Category Archives: Affirmative Action

Legal: The Not-So-Wise Latina Lets Loose

Affirmative Action, Law, Race, Racism, The Courts

What happens when the highest court in the land admits to the bench an individual who emotes rather than reasons, and is without the intellectual wherewithal to tell reason from emotion? You get the not-so-wise Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who delivered an unhinged disquisition in favor of institutionalizing affirmative action forever-after.

On Monday, reports John Fund, “the Supreme Court voted six to two to uphold the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), which was passed with support from 58 percent of that state’s voters in 2006. It simply enshrines in Michigan’s constitution that the state should not engage in race discrimination.” (Read “BUSH’S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AMBUSH” as a refresher.)

But from where Sotomayor is perched, as a confessed recipient of affirmative action (“Sonia SotoSetAsides once admitted that her test scores ‘were not comparable to her colleagues at Princeton and Yale’”), the choice should not be up to Michigan voters.

At 58 pages, her dissent was longer than the opinions of all the other justices combined — and she took the relatively unusual step of reading it passionately from the bench.
“The stark reality is that race still matters,” Sotomayor said. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” She went on to chastise the majority’s opinion: “My colleagues misunderstand the nature of the injustice worked by” the Michigan amendment.

At least that excuse for a Chief Justice, John Roberts (the man whose clever casuistry gave us Obamacare’s individual mandate), offered a firm rejoinder to this surly woman:

Roberts directly confronted Sotomayor in his own concurring opinion: “It is not ‘out of touch with reality’ to conclude that racial preferences may themselves have the debilitating effect . . . that the preferences do more harm than good. To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to ‘wish away, rather than confront’ racial inequality. People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.”

More about the career of SotoSetAsides.

The Big O To Level Oinkster Paying Field

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Government, Labor, Taxation

If you thought it was impossible, government under the Big O is becoming even more of a make-work program for useless mini-tyrants than it was under the last lout. Zero intends on giving those working for government and for its army of contractors the tools to sue the taxpayer for equal pay should discrepancies in pay—based on the preexisting conditions of genitalia type and the concentration of melanin in skin—be found.

Moreover, federal contractors will be prohibited from “retaliating against workers who discuss their salaries.” As you can imagine, comparing pay slips will result in the leveling of the paying field. These oinksters will sue the contractors, who are, in turn, paid by us, taxpayers.

These moves promise to make the already God-awful government consume ever more of our resources and deliver even less than it has done so far.

Obama will also sign a presidential memorandum instructing Labor Secretary Tom Perez to create new regulations requiring federal contractors to report salary summary data to the government, including sex and race breakdowns. The hope, according to the White House, is that this will encourage other employers to submit data voluntarily, enabling more targeted government enforcement.

MORE.

Mocha Man (Don Lemon) Makes History, Or So He ‘Thinks’

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Intelligence, Race, Racism

An ecstatic Don Lemon, the stupidest creature to have been plonked in an anchor’s chair on cable television, attended the launch, by black America’s president, of the “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative. The CNN cretin announced that He—as though being a mocha man made Lemon part of the story—believed the president when he claimed “this initiative” as his “lifelong goal,” “even after he leaves office.”

If to go by “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010,” by Charles Murray, “rising inequality and declining mobility,” as well as “widespread decay in moral fiber”—are as serious and widespread among “white, lower-status, less well-educated Americans” as they are among the black and Hispanic communities.

It is against this backdrop that Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative-cum-shakedown will see “leading foundations and businesses [donating] at least $200 million over five years towards programs aimed at minority youth of color.”

Lemon, who is himself an important exhibit in my case that we live in The Age of The idiot, salivated live from the White House for CNN. If you locate the clip on that nitwork, send it along.

Conservative Argument From Feelings Against Fem Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action, Ann Coulter, Argument, Conservatism, Feminism, Gender, Reason

Presumably pursuant to the posts “Conservatives and Lefties United Against The Beauty Ideal” and “With Some Exceptions, ‘Women Are Fascists At Heart,’” Ben Cohen of “American Thinker” has been kind enough to send me his piece, “The Legitimacy of White Male Anger.”

Thanks.

My problem, however, with “The Legitimacy of White Male Anger” is its non-stop apologetics, which come close to accepting the premise of “gender parity through affirmative action,” provided women are a little more gracious about all the concessions they are getting.

“Those demanding that more women be hired in various academic fields” are “sanctimonious and callous,” “blatantly self-serving”; not nice, demanding.

This amounts to psychologizing, not arguing.

Moreover, why is it “bad” for men to have given an “unfriendly reception” to women who’ve been forcibly integrated into the traditionally male trades?

If they don’t deserve to be on the job, on merit, why does friendliness matter; why is it the focus here? And why have men taken to arguing like women? (“You hurt my feelings. Be nice.” Or, “do feminists ever stop and consider the men’s perspective?”)

It’s disconcerting.

As an individualist, I am all for recruiting your lesbian, Amazonian lady to the traditionally male occupations. She is a rare creature who can match men in physicality. Seek her. Keep her. In an increasingly feminized, soft society, warrior women need the military, for example, as an outlet for their abilities. Let these women join the police, military or the fire brigade. An exception, not the rule, however, is the woman who can match a man in strength, speed, physical endurance and handiness.

So why on earth is male “unfriendliness” toward women who force them to do double duty on the job relevant? Even the woman-glorifying, TV cop series we all watch can’t help but display men outrunning their partners, catching up to the criminal, pummeling the thug, and saving the more feeble female cop’s life.

A male cop who serves along a 100 pound woman with silicone for breasts is risking his life. Receiving her with hostility into the force is hardly the issue here. Neither is it wrong.

I hardly think an “unfriendly” reception is the crux of the matter in the grander program of engineered gender parity.

Read “Freeze! I Just Had My Nails Done!” by Ann Coulter, where she gets straight to the matter:

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? … The inestimable economist John Lott has looked at the actual data. (And I’ll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., “Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime,” Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)

It turns out that, far from “de-escalating force” through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won’t reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott’s analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent. …

MORE.