Tag Archives: culture

Poor Judgment

Posted on by
1

…makes these unfit to serve as educators, and it’s symptomatic of our broken education system.

A Pennsylvania middle school has chosen to suspend a 10-year-old boy for pretending to shoot a fellow classmate with a bow and arrow while his classmate pretended to shoot him with a folder-cum-machine gun.

A 12-year-old Rhode Island student was suspended for having a gun the size of a quarter on his keychain.

A Maryland 7-year-old was suspended for chewing a pop tart into the “shape of a gun” (he’d bitten off a corner of the square pastry).

These are boys and girls acting like boys and girls.  The teachers, principals, school system superintendents or board members whose judgment that says this should be criminalized or otherwise punished in our schools understand neither children nor education.  They’re wholly unfit to be in our education system in any capacity.

Happy Thanksgiving

Posted on by
Reply

I first posted this in 2011.  I think it bears repeating today.

Today I thought I’d share some thoughts on the matter offered by other folks who are a bit more articulate than I.  In the meantime, be thankful for who we are and where we are: whatever straits we in which we find ourselves, we’re orders of magnitude better off than most everyone else in the world.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be — That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks — for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation — for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war — for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed — for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
-George Washington, 3 October 1789

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God. … No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
-Abraham Lincoln, 3 October 1863

We are profoundly grateful for the blessings bestowed upon us: the preservation of our freedom, so dearly bought and so highly prized; our opportunities for human welfare and happiness, so limitless in their scope; our material prosperity, so far surpassing that of earlier years; and our private spiritual blessings, so deeply cherished by all. For these we offer fervent thanks to God.
-Harry S Truman, 22 November 1950

Perhaps no custom reveals our character as a Nation so clearly as our celebration of Thanksgiving Day. Rooted deeply in our Judeo-Christian heritage, the practice of offering thanksgiving underscores our unshakable belief in God as the foundation of our Nation and our firm reliance upon Him from Whom all blessings flow.
-Ronald W Reagan, 27 November 1986

This Thanksgiving, as we enjoy the company of family and friends, let us gratefully turn our hearts to God, the loving Source of all Life and Liberty. Let us seek His forgiveness for our shortcomings and transgressions and renew our determination to remain a people worthy of His continued favor and protection. Acknowledging our dependence on the Almighty, obeying His Commandments, and reaching out to help those who do not share fully in this Nation’s bounty is the most heartfelt and meaningful answer we can give to the timeless appeal of the Psalmist: ‘O give thanks to the Lord for He is good: for his steadfast love endures forever.’
-George H W Bush, 14 November 1990

And then enjoy yourselves; have plain, raw fun.  That’s not just allowed, it’s a Good in its own right.

Some Thoughts on Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Daniel Hannan, Member European Parliament for South East England, has a few.  His book, Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World, was excerpted by The Wall Street Journal a couple weekends ago.  Here are some of Hannan’s thoughts from that excerpt.

Asked, early in his presidency, whether he believed in American exceptionalism, Barack Obama gave a telling reply.  “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

The first part of that answer is fascinating (we’ll come back to the Greeks in a bit).  Most Brits do indeed believe in British exceptionalism.  But here’s the thing: they define it in almost exactly the same way that Americans do.  British exceptionalism, like its American cousin, has traditionally been held to reside in a series of values and institutions: personal liberty, free contract, jury trials, uncensored newspapers, regular elections, habeas corpus, open competition, secure property, religious pluralism.

…

What made the Anglosphere different?  Foreign visitors through the centuries remarked on a number of peculiar characteristics: the profusion of nonstate organizations, clubs, charities and foundations; the cheerful materialism of the population; the strong county institutions, including locally chosen law officers and judges; the easy coexistence of different denominations (religious toleration wasn’t unique to the Anglosphere, but religious equality—that is, freedom for every sect to proselytize—was almost unknown in the rest of the world).  They were struck by the weakness, in both law and custom, of the extended family, and by the converse emphasis on individualism.  They wondered at the stubborn elevation of private property over raison d’état, of personal freedom over collective need.

And a warning:

There is, of course, a flip-side.  If the US abandons its political structures, it will lose its identity more thoroughly than states that define nationality by blood or territory.  Power is shifting from the 50 states to Washington, DC, from elected representatives to federal bureaucrats, from citizens to the government.  As the US moves toward European-style health care, day care, college education, carbon taxes, foreign policy and spending levels, so it becomes less prosperous, less confident and less free.

…

Which brings us back to Mr. Obama’s curiously qualified defense of American exceptionalism.  Outside the Anglosphere, people have traditionally expected—indeed, demanded—far more state intervention.  They look to the government to solve their problems, and when the government fails, they become petulant.

What he said.

Hannan’s book, from which this excerpt of an excerpt comes, can be found here and here.

Racist Assaults

Posted on by
Reply

A group of 10 black youths—one of them a 12-year-old girl—surrounded a white couple’s car in Brooklyn, viciously beating the husband and yanking the wife to the pavement by her hair as they peppered the two with racial slurs, authorities said.

Get those crackers!” some of them screamed, according to court papers.  “Get that white whore!”

And so on.

I wonder: if President Barack Obama had a son and daughter-in-law, would they look like this couple?

Affirmative Action, Again

Posted on by
1

Michigan’s Proposition 2 is in front of the Supreme Court, with oral arguments having occurred last Tuesday.  Prop 2 is an amendment to Michigan’s constitution which the citizens of that state very solidly approved ‘way back in 2006, with 58% voting for it.  The amendment banned racial discrimination affirmative action in public education and in state employment and contracting.

Why is this even a question for the Supremes?  Because the 6th Circuit Court struck down the people’s voice on the odd pseudo-logic that banning racial preference was somehow harmful to minorities.  It would, as The Wall Street Journal put it, “bar a black student from seeking preferential admission to the University of Michigan while allowing applicants with alumni connections or other attributes to try to gain an edge.”

The 6th‘s argument is curious especially because the Michigan citizens’ amendment doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race; it bans exactly that.  Minorities can, for instance, go on about seeking special preferences based on family—just as anyone can at nearly any college or university in the country.  Minorities can go on about seeking special preferences for funding for sickle-cell anemia, which particularly afflicts blacks (oh, wait, there’s that disparate impact thing) or on and on.  No one can seek special preferences on the basis of race, though.

Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary attorney, George B Washington, says with no trace of irony,

We don’t believe in the colorblind Constitution.  We’re making what we think is a straightforward defense of the rights of black and Latino young people” to seek admissions preferences from university officials….

It doesn’t get any starker than this: eliminating discrimination on the basis of race is to discriminate on the basis of race because discrimination on the basis of race is a race right.

What should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court, though, isn’t.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 14th Amendment had been applied to protect politically weak “minorities against hostile, disadvantageous legislation” imposed by the majority.  True enough: the 14th demands “equal protection of the laws” for all, regardless of race (or any other non-meritorious characteristic).  By banning racial preferences, the citizens of Michigan did exactly than, and so those good citizens protected Michigan’s politically weak “minorities against hostile, disadvantageous legislation.”  Ginsburg chooses not to see that, however.

Additionally, Justice Sonia Sotomayor had this:

It’s always wonderful for minorities that they finally get in, they finally have children, and now you’re going to do away [with] that preference for them.  It seems that the game post keeps changing every few years for minorities.

No.  The problem is the constant insistence on racial preference—on judgment not by the content of a man’s character, but by the color of his skin.  The so far denied change is to eliminate that pernicious discrimination.

Finally, many have argued that Prop 2 actually has hurt minorities: their enrollment in Michigan’s colleges and universities, has fallen since the amendment was adopted.  A look at actual facts presents a different picture, though.  The graph below, from the University of Michigan and The Wall Street Journal, illustrates.

Plainly, there has been no effect at all on one minority group (which has been carefully ignored throughout the pro-affirmative action types—no discrimination here, though).  Americans of Asian descent has been constant since 2000, six years before passage of the amendment.

Black enrollment has fallen off.  But that downward trend was well established long before passage; their enrollment has been dropping steadily since 2001.  Since passage, the drop-off has continued, unchanged.

Hispanic enrollment paints a somewhat different picture.  This group’s enrollment has been flat since passage, halting a slight downward trend from a 2002 peak.

At worst, the citizens’ amendment has had no effect on minority enrollment.

Again, I ask: why is this even a question for the Supremes?  Except that it’s necessary in order to reverse a racially ignorant ruling by the 6th.