"Don't leave that smoking gun behind!"
by JohnHuang2
Well, after Monday, nobody can legitimately accuse the Supremes of being wishy-washy or obfuscating on the issue of racial preferences. In a pair of landmark rulings, whose ringing clarity and consistency should settle the question of the role race should play in college admissions, the Supreme Court, in Gratz v. Bollinger, struck down by a 6-3 vote the University of Michigan's undergraduate racial quota admissions system. Applicants with Politically Correct skin, hair and eye color were given an edge or awarded bonus points over applicants exhibiting Politically Incorrect skin, hair and eye color.
The High Court ruling was the first on the issue since the landmark Bakke decision of '78. Giving one group of people of certain skin, hair and eye color a decided advantage over another group of people of different skin, hair and eye color runs afoul of the Constitution. A system of reward and punishment based on race is unconstitutional. Citizens of all races must be treated equally under the law.
In the other ruling, Grutter v. Bollinger, the High Court upheld by a 5-4 vote the university's Law school racial quota admissions system. Applicants with Politically Correct skin, hair and eye color are given an edge or advantage over applicants exhibiting Politically Incorrect skin, hair and eye color. Giving one group of people of certain skin, hair and eye color a decided advantage over another group of people of different skin, hair and eye color does not run afoul of the Constitution. A system of reward and punishment based on race is constitutional. Citizens of all races must not be treated equally under the law.
Comprende now?
Preference programs seek to remedy racial, ethnic, gender and cultural discrimination by promoting racial, ethnic, gender and cultural discrimination. Only the target has been changed to protect the guilty.
But wait! Aren't racial preferences programs a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment? Unequivocally and unambiguously, the High Court Monday trenchantly answered emphatically ...YES! And emphatically ... NO! Or, it all depends -- depends on how you do the math, you see. Can you do the math in your head -- award bonus points based on skin, hair and eye color without having to grab pencil and paper? Well, then, congratulations! You're okay with the Constitution. Just don't leave a paper trail of tally points -- No Smoking Gun Evidence, in other words.
Opponents of racial quotas -- those who cling to quaint, musty passe notions like equal protection under the law -- will use such evidence in court to nail racial quotas which we all know from Judy Woodruff are not racial quotas even if they are. In other words, why drag around a bloody glove, when you can do the crime scot-free? If you can add and subtract in your head, voila! You've got a license to discriminate till your heart's content. All perfectly legal, legit. Neat, eh? Constitutional principles? We don't need no stinkin' Constitutional principles! We have far loftier, nobler goals in mind: Specific outcomes.
Besides, why settle for just 20 bonus points for Politically Correct racial groups when you can go for 40 or even 80 extra bonus points? Heck, why not go for broke -- a jackpot 150 bonus points just for skin color? That's the beauty of the 'Do-The-Fuzzy-Math-In-Your-Head' racial bonus system. You can make race *a* factor -- or the *only* factor: Who's gonna know? Circumstantial evidence, in this case, always works in your favor: The more circumstantial evidence of discrimination against Politically Incorrect/unapproved racial groups, the "fairer" the system is said to be working. In other words, a quota system isn't a quota system even if quotas are used so long as you ain't so dumb as to leave behind the paper trail.
Now, for race-hustlers out there, as I said back in January, let me make one thing perfectly clear: I am a full-blood latino. In other words, Hispanic. In other words, "minority" -- a fully accredited member of a "brutally"/"savagely" "oppressed" group, as libs would say.
In January, I wrote this:
The idea behind the Michigan plan is simple: Liberals divide minorities into two broad categories -- dumb and dumber.
Oh, they won't come out and say it, but, deep down, that's precisely how they think. And whites? Caucasians, according to libs, also fall into two distinct groups: White-sheet-wearing-racists with pointed hats who burn wooden crosses versus white-sheet-wearing racists with pointed hats who burn wooden crosses WANNABES.
In other words, all whites are racists. The only difference is, some wear 'the sheets', others can't -- the latter don't have the "luxury." But all whites are Klansmen at heart. So, according to liberals, all blacks are stupid and all whites are racists.
Again, Lefties won't come out and say that, but, deep down, that's precisely how they think.
Now, since liberals believe all minorities are stupid and all whites are racists, what's their solution? Ah, that's where racial quotas which liberals say aren't racial quotas come in.
Point being? This: Ain't it peculiar how liberals, who say they hate racism and are all for "diversity", basically embrace all -- or virtually all -- the basic tenets of Ku Klux Klanism, namely, whites are superior, minorities are stupid, uncompetitive, etc., etc. Both Klansmen and liberals, moreover, agree on "affirmative action" as their favored "solution": The Klan, which believes the "system" is 'skewed' towards blacks, wants quotas for whites. Liberals, who believe minorities don't have *the smarts* to compete, call for "affirmative action."
Scratch a liberal and you'll find a Klansman underneath.
Meanwhile, Poll Suggests Unease on Iraq Casualties is how the completely fair and objective Associated Press headlines a story on the latest ABC News-Washington Post Poll published Monday.
The American public is growing so increasingly 'uneasy' about Iraq that a majority told pollsters that "the level of U.S. casualties is acceptable," after a gazillion ABC News reports that the level of U.S. casualties is unacceptable. Although news reports about growing public 'unease' have been growing, the 'growing unease' has failed to materialized, with 32% expressing strong 'unease' that U.S. forces might "get bogged down in a long and costly peacekeeping mission" -- down from 34% in late April. The very, very 'uneasy' public, moreover, gives President Bush a very 'uneasy' 68% job approval rating -- an 'uneasy' 3 percentage point collapse from 71% in late April. Moreover, on Bush's handling of Iraq itself, an 'uneasy' public rates Bush an 'uneasy' 67% approval.
Amid growing Democrat and al-Qaeda unease that the negative media drumbeat about Iraq isn't driving down support for Bush's Iraq policy, the same ABC News-Washington Post Poll shows 64% say the war was worth fighting, while 33% agree with Democrats and al-Qaeda. As further evidence of growing public 'unease' and tepidness over military action, almost 6 in 10 support beating the crap out of neighboring Iran, suspected of developing nuclear weapons. The gloomy polling data came as a blow to Mullahs, Ba'ath Party remnants, Democrats and al-Qaeda, all hoping 'growing' reports of 'growing' U.S. 'unease' would fuel public pressure for U.S. troop withdrawal altogether, a la Somalia.
Meanwhile, three "Leading U.S. Senators from both parties" Monday made a startling discovery, noting that Iraq has not been completely rebuilt yet and that "American troops could be in Iraq" for several years, Reuters reports, a key find everyone already knew about. Despite 7 weeks since the end of major combat operations, Iraq has all the hallmarks of a country 7 weeks since the end of major combat operations, a shocking revelation.
The 3 geniuses who made this shocking revelation -- Richard Lugar, Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel -- all "members of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee who are on a fact-finding visit to Iraq, said they expected a long-term commitment of U.S." forces and accused the White House, which has repeatedly warned about the breadth of commitment and the cost required to rebuild Iraq, of not leveling with the Amerian people about "the breadth of the commitment and the cost required to rebuild Iraq," Reuters added.
In a related development, American troops are still in Germany and Japan 58 years after WWII, in South Korea 50 years after the Korean War and in Bosnia 10 years after the Bosnian conflict. No weapons of mass destruction have been uncovered in Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia nor Haiti.
After WWII, U.S. military occupation in Japan lasted only 7 years, in Germany only 5 years. So, some brilliant Senators ask, why are we still occupying Iraq 7 weeks since the end of major hostilities?
Sen. Biden, who blasted U.S. forces for "high-tech bullying" the Taliban, and blasted U.S. forces for not "high-tech bullying" Milosevic, denies any political motives behind his growing barbs at the White House. Sen. Biden, who said the U.S. faced an imminent threat from mass graves in Kosovo, is mulling a run for the White House. No mass graves have been uncovered in Kosovo despite numerous forensic search teams scouring the province for years. The imminent threat against the United States from mass graves in Kosovo was used as the main justification for war against Serbia. Biden says he's confident mass graves in Kosovo will eventually be found and denies the Clinton administration hyped the threat from mass graves in Kosovo to justify military action against Milosevic. He also denies the Clinton White House shaded or manipulated pre-war intelligence to bolster its case for war against mass graves in Kosovo which have never been found.
Give inspectors more time!
Anyway, that's...
My two cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
