I see there have already been some interesting and inflammatory comments in my previous post. While we're in truth telling mode - might as well address the whole silly "racism" deal. Is America racist? Let's pose a better and more interesting question - though perhaps impossible to answer: Name one country that isn't? In some it festers quietly below the surface. In others it erupts in mass murder. Mankind has been tribal since his beginning and we will never fully transcend that.
That doesn't mean that we will always, or should ever discriminate based on race, or any other factor. But the notion that factors like race just shouldn't exist is absolutely ridiculous and an impossible reality to achieve. Were America not racist, there would be no "Black candidate" for the Democrat nomination - Obama would be just another individual. One can read any article on Obama today and see that isn't the case.
The idiot liberals betray their incredible inability to reason or be honest through their positions. Think about it. On the one hand they claim their goal is a "color blind" society - yet, at the very same time, they preach preserving every archaic and mostly useless custom, tradition and myth for every culture that comes through America's broad and welcoming door. Well, which is it, you idiots? Are we all the same? Or is each so uniquely different we need to indulge stupidity like Kwanza, or Cinco de Mayo through national declaration? Because, what you morons haven't figured out, or won't admit, is that you can't have it both ways.
The reality is, before modern liberalism took hold - America actually was less racist than it is today. Of course, that comes with the notable exception of the Black experience in America, shrouded in a unique evil because of the practice of slavery in America. But even there, what do many liberals support? Reparations? Forget that it's an idiotic idea - what it reveals more is liberals unwillingness to forget any grievance, or move on from the past, as it provides a home for their imbecility. The only thing they seek to "move on" from is the winning of a war, because that would celebrate America's strength - as opposed to nurturing any potential weakness in her national fabric. And that's what today's liberal is really about.
They don't want a strong or good America. They long for one wretched, watered-down world where no one and nothing is any better then the next. Somehow they think that would make for a utopia, instead of the soulless, dead and devoid of choice a world it would be. Today's liberals are hypocrites, liars, idiots, and, yes, traitors. They lack honor as much as they lack any sense. And when you confront their unreasonableness with reason, they spin off like tops, ultimately destined to wobble and fall when they lose momentum.
As for the notion of racism, well what is it, really? It is the ability to distinguish an individual based upon his race - nothing more and nothing less. And it will never go away so long as "races" exist. I rather suspect that will be for a long, long time. And how any one individual might feel about this or that race might lower itself to being repugnant, the fact is, it isn't the government's damned business.
I am not arguing for institutionalized racism - that's wrong. Formal policies and or regulations of government and business should indeed be "color blind." But any one man's heart is what it is - and it is for him to decide that. Not some nanny state government, or kvetching, crying liberal.
If you want to dislike or distrust one race - I'd argue, that's your loss, as you close yourself off to many fine people who might have something to contribute to your world. But it's your cross to bear, not mine, and certainly not the governments. Yet, liberals, who supposedly detest organized religion, would have the government be the authoritative preacher in the most dangerous congregation of them all: the socialist state.
And so, my friends, as we celebrate the realities above, I say, God Bless a racist America, long may she reign - and to Hell with the morons who comprise the Left today. As they aren't worth the salt it took God to make them, let them burn in the fires of the vapid, illogical perdition they've created for themselves through a lack of clear thinking and reason. It's really no great loss to the world and represents absolutely no loss to me.
In a UK murder trial, the court heard that a Muslim gang claimed responsibility for `killing a white man.' Christopher Yates, was brutally murdered for no apparent reason other than his skin color. The court heard that after the attack Zulfiqar shouted, in Urdu: "We have killed the white man. That will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business."
The story becomes more noteworthy because of similarities to previous incidents elsewhere. In Australia a rash of rapes and assaults by Muslim gang were initially claimed as a racist smear.'
So now we know the facts, straight from the Supreme Court, that a group of Lebanese Muslim gang rapists from south-western Sydney hunted their victims on the basis of their ethnicity and subjected them to hours of degrading, dehumanising torture. The young women, and girls as young as 14, were "sluts" and "Aussie pigs", the rapists said. So now that some of the perpetrators are in jail, will those people who cried racism and media "sensationalism" hang their heads in shame? Hardly.In some circles, virtue excludes the mistreatment of others. An excellent overview of the Australian rape story can be found here. Predictably, feminists were not happy with the conviction of the rapists.
In Sydney Australia, two men, Pakistan-born Muslims, were found guilty of gang rapes of two teenage girls. This comes as strict justice for a growing problem in this region. Muslim men have been roaming Sydney gang, raping non-Muslim women, calling them "Aussie pigs" and "sluts" who ask for it. If previous jail sentences are any indication of their punishment, a 55 yr long jail term is in their future as was given to Balil Skaf.If feminists really cared about women in the Middle East, they would strike at the root of the problem: the current interpretation of Islam. Despite what Shirin Ebadi says, the problem for women in the Middle East is not "the patriarchy," it is the Islam that serves dysfunctional regimes. The regimes, who now control the interpretations and the kind of Islam that is taught, have given Muslims a free pass to do whatever they want - including rape, looting restaurants in France that sell food not approve by the Koran, wine shops, etc.
This, of course, is a victory for women's rights. Especially in Pakistani culture, where honor killings take place, the shame is often placed on the rape victim not the aggressor. One would think feminists would embrace such a court ruling. But feminist reaction was not praise; it was hostility. Those in the audience at the conference that announced the news cried the convictions were "nothing but racist prosecutions." They were outraged over the "racism" of the strict punishments given to the Muslims rapists.
To these feminists, protection for Muslims - to stop "racist" comments about Muslims - out-trumps justice for rape victims. The Anti-Discrimination Board in Australia pumped out pamphlets chastising the media for "Anti-Muslim" bigotry - meanwhile non-Muslim women have to worry about being brutally raped by a gang of Muslim thugs.
Unless moral people start speaking up - not cowering in fear, worried about being called a "racist" - this and other issues like it (not the least of which is terrorism) will only extend the conflict. As in the Middle East an extended conflict will only serve to escalate the problem, as the Israelis have learned.
Succinct, to be sure- especially when you consider that many believe (with good reason) that there is a rape epidemic in Norway and Sweden. Not everyone may see the world through Fjordmans' eyes, but the numbers don't lie. He goes on to observe:
An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently, he isn't the only Muslim in Europe to think this way: The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte told in a recent interview that in Holland, you can now see examples of young, unveiled Moroccan women with a so-called "smiley". It means that the girl gets one side of her face cut up from mouth to ear, serving as a warning to other Muslim girls who should refuse to wear the veil. In the Muslim suburb of Courneuve, France, 77 per cent of the veiled women carry veils reportedly because of fear of being harassed or molested by Islamic moral patrols.Gates of Vienna followed up on the manipulation of the rape numbers, also written by Fjordman. There does appear to be a direct correlation between Jihad, imposed superficial values and rape and no amount of AOS (American Ostrich Syndrome) can change that reality. See The Rape Jihad, by Robert Spencer.
More love for Muslims from the ACLU
I'm sure I just don't understand the strict requirements of the Muslim religion. If someone does their prayer time 20 minutes earlier or later than the exact, correct time of the day, is Allah not available to listen? Does they have a penalty placed on their prayer or something? I'm sure someone can show me something in the Koran where mutilation or decapitation is required for penance, but what I really don't understand is how a prison providing meals and schedules to all their prisoners equally violates the First Amendment.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Thursday claiming that a Wyoming State Penitentiary policy restricting prisoners' mealtimes violates the constitutional rights of two Muslim inmates. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of Joseph Miller and Hurie Purdiman Jr., two inmates serving time at the penitentiary in Rawlins.So, someone please tell me how a prison providing meals and clean-up according to a schedule is Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
At issue is an alleged "20-minute rule" requiring inmates to eat their meals within 20 minutes after the food is delivered to a cell or common dining area, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit seeks for the inmates to be exempted from the rule because it forces them to choose between eating and practicing their religion.
Miller and Purdiman claim that meals have arrived at the same time of day that they're practicing prayers according to their Muslim faith. On other occasions, meals arrived during a period of religious fasting and then were confiscated before the fast ended at sunset. "If someone has started their prayer, unless they're willing to interrupt their prayer and leave at that moment, they forgo their meal because (the guards) won't go back and open their cell doors," said Jennifer Horvath, staff attorney for Wyoming Chapter of the ACLU. "It's not unreasonable to ask for some extra time to finish their meals. They have a right to practice their religion, and the prison has been treating it as a privilege."
The lawsuit names Robert Lampert, director of the Department of Corrections, and Michael Murphy, warden of the Wyoming State Penitentiary. It claims the prison's policy violates the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Lampert said he hadn't seen the lawsuit and couldn't comment directly on its claims. But he said the prison has measures in place to accommodate inmates' religious or health needs.
He said trays and utensils are generally collected less than 30 minutes from when they were delivered to inmates so the dishes can be washed in time for the next meal. "If an inmate has a medical reason that requires additional time to consume their meal, we take that into account, or if it's for a religious purpose, we accommodate those needs," Lampert said. "I think those issues are pretty well addressed through our policy, but I'll look and see what actual lawsuit alleges."
Britain: Women in their reproductive years have a legal licence to exploit their employers and fellow workers
Brass neck is the phrase that comes to mind on contemplating the newsreader Natasha Kaplinsky. She is the woman who accepted 1m pounds a year for a new job as “the face of Five News” and who, only six weeks into her contract, announced that she was 12 weeks pregnant. If I were running Five I would be beside myself with rage. Undisclosed sources say her bosses are indeed dismayed that she will be out of action so soon after starting on this hugely paid and hugely publicised role. Apparently she is taking maternity leave in September, for “a few months”, although of course she will have the option of extending her leave and may never return.
Meanwhile, instead of the ferociously sexy on-the-ball babe that Five hired, Kaplinsky will be becoming larger and mumsier, she may have a nauseous or difficult pregnancy requiring lots of time off, and at some point her brain will be affected by the amnesia of pregnancy. This is a phenomenon that is now widely admitted, even by feminists (although it is equally often denied when inconvenient); there is even a nasty new fashionable word for a woman in this state - preghead. Luckily there is, of course, Autocue at Five News. And an expensive stand-in will have to be found.
The proper word for all this is exploitation. It is women such as Kaplinsky, appearing so flamboyantly unreliable and unapologetic, who make working life much harder for the rest of us - working mothers, childless women and, of course, all employers. To add insult to injury, employers are not even allowed to say so. On the contrary, a top man at Five has said that he is “genuinely delighted” and indeed he could have said nothing else. It would probably have been illegal - discrimination against women - even to hint at any other response.
I have not tried to count the weeks and figure out the moment of Kaplinsky’s conception; somehow it seems rather rude. It may be that when she signed her contract she wasn’t - quite - pregnant. However, she must have been when she started work and she may well have known it. In any case she must surely have been aware of her own hopes and intentions about having a baby, presumably sooner rather than later, unless this infant was a “mistake”. This strikes me as unfair to her employers, unless they knew and accepted this risk in advance.
When I was interviewed for a traineeship at the BBC, the panel asked what my plans for having children were and how I would combine children with work. It seemed to me then (and still does) a reasonable question. I was married and 27, which at that time was considered late to start having babies. However, the woman from personnel told me not to answer; she said the question was sexist and impermissible. It would now, like many such reasonable questions, be illegal although, oddly, it is legal (although entirely unreasonable) to ask people about their sexual orientation when they apply for Arts Council grants.
Sir Alan Sugar was right when he said recently that women should tell their employers about their reproductive plans. In doing so he made himself unpopular. However, it is surely unfair - and commercially disastrous - to expect an employer to take on, unknown, the risks to his business that new mothers are likely to impose on him. Perhaps Kaplinsky discussed this with Five; but the point is that women in their reproductive years have a legal licence to exploit their employers and fellow workers.
The fact that Kaplinsky will not be entitled to maternity pay from Five because she works as a freelance means only that her employers will not pay her a huge fee for work she does not do. They will have to find and negotiate with someone else, they will have to pay for massive publicity for someone else, having just met the bills for all the PR hoopla they bought to launch Kaplinsky. Then that other newsreader, having been starred up at their expense, will take the results to a competitor. They will have to endure the internal disruption that will follow the departure in only a few months of their star and with her the possible loss of her ratings.
It is depressing, from a woman’s point of view, that the pendulum has swung so quickly from one unfair extreme to another. In the 1960s women were harassed and underpaid and their problems with childcare were overlooked. While there are plenty of low-paid women for whom that is still true, these days the boot is usually on the woman’s foot and she puts it in when she can. Many women seem to expect extraordinary rights and allowances so that they can keep their jobs whatever the cost and inconvenience to their employer and to be equally paid when they are not always of equal value. Government and public opinion support them.
Yet I have several professional women friends, committed feminists, who dread hiring women for all the obvious reasons. The most pressing are their long periods of maternity leave and the extreme difficulty of replacing them temporarily in demanding service industries such as publishing and law with equally good people, who will then have to be dropped.
Last week there was an interesting controversy about women doctors in the pages of the British Medical Journal. A brave doctor claimed on the Radio 4 Today programme on Friday that three female doctors need to be trained to produce the same “work time output” as two male doctors (because of maternity leave, time off and early retirement). Furthermore, for the same reasons, women doctors cause disruption in the continuity of care and face problems in maintaining their practical skills, such as in surgery, with an interrupted career path.
All this is extremely difficult and I am very uncertain as to what, if anything, can reasonably be done. However, surely the most important first step in dealing with such intractable problems is to be free to admit what they are. When hiring women of childbearing age is more problematic than hiring men or other women, employers should be allowed to say so. They should not be forced to pretend that it isn’t so, while at the same time making special allowances for working mothers and offering equal pay for what may not be equal services.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
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 and political diversity 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.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.