About a Bad Defense

As Bolivian forces descended upon the wounded mass murderer Ernesto "Che" Guevara, he who sent so many to their deaths begged, "Don't shoot. I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead." I always found it an ironic plea, as if to say "Don't shoot me. I'm the guy who would have murdered you and your entire family."

Similarly (well, only kinda, but still), the Obama administration recently sacked a USDA bigwig for confessing that she had discriminated against white farmers. It seems to me that this is a bit more complicated than it initially seems.

However, it's this comment that she makes in her defense that bugs me:

I was telling the story of how working with him helped me to see the issue is not about race," she said. "It's about those who have versus those who do not have.

Am I missing something, or is she defending herself by saying that she's not racist anymore because now she's a Marxist?

"Don't shoot--I'm Che!"

Racism is Racism

This article blew me away.

In a supposed attempt to reduce the achievement gap between black and white students, Mike Madison, principal of an Ann Arbor elementary school, arranged a special field trip in which some kids met with and listened to a presentation from a successful African-American rocket scientist.

And how might this reduce the achievement gap between black and white students? That's easy. Madison (himself an African-American) reasoned that this would get kids more interested in math and science, so he decided to exclude all white students from the field trip.

That's right. He hoped that black scores would go up and white scores would either go down, stay the same, or at least not go up as much. How else do you reduce the gap?

Of course, that's not Madison's stated reason. According to him, "[I]t gave the [black] kids an opportunity to see this type of achievement is possible for even them."

But why forbid white students from attending? If all students had been in attendance, the black students will still have seen a successful black man. Every benefit cited by Madison would have still been valid. The only difference is that white students would have benefited too.

There can be no reason for excluding the white students other than that the principal did not want them to benefit from the field trip.

Assailed by parents, Madison rose to his own defense, saying

The intent of our field trip was not to segregate or exclude students as has been reported, but rather to address the societal issues, roadblocks and challenges that our African American children will face as they pursue a successful academic education here in our community.

And yet he sought to accomplish this intent by segregating and excluding students. He basically said to black students, "You are black, so you get to go." And to white students, "You are white, so you do not get to go."

If you have trouble seeing the blatant racism at play in this scenario, try reversing the races. Imagine a white principal arranging an enrichment activity that he hoped desperately would lead to measurable improvement in achievement scores. Now imagine that white principal arranging the activity for white students only. If it helps you to picture it in the South back in the 1950s-60s, then go ahead. Also, while you're at it, imagine the principal's defenders dressed in white sheets.

Just remember that this crap is happening in Michigan as we speak, and it's promoters wear shirts and ties and vote democrat.

The Imus Rant That You Knew Must Come

On my earlier post of about 45 minutes ago, I implied sympathy for Don Imus and antipathy for those leading the witch hunt against him.

I do not deny this.

Imus is a "Shock Jock." That's his job. That's what CBS paid him for, and that's what sponsors sponsored. He's supposed to say things that are "out of line." Imus was not paid to say things that made us smile, nod, and praise. He was paid to shock people with outrageous comments.

Imus is accused of making sexist and racially disparaging remarks. However, don't such remarks fit his job description?

Even without defending what he said, it must be admitted that he said what he was paid to say, and he has the undeniable right to say what he said.

While I respect CBS's right to fire Imus (what else could they do, from a publicity stance?), I also say that doing so was rotten.

Hell, I don't even listen to Imus.