Thought You'd Never Ask

Just mouthing off -- because I can.

Friday, April 13, 2007

Friday morning round-up of links

I woke up wondering this morning if (apropos of all the race-based hate being expressed and talked about this week on the airwaves, with all the back-and-forth about Imus, Jackson, Sharpton, etc.) we as a nation aren't now reaping the sad harvest of decades of race-based policies designed to ameliorate the effects of racial discrimination (like Affirmative Action) but which have only served to increase the general amount of dissention and racial hatred.

Every time I have to fill out a form and must choose a box to check to describe my "race," I resent it. Every time I am typed or identified as a "white" or a "woman," and lumped in with some received idea of a stereotypical group presumed to represent me, I resent it. And in all the discussions on the airwaves this week I have heard from lots of angry blacks still simmering over historical discrimination against their race that did not happen to them (e.g. slavery), to the point where they feel justified and free to express and hold racial hatred against whites, despite decades of Affirmative Action and real progress in civil rights and social integration in this country.

Martin Luther King, Jr. would not be pleased by any of this.

Whoever decided that by focusing on the differences of heritage and skin color of us Americans (even if only to play favorites and hand out government goodies, power, or money to those "groups" deemed oppressed), we were going to increase peace, justice, harmony and understanding? It seems we have only increased racial hatred and strife--not so much among the whites as among the "victimized" class of blacks represented by the odious Al Sharpton and the equally ludicrous Jesse Jackson. Paradoxical, no?

And so, on into today's news of more of the same....

Instapundit has a couple of bon mots:

MICHELLE MALKIN GETS CALLED A "PROSTITUTE" ON THE AIR: No doubt there will be an Imus-like groundswell of outrage.

and this one:

ANDREA PEYSER wants the New York Times to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players. Plus this: "But the biggest losers may be the ones you'll never hear about. These are the genuine victims of sexual assault: women who don't fabricate tales of brutality, or seek out the richest, whitest men to falsely accuse of forcing them into sex. Who will believe a rape victim now?"

UPDATE: More on the Times' coverage: "The worst journalist covering the case was the New York Times’ Duff Wilson."

Right. Betsy also weighs in on the ramifications of the Duke lacrosse case.

Victor Davis Hanson takes a look at Imus, Iran, and Illegal Aliens.

Power Line writes that "Sharia Descends in Minneapolis" and begins:
In her Star Tribune column yesterday Katherine Kersten reported on plans at Minneapolis Community Technical to accommodate Islamic ritual through the expenditure of MCTC funds to buy foot washers. One wonders how it can be that Islamic organizations can't provide for the religious needs of local Muslims....

I too wonder whatever happened to the separation of church and state so assiduously maintained in the public schools when it comes to Christianity or the mention of God (as opposed to Allah).

Meanwhile, there are a slew of good, thoughtful posts racked up over at Bookworm Room; take a look.


  • At Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:34:00 PM, Blogger Yiwei said…

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  • At Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:39:00 PM, Blogger Ymarsakar said…

    Paradoxical, no?

    Well, do you really think that by doing evil, you will serve the cause of good? Cause this is basically at the root of things. If evil or the devil promises to resurrect your loved ones, give you all eternal life and youth, and protect you from your enemies... is it physically possible that this deal would actually occur if you agreed to it? Physically as in, according to the laws of physics and probability.

    Evil can claim that it can save your life and protect you... but since when did evil get into the business of protecting life and resisting destruction? Evil is weak, it can't create or safeguard life. That just isn't what it does, anymore than entropy increases the usefullness of energy or time goes backwards on aging and decay.

    These same principles, almost intuitively present concerning evil, can be applied to the fake liberals of the Left as well. Can someone who is personally corrupt, unwise, and prejudicially in favor of injustice, able to make good on his promises to produce wise solutions, create just circumstances and standards, and make people's lives better?

    I too wonder whatever happened to the separation of church and state so assiduously maintained in the public schools when it comes to Christianity or the mention of God (as opposed to Allah).

    When the ACLU promises to reinforce the Constitution and protect it from decay, can they make good on their promises?

    Charlatans don't make good on their promises. That's just a fact. All that remains is to tell which folks are charlatans and which ones are real, rather than fake.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home