Monday, May 31, 2004


Mike Adams comments on Orwell's 1984: "I know that just about everyone reading this list had to read Orwell in high school. For me, that was over twenty years ago. Because I work at a public university, I am reminded of Orwell on a daily basis. The Office of Campus Diversity reminds me of Orwell's "Ministry of Peace" which, in Orwell's words, "concerned itself with war." This book is more relevant today than ever. Even those who have read it should take the time to read it again...".

He adds: "pick up a great work of classic literature and enjoy the reading. You know, like the kind they used to assign in college when English professors taught English instead of homosexuality and feminism".


Should we slap children?

"During the course of Spock's career as the world's paediatrician, he changed his mind about smacking, and became an anti. But as he's dead, he is not here to lend his support in person to the hugely powerful campaign that is gathering steam in Westminster to remove from parents the right to `reasonably chastise' their own offspring, a removal that will necessarily criminalise millions of loving, responsible parents who slap a naughty child on the back of the legs...

If you read the literature put out by the Children Are Unbeatable! alliance, the lead agency of the anti-smacking lobby group, you would think that this country was a nation of child-beaters, and be ashamed to be British...

all parents who decide, for whatever reason, that the best way to put a stop to a child's behaviour is a smack, or who regrettably lose their temper, will have committed a crime. And their children can report them to the police, and then they will be put on a list, and social services can be informed, and so on.

The change to the law will fundamentally change the legal relationship between a parent and a child, and will encourage children to believe - both at home and at school - that they have a right to behave as they please and no obligation to follow adult instruction or direction, just as children at school do not believe that they have any duty to respect the teachers standing in front of them

`I'm furious about it,' one mother of three (who preferred to remain anonymous) told me. `I don't go about whacking my children, but I do believe a calm premeditated slap, given after a warning, can draw the line under particularly buggersome behaviour. If smacking was banned, I'd feel despair, and even more marginalised... "

Sunday, May 30, 2004


"The UK House of Commons health select committee has produced a damning report on the growing problem of obesity, and the government's failure to deal with it.

The report says that obesity levels have risen rapidly in the past few years. Obesity is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more - BMI being a ratio of weight to height. Obesity levels have risen fivefold in the past 25 years. And if action isn't taken, we are told, many children will die before their parents do. The media fanfare that accompanied the launch focused on the shocking death of a three-year-old girl who 'choked on her own fat'.

The report suggests that more government intervention is required to prevent a tidal wave of death and illness - junk food advertising to children should be stopped, children should be weighed annually, and a cabinet committee should be set up to coordinate action.

But amid all this hysteria, a bit of scepticism is required. This obesity 'epidemic' has taken off at a time when more and more people have tried low-fat diets and government health campaigns are becoming ubiquitous. Far from doing nothing, governments spend a lot of time telling us to eat less. And being fat isn't exactly fashionable today - quite the reverse. Yet average weight continues to rise.

Has this led to a tidal wave of ill-health? Not at all. Life expectancy continues to rise - and we are currently obsessed by a pensions crisis caused by the fact that more of us are living into our dotage.

However, for 50 years there has been a campaign to make us lose substantial amounts of weight. Bizarrely, there is almost no evidence that losing weight improves health prospects; many reports suggest that intentional weight loss makes things worse, particularly if the weight is put back on later.

As the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote in 1998: 'Until we have better data about the risks of being overweight and the benefits and risks of losing weight, we should remember that the cure for obesity may be worse than the condition.'"

More here


I would have thought that poverty and lack of food was a much bigger priority

Fat mania now international: "World Health Organization officials have launched a diplomatic blitz to try to avert the collapse of a draft global strategy on diet, physical activity and health, because of objections by Brazil, Cuba and sub-Saharan African nations. Top World Health Organization officials have launched a diplomatic blitz to try to avert the collapse of a draft global strategy on diet, physical activity and health, because of objections by Brazil, Cuba and sub-Saharan African nations".

Saturday, May 29, 2004


Recent judicial lawmaking in Australia & New Zealand:

"In October 2001 Justice Chisholm of the Family Court ruled that, in effect, two women could marry. A woman who decided to become a man, and renamed herself Kevin, had taken up a relationship with another woman, Jennifer, and began steps to marry in 1999. The judge ruled that "man" could mean a variety of things, and not just be related to the constraints of biology. Psychological and social considerations, in other words, could also be considered when we redefine "male" and "female".

In December 2003 Family Court Justice Sally Brown ruled that it was in the best interests of a child that it be raised, not by a mother and a father, but by two male homosexuals.

Just this month Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson of the Family Court declared that a 13-year-old girl could undergo a sex change procedure because she felt that she was really a boy.

And in New Zealand this month, an Auckland Family Court ruled that a toddler could have three parents: the lesbian mum, her female partner, and the Sydney male sperm-donor.


A disillusioned American mother wants her kids to get a real education

"[Public] schools are hardly places devoid of worship. Indeed, "religious" is probably the best adjective to describe their fervent allegiance to the beliefs and precepts of what is known as "political correctness" on display in classrooms across the nation. Maybe it is this new religious devotion to a leftist cultural ideology--which today's schools preach and which yesteryear's schools did not--that Baptists now find "anti-Christian."...

I'm not a Baptist, but I added my twin fifth-grade daughters this past year to the estimated 1.7 million to 2.1 million students who, according to the Oregon-based National Home Education Research Institute, are educated at home....

The excellently rated, wealthy and very white public elementary school in Montgomery County, Md., that my daughters attended last year... eventually inspired in me a deep and abiding faith: I came to believe there was no way on, er, God's green earth that I could possibly teach my girls less than they learned in that school....

For me, the decision to educate the kids at home didn't crystallize right away. Truth be told, I was almost willing to give a pass to the Maryland public-school teacher who taught a storybook version of Christopher Columbus through the eyes of a native girl who peered through a palm frond at the "awkward" Spaniards setting foot on the New World only to laugh at their "funny" clothes. Given the triumph of the PC order, there is an argument to be made that the Klutzing of Columbus, and worse, has become an unavoidable part of modern-day education--a requirement that may be balanced by intense de-programming sessions at home.

But Columbus was just the beginning. Thanksgiving, as described in a holiday assignment to read "multicultural stories of family and immigration," became "a time when families get together to celebrate their traditions and their heritage." It was the "their-ness" of the formulation--as opposed to the "our-ness" of the holiday--that could make any happy thanks-giver choke on the stuffing. Defining the holiday as an occasion for families to celebrate "their" separate traditions and "their" separate heritage gives the day of national thanksgiving an unmistakable international-night-at-the-community-center flavor.

Which was typical of the way the school framed all subjects, cropping anything universal for a clear shot at the ethnic label. Book reports for young readers, only just delving into decent chapter-books, were pegged to race or gender--never writerly merit or imagination--in such assignments as "Hispanic book month."...

One daughter's big fourth-grade history project was to portray Tiger Woods in a "living wax museum" that the class created to mark Black History Month. (A handout went home prohibiting face paint and wigs in the children's costumes.) An honors unit in English--sorry, language arts-- focused on Japanese internment during World War II. A "poetry" project lavishly turned classrooms into both a 1950s Greenwich Village coffee house and a "People's Park"--children were asked to wear black-- but generated only lousy haiku. Colonial history morphed into a unit on immigration that included a field trip to a social-services center to "interview" mainly Hispanic immigrants".

More here

Friday, May 28, 2004


Race matters more than catching offenders to the new politically correct British police: Blacks are right and whites are wrong

"A CHEMIST beaten unconscious in his shop did his own detective work in a bid to nail the attackers – but says he was made to feel he was the wrong-doer. Brian Conn, the pharmacist at Barry Shooters on the High Road, Chadwell Heath, managed to get a picture of the lout who attacked him after grabbing a disposable camera from a display. He took the pictures to a local school and managed to identify the face. He then discovered that the 19-year-old yob had once been a customer and his address was even registered on the pharmacy's computer.

Armed with all the information so the police could need to make an arrest he passed them everything he had found out. But he was then told that if the case went to court he may have to answer questions regarding the Data Protection Act. This supposedly makes it illegal to pass on information obtained from a computer.

The 40-year-old said: "I phoned the police expecting them to be grateful. But they made me feel like I had done something wrong. "I was the one who had been beaten unconscious.

The attack happened on December 17 at around 3pm. A number of youths entered the shop and became abusive, so Mr Conn asked them to leave. One of them then assaulted him, knocking him to the floor before the gang fled.

The police have this week been back in contact with Mr Conn after a sudden burst of media attention surrounding the incident. But they claim that they only pointed out that if the case went to court Mr Conn would have to say where the details came from. A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "We took the details from Mr Conn but haven't made any arrests yet as we are still carrying out interviews with the victim and other witnesses.""

Detail omitted above: The photo showed the thug to be black. So the police did nothing until media attention forced them to. They had to work hard at NOT catching the offender under the circumstances

Thursday, May 27, 2004


More homosexual tyranny

"It's all over but the funeral. Free speech and religious liberty are now effectively dead in Canada, and recent developments across our northern border should awaken Americans to the peril of political correctness and its restrictions on freedom.

On April 28, the Canadian Senate passed bill C-250 by a vote of 59 to 11. In passing this legislation, the Canadian Parliament added "sexual orientation" to the nation's laws criminalizing "hate speech." The end result is that the Bible may now be considered a form of criminalized hate literature and Christians who teach that homosexuality is sinful may face criminal charges.

Even before the passage of C-250, Canadian legislators had been moving to restrict free speech and religious liberty. The concept of "hate speech" implies that certain forms of speech are to be criminalized for being out of step with the government's ideological positions. Canada's extensive hate speech laws already criminalized any statements considered to be disparaging to ethnic and minority groups. By adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes, the Canadian Parliament has not only shut down free speech; it has opened a legal can of worms that will be most difficult to handle. Since "sexual orientation" is undefined in the law, lesbians and homosexual men are unlikely to be the only persons demanding coverage under the law. As the statute now stands, criticism of pedophilia or polygamy--or any sexual act or relationship for that matter--could well be cause for criminal action.

The law was promoted by Svend Robinson, the Member of Parliament [MP] for Burnaby-Douglas. Robinson is a notoriously liberal and flamboyant legislator, who also promotes himself as something of a symbolic leader for Canada's gay community. Robinson's animus toward Christianity has been evident for some time, and he has described Christian leaders as "ecclesiastical dictators." Responding to one critic, Robinson showed his true colors: "You people are sick. God should strike you dead....

Editorial opinion in Canadian newspapers has been mixed, but the threat to religious liberty is immediately clear when one listens to the arguments made by C-250's proponents. Writing in The Toronto Star, Carol Lowes explained that C-250 is necessary because, "Some Christian charities, priests and pastors attempt to convince people of their wrongs and cultivate guilt or shame about perceived sins in their target audiences." Really? The obvious implication of Ms. Lowes' argument is that pastors must never tell anyone that they are sinners. How convenient... When preachers are told that they will "have to exercise caution in how they express their views," religious liberty is effectively dead."

More here

Wednesday, May 26, 2004


A whining Muslim, of course

"A migrant from the Middle East who failed his test to become a taxi driver three times has complained of discrimination. The man claims the pass mark is set too high. He has unsuccessfully sat the test three times since November 2000. The first time he failed all categories: English communication, map reading, maths and abstract reasoning.

But Equal Opportunity Commissioner Yvonne Henderson believes the man is a victim of discrimination and has referred the matter for a hearing at the Equal Opportunity Tribunal. It is the first time a complaint from a would-be taxi driver who has failed the test has been referred to the tribunal.

About 400 people apply to be taxi drivers in Perth each year, with up to 160 of them failing. About 60 per cent of applicants have English as a second language.

Ms Henderson, a former Labor Government minister, also took up the man's case with Planning and Infrastructure Minister Alannah MacTiernan. But Ms MacTiernan told The Sunday Times the Government made no apologies for introducing minimum training standards. "For the sake of the industry and the consumer we need to have taxi drivers operating at a very high level," Ms MacTiernan said. "It is absolutely vital that they are able to read a map, calculate the change and have reasonable communication skills. We are not aiming, in any way shape or form, to get migrants out of the industry. Migrants have been the absolute backbone of the taxi driving industry. We've got African drivers and many drivers from the Middle East and they are welcomed and do a fantastic job. I think they would agree that it's in everyone's interests that we do have the standards there."

More here


Ireland sure is different: Guess what conservative curmudgeon wrote this attack on female teachers taking too many sick-days off:

"I would like to see a breakdown of days taken off by women as opposed to men in employment. As a result it may be determined that, in being politically correct, trying to provide a comfort zone within the Civil Service and teaching profession for women, female absenteeism is made formally acceptable.

The most blatant example is that it is now normal for those who have babies to take further "sick time" off at taxpayers' expense. Days off in respect of "difficulties" with children are accepted as customary and paid for.

While we have never had illusions that civil servants do a lot of work, we most certainly pay the price in respect of problems caused by this lack of educational continuity."

Those ungallant words were penned by a representative of the Northern Irish GREEN party, no less. See here. Still, Greens don't like people very much and women are not seen as any exception, obviously.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004


What you eat is your business: "The best way to alleviate the obesity 'public health' crisis is to remove obesity from the realm of public health. It doesn't belong there anyway. It's difficult to think of anything more private and of less public concern than what we choose to put into our bodies. It only becomes a public matter when we force the public to pay for the consequences of those choices. If policymakers want to fight obesity, they'll halt the creeping socialization of medicine, and move to return individual Americans' ownership of their own health and well-being back to individual Americans."


(Perhaps the fact that I recently put him on the blogroll here had something to do with it)

"This is an interesting review of a book on political correctness in academia. If we accept that political correctness refers to incidents of coercive and intimidatory policies and practices that, undermine and constitute, a threat to academic freedom, then it exists in academia. This is Camile Pagalia's take on political correctness. Here is a psychoanalytic account of political correctness and a weblog called

The US historian C. Vann Woodward offers an incisive definition of "political correctness":
"In the present crisis the attack on freedom comes from outside as well as inside and is led by minorities, that is, people who speak or claim to speak for groups of students and faculty.... In behalf of their cause and to protect feelings from offensive speech they have, as we shall see, proved themselves willing to silence speakers and professors, abuse standards of scholarship, curriculum, and admissions, and impose conformity or silent submission on the campus." (in Beyond P.C. p.31).
As the word has come to be used it is both the policies and an intolerance, a closing of debate, a pressure to conform to a particular program of change. Political correctness usually means the practices associated with the "progressive agenda" of the academic left in the 1970s and 1980s.

It is a charge levelled by conservatives to the pressure to conform to a radical left-liberal program, or risk being accused of a commonly reiterated trio of thought crimes: sexism, racism and homophobia. As part of the culture war the use of "Political correctness" can become a slogan used to stifle debate."

More here

Monday, May 24, 2004


Muslim paedophilia in Britain must not be mentioned: "Channel 4 this week pulled its documentary Edge of the City from UK TV schedules, for fear that the programme would inflame racial tensions in Bradford and increase the British National Party's chances in forthcoming elections. The documentary alleges that underage white girls in Bradford have been sexually abused and encouraged to take drugs by Asian men, following a 16-month investigation into the matter by the police and social services. When the BNP urged its supporters to watch the programme, West Yorkshire's chief constable, supported by Bradford City Council, local MPs, and anti-fascist organisations, requested that the broadcast be postponed."


(In ancient Sparta -- the first Fascist State -- children were the property of the State and the State was responsible for their upbringing)

Proposals in the UK government's Children Bill: "Every child will have a file on the database, and teachers, doctors or other professionals will be expected to flag any 'cause for concern' on that file. This will include, not just child protection concerns, but issues such as whether exam results are lower than expected, or whether the family lives in poor housing. If two flags of concern are recorded, professionals will pool the information they hold about the child and his family, and decide what intervention is necessary.

When we are being watched, we detach a little from ourselves in order to check what others might see. Placing families under surveillance alters the whole dynamic of family life, and may force parents into what one father called 'defensive parenting'. It is likely that it will cause parents - and children - to think twice about asking for help from professionals, at the risk of opening their family life to scrutiny. If their toddler falls and bangs her head, perhaps parents will feel that 'erring on the side of caution' means not taking her to casualty. It is hard to see how scaring parents away from sources of advice can help their children....

But just as the state should protect children whose parents abuse their power, it is parents' duty to protect their children from an over-mighty state. Where parents are not abusive, however muddled, fallible or imperfect they may be, they are the people responsible for raising their children. The alternative is a state vision of child rearing, and history tells us how dangerous that is. The Children Bill has made far too many parents feel that they are being subjected to some kind of state takeover bid.

What will be the effect on the child protection system of the information sharing proposals in the Bill? If the system is struggling at the moment, it is likely to collapse under the weight of the data that is to be collected. If staff shortages and lack of resources are already causing local authorities to struggle to allocate child protection referrals, how will they cope when every failed SATs test, unauthorised absence or attendance at casualty is reported as suspicious? It is a fair bet that professionals will want to report every tiny incident, rather than risk accusations of negligence.

In other areas, meanwhile, parents are begging for help, particularly those parents whose children have special needs - and their requests are often met with silence by official agencies. I was recently carrying out research into the experiences of families where children have learning difficulties or chronic health problems, and was deluged with replies from families who were not receiving even the most basic help that they needed. Some had faced allegations that they were inadequate - or, worse, the cause of their child's problems...."

Sunday, May 23, 2004


I reproduce below the whole of a recent post on Clayton Cramer's blog. I must say, that like Clayton, I have basically never given two hoots about what homosexuals do with their bodies, but their recent tendency to tyrannize those who disapprove of them (Heck! A lot of people disapprove of ME but I don't go running to the courts about it!) is beginning to make me think that the traditional conservative horror of them might have some wisdom to it.

"I had mentioned some months back my concern that the gay rights crowd's success would inevitably mean the end of freedom for others. Professor Volokh also pointed to an example of a man sent to prison in Britain for carrying signs that argued that homosexuality was a sin. (The signs caused homosexuals to to attack this man, so he was sent to prison for inciting a riot.)

There have been other incidents as well, such as a Canadian teacher who was suspended from teaching because of letters to the editor he wrote expressing his disapproval of homosexuality. The Supreme Court of British Columbia decided that expressing such opinions "undermine the ability of members of the targeted group, homosexuals, to attain individual self-fulfilment." (The fact that no one gives me money to write full-time inteferes with my "individual self-fulfilment" but I haven't filed suit over this--yet.)

Now Professor Volokh gives another example of the homosexual campaign to abolish freedom--except for themselves. The ACLU filed suit against a printing company because they refused to print same-sex wedding invitations:
SEATTLE -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington today announced an agreement settling a discrimination complaint filed by a gay man against a local business that refused to print invitations to his wedding with his same-sex partner. Under the agreement, the business owner has apologized for her actions and agreed to abide by Seattle's anti-discrimination law in the future.

"Our nation's commitment to ending discrimination requires businesses to serve all customers equally," said ACLU of Washington staff attorney Aaron Caplan, who represented the gay man in the case. "Business owners are entitled to their private opinions about same-sex marriage, but discriminatory business practices are not permitted."
How long before clergymen are allowed to have their "private opinions" about same-sex marriage, but can't refuse to perform such marriages? Whatever happened to the ACLU's commitment to freedom of conscience?

Why are homosexuals so terrified of someone holding a differing opinion--even to the level of forcing a business to print wedding invitations? I wouldn't force an antiwar activist to go fight in Iraq. I wouldn't force them to pay for the war out of taxes (as long as they were willing to grant me the same freedom with respect to the government programs of which I disapprove). But homosexuals seem to be terrified that someone won't smile stupidly and say, "That's nice."

I really don't see much argument in favor of sodomy laws, except for this. There seems to be a totalitarian nature to homosexuality--hence their desire to shut up anyone that disagrees with them. The more time that they have to spend trying to persuade a majority to repeal sodomy laws (as opposed to persuading a few judges instead), the less time they have to pursue their totalitarian campaign of suppressing freedom of speech".


"Bill Cosby was anything but politically correct in his remarks Monday night at a Constitution Hall bash commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. To astonishment, laughter and applause, Cosby mocked everything from urban fashion to black spending and speaking habits.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal," he declared. "These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids -- $500 sneakers for what? And won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.' . . .

"They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English," he exclaimed. "I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' . . . And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. . . . Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. . . . You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!"

The Post's Hamil Harris reports that Cosby also turned his wrath to "the incarcerated," saying: "These are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake and then we run out and we are outraged, [saying] 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"


From VodkaPundit

"This is one of the more outrageous things I've read in quite a while. The public statements of one Vera Rorie, the Assistant Dean for Campus Life at Emory University in Atlanta, recently found their way onto the internet. Ms. Rorie subsequently received a critical email (gasp!) from an individual not associated with either the university or the local College Republicans chapter. Upon reading said email, Rorie abruptly cancelled a meeting with the CR leadership, and has refused contact with them ever since (nearly three months ago now).

Rorie's "logic" in cancelling the meeting? Here are her own words, in an email to the CR representatives:
My office had offered to assist the College Republicans in planning an event that would bring a conservative speaker of your choice to campus. In light of the attached email and link it is clear that you are not interested in practing [sic] community. The information you provided to outsiders is the source of the enclosed personal attacts [sic] on me. I am rescinding the offer to meet.I will not participate in email name calling or personal assaults.
You got that? Here we have a high-profile college administrator, whose job is to oversee the "campus life" of students saying, in effect, "If you dare tell anybody else what I've said, and they respond to me in a way I don't like, I'll cut you off completely, you miserable little fascists."

(And a senior academic from Emory can't even spell! Proof that Leftists are truthful about one thing: They don't believe in standards. It would seem to make Emory degrees something of a fraud, however)


American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


Saturday, May 22, 2004


Big Backdown: The U.S. Olympic Committee has decided that its athletes can wave their flag after all.

"Reports out of the USOC's media summit last weekend in New York said U.S. athletes would be told not to wave the flag at this summer's Athens Games because of anti-American sentiment in the region.

The USOC has instructed U.S. athletes on security details and proper behavior, but chief executive Jim Scherr said they have never been told not to wave the flag.

"The United States Olympic Committee wants to make it absolutely clear that we have not -- and will not -- instruct our athletes to refrain from waving the United States flag during the upcoming Athens Olympic and Paralympic Games," Scherr said in a statement Tuesday. "Any suggestions or statements to the contrary do not reflect the official position of our organization.""


The elitism shows when it is personal

Recently, I attended a colloquium on the disparity between the number of women earning college degrees compared to that of men, and found myself to be a squirming audience member. Although the participants were supposed to be addressing a widely discussed phenomenon spotlighted by a 2003 study entitled, 'The Growing Gender Gaps in College Enrollment and Degree Attainment in the U.S. and Their Potential Economic and Social Consequences,' the participants' focus was on their own personal prospects for marriage and those of their daughters....

"My daughter will have to marry down," stated a sociologist at the colloquium, meaning that her daughter would have to "settle" for a husband with less education and a lower income. A black sociologist added that for years, women in her peer group have had to marry down if they wanted to marry at all.

The study, conducted by Andrew Sum and colleagues, revealed that, in 2003, over 56 percent of college students were women. It concluded, "In every major age and race-ethnic group, women across the nation now enroll in college, persist in college, and graduate from college at considerably higher rates than men."...

Marriage is a healthy institution that adapts quickly to circumstance; marriage patterns may be shifting to adjust. There is a "marriage crisis" only for women and in-laws who demand an attorney or doctor for a husband and do not wish to welcome a plumber or mechanic into the family. This is their personal problem, not a social one. Indeed, if marrying down constituted a crisis, society would have collapsed long ago from the tendency of men to wed "below their station." Marrying down is called a social crisis only when women's choices appear to be limited. This reflects both hypocrisy and elitism.

As I listened to colloquium participants discuss marrying down, two truths became clear although neither was explicitly acknowledged. First, the same women who argued for minority rights, a more balanced equality, and advancement of the underprivileged seemed to be genuinely horrified at the prospect of dealing with "lesser" and "lower" men as equals in their personal lives. Second, "lesser" and "lower" was being defined solely with reference to income and formal education.

More here

Friday, May 21, 2004


"Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said yesterday that he did not intend to offend immigrants with remarks labeling multiculturalism as "bunk" and "crap," but reiterated his position that adherence to common American values is a cornerstone of a well-functioning society.

"Clearly, I certainly don't want anybody to be offended. But on the other hand, I meant very clearly to distinguish between how we should celebrate our diversity and ethnicity, but the important point here is assimilation," Ehrlich said during an interview on WTOP radio in Washington yesterday morning.

"It has always been the goal," said the governor. "And to those who believe that assimilation is not the goal, that's where the real debate lies, in my view."

More here.



"The comments about the divisiveness of diversity by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and state Comptroller William Donald Schaefer are on the mark.

Rushing to dilute the curriculum further with "multicultural" course requirements, colleges across the country, like many of those outraged by Mr. Ehrlich's and Mr. Schaefer's remarks, fail to understand that American culture is English. Seeing America as a diverse nation, they conclude that diversity is its most important truth. And then, seeing diversity as multiethnic, they conclude that America is multicultural.

It is not, of course, for a culture means far more than eating ethnic foods, celebrating ethnic holidays, singing in ethnic bands and donning ethnic costumes to dance at ethnic festivals. Are not the most important cultural truths about America crystallized in its Western heritage as transmitted by the English experience?

That experience is sixfold, as Russell Kirk says in his book, America's British Culture: first and crucially, the English language; a history evolving from Britain; a legal system based on English common law; political ideas and structures patterned on the British model; a literary heritage that's British to the core; and social ideals rooted in Britain.....

And it is the multiculturalist's further strange logic that demeans Western civilization because it has not perfectly fulfilled its high ideals. Regardless if slavery and repression of women were facts of life in Europe (slave derives from the medieval Latin sclavus, a Slav in forced Roman labor) as well as among Asians, Africans, Arabs and Mesoamericans, it is the West that has provided the antidotes - from emancipation to civil rights to suffrage, in America by "European" presidents, congressmen, soldiers and judges in the English tradition.....

Nevertheless, in hundreds of colleges, students are being steered from a rich tradition to take an affirmative action curriculum with required courses in non-Western cultures, race, "gender" (once a grammatical term), class, ethnicity and sexual orientation. The key curricular virtues are toleration (often moral neutrality), sensitivity (read: "thin-skin"), self-esteem (now a given, seldom an earned power) and "nonjudgmentalism" (that all-purpose liberal judgment), among other shallow, politically correct pieties in the name of diversity....

The American compass points steadily to the classical West, via England. Our national culture believes in equality before the law, due process, civil rights, freedom to speak, to worship, to keep arms and defend ourselves, to own property, to vote, to move about freely.

While Americans feverishly disagree about policies, we fervently agree about these English principles to debate and resolve them. But how can debate and citizenship even begin if not in a common language? America may be gloriously multiethnic, but it is not multicultural. For the better of all hyphenated Americans, starting with the language, it is an English culture.

Thursday, May 20, 2004


(Like cutting your daughter's clitoris out with a razor blade or killing her if a friend of the family rapes her)

"It's amazing as to how utterly ignorant some Americans - and officials at that - can be when it comes to the dreaded Islam. Now we have Nevada Governor Kenny C. Guinn coming up with "Muslim Family Value Day"! True!! He inaugurated that "institution" on April 30.

I wonder what his thoughts were when seeing the American beheaded. Did he want to retract his pronouncement? No news release on that, that is, as far as I could decipher.

But can one even begin to imagine in this day and age of Muslim murder global that a governor of a United State would declare "Muslim Family Value Day"?... The facts are that the Muslim family is ruled by a despot who has the declared, underlined, Koran-stated right to beat his wife, dictate her every move and give her further abuse if she dares raise her feminine voice. Now that's only the start of the so-called Muslim Family VALUE system.

So with the blind leading the blind, Guinn declared April 30 as "Muslim Family Value Day", sending forth a beautifully crafted laudatory, even with the state seal plus further embellished political blessings.

Of course, don't hold your breath for the same governor to come to his equality senses to declare a particular future date as "Christian Family Value Day". Why not? Because the ACLU would jump the matter into the nearest court. But naturally the ACLU will do nothing but applaud this latest stupid venture of the governor -- for Christianity has become The Threat to the Planet".

More here


Do fraternities deserve their bad reputation? "For decades, society has been undergoing a powerful campaign known as political correctness, which seeks to control the definition and presentation of concepts, including 'marriage' and 'the family.' The purpose is to encourage allegedly proper ideas and behavior, by law if necessary, and to discourage improper ones.

A recent news story left me questioning how deeply the ideas in my own mind have been socially engineered. The news item was on college fraternities -- or 'frat boys' -- and their relationship to violence against women. The Frat Boy. He's the drunken party-animal who date rapes when he isn't playing childish pranks or hazing. He's the lowbrow, sports-sated rich kid who is rude to women and minorities. I know this ... even though the fraternity members I've met do not resemble that image."

Wednesday, May 19, 2004


Policing the food police: "Like so many other do-gooder causes, the idea of forcing our children to eat nutritious foods sounds great on its face. If kids eat more apples and cauliflower instead of chips and candy, they're bound to be thinner, happier, smarter, more willing to mow lawns and thrilled to walk early morning paper routes. But on an array of practical levels, CSPI's proposal for a massive new federal mandate that interferes with local, parental and student decision-making collapses under its own weight."


"The Center for Individual Freedom today announced its staunch opposition to a new federal proposal to restrict food choices in the nation's schools. Senator Tom Harkin (D-NE) and other members of Congress pressed for such a plan at a Capitol Hill press conference today. ... 'Instead of teaching students to eat in moderation and encouraging them to make smart choices, Senator Harkin wants to take away their choices and mandate their behavior. That's the wrong approach,' Manson continued."

Tuesday, May 18, 2004


From the BBC, of course:

"A statue in a Spanish cathedral showing St James slicing the heads off Moorish invaders is to be removed to avoid causing offence to Muslims. Cathedral authorities in the pilgrim city of Santiago de Compostela, on Spain's north west coast, plan to move the statue to the museum. Among the reasons for the move is to avoid upsetting the "sensitivities of other ethnic groups"... The Saracen-slaying image of St James, or Santiago in Spanish, is a symbol of the fight between Christianity and Islam and the reconquest of Spain from eight centuries of Moorish rule before 1492. Cathedral authorities insist the timing of the decision has nothing to do with the 11 March bombings in Madrid, which an Islamic group is alleged to have carried out".


Robert Kilroy-Silk, the chatshow host forced out for inflammatory comments about Arabs, is to stand for the hard-right UK Independence party at next month's Euro elections. The move is the latest twist in an eclectic career, which has seen him switch from being a Labour MP to a successful broadcaster and newspaper columnist.

His choice of UKIP - which advocates withdrawal from Europe and detention for asylum seekers - may raise eyebrows. But its commitment to 'freedom from political correctness' and a strengthened right of free speech on issues such as immigration could appeal to the man who lost his job for describing Arab nations as 'suicide bombers, limb amputators and women repressors' in an article for the Sunday Express.

Capturing Kilroy-Silk is a publicity coup for the fringe party, whose best-known martyr to political correctness until now was a 78-year-old UKIP activist from Liverpool charged with racially aggravated criminal damage after putting up a party poster which said 'Keep The Pound, Leave The EU' and writing alongside it 'Don't Forget the 1945 War' and 'Free Speech for England'. The charge against George Staunton was later dropped and he explained he was not racist, but wanted to discuss the impact of immigration.

More here.

Monday, May 17, 2004


From Chris Brand:

"As the gauleiters of the CRE issued a 99-page booklet of `guidelines' on avoiding racist actions, speech or thought in the British workplace (e.g. by never spelling Mahomet's name wrongly or saying Christmas is more fun than Ramadan), a Times leading article (6 v) condemned the publication as "unreadable", full of abstractions and "daft jargon" and a preposterous imposition on employers {especially since it would doubtless lead to countless more casuistical lawsuits aiming at massive compensation for the slightest `insensitivity'}.

A few days of close study by business leaders revealed that ethnic-loving CRE was imposing on every British employer an obligation to provide a special `prayer room' and paid religious holidays for any workers feeling they needed such provisions; and employers were told that if they had no ethnics on their payroll, they must consider employing even dullard applicants lacking the required qualifications. Employment Tribunals would be obliged to enforce on employers these shameful demands by the CRE for `positive discrimination' (aka affirmative racism).

{Not to be outdone, Americans with psychological disabilities such as Attention Deficit Disorder, Asperger's Syndrome and Bipolar Disorder began demanding that the world tolerate and even compensate them for their handicaps - thus achieving a new peecee goal of `neurodiversity' (New York Times, 9 v). Ten years ago it used to be joked that PeeCee would culminate in beautiful girls and amply-tackled men being required to mutilate themselves so as to achieve the ideal of equality - the joke being intended to ridicule PeeCee. But with the dyslexic (and doubtless other disabled) now being given extra time in `university' examinations, the fantasies of modern egalitarians are increasingly foisted on the world'.

Sunday, May 16, 2004


"A school district agreed as part of a legal settlement to apologize to a high school valedictorian whose yearbook quote was removed because it was a Bible verse.

Abby Moler, a 2001 graduate, was among students asked to offer their thoughts for Stevenson High School's yearbook. Her entry included the verse, Jeremiah 29:11: "`For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, `plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."'

School officials told Moler at the time that her quote was deleted because of its religious nature. The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union announced the settlement Tuesday. Utica Community Schools officials declined to comment.

The ACLU said that under the terms of the settlement, the school district agreed to place a sticker with Moler's original entry in copies of the yearbook on file at the high school; ordered current yearbook staff to not censor other religious or political speech; to train its staff on free speech and religious freedom issues; and to write Moler a letter of regret."

Source. (Via Just Talking)


"We have forgotten that student achievement actually involves hard-working students and talented teachers. Students who work hard and are challenged have the best chance of success. Perhaps this last myth is the most damaging of all. Hard work will cure a lot of the problems that are commonly attributed to a lack of funding or lack of diversity. Racial diversity, and the presence of white kids specifically, do not result in minority students achieving more-intense studying every day does. The human person was created with an innate desire to know and the potential to use acquired knowledge. Fostering this God-given desire and potential leads to personal fulfillment and academic success.

In the final analysis, natural ability and a strong work ethic on the part of teachers and students have more to do with student success than any other factors. Recognition of that fact would put the responsibility for achievement on individual students and teachers. Blaming the unquantifiable scapegoats of "race" and "class" would no longer be convenient in a climate of individual irresponsibility. Respect for the dignity of every student demands that educators, parents, and students themselves take an honest look at their efforts and judge how well they are fulfilling their own responsibilities".


Saturday, May 15, 2004


"The broader cultural landscape inhibits the transformation of boys into good men. Radical feminism, to name one feature of this landscape, has in some ways undermined the relations between the sexes. Radical feminists have not directly changed the character of traditional men. There are still a number of gentlemen who will open doors for ladies at the risk of being told off by the occasional woman out to prove her equality and independence. What feminism has done, in conjunction with political correctness, is deprive overly non-offensive, modern parents of the language traditionally used to bring up young boys: "Be a man." "Stick up for your sister." "Quit throwing the ball like a sissy." "Quit crying like a girl." Instead, we have a lot of lukewarm, androgynous talk about "being a good person" and "showing respect to people." A naturally rambunctious and irascible boy, though, is not too interested in being a good person. For if he achieves that status, what will distinguish him from his prim and proper sister? The parents have no language to answer their son's deepest and most natural needs".



An old-time journalist speaks::

"In each case the reporters I met were, with very few exceptions, pig ignorant. The military reporters didn’t know the history, the weaponry, the technology, strategy, tactics, or how soldiers work. Almost none had served. The police reporters chased scanners instead of riding regularly and just didn’t know what was out there or who cops are or why they act as they do. The tech writers were mostly history majors.

Over the years I’ve noticed several things. First, in print publications, most reporters aren’t very smart. A few are very bright, but probably through a mistake in hiring. (The prestigious papers are exceptions, hiring Ivy League snots of the sort who viscerally dislike soldiers, cops, rural people, guns, etc.) Reporting requires assertiveness and willingness to deal with tedious material under pressure of deadlines. These qualities seldom come bundled with inquiring intelligence. Consequently reporters (again with the occasional exception) lack curiosity, and don’t read in their fields.

The results are reasonably obvious to all of us, no? Is it not true that when you know a field, those writing about it clearly don’t?

Second, they are painfully politically correct, frightened of making a slip. Everyone in the racket knows exactly what you can’t say and what you have to say. Thus what reporters know, they don’t say; and what they say, they don’t believe. Writers are afraid of being fired; newspapers are afraid of their readers and, very important, of their advertisers. Editors are terrified of blacks, Jews, Hispanics, homosexuals, and women.

Third, the media are controlled, controlled, controlled. It is easy not to notice just how controlled. For example, people are interested in crime and the police. Ever see a television station put a cop on camera and let him talk for half an hour about what it’s really like out there? Never happen. An honest cop couldn’t manage three sentences without saying something perfectly true but forbidden.

Fourth, to understand journalism, you have to understand that, once you have a decent beat, it’s a ticket to ride. It’s fun. You get to go where others don’t, do things other people only dream about. You have power. You have privilege. The paper buys you tickets and hotels for the Paris Air Show; you go to exotic wars, ride in fighter planes. Important people who think you are an idiot are nice to you because they are afraid of you. And if you don’t ruffle feathers, you keep both power and privilege. So the easy thing is to write what you are supposed to write and have a splendid time.

Fifth, reflect that because of law, convention, and political fear papers have to hire “diverse” newsrooms. This exercises a powerful flattening effect on the news. For practical purposes it is not possible to express opinions, or to cover stories, that offend a sizable group on the floor of the newsroom. If your editor is female, or the guy at the next desk black, or gay, you find it very hard to write anything that these groups won’t like. After all, you have to come to work every day. More diversity in the newsroom means less diversity in the news.

Finally, whoever owns the paper calls the tune. It isn’t always done obviously. You don’t get a telephone call from the publisher, or whoever in New York owns your paper, saying, “Yes, it is I. The Big Boy. God. Here’s what I want you to write….” But you know the paper’s line, its taboos. You abide by them or you walk. Given that the media are owned by small numbers of people who believe the same things, the tune that is called seldom varies".

Friday, May 14, 2004


Even jocularly

The Confederate Air Force, the largest private aviators' club in the world, and by some counts the third or fourth biggest 'air force' has been shot down by politically correctness. As this tour site comment says: "Although the CAF had to be re-named Commemorative Air Force to be 'politically correct' in America, to all warbird fans it remains the Confederate Air Force, and its superb air show is still the best air show of its type in the world - no one comes close!" The CAF's identification patch used to read "This is a CAF aviator. If found lost or unconscious, please hide him from Yankees, revive with mint julep and assist him in returning to friendly territory"


Fish fraud, back again: "Only eat what we tell you to eat. That's the edict from the misnamed Seafood Choices Alliance, a consortium of food agitators determined to steer the public away from fish they deem politically incorrect.

Frustrated with failed attempts to legislate a wide array of seafood delights off our plates, SCA is now passing out wallet-sized cards listing fish that it doesn't want you to eat. Though billed as an innocuous information campaign, this holier-than-thou coalition of food-scare professionals is really intent on dictating their food choices to the rest us. If they get their way, you'll never eat shrimp again. Or swordfish, Chilean Sea Bass, grouper, orange roughy, bluefin tuna ... and the list goes on. This isn't the first time the Seafood Choices Alliance has tried to pry Americans from their seafood choices."

Thursday, May 13, 2004


Teacher punished for belief in Jesus: "A South Carolina teacher has been placed on paid leave for affirming a student's question about Jesus. Jean Byce, a teaching assistant at La France Elementary in the Bible belt town of Anderson, SC, explained to parents and teachers on Wednesday night that a curious student wanted to know her opinion about Jesus. 'In a school in a community like ours, where 99 percent of the people are Christians, children talk about Jesus a lot,' Byce told the NBC affiliate WYFF-TV. 'A student sang a song to me and asked me a question about Jesus being in heaven forever and believing in Jesus and going to heaven, and asked if I believed that, and I said 'Yes.'' However, John Cummings, the parent of another child in the classroom, became upset by Byce's answer and voiced his concern to the school district."


Students struggle to set up GOP club: "Students at a Maryland high school known for its environmental activism have encountered several setbacks in starting up a young Republicans' club at the school. Five students at Sparrows Point High School in northern Baltimore County say school administrators and teachers have intentionally delayed their efforts to form a Teenage Republican Club because they don't want to have a conservative club at a liberal school. 'It's frustrating because nobody will help us,' said club President Donald Caldwell, a senior at the public school of about 830 students. 'We're about 90 percent liberal here.' Principal Robert SantaCroce initially refused to allow the students to form the club. When he changed his mind, the club's faculty adviser withdrew his support."


American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


Wednesday, May 12, 2004


"Writing for the January 2004 issue of the Harvard Law Review, student editor Lawrence VanDyke gave scholar Francis Beckwith's book, Law, Darwinism, & Public Education, a positive review. The book makes constitutional arguments for the potential acceptability of including intelligent-design arguments in high-school science curricula. VanDyke found Beckwith's arguments convincing and said so in his book note.

Such a sin could not go unpunished or unpublicized by those who hold to the inerrancy of the Darwinian scriptures. The Book of Scopes, 2:12-14 reads, "Thou shalt not admit that any explanation of origins outside the neo-Darwinian synthesis may have merit. Verily, thou must proclaim that any alternate explanation is of the same religious origin as witch burning and will be struck down by the Establishment Clause before ever being discussed in a public school."

VanDyke's temerity in giving prime real estate in one of America's most respected legal publications to Beckwith's work was particularly galling to Brian Leiter. Intelligent design? Francis Beckwith? In the Harvard Law Review? It was all too much for Leiter, which may be why he risked his prestige to make this petty, but deadly serious attack on VanDyke:
The author of this incompetent book note . . . is one Lawrence VanDyke, a student editor of the Review. Mr. VanDyke may yet have a fine career as a lawyer, but I trust he has no intention of entering law teaching: scholarly fraud is, I fear, an inauspicious beginning for an aspiring law teacher. And let none of the many law professors who are readers of this site be mistaken: Mr. VanDyke has perpetrated a scholarly fraud, one that may have political and pedagogical consequences
One doesn't need to work very hard to read between the lines. Leiter seems to be threatening VanDyke's career if he should dare to set foot in the academy. The tone of his post makes clear that he means this student editor of the Harvard Law Review harm".

More here.


In a major victory for liberty and equal rights on campus, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) has settled a free speech lawsuit. The case involved Cal Poly student Steve Hinkle, who was punished for posting a flier on a public bulletin board announcing a College Republicans-sponsored speech by a black social critic. Some students at the campus Multicultural Center found the flier "offensive." See the flier here. Cal Poly has agreed to expunge Hinkle's disciplinary record relating to the incident, to permit him to post fliers, and to pay significant attorney's fees. The settlement of the lawsuit ends a year-long campaign organized by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) to restore the Bill of Rights and fundamental fairness to this public university. You can find out more about the history of the Hinkle case here.

"We are pleased that free speech has been upheld at Cal Poly, but we truly are stunned that this university fought so desperately to deny a student's most fundamental rights," said Alan Charles Kors, Chairman of FIRE. He added, "Cal Poly's example sends a warning to university administrators everywhere who deny rights and legal equality: You will fail in the court of public opinion; you will fail in the courts of law; and you will be held accountable by the citizens whose freedom you hold in contempt."

FIRE Legal Network attorney Carol Sobel filed the federal lawsuit against Cal Poly on September 25, 2003, in conjunction with the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), a nonprofit public interest law firm. The complaint asked the court to overturn Cal Poly's punishment of Steve Hinkle and to clear his record of any wrongdoing. Sobel and CIR also sought a ruling that Cal Poly's interpretation of "disruption"—which had been used to punish Hinkle's clearly protected speech—was unconstitutional.....

Under the settlement, Cal Poly agrees to clear the incident from Hinkle's disciplinary record and pledges not to interfere with Hinkle's right to post promotional fliers. Cal Poly also repudiates its overbroad definition of "disruption" and agrees that "disruption" actually must be willful and must "materially and substantially disrupt a University activity or the orderly operation of the University."

Curt Levey, CIR's director of legal and public affairs, explained the importance of the victory: "Thanks to the work of FIRE and CIR, it has become more difficult for schools to punish students for the ‘crime' of ‘offensive' speech." "However," he added, "this progress is endangered when schools attempt to use a charge of disruption as a pretext for censoring speech. Fortunately, Steve Hinkle's victory will serve to discourage such attempts at Cal Poly and beyond."

Greg Lukianoff, FIRE's director of legal and public advocacy, remarked, "The settlement brings an end to a bizarre and outrageous attempt to suppress free speech. Cal Poly's injustice has plagued an innocent student for the past year and a half." Lukianoff continued, "Unfortunately, the university's action comes too late for California taxpayers, who, in the midst of a serious fiscal crisis, must now foot the $40,000 bill for Cal Poly President Baker's contempt for the U.S. Constitution."

More here

Tuesday, May 11, 2004


Jeff Jacoby notes how hostile to religion public schools have now become: (Excerpts)

"Parents who take their faith seriously ought to think twice before putting their kids' education in the hands of the state. If war is too important to be left to the generals, the shaping of children's minds and values is surely too important to be left to government educators.

For the first two centuries of American history, it was taken for granted that education included not only reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic, but a fourth "R" -- religion -- as well. That began to change in the 19th century, however, and by the late 1800s, the burgeoning "common school" system was resolutely secular.

Nonetheless, many schools continued to affirm the importance of God and religion in American life. Well into the 20th century, for example, daily prayer and Bible reading were a familiar part of the public-education experience, and students sang Christmas carols in annual school pageants.

No more. Government schools today routinely suppress any trace of religious influence. Not only do teachers no longer lead their classes in group prayer, students have been reprimanded for uttering *private* prayer, such as grace before meals. Public schools have barred children from reading Bible stories during their free time or giving bags of jelly beans with a religious poem attached to their classmates before Easter. In a case now being litigated in Virginia, school officials want to ban a graduating senior from singing Celine Dion's "The Prayer" during commencement exercises because the song asks God to "help us to be wise in times when we don't know."

This isn't neutrality toward religion -- it's hostility."

For the record, I send my son to a Catholic school -- complete and unswerving atheist though I am. Unlike Leftists, I don't feel threatened by beliefs and attitudes different from my own. I recognize religion as an important part of life and think my son should learn about it. And I never say a word against religious faith -- either to my son or to anybody else. Religious tyranny -- which is what the Left, most Muslims and some old-fashioned Christians advocate -- is a different matter, of course.

I must confess, however, that I am not a little amused by how futile Leftist religious tyranny often is. Nowhere has Leftist religious tyranny been more complete than under the State-sponsored atheism of the old Soviet system. Yet Russia today is still a very religious country -- with many young clergy. By contrast, I did everything I could to assist my son to achieve his wish to be baptised and confirmed -- and now note that, at age 16, his views seem to be converging rapidly with my own!


Conservative Australian columnist Andrew Bolt gets a lot of space in the press so he gets a lot of email from High School students who have never before heard the conservative side of the many issues that he discusses. He describes and responds to some of the emails concerned here. (Excerpts):

"Many of our teachers are fine professionals. But some insist on shoving their opinions on to students. Happily, the kids are fighting back. The e-mails I get from students should worry me, but, guys, you make my day. Several times a week now, another e-mail from one of you bleeps into my inbox. Some of you have written in anger, and some as if you've figured something you hardly dare to believe. My teacher may not be telling me the truth, you write. Can you help? Send some information, maybe, to help me argue back?

Here's a typical e-mail from one of you in Year 12: "We are studying Stolen, the play (about the "stolen generations") and are also looking at the history. We were constantly shown evidence that 'it did happen'. Our 'unbiased' teacher was completely sure the stolen generations did happen. Are there any other articles that you could direct my attention to so to help me with an upcoming oral?" Most of your letters are much the same. In fact, more than a dozen of you have asked me for help after being made to study this same play, but that's very far from your only worry.

"The bias is shameful and blatant," stormed one of you, a young man with a Chinese name who graduated last year. "I feel cheated and deceived by our education system. I studied geography and one of the topics in the second semester was global warming. Surprise, surprise, every single handout painted Western countries, particularly the USA, as some kind of big, evil polluting satans responsible for a largely natural process. Then in English, teachers would continuously show their anti-war bias when we studied media texts."

Another of you, a Year 11 student from a Catholic school, helped me to understand why so many protesters turned up to anti-war rallies in school uniforms. "After I had listened to the first 20 minutes of blatant propaganda about the effects of the United Nations sanctions and the appalling way in which the US had conducted the last war, it came time for another member of the staff to preach to us about our duty as Catholics to stand up for 'those poor Iraqis'. "As I walked out of the theatre among a nervous silence and looks of guilt I noticed posters pinned to the wall encouraging students to join in anti-war marches."

One boy in a country school refused to join in this group-hate, as his proud mother told me: "When my son stated that he did not want to write a letter supporting this view but requested he be allowed to write one in support of Vanstone, he was told, 'OK, but it won't be posted'. "When two of his friends then made similar suggestions, (my son) was told to keep his opinions to himself and 'stop influencing others'."

No, we can't have you thinking for yourselves.

Yesterday I launched Why Our Schools Are Failing, a book by a friend, Dr Kevin Donnelly, who shows in chapter after chapter how you're not being taught the facts about so many subjects, but opinions. Your teachers' opinions, usually. As Donnelly explains, quoting many examples, over the past 40 years "academics, teacher unions and sympathetic governments argued that the Australian education system should be used as an instrument to bring about a more socialist society". And you're their guinea pigs, I'm afraid."

Monday, May 10, 2004


"Who cares?" say Leftist teachers: "One of the primary functions of a punishment is to motivate people to avoid it in the first place. Perhaps the strongest argument against so-called 'social promotion' is that kids would have no reason to study if there were no possibility of failure. Whether or not students who are held back do better the next time through a grade is not the major consideration."


There is a good Sam Francis column here about Muslims living in the West who preach hate for the West. One excerpt: ""The authorities say that laws to protect religious expression and civil liberties have the result of limiting what they can do to stop hateful speech."

Actually, the authorities have had little trouble stopping what they claim is "hateful speech" when it's foes of immigration and multiculturalism that are speaking it. When it's real hate, the open advocacy of murder and terrorism that gushes out of the mosques, there's little the authorities can do".

Sunday, May 09, 2004


When I changed the template for this blog recently. I dropped from the blogroll quite a few links to other bloggers who had not to my knowledge shown any awareness of this site. If I have done anyone an injustice, please email me and I will restore the relevant link pronto.

In case it is of any interest, the old template and blogroll can now be found still in some use here


If you live in a trailer, British law will protect you -- but only if you are of the right race:

"The Commission for Racial Equality's new strategy for Gypsies and Travellers announced last month leaves out in the cold all Travellers who are not Romany Gypsies, Irish Travellers, Scottish Travellers or others defined by their ethnic or national origins. All the strategy can offer the several thousand Travellers excluded from their protection is the assurance 'that our work does not, intentionally or otherwise, harm Traveller groups that are not formally defined as racial groups'."


In Britain, "PC" used to stand for police constable. Now the UK police are "PC" in a different sense:

"Somehow, during the past 20 years, a silent putsch has transformed the police of this country. Increasingly, they are commanded and staffed by Leftwing radicals who dislike and suspect Middle Britain and who are neutral between the criminal and his victim - and quite capable of arresting the victim if he has defended himself or his property.

The old, gnarled, seen-it-all crimefighters of the past seem to have been purged or to have retired. When we meet the modern police or hear them talking on the radio or the TV, we hear constant weary phrases about racism and sexism, those giveaway code-words of liberal-elite thinking. TV police heroes have mutated too, from grizzled middle-aged thieftakers along the lines of PC Dixon or Inspector Barlow to feminist campaigners against child abuse such as Jane Tennison in ITV's Prime Suspect.

The striving classes - working and middle alike - are learning, reluctantly and slowly, to mistrust the force they once relied on. And the police also show a growing scorn for exactly the sort of people they once viewed as allies. This seems to have happened quite suddenly. And one key to making it happen was the Macpherson Report of 1999. Most people still have not grasped what this report was about. They think it was about the failure to convict the murderers of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence. It wasn't. Those killers, whoever they may be, are still free.

Its main effect was to subject the police of this country to a permanent, politically correct inquisition which has all but destroyed the socially and morally conservative elements in the ranks. Those who haven't already retired often long to do so.....

Black Britons are insultingly stereotyped. The official view seems to be that if the law is imposed on them, they are likely to explode into rioting and arson. Worse, it assumes they will not co-operate with the law in a normal or polite manner, even when it is in their own interests, and so must be given special handling. This is a message of despair for the many black Britons who are victims of crime - at the hands of blacks and whites - and who would be only too delighted to see some 'heavy-handed' policing in their home areas.

It is clear from this rather revolting official bigotry that the whole thing is not actually about ending discrimination at all.

The only people who suffer are the public, black and white, who are less protected from violence and disorder than at any time in the past century.

Saturday, May 08, 2004


"The frenzied movement to expunge every last morsel of cake and every remaining drop of soda from schools is beginning to make some pint-sized enemies. New Haven, Connecticut schools aren't just purging candy and soft drinks from their corridors; they're also going after student bake sales and birthday cupcakes. Sodas and snacks are under attack in lunchrooms across the nation. The self-described 'food police' at the Center for Science in the Public Interest even took a swipe at milk served in school lunch rooms this week. Needless to say, this food zealotry isn't sitting well with kids -- and some aren't going to take it anymore. A group of girls at Lancaster Intermediate School in Texas have formed a 'French Fry Committee' to protest the Texas Department of Agriculture's encroachment on their lunch plates."


Excerpts from an article by Jerry Della Femina

I thought about Political Correctness the other night while I watched a tape of an old Charlie Chan movie. I love Charlie Chan. Poor Charlie was one of the first victims of the Politically Correct Mafia. In case you're too young to remember, he was the jolly little round Chinese detective in those great mystery movies of the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. His movies can no longer be seen on television. They're banned.

Charlie Chan was assisted by his Number 1 son and his driver, Birmingham Brown. Both the kid and the driver were frightened, blithering idiots. Charlie spent most of the time in the movie giving us his corny "Confucius say . . ." fortune cookie sayings that are not unlike the great philosophical insights we now see written on our bumper stickers and our T-shirts.

Charlie always got his man. But then one day, Charlie Chan was murdered in cold blood. Killed by a whole new generation that decided Charlie Chan movies were not politically correct. The Asians (they were called Orientals in those days) hated that he was a stereotypical Chinese man. He spoke with a Chinese accent. It didn't help that Charlie Chan was played by Caucasians (Sidney Toler and Roland Winters) who were pretending to be Chinese. The PC hated that his Number 1 son was a dope and probably was the first Chinese person in history who wasn't good at math. Black groups hated the fact that he had a driver and the driver was black and was something of a boob. Holier-than-thou political groups marched against Charlie Chan. Grown men got up and made speeches against Charlie and all that he stood for.

In time, not one single television station in the country would carry these movies

Friday, May 07, 2004


Email from a reader

It is fascinating to watch PC linguistic gymnastics at work. "Tolerance", "diversity" and "acceptance" are three magic words the PC crowd claim for their own. For example only some kinds of diversity are p.c., other types are definitely not. A diversity of opinions on the value of the three magic words is definitely not.

Nonetheless, of late, the PC crowd haven't been quite happy with 'tolerance'. For example the gay activists now demand acceptance of their "lifestyle" (as if they did nothing else) not mere tolerance. The idea is that "live and let live" is insufficient so "anti-gay" institutions and groups, like the Church, must not merely "tolerate" homosexuality but embrace it and endorse it, thus "accepting" it. Presumably the next step after 'acceptance' is compulsion. The Church, which has no power to force gays to do or not do anything, is thus wrong for promulgating it's traditional warnings against homosexuality (e.g here) and ipso facto criminally implicated with 'homophobic violence', something the Church strongly opposes.

Similarly Australian p.c. commentator and lightweight sociologist Hugh Mackay is arguing that Australians must move beyond multiculturalism and 'mere tolerance' of ethnic diversity to outright 'curiosity' about other ethnic groups. Presumably curiosity will increase community bonds, lead to greater acceptance and not, as the old adage says, kill the cat.

The push for "acceptance" is quite totalitarian. It denies that there can be legitimate grounds to "agree to disagree" on issues of import to the grand viziers of political correctitude. For example, freedom of religion was never based on the assumption that Protestants should accept, love or have the slightest interest in Catholicism or vice versa. Merely that for the good of all, all faiths are free to pursue their affairs independently and respect the right of other citizens, of different faith, to pursue theirs. To the PCs, this is at best merely tolerance, if barely that.

Rather than engaging in a tussle with the PC thought police over ownership or use of the three magic words, dissidents should merely emphasise two of their own: Manners and respect. For someone with good manners and respect for the individual rights of others, the magic words are rendered unnecessary. For someone without manners and respect, the three magic words are a meaningless travesty.

This writer makes similar points.


An account of what REAL tolerance is like is to be found here. Excerpt:

"I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher explained his theory of evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in, and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

Thursday, May 06, 2004


The Associated Press reports from Dayton, Ohio, that five-year-old Kevin Lewis brought a tiny pocketknife to class at Grafton Kennedy Elementary School:
The small knife--with blade, file, toothpick and spoon--was given to Kevin by his grandfather's best friend. "We told him not to take it to school, but he hid it in his pocket. He showed it to his friend, and his friend told on him," said his grandmother, Roberta Lewis. "He was very excited about getting it, so he took it to school with him," said his mother, Juanita Mullins of New Lebanon. "It was a childish mistake, but he's a child. I do not think he should be expelled. He didn't have any bad intentions."
School officials have already hit him with a 10-day suspension, and they may expel him altogether.

Via "Opinion Journal"


Thirteen-year-old Daryl Gray of Jonesboro, Ga., has been convicted of aggravated battery and could do five years behind bars, the Associated Press reports. Daryl, a student at Pointe South Middle School, did do something serious: He "struck another boy in the face with a pencil. The boy was seriously injured and has been left permanently scarred."

But juvenile court judge Leslie Gresham refuses to take into account the mitigating circumstances, namely that Daryl said he had been bullied for two years. He "says he has been hit, called gay and even had his shoes urinated on in the school restroom." Daryl had never been in trouble before, and the boy he injured had just hit him over the head.

Via "Opinion Journal"

Fat Children: Sad but not Our Business

Some excerpts from Sean Gabb:

I was on the radio last Sunday evening, and again this morning, and again this afternoon - and may be on the television later this week - to discuss the supposed problem of fat children. Apparently, 15 per cent of children are "obese", and the Government is proposing to start urging children to take more exercise. I was brought on to oppose the notion of government interference in matters of lifestyle. The objections are easily stated:

Even if the alleged facts are true, it is not the business of the government to do anything about them. It is not the business of the government to tell us how to live, or to tell parents how their children should live. If there must be a government, its duties ought to be confined to protecting the lives and properties of individuals and defending the country against foreign aggressions. How much we eat, and what this may do to us, and what we might do in response, are no more matters for government concern than is the matter of what place of worship we attend and how often we go there.

Even granting a right of interference, there is no reason to suppose that the government can effectively interfere. Human constitutions are so different that being fat is best seen as an individual problem with individual solutions. There is no one prescription the politicians can make and apply to the whole country. Some people get fat on almost nothing. Others can eat as they will without gaining a pound. Some people do well from heavy exercise. Others are harmed by light exercise. Indeed, though weighing 30 stones or whatever must be harmful, we do not really know what harm comes from being just fat or even very fat. The experts pretend here to knowledge they do not have. Doubtless, any advice they give will be good for some people. It cannot, I repeat, be good for everyone.

Even if this were not so, it is unlikely that the government can stop children from getting fat. The proposal is that they should be required to learn about diet and exercise while at school. Bearing in mind how bad a job the schools do at teaching their inmates to read and write and count, I cannot see what good will come of this. Governments are generally better at claiming abilities than at showing them. Indeed, apart perhaps from collecting taxes and fighting wars, I cannot think of anything done by a government that could not be done better by voluntary effort - assuming, that is, it should be done at all.

It is not advisable for the government to interfere, and would not be if interference were likely to do any good. Perhaps, in certain areas, the government is better able to choose for us than we are ourselves. But unless its effects are likely to be catastrophic, the public good is better served by leaving us alone. Whenever the government does something for us, it takes away from our own ability to do that for ourselves. This diminishes us as human beings. Better, I suggest, a people who often eat and drink too much, and who on average die a few years before they might, than a people deprived of autonomy and shepherded into a few extra years of intellectual and moral passivity.

Where the protection of children is concerned, we have what the lefty sociologists call a discourse. This is a set of false assumptions about the world so pervasive and so connected to each other, that those under its influence are unable to conceive the validity of any alternative to it. The idea that the raising of children is a matter wholly for parents - and that interference is only justified to stop or punish violence or gross deception - is not so much rejected by most people in this country as never considered.

Wednesday, May 05, 2004


The teachers have won

Joanne Jacobs seems to be the best-known "Edublogger" (with apologies to Brian Micklethwait and Kimberly Swygert) and she has a lot of posts about education that seem quite similar to what I put on this blog. The generally Leftist bent of educators makes the vast educational system a happy hunting ground for political correctness. Political correctness in the schools takes the form not only of oppressive and ridiculous speech codes but also the form of a "self-esteem" gospel that is used to justify the usual Leftist notion that everybody must be made equal. The tale is that kids will have their self-esteem irreparably damaged and their life ruined if anybody ever tells them they are not as good as everybody else. So telling kids that they have failed to learn anything is a big no-no from the point of view of Leftists. This does of course clash with the community demand for assessment. Lots of people want to know which kids have learnt something and which have not. So there is a fundamental clash of goals between most teachers and the community at large. So how do teachers get around that? Easy, peasy. They make the standards so low that only those students who virtually opt out of their own accord are denied some sort of diploma. No sooner do governments institute some system for enforcing standards than the teachers do all they can to undermine the system concerned. The posts on Joanne's blog are replete with examples of what a mockery most forms of assessment are these days. See for example here

There are however other ways of undermining standards and I thought this post (see particularly the comments) about the pressure on college and university Professors to give everyone good marks was an excellent case in point. Professors now are just about all subject to assessment by their students and the results of such assessments are very important in deciding whether Professors get tenure and promotion. But -- surprise, surprise -- students tend to "fail" Professors who give them low marks! So good marks all round regardless of effort is the order of the day and university qualifications become meaningless too. Once again all students are falsely presented as being more or less equal.

And since standards are just oppressive and "patriarchal" (etc.) nonsense from a Leftist point of view, teachers don't have to measure up in any way either. Teaching diplomas are a notorious joke and there are plenty of occasions on which teachers have been shown to be little better than their students. This post about what it takes to become a "Highly Qualified" teacher in California is about what you would expect of the "self-esteem" world headquarters.

Just keep reading this blog and Joanne's if you doubt any of that.


Estimates about the number of Muslims living in Canada range from 600,000 to about a million. Because of Canada's liberal immigration policy, many more Muslims arrive each year. Yet, just as in Europe, Muslims in Canada are not assimilating. Instead, they prefer their own culture and values to that of the West. The most recent example of this lack of assimilation is the institution of Muslim courts in the province of Ontario.

The origin of these Islamic courts lies in a 1991 Ontario law that permits arbitration according to religious principles. Although these Islamic courts do not deal with criminal matters, their existence raises questions about the desire of Muslims to assimilate to Western culture and values, and especially about the rights of woman.

According to an article in the Washington Post (April 28, 2004), DeNeen L. Brown writes, ''thousands of ...Muslims, taking advantage of a provision of the law in the province of Ontario, can now decide some civil disputes under sharia, (Islamic law based in the Koran) including family disagreements and inheritance, business and divorce issues, using tribunals that include imams, Muslim elders and lawyers. While it is less than full implementation of sharia, local leaders consider it a significant step.''

If local Muslim leaders consider these Islamic courts a significant step, then many women in Canada do not. These women take issue with a difficult passage in the Koran that states: ''Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard (Surah 4:34).'' Some women interpret this passage to mean that in Muslim societies guided by Islamic law, women are second class citizens.

Viewing the establishment of Islamic courts in Canada as a threat to woman, Haydar Ketabchi writes, ''The threat of implementing Islamic courts in Canada under the pretext of 'religious freedom,' 'tolerance' and 'cultural sensitivity' must be taken seriously and exposed as the Islamist's most recent organized attempt to institutionalize male domination, gender apartheid, xenophobia, and Islamic law around the world. Under the aegis of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (IICJ), Islamists have organized to impede women's rights and individual liberties.''

More here

Tuesday, May 04, 2004


And no free speech, of course. Hardly surprising, really. Just another American mini-Soviet

Barred from writing columns for the Oregon State University Daily Barometer, senior David Williams is in the eye of a storm some call a racial double standard.

The newspaper's editor fired him after he wrote: "I think blacks should be more careful in deciding whom they choose to support. They need to grow beyond the automatic reaction of defending someone because he or she shares the same skin color and is in a dilemma." Williams, who is white, was referring to examples such as when singer R. Kelly, who is accused of being a child pornographer, received a standing ovation at the Soul Train Music Awards. He also cited past support for O.J. Simpson and Allen Iverson.

"I guess this case has shown me that just because I'm a different skin color, the merits of what I wrote have been marginalized and ostracized to the point that I'm labeled everything in the book like racist, Nazi," Williams said.

A similar article, written just two days earlier by Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts drew no such outrage. Pitts, who is black, wrote: "Blacks ought to be more thoughtful about whom they choose to rally around, ought to be less automatic in leaping to the defense."