ability to pay more doesn’t mean that it’s right to tax them more just because others want their money, just as the facts of abortion demographics don’t make it right to base the abortion laws upon individuals’ and society’s ability to afford having and raising the children.

The argument that they can afford it so it’s OK to take from them is an example of the grievous flaws in utilitarianism or consequentialism.