Friday, April 27, 2012
Black Panics and White Hispanics
In my many years of serving on faculty hiring committees, I have often heard the statement “minorities and women are encouraged to apply.” It usually follows in close proximity to the statement “our institution does not discriminate on the basis of race.” The two statements cannot be reconciled by logic. But, then again, logic is considered a form of white oppression at the postmodern university.
Nor can those hiring statements be validated empirically. Not all minorities are encouraged specifically to apply at my university. Orthodox Jews are not encouraged. White Mormons are not encouraged. And neither are white Hispanics. We really discriminate when we take affirmative action against discrimination. I hope someday we take affirmative action against illogic.
This practice of establishing certain preferred minorities has been going on for a long time.
Make no mistake about it: At issue in the Zimmerman case is not whether he had a right to overpower Martin. The power struggle in the Zimmerman case stems from race-baiters' worry that Hispanics will overtake blacks as the most powerful racial interest group in America. That is why Jackson and Sharpton are clinging on to Martin like Marion Berry on a crack pipe.
In their struggle to maintain racial minority supremacy, black civil rights leaders regularly invoke the one-drop rule. The one-drop rule states that anyone who has even a drop of black blood is considered black. The rule was once used by white racists in the South. They thought that anyone who had a drop of black blood was contaminated, so to speak. Just a drop of black blood made them both intellectually and morally inferior.
However, now blacks are using the one drop rule to advance their own political agenda. Given that half of black pregnancies end in abortion, blacks must have some means of keeping their numbers and corresponding political influence from dwindling.
Of course, the one-drop rule operates differently with respect to Hispanics. Black civil rights leaders now want to say that having a single drop of white blood means you are white, not Hispanic. The reason for that is obvious: open-border immigration has made Hispanics the largest minority in America – numerically, if not politically, speaking.
It is also worth noting that these Hispanic immigrants are often Roman Catholic. That means they are less likely to abort their children than someone who practices black liberation theology. It helps explain why Hispanics are now 15% of the United States population while blacks constitute only 12%.
The gradual displacement of blacks as America’s preferred minority is producing a powder keg of racial tension in Florida and elsewhere. So much so that even the normally wise Bill Cosby can’t quite come to terms with it. Cosby wants to think this is all about guns but it isn’t. It’s about race, Bill. And the wave of inter-racial violence in the wake of the Zimmerman release should have tipped you off.
Things are going to get worse before they get better. Mitt Romney has a high probability of choosing Senator Rubio as his running mate. He is going to run on a pro-life and pro-gun platform, regardless of his true beliefs, which are virtually indiscernible. And Hispanics will support Romney/Rubio in record numbers.
Eventually, blacks will figure out that the real threat to young men like Trayvon Martin was not a white Hispanic named George Zimmerman. It was a white supremacist named Margaret Sanger.
If a white guy said this stuff he would be out on his ear but nothing dents Marion Barry
I think Washington DC is lucky to have Filpinias to do nursing jobs that blacks obviously don't want. The small, gentle and sentimental Filipinas must think they have descended into hell when they arrive in DC
For the second time in less than a month, D.C. Council member Marion Barry is having to fend off criticism that he unfairly singled out an ethnic group as he attempted to explain how to get more African Americans trained and employed in the District.
At a hearing Monday on the University of the District of Columbia’s budget, he spoke about the need to train more African Americans to become nurses. In a video of his remarks aired by WTTG-TV, Barry noted a growing number of nurses are “immigrants” from the Philippines.
“[I]f you go to the hospital now, you’ll find a number of immigrants who are nurses, particularly from the Philippines,” said Barry (D-Ward 8). “And no offense, but let’s grow our own teachers, let’s grow our own nurses, and so that we don’t have to go scrounging in our community clinics and other kinds of places, having to hire people from somewhere else.”
The National Federation of Filipino American Associations called Barry’s remarks “racist” and “bigoted.”
“We reject this continued Asian bashing by elected officials like Mr. Barry and demand that he apologize for his insensitive and irresponsible remarks,” Ed Navarra, chairman of NaFFAA, said in a statement. “We also call on him to engage in a meaningful dialogue with our community so we can better educate the broader American public about the significant contributions that our diverse immigrant communities have made to this country.”
On Tuesday, Barry said he was attempting to make a larger point about the university and the country’s demands for nurses.
“UDC ought to be a premier nursing school in the country. The nursing shortage is so bad we have to bring in nurses from the Philippines. What’s negative about that? Nothing’s negative about that,” he said. “It’s an asset to the United States to have access to nurses from other countries, but I want UDC to be the premier nursing institution.... Every time I mention a group, it’s not negative, it’s a fact.”
Earlier this month, Barry was forced to apologize after an election night screed in which he referred to Asian-owned businesses in Ward 8 “as dirty.”
Several of his council colleagues, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) and several Maryland lawmakers of Asian descent publicly condemned Barry’s statements as divisive.
Barry’s remarks Monday appear to track with his long-held views that the city needs to do more to reduce unemployment, particularly in neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River. Along with Barry, D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) and a majority of the D.C. Council have embraced policies to require or encourage local businesses and institutions to hire more District residents.
Barry stressed during Monday’s hearing that local colleges could help lower the unemployment if schools such as UDC, which has a growing nursing program, redoubled efforts to identify and train potential nurses.
Because of shortages nationwide, for years hospitals have had to turn overseas to bolster their ranks of nurses. More than half the foreign-trained nurses come from the Philippines, according to a 2005 study by Minority Nurse, which focuses on career and education training.
But Navarra said Barry made a hurtful mistake by singling out an ethnic group. “Filipino nurses and teachers have performed admirably in America’s health care and educational system, and they don’t deserve the harmful and xenophobic rhetoric that pits them against other American professionals,” Navarra said.
Barry’s relationship with the Asian American community could come to a head Thursday, when he’s to conduct an oversight hearing on the Office of Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs.
As chairman of the Committee of Aging and Community Affairs, Barry oversees several District agencies designed to serve as liaisons between the government and minority communities. He created several of the offices when he served as mayor in the 1980s.
Obsession with safety is risking our children's well-being
A decade after child protection checks began, common sense and compassion have been sidelined
Imagine living in a society governed by fear: fear of the authorities, fear of your fellow citizens’ covert suspicions and overt accusations, fear of having even your most decent human impulses twisted into an unthinkable crime.
It’s the stuff of police states, of Kafka and the Communist revolution and the Stasi-dominated dystopia of the DDR. It is also, experts warn, a damning snapshot of Britain today.
Take the example of tousle-headed toddler Abigail Rae, who died because the passing adult who could have – should have – saved her, was too frightened to stop his van, scoop her up in his arms and take her to safety, lest he be branded a pervert.
The two-year-old, who had strayed from her Warwickshire nursery and was spotted toddling along a village road by a bricklayer driving past, was later found, drowned, in a pond. Commenting at the inquest of the case, which took place in 2002, the coroner remarked that: “This is perhaps a sad reflection on our society, but you may well understand the circumstances.”
We can understand, perhaps – the unpalatable truth is that the driver’s fears were far from unfounded – but surely we can’t condone his inaction?
Much is made of the “crisis of childhood” besetting youngsters growing up in our over-sexualised culture. Perhaps it’s time we asked ourselves whether there isn’t an even greater crisis in adulthood.
A decade after the introduction of Criminal Records Bureau checks, we have developed such a preoccupation – some would say out-and-out hysteria – about rooting out paedophilia that common sense and compassion have been sidelined, to everyone’s cost.
“There’s been a shift towards a 'better safe than sorry’ approach towards those working or involved with children that isn’t based on logic,” says Helene Guldberg, Open University psychologist and author of Reclaiming Childhood: Freedom and Play in an Age of Fear. “We have absurd situations where you can’t take photographs of your own child in public places, or a man isn’t allowed to sit beside an unaccompanied child on an aircraft, and this assumption of guilt, of sinister motivation, is really corrosive to society.”
The CRB system was established in the wake of the Soham murders of 2002, when Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, both aged 10, were murdered by Ian Huntley, who had been employed as a school caretaker, despite having faced a number of accusations of sexual assault.
Few dispute that its introduction has weeded out unsuitable candidates who previously gravitated towards jobs working with children. But there are those who believe its widespread (mis)use has brought more losses than gains.
Guldberg argues that it is impossible for any sense of community to exist without trust. If all other adults – particularly men – are perceived as a potential risk to children, then we reach a situation where only the parent is responsible for a child, and other adults shy away from intervening, even where a child is in danger.
“One study found that 75 per cent of men admitted they would not help a child in distress, for fear of what it might look like to others,” says Guldberg. “A total of 23 per cent would ignore the child completely, the others would find a woman to assist.”
That level of fear may be shocking – but the high tidemark of mistrust isn’t far behind. Of those men, 67 per cent said they themselves would be concerned about the intent of another man who approached a distressed child.
According to libertarian campaigners, The Manifesto Group, CRB checks – all 32 million of them to date – are no guarantee of safety. On the contrary, mass vetting leads to an abdication of personal responsibility and an assumption that child safety is the sole preserve of the state.
Nor is the “better safe than sorry” ethos confined to children’s welfare. Risk aversion and an almost farcical over-reliance on regulations is fast becoming ingrained in our psyche.
Last week saw the comi-tragic instance of 25 firefighters too entangled in red tape to wade into shallow water and rescue a seabird trapped in a plastic bag. They were, understandably, labelled “ridiculous”.
But what words are there to describe the scenario in 2007, where police support officers stood by, uselessly, as courageous 10-year-old Jordan Lyon dived into a pond to save his younger sister? She lived, but he drowned, because not one grown-up was willing to help. And who can forget the appalling fate of Alison Hume, the Ayrshire woman who fell down a mineshaft in 2008? She languished underground for eight hours, and died of a hypothermia-induced heart attack, despite a winch being available – because the regulations stated it was only for the use of official rescue workers.
However, it took the death of a charity shop worker in a 3ft deep boating lake to bring about real change. Simon Burgess, 41, suffered an epileptic fit in March 2011 and died as emergency crews looked on. Police and paramedics were specifically ordered not to enter the water, a shocking revelation that led the Government to dispense with the health and safety barriers that have been hindering emergency workers. As of last April, officers who carry out “heroic acts” without regard to their own safety are now protected from prosecution. But in the wider community, goodwill and good sense are still open to almost wilful misinterpretation.
In November year, a Tyneside supply teacher was suspended on the grounds of “gross misconduct”. Martin Davis’s “crime”? He gave a stranded 17-year-old pupil a lift home. The student made no complaint and Davis, 59, was cleared of any wrongdoing, but he has struggled to find employment since.
No one disputes that young people need to be protected from predatory adults, but the CRB checks, which were originally a safeguard used in the context of professionals working unsupervised with children, have proliferated exponentially.
They are carried out by a private company, Capita, at a cost of £1.5 billion, as increasing numbers of organisations insist that virtually anyone carrying out community work – whether arranging flowers at church or taking elderly people to the shops – must be vetted.
Local councils have subjected tree surgeons and a burger van operator to CRB checks, on the grounds that they work near schools. Even the Duchess of Cambridge underwent a CRB check before beginning volunteer work with the Scouts on Anglesey, presumably to reassure any parents worried about the intentions of the future Queen of England.
Older people are disproportionately affected by the checks carried out on the one million people a year who apply to do voluntary work. Often, they find themselves footing the bill, which is £26 for a standard check and £44 for an enhanced check.
“What our members really object to is the application of the law,” says Geraldine Bedell, editor of the social network site Gransnet. “They don’t have some rosy notion that checks aren’t needed, but they are irritated and exasperated by the number of them; some have had half a dozen or more CRB checks. There’s an absence of common sense.”
A childminder will have a CRB check to work with children, but if she also wants to be a classroom assistant, she will need a second check, and a third if she wants to help out with the Brownie pack.
According to Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, disproportionate anxiety is destroying the quality of our children’s early years. Our perception of danger has been distorted by our exposure to technology. “Because we have such a screen-based culture, and watch rolling news and are bombarded by pictures on the internet, we are being emotionally hijacked by imagery that bypasses the rational centres of the brain and makes us fearful,” she says.
“Reading a newspaper means we have to process information through words, which enables us to assess the risks. But we are losing that common sense and our sense of commonality, which makes it more and more difficult to trust people.”
The growing influence of Twitter and instant messaging means that negative opinions and emotions can be expressed and conveyed at the touch of a keypad. We assimilate other people’s views with little thought and become accustomed to spectating rather than instigating. That acquired passivity has a trickle-down effect, says Richard House, a senior lecturer in psychotherapy and counselling at the University of Roehampton.
“Twenty or 30 years ago, if someone saw a child either in trouble or causing trouble, a grown-up wouldn’t have thought twice about getting involved,” says House. “Nowadays, people have a greater tendency to play the bystander; rather than responding instinctively, they are more worried about negative repercussions and possibly being seen as an abuser.”
But this tendency to hang back, governed by fear, until someone “more appropriate” comes along, ideally waving their CRB certificate, may not be in our best interests after all. The uncomfortable fact is that if we don’t step in to save someone else’s child, then how can we complain when nobody steps in to save ours?
Putting Faith Under House Arrest
For decades, atheist groups have strategically involved themselves in questions of religious freedom, and they have done so chiefly by fighting to have all Christian symbols and texts removed from public view. But in recent years, as this fight has continued, it’s become evident that it’s not just symbols and texts they want removed from public view, rather, it’s Christians themselves.
In truth, it now seems that their end game is to put Christians into such a small corner that the only place left for open faith is behind the closed doors of your home.
This is explicitly seen in what one group of homosexual activists, One Colorado, is pushing via their effort to alter the Colorado Constitution to limit, for all intents and purposes, the exercise of religious liberty to one’s home or one’s church.
They propose to change Section 4, Article II of the state constitution to read:
In assessing whether government has burdened freedom of religion, a person’s or a religious organization’s right to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief is the ability to engage in religious practices in the privacy of a person’s home or in the privacy of a religious organization’s established place of worship.
One doesn’t have to be a constitutional scholar to understand that these changes basically say that citizens cannot complain that their religious freedoms have been violated so long as they can worship freely in their homes or in their churches.
This is a not-so-clever attempt at making sure that the Christian message never makes it out of private homes and churches. And it would be an astounding constitutional revision—one that puts faith under house arrest. But perhaps it is not so astounding, when one considers how our American president has been busy pushing the novel idea of “freedom of worship” to replace our inalienable right to freedom of religion. This sleight of hand starkly demonstrates what “freedom of worship” really means.
The attempt to remove Christianity from the public arena can be seen implicitly in the way groups like the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers are pressuring the Air Force to remove Bibles from on-base lodging rooms. Under the guise of fighting against “a special privilege for Christianity,” atheists are seeking to have Gideon Bibles removed from the rooms by equating the placement of those Bibles with “insensitive practices that illegally promote religion over non-religion or unethically discriminate against religions or differing beliefs.”
At the same time, such atheists and freethinkers give lip service to the First Amendment, but their actions show that they’ll only be happy when the First Amendment extends no further than our front door. (Remember, in pushing to change the Colorado Constitution, they were careful to say “in” your private house or private church.)
Under these terms, it seems fair to wonder if the choir loft must now be soundproofed, lest stray strains of “Amazing Grace” slip beyond the church doors and out into the forbidden zone.
The bottom line is that your choice as to whether you can worship God and live out your faith as a free citizen is, at this very moment, being shaped by the demands of leftists and proponents of the homosexual agenda who have sworn fealty to the force of law rather than theology. These groups, whether One Colorado or the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, ultimately believe your right to practice religion according to the dictates of your conscience has to align perfectly with the dictates of theirs.
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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.