Thursday, June 28, 2007
Against The Racial Gap
It goes without saying that the Iraq War, as it has been fought since the "occupation" was begun, has been a disaster. Thousands of American lives have been lost in the persuit transition the Sunni Arab regime of Iraq into a liberal mandarin democracy. In terms of American lives lost, the Iraq War has been the greatest foreign policy disaster since 9/11... if not the Vietnam War. The Iraq War, 2004 till now, is the greatest stain on George Bush's legacy.
The decisions fo Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, alone, make up for Bush's errors in other places.
The goal of our time is "shrinking the gap," saving from lawlessness that portion of humanity stuck in tribal warfare and murderous violence. An important part of thsi is shrinking the Afro-Islamic Gap, using everything from a military-industrial complex to mass humiliation to save lives and make the world a better place.
However, there is a gap in America too. Most egregiously, tens of thousands of infants are put to death every year in abortions. In April, the Supreme Court took the first steps of ending recreational infanticide within the United States.
Now, more great news: the Supreme Court has sharply limited the ability of school districts to use race as a factor in school assignments.
It's impossible to talk about race in America without describing the population known as "black," so here goes. American blacks generally form a hyrbid population, with about a 20% ingression of caucasoid genetics into an otherwise 80% negroid population. (By comparison, Tiger Woods is 25% negroid while Barack Obama is 50%. Turkish "Turks" are about 20% Turkik and 80% Anatolian/"Greek".)
An old and regrettable policy in the United States has been to regard as "black" anyone with any negroid blood, and to then use this designation to determine public services. (A variation on this are is to regard anyone with any non-caucausoid blood as a "minority.") Whatever the motives of the racialists who created and enforced the plan, the effect has been the same: to minimize the exposure of "blacks" to the market system and instead enforced a ghettoized economy of rents and duties on them.
There is a reason that "African Americans" (those "blacks" whose ancestors were slaves in the American South) perform poorly as a population, and it is neither their genes nor their past as slaves (they share both with their higher-performing Afro-Carribiean fellow citizens). Rather, it is the history of race-based separation that they have faced in America, from the end of reconstruction to now, rather devised (largely) by American Democrats who felt that blacks were unable to compete with whites before Brown v. Board... to (largely) American Democrats who felt that blacks were unable to compete with whites after Brown v. Board.
The Supreme Court's decision today is a powerful blow to a racialist America, and a large step forward in the integration of all Americans into the Core.
Thank you Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Kennedy,Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas.
Thank you, President Bush.
The opposing view
(I don't really feel like I know enough about this issue to have an opinion one way or the other)
Posted by: a517dogg | Friday, June 29, 2007
Thanks for the link . Here are my comments:
"In a stunning 5-4 decision, the Court outlawed a modest plan brought forward by two cities to insure that the student populations in their schools reasonably reflected of the population as a whole."
Exactly. This is the argument the court zeroed in on. The majority opinion  provides citation after citation that reflecting the population is not a valid interest of the state. Among other reason: it has no stopping point. "Diversity" may be a reason, but "racial diversity" and "reflecting the population" aren't.
"The sponsors of Justices Roberts and Alito claimed that they would be the advance wave of a new federalism, pulling the federal government and the courts back from the states and local authorities and giving them a free range to do what they pleased."
This is the only valid criticism in the article, but of course Scott Horton doesn't really mean it. If Horton was in favor of criticism, he would /oppose/ Brown v. Board because of its centralizing tendencies.
Personally, I believe that Brown v. Board was very wrong in its details and implementations, but very necessary in what it achieved. I'm not sure of the best way to have done it better. But I won't stoop to intellectual bait-and-switch that Horton favors.
"Frankly, I could never understand the arguments against busing (excepting perhaps for fuel economy)."
Saying to a Chinese kid, "I'm sorry, your'e commute has to be 90 minutes instead of 10, because we already have enough Mexicans at your local school" (read the case for details of Seattle's crazy system) is pretty easy to understand.
That said, there are deeper reasons to be opposed to busing, as I outlined in my post above. But the emotional response to busing on the part of most people is built on punishing children in the name of utopianism. It's pretty easy to understand.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, June 29, 2007
"I'm not sure of the best way to have done it better."
Put the 'equal' back into 'separate but equal'? As I recall from US history class, Plessy v. Ferguson was followed by another Court ruling stating that equality wasn't necessary. Rescinding that later decision only would have still forced some unconfortable decisions on a lot of school boards.
Do you desegregate the schools? Raise taxes to bring the black schools up to white standards (interesting question: where would today's de-facto economic segregation fit?)? Or lower standards at the white schools until they're equal to the raised standards at the black schools?
Posted by: Michael | Monday, July 02, 2007