General/Misc. – BrianGarst.com

Sunday

23

May 2010

Thoughtless On Discrimination

Written by Brian Garst, Posted in General/Misc.

Decades of reflexive animosity toward anything that might even be remotely labeled as discrimination has rendered the modern left braindead. They no longer have the ability to think critically or debate honestly on policy solutions to social problems involving discrimination. Instead, they simply reflexively label anyone who disagrees with their policy as racist/bigoted/homophobe.

Rand Paul is the latest target of this thoughtless assault. Paul’s sin was discussing publicly a fairly standard libertarian position: that federal intervention forbidding private actors from discriminating, such as with parts of the Civil Rights Act, are unconstitutional despite being well-intentioned. In other words, in a free society individual discrimination is condemned but tolerated in the same way that ugly speech is, or KKK rallies.

The left has twisted this into a story about Rand Paul supporting racism, or possibly being racist himself. This is foolish nonsense, but it comports with the general erosion of serious thinking on the left. Discussions of constitutionality or the necessary trade-off with freedom that is made when people are not allowed to discriminate are verboten, and anyone who brings them up is reflexively labeled a racist.

We’re all expected to bow our heads at the very mention of good-feeling government policies like the Civil Rights Act. Certainly we’re all pleased to be living in a society in which discrimination is no longer a regular occurrence. But the idea that such is due primarily to government legislation, as opposed to changing social mores, is mistaken. Yes, the CRA did have a legitimate purpose and many constitutionally defensible parts. For instance, it prohibited racism in government run schooling and undid the Jim Crow laws. But that’s just it. Those were laws. Laws are government. So when the New York Times says that “it was only government power that … abolished Jim Crow,” they are missing the forest for the trees. It was only the power of government that allowed Jim Crow in the first place. That’s not an indictment of libertarianism. It’s an indictment of government and proof that it poses a unique danger to our civil rights!

(more…)

Thursday

13

May 2010

0

COMMENTS

The Benefits Of Party Homogeneity

Written by Brian Garst, Posted in General/Misc.

A recent Washington Post editorial discusses the apparent “Party purges” that some have observed in recent years. Whether or not “purge” is the most appropriate word, I think there is a general truth to the idea that the parties have been slowly but surely sorting themselves out ideologically. Southern conservative Democrats like John Breaux and Zell Miller are no longer welcome in the Democratic party. On the Republican side the same can be said of northern liberals like Lincoln Chafee.

The editorial is reasonably even-handed in discussing the good and the bad of these changes, but I think it falls short in one important area. A significant unidentified benefit of having parties with more clearly delineated ideologies is the increased ability for voters to replace bad policies with potentially better ones.

Assuming neither party has a monopoly on correct policy responses to various problems, when wrong policies are pursued and one ideology fails to deliver on a particular problem, having a clear alternative is preferable to two parties that are just a mix of both left and right. In other words, if a governing party is already using a mishmash of liberal, conservative or any other policy solutions because they have a “big tent,” then it’s not altogether clear where the failure stems from when a policy flops. But if a distinctly liberal or conservative party implements a policy and it fails, the source of that failure is easily identifiable.

The obstacle is our electoral system, which really guarantees the viability of two and only two parties, whereas the array of ideological choices on most issues. is typically greater. But just because we’re stuck with a two party system – one that encourages parties to be ideologically expansive despite all the hand-wringing over “purges” – doesn’t mean we have to have two parties with significant, and confusing, ideological overlap. If you’re conservative, there’s really no good reason to be in the Democratic party, and no real benefit to the voters for having you there. The same goes for liberals and Republicans. If you’re a libertarian…well, pick your poison.

Thursday

6

May 2010

2

COMMENTS

Boys Sent Home From School For Wearing American Flag

Written by Brian Garst, Posted in General/Misc.

More proof that the idiocy of PC multiculturalism continues to plague this country. Can you think of anything more stupid than American students not being able to wear American flags on their shirt because of a holiday celebrating a foreign military victory?

Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal’s office.

“They said we could wear it on any other day,” Daniel Galli said, “but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it’s supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today.”

…

I think it’s absolutely ridiculous,” Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel’s mom, said. “All they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They’re expressing their individuality.”

But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.

“I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day,” Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. “We don’t deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn’t do that on Fourth of July.”

I’m sorry, but doesn’t Mexican-American clue them into the fact that they’re Americans? If they’re so “sensitive” to a non-American holiday that they think they are “disrespected” by an American flag, they really need to leave. Moreover, we need to consider what the hell is going wrong in our immigration policy, as these people are clearly not assimilating properly.

If you aren’t convinced that there’s something particularly wrong with how so many Mexicans have assimilated in this country, ask yourself whether an American flag would be considered “disrespect” on any other cultural holiday. Would students have been sent home for wearing it on St. Patrick’s Day? Would such disrespect have been found for an American flag on Chinese New Year? Of course not, in both cases. So why do we continue to coddle this certain segment of the “Mexican-American” population which clearly doesn’t consider itself American? Why do we tolerate radical groups like La Raza and MEChA which promote ethnic disharmony while not only showing more loyalty to Mexico than America, but also openly advocating a racial separatism that would make the most ardent supporter of Apartheid proud? It is madness to put up with this in the name of cultural relativism.

Wednesday

28

April 2010

0

COMMENTS

Welcome To New Washington, Same As Old Washington

Written by Brian Garst, Posted in General/Misc.

President Obama has always talked big about changing the way things are done in Washington. He has unquestionably failed to deliver. The latest example involves his Fiscal Commission. At their first meeting, he said, “for years, folks in Washington deferred politically difficult decisions and avoided telling hard truths about the nature of the problem.”

And how exactly do the “folks in Washington” defer difficult decisions? Oh, that’s right, they form a commission that they can later pretend to listen to, then ultimately sideline. We don’t need any more commissions, Mr. President. We need politicians like you to name something – anything – that you are capable of cutting. Right now. Stop the posturing, pontificating, and politicking and just do it.

Friday

23

April 2010

0

COMMENTS

Some Rare Honesty On Slavery

Written by Brian Garst, Posted in General/Misc.

Professor Henry Gates has penned an insightful op-ed regarding slavery, blame and reparations. In it he spends significant time discussing the role of black Africans in promoting the slave trade, a topic all too often ignored in both history texts and popular discussion:

While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today’s Congo, among several others.

…Advocates of reparations for the descendants of those slaves generally ignore this untidy problem of the significant role that Africans played in the trade, choosing to believe the romanticized version that our ancestors were all kidnapped unawares by evil white men, like Kunta Kinte was in “Roots.” The truth, however, is much more complex: slavery was a business, highly organized and lucrative for European buyers and African sellers alike.

The African role in the slave trade was fully understood and openly acknowledged by many African-Americans even before the Civil War. For Frederick Douglass, it was an argument against repatriation schemes for the freed slaves. “The savage chiefs of the western coasts of Africa, who for ages have been accustomed to selling their captives into bondage and pocketing the ready cash for them, will not more readily accept our moral and economical ideas than the slave traders of Maryland and Virginia,” he warned. “We are, therefore, less inclined to go to Africa to work against the slave trade than to stay here to work against it.”

Although I enjoyed his historical account and thoughtful approach to the issue, I fundamentally differ with Professor Gates on whether reparations ought to be paid at all. While he acknowledges that, “Given this remarkably messy history, the problem with reparations may not be so much whether they are a good idea or deciding who would get them; the larger question just might be from whom they would be extracted,” he misses an important point.

The issue of extraction is not merely complicated by the role of Africans in the slave trade. The fundamental obstacle to reparations is the fact that no one responsible for slavery is alive today. While we can, in some crude fashion, measure the negative impact on those who are alive today, we cannot place any blame on people for the actions of their ancestors. Nor can we condemn whole groups (American whites, particular African tribes, etc.) for their histories. Reparations should never happen because extracting the payments from anyone would be fundamentally unjust.

Sunday

18

April 2010

0

COMMENTS

New York Times Runs Racist Op-Ed Against Tea Party

Written by Brian Garst, Posted in General/Misc., Identity Politics, Media Bias

Charles M. Blow, a regular columnist for the New York Times, has taken the already despicable race narrative on the Tea Parties to another level. He begins with a bit of “diversity” hunting:

I had specifically come to this rally because it was supposed to be especially diverse. And, on the stage at least, it was. The speakers included a black doctor who bashed Democrats for crying racism, a Hispanic immigrant who said that she had never received a single government entitlement and a Vietnamese immigrant who said that the Tea Party leader was God. It felt like a bizarre spoof of a 1980s Benetton ad.

The juxtaposition was striking: an abundance of diversity on the stage and a dearth of it in the crowd, with the exception of a few minorities like the young black man who carried a sign that read “Quit calling me a racist.”

…It was a farce. This Tea Party wanted to project a mainstream image of a group that is anything but. A New York Times/CBS News poll released on Wednesday found that only 1 percent of Tea Party supporters are black and only 1 percent are Hispanic. It’s almost all white.

The implication: a lack of the kind of diversity Mr. Blow deems important (because there are other kinds, which he apparently doesn’t care about) is somehow condemning. Notice he never actually explains the logic for how this matters. But don’t hold your breath waiting for Mr. Blow to similarly investigate an NAACP event, or the next Million Man March.

But that’s hardly the worst. Things really get ugly when he begins using his own racist attacks:

And even when compared to other whites, their views are extreme and marginal. For instance, white Tea Party supporters are twice as likely as white independents and eight times as likely as white Democrats to believe that Barack Obama was born in another country.

Furthermore, they were more than eight times as likely as white independents and six times as likely as white Democrats to think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites.

Thursday night I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance. I was not amused.

Because, you know, white views are just naturally extreme and marginal, so even by that standard the tea parties are on the fringe! What a racist. Can you imagine the New York Times running an op-ed that says “even compared to other blacks, their views are [insert negative attribute]?” The author of such a statement would be crucified.

He then doubles down with a racist attack on the black speakers, who he dubs a “minstrel show.” Apparently no black person is capable of the free thinking that might lead them to be there because they believe in the cause. Oh no. They must be getting used or duped. I wonder if Mr. Blow has ever applied the same logic to his employment at the upper-class, white New York Times. Probably not, because if he did his head might just explode.

Thursday

8

April 2010

0

COMMENTS

White Males Should Not Attend Duke

Written by Brian Garst, Posted in General/Misc.

Duke University has a new “sexual misconduct” policy straight out of the minds of the most demented, male-hating feminists.

Duke University has instituted a new “sexual misconduct” policy that can render a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered “powerful” on campus. The policy claims that “perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.” Duke’s new policy transforms students of both sexes into unwitting rapists simply because of the “atmosphere” or because one or more students are “intoxicated,” no matter the degree. The policy also establishes unfair rules for judging sexual misconduct accusations. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is challenging the policy.

“Duke’s new sexual misconduct policy could have been written by Mike Nifong,” said FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley. “Members of the men’s basketball team could be punished for consensual sexual activity simply because they are ‘perceived’ as more powerful than other students after winning the national championship. Students who engage in sexual behavior after a few beers could be found guilty of sexual misconduct towards each other. This is not just illogical and impractical, but insane. Given its experience during the lacrosse team rape hoax, Duke, of all schools, should know better than to institute such unjust rules about sexual misconduct.”

…Duke’s vastly overbroad definition of non-consensual sex puts nearly every student at risk of being found guilty of sexual misconduct. Students are said to be able to unintentionally coerce others into sexual activity through “perceived power differentials,” which could include otherwise unremarkable and consensual liaisons between a varsity athlete and an average student, a senior and a freshman, or a student government member and a non-member.

Further, students are said to be unable to consent to sexual behavior when “intoxicated,” regardless of their level of intoxication. Duke has turned mutually consensual sexual conduct, which might merely be poorly considered, into a punishable act. Adding to the confusion, if both parties are intoxicated at all, both are guilty of sexual misconduct, since neither can officially give consent. North Carolina law does not support this definition of consent.

…Furthermore, Duke has made fair enforcement of the sexual misconduct policy even more difficult by establishing different procedures and even a different “jury” to judge sexual misconduct complaints. For instance, sexual misconduct charges are judged by two faculty or staff members and only one student, but all other offenses are judged by a panel of three students and two faculty or staff members. Duke fails to explain why a jury with a majority of one’s peers is necessary for charges like assault or theft but not sexual misconduct.

On its face this policy is gender and race neutral. However, the enforcement of such a broad policy will necessarily be subjective. And if the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal showed us anything, it’s that Duke staff have an axe to grind against white males, who they see as unfairly privileged. This perception will both prejudice the jury against them, as well as make the rules more likely to be triggered, since such perceived power is what is being defined.

Which brings us to the real issue, the stupidity of defining misconduct this way. Women like power. That’s just how it is. They are attracted to alpha males who either have or show the potential to acquire power. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution have programmed them this way. It makes no more sense to punish high-status males for this than it does to punish physically attractive women, but we all know that’s what this rule would do.

If you’re a white male looking to attend Duke, I suggest you look elsewhere. Why take the chance when they seem so intent on destroying you?

Tuesday

6

April 2010

0

COMMENTS

Where Have All The Future Taxpayers Gone?

Written by Brian Garst, Posted in General/Misc.

US birth rate falls:

Overall, the number of births in 2008 declined two per cent from 2007, the first annual decline in births since the start of the decade.

Experts say the most likely explanations are the recession and a decline in immigration to the United States, which has been blamed on the weak job market.

These experts are clearly not familiar with the lengths to which racist teabaggers will go to deny Barack Obama the ability to pay for his health care utopia. Knowing that he’s planning to tax their kids and grandkids to pay for health care today, the wingnuts have stopped having kids! Is there no end to their hate??

Friday