Ending Racism in America

There have been several events lately that have put the spot light on race based policies in the US. There was the beatings during the Juneteenth celebrations in San Antonio and Milwaukee. The beating in Austin led to the death of Hispanic man. Juneteenth is the celebration of the freedom of slaves in Texas. The other event was the courts striking down the policy in some areas to assign students to different high schools based on race. I firmly believe the best way to end racism is to eliminate all policies that have preferences or are race based in any way.
We have hate crime laws that increase the penalties and allow the federal government to take over the case if it was a crime committed on racial prejudice. The new hate crime legislation will make anything deemed homophobic a hate crime. We have already seen this in Oakland. The city of Oakland fired several women for hate crimes because they used the city email system to support a group who believe that a family composed of man and woman is healthier for kids. The city fired them and deemed the speech homophobic and hateful. At the same time, gay and lesbian organizations are allowed to use the city's email and bulletin systems to support their programs. By making racism and sexism a vague law that can suspend one type of speech in favor of another, they will try to legislate what ideas are acceptable in the public discourse. I bring up the case of the Juneteenth celebration because of the racial nature of the incident. It was an african-american celebration where a white man was beaten severely in Milwaukee and a Hispanic man was beaten to death in Austin. No one has sought to use the hate crime legislation to find the guilty parties. By nature, raced based legislation is not equitable.
In the name of diversity, some school districts have been busing students across town to ensure that schools are spilt more evenly by race. The concept the school system uses to end racism is to recognize there is a difference between races and assign students to school based on the students race. Students are students and they must learn the same material. We must recognize that all students are equally capable and assign them to schools on where they live. If we give a minority student an advantage in college admission by race, then we tell that minority group we do not believe they can succeed without government interference. Their may be some equity to the program if all minorities were covered. Affirmative action does not apply to Asians ending the illusion of supporting minorities.
Nothing in any of these legislation are equitable and only serve to create more racial tension in the country. If we are going to free ourselves from racism, then we must exclude race from legislation. There are still plenty of discrimination laws on the books. They can cover racist preferences in schools and the work place. Adding hate crime legislation to make a despicable murder more despicable is redundant and only serves to divide. Violent crimes are already hateful crimes. We do not have to legislate redundancy.

Fairness Doctrine?

After Trent Lott's comment on Talk Radio, the Left has apparently declared open season on the format. The tool to destroy the main medium of conservatives is the concept of fairness and equal time. How can you argue with fairness and equal time? The left has always been good at couching the repression of free speech as cotton candy clouds and lollipop suns.
The idea that people should be able to preempt a talk show to ensure that they are able to air the other point of view. The left knows they will lose their sponsorship and will soon be off the air. The left loves to say that the conservative shows has "fixed" talk radio so they can not compete. The bottom line , of course being, is that liberals just can not compete in talk radio. Their have been several attempts at liberal talk radio, but they have all failed to secure advertising. They even tried starting their own channel on Sirius Radio, Air America. In the end, they were not able to secure sponsorship and failed. The way to cure the bane of their existence. Their dissenting voice is to legislate it away. Luckily, if they are able to pull off the legislation, I believe the high court will strike down the blazoned assault on free speech.
The next part of it is how limited the attack is. It is designed in such a manner to attack only conservative talk radio. Why should there not be a dissenting voice in the print media. Why not network news. The Big 3 have a decidedly liberal aspect. Televised and print media are vastly liberal. Where is my voice? I would like to preempt Katie Couric and get in my ideas. If the dissenting voice is a right to be protected, then it should be applied to all mediums. Talk radio shows are private intellectual property. This property is what needs protecting from disingenuous liberal politicians in an all out bid to repress free speech.
Getting rid of talk radio is part and parcel of the liberal plan to make America communist. Implement socialist programs and repress the dissenting voice.

SYTYCD

I was going to post about the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. So much of what we need done for the border security has already been funded. We just need to force the President to force Chertoff to implement the measures by building the payed for fence and higher the additional paid for border agents. This comprehensive bill and the 20 amendments the Senate will vote on is too much of a give and take, and does not accomplish the goal of securing the border.


Sooooo..........I was challenged to turn So You Think You Can Dance show from tonight into a political discourse. For background, the final two guys was a contemporary dancer and a very bender break dance guy. One guy is obviously formally trained and has put on great shows. The second guy has no formal training and has totally blown his partnered performances. So we are waiting to see who gets voted off, and they ensue into a long discussion on whether to keep the unique guy or the one who puts on great performances. They ended up voting off the good dancer and keeping the bendy one. I think it was a horrible call on the part of the judges.

The political part relates to good Marxist thought. The first dancer has a bevy of talent and the second dancer did not. So, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The first dancer has plenty of ability and put on great performances. He did not need the extra training he would receive on while on the show. He gave according to his ability. The second guy needed the extra dance training, and is allowed to remain on the show according to his need. I am glad to see we are entering into Marxism on a nationally televised competition. Ole Karl would be proud.

I think that is a successful use of the show for a political rant:p I am mostly mad that the second guys partner, Faina, as voted off because she was hot when she danced. He ruined her performance as a pair so she had to get voted on, and she gets voted off while the sucky guy remains. Back to the rant.......Carefully controlled social engineering never produces the social justice that is expected. The results are the opposite and the situation inevitably becomes more oppressive.

Worlds worst polluter?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2106999,00.html

This is an article in the Guardian, a ultra left wing British publication, about china surpassing the US in carbon emissions. I am amazed the Guardian took time off from bashing the US to admit we may not be the big bad environmental bogeyman. China now has 8% more carbon released than the US. These are China' numbers as well. Unlike us, they do not count emissions from all of their vehicles or from the numerous fires in the coal mines that feed their power plants. This article uses the line "the worlds worst polluter." They base this term on carbon emissions alone.

My other concern is how much pollution are we ignoring in order to join the frenzy for the theoretical disaster ahead.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0210_030210_TVdust.html

This article discusses the yellow dust cloud that is blown out of the steppes of western China. It is deadly to asthma sufferers in Korea and Japan, and even affects the air quality in Oregon. The article does not cover studies that the dust clouds contain heavy metals like sulfur and zinc. You never see articles on this kind of pollution. You also do not here of ship wrecks in the Malacca straits. http://bpms.kempen.gov.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8894&Itemid=61

Liberals who are rushing to buy into man made global warming want to cripple the US economy in order to stop a process we are not even sure we are responsible for by using policies that have no tests to show they work will not consider more pervasive and obvious forms of pollution. Actors, like Leonardo DiCaprio, make blank statements that the US is the worst polluter in the world based on carbon, a naturally occurring substance when we breathe. In their rush to blame the US for all the worlds ills they ignore real problems with have actual solutions, but facing China takes heart. The claims of the left ignores the amount of cancer surrounding every coal burning power plant in China.

I only wonder what the long term affect of the left ignoring all the other forms of pollution to focus on carbon. We have always depended on the left pointing out our pollution and environmental issues. Now we have reached the point where we can only depend on the left to scream irrationally about carbon. Forget real visible pollution that poisons the air and causes cancer. That pollution does not make a good slogan on a T-shirt at a trendy Hollywood party.

Bias

To me it seems that it is apparent everywhere. I often chide myself knowing that I am an Idealogue. I try to see the other point of view. I truly do. With articles today that Bob Barker supports Rosie taking over the Price is right shows the unquestioned support of far left bomb throwers. Despite some of her outrageous comments about 9/11 conspiracies and calling Soldiers like myself terrorists, she is still in the mainstream media. I do not support Anne Coulter getting regular spots on the networks, but they would never consider it anyway. I would still submit that Anne is farless mean spirited than Rosie is. Yet Rosie receives the unmitigated support of the networks. If there were any balance, they would include conservative bomb throwers like Anne. If the modern news was balanced and had a semblance of class, then neither would see one second of air time except to expose there fringe views.

I am not sure this is how I wish to start my blog again, but my wife will not listen to my soap boax speeches, so this is my place to vent.