who's your nanny?

Why Public Schools Must Die

Karen DeCoster is back from vacation (thank God) and is on fire as usual. In her post entitled "Invisible Masters", I found this quote from John Taylor Gatto:

Almost all Americans have had an intense school experience which occupied their entire youth, an experience during which they were drilled thoroughly in the culture and economy of the well-schooled greater society, in which individuals have been rendered helpless to do much of anything except watch television or punch buttons on a keypad.

Before you begin to blame the childish for being that way and join the chorus of those defending the general imprisonment of adults and the schooling by force of children because there isn’t any other way to handle the mob, you want to at least consider the possibility that we’ve been trained in childishness and helplessness for a reason. And that reason is that helpless people are easy to manage. Helpless people can be counted upon to act as their own jailers because they are so inadequate to complex reality they are afraid of new experience. They’re like animals whose spirits have been broken. Helpless people take orders well, they don’t have minds of their own, they are predictable, they won’t surprise corporations or governments with resistance to the newest product craze, the newest genetic patent — or by armed revolution. Helpless people can be counted on to despise independent citizens and hence they act as a fifth column in opposition to social change in the direction of personal sovereignty.

Gatto wrote The Underground History of American Education which I have heard is an absolute must-read. Similar to Robert Higgs who argues that there is no failed policy, Gatto argues that the idiocracy in which we now live was intentionally designed; the founders of the modern public school wanted to create a population which would be loyal to the State. This is exactly the world we live in. Just mention secession to most people, and they will immediately recoil in horror. They will insinuate that you are a neo-confederate or racist or unpatriotic or a crank or all of the above. The United States is a great country, they will argue. "Who are you to wish its demise? Our unity makes us strong." Such reactions are a result of the education of the masses who have been indoctrinated with collectivism.

This Is Why We Are Doomed

Writes Karen DeCoster:

Simon Property Group, which owns Concord Mills mall, has revoked the lease of a kiosk seller called the Free Market Warrior because it sells items that are “not politically neutral.” It started with the usual: one politically correct wuss who went crying to mall management because she found the items being sold to be “offensive.” The kiosk sells posters and bumper stickers that say “Work Harder. Obama needs the money,” and other horrifyingly shocking (gasp!) statements. The author of the letter is, as you may have guessed, a female college graduate from UNC-Charlotte, Jennifer Ibanez. This is from the letter she wrote to the Charlotte Observer (emphasis mine):

“Free Market Warrior, a kiosk located adjacent to Bass Pro Shops, specializes in memorabilia embellished with pro-confederacy statements as well as those opposing both the government and President Obama. In addition, these products support ideas such as racisms, sexism, and even slavery. While freedom of speech is a Constitutional right it’s difficult not to believe that something just isn’t quite right here.

“I find it appalling that Concord Mills, North Carolina’s #1 visitor attraction, would condone such a message to be portrayed by their vendors and can’t imagine how the outside visitors’ perceptions of North Carolinians have been skewed by such an establishment.

“It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It’s 2009; please, let’s at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end.”

Note the letter’s typical left-wing, female tone of “oh my, I’m soooo offended.” Miss Ibanez, and most other women her age, have had the standard politically correct, collectivist-reactionary, group-hug mentality shoved into their tiny brains since they attended Head Start, and onward into their college years. These people emerge from the system and they all sound exactly the same and repeat the same tired, old lines about the confederacy (you think she knows anything about that conflict?), racism, offensive statements, bigotry, hate, yada yada. These kids are Xerox copies of one another. But that’s their diversity. Intellectually, they are empty shells. They are helpless, unenlightened milquetoasts, and they represent the bulk of America’s future. They are the reason why freedom may be on its last legs.

*******************************************************************

What makes this story so depressing to me is that this censorship was the result of a merchant responding to a consumer. If the consumers become like this left-wing fool, then merchants will be compelled to meet their demands or else go out of business. If the people demand ignorance, foolishness, collectivism and enslavement, the market will give it to them good and hard.

Can a Judge Who Inteprets the Law "Follow the Law"?

In defense of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Sen. Patrick Leahy D-Vt, says, "Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their (sic) upbringing has been." I find this a specious proposition. If the Supreme Court is the ultimate judge of the Constitution, how can a Supreme Court judge follow the law when she essentially determines what the law is and how it is to be applied?

Sotomayor has been attacked for stating that her decisions as a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male who hadn't had the same experiences. While this statement has offended many conservatives who continue to believe in the myth of the rule of law, there is nothing false about Sotomayor's assertion. She would interpret the law to aid those she favored. But everyone interprets the law based on some a priori ideological bias. There is no way not to do this. This circus concerning Supreme Court nominees serves to reinforce the myth that law exists as some body of definite rules. Nominees are always asked how they would apply the law in situation X. People want to hear "I'll examine the facts and apply the law to the facts." But this is simply impossible. No judge can simply apply the law as stated because the judge is also interpreting the law. Since the State is the ultimate judge, its interpretation of the law becomes the law. Thus, a judge, especially a Supreme Court judge, cannot follow the law when she is the ultimate judge of what the law is.

I do not wish to imply that there are no objective laws to which all people are subject. My criticism of the State is that is is an immoral institution because it is based on aggression and I believe that aggression, i.e., the initiationof violence or threats of violence against others is always wrong. The individuals who compose the State are still culpable for their aggression. My point is that as long as the State is the ultimate judge of a territory, there is no way to bind it to the law. It is the originator and final interpreter of law; thus, it cannot follow the law nor is it bound by the law. The State's interpretation is the law. This is why the State can exempt its agents from the very laws it was supposedly created to enforce and yet be considered legitimate by the masses. The State forbids theft yet it exempts itself from this law and names its activity taxation; the State forbids slavery yet it exempts itself from this law and names its activity national service; the State forbids murder yet it exempt itself from this law and names its activity war.

The agents of the State and the media will continue to sing the hymn "Fidelity to the Law" all through the nomination process, but we should not be deluded. A Supreme Court judge who interprets the law is not bound by the law. Her interpretation is the law.

SUNY Geneseo Student Found Dead after Party

In a story that hits close to home, Geneseo State University student Arman Partamian was found dead last Sunday morning in an off-campus house, hours after apparently drinking a significant amount of alcohol the day before.

Why is this personal? Partamian was enrolled at my college alma mater and was also "pledging" my old "fraternity," the Order of the Orange Knights -- better known as PIGS -- when he died.

I use the quotes above because PIGS is a social organization, not a fraternity; and to become a member you partake in orientation, not pledging. Given this tragic situation these are relatively meaningless details, but I wanted to point out the distinction because I will revisit this point later. In short, the PIGS aren't "Greek" -- their motto, "We don't care if you don't like us," is proof positive of that -- and Geneseo is the only college in the country where you'll find them.

Alcohol-related college deaths always tend to bring the holier than thou out of the woodwork to condemn the "irresponsibility" and "recklessness" of our youth, and if this statement by Geneseo president Christopher Dahl is any indication, there's a good chance most of the fraternities and sororities at Geneseo will increasingly find themselves in the administration's crosshairs from now on:

We strongly condemn irresponsible organizations that ignore the expectations and values of the College, recruit students like Arman and then encourage behavior that puts their lives at risk. We will continue to do all that is legally within our power to eliminate the detrimental influence these renegade organizations have on our students and community.

As the president of a state university, Dahl obviously is required to worship at the alter of political correctness, but with all due respect, he can save the melodrama. For starters, he's the president of a college; if he wants to run an institution filled with mature conformers, maybe he should consider working for the Key Bank down the street instead.

Furthermore, what's worse: voluntarily joining a social club whose members like to drink, or serving as the top administrator of a public college that exists largely at the expense of coerced taxpayers? Mr. Dahl may want to be careful if he's looking for a moral debate.

And, seriously, "renegade organizations" that "put lives at risk?" President Dahl runs a small Division III school in rural upstate New York. If this hyperbole is the type of rhetoric one can expect to receive from a university president in response to off-campus weekend parties, I'd love to see how he'd react if he actually had to deal with real campus hooligans who, say, set whole communities afire and destroy private property after big football or basketball games.

Arman Partamian's death is nothing short of a tragedy, and my thoughts are with his family and friends. But the reality of the matter is that these unfortunate incidents are the exception. Clearly this fact doesn't make any alcohol-related death easier to bear, but there's not an organization on campus -- Greek or otherwise -- that sets out to do tangible harm to its pledges or any other student who attends an open party. These interactions are the epitome of voluntary association between consenting adults, as students join fraternities and sororities knowing full well that they may face hazing rituals and be subjected to ridicule.

Which brings me to my final point. I've read a couple reports that refer to the PIGS as a "drinking club." Yes, if you meet a PIG, there will be no confusion as to what one of his favorite pastimes is. It's not peculiar to find him bent over a garbage can in the I.B. at 2 a.m. on a Thursday night, or even standing behind an "enemy" DK or Omega to have his back outside the bar when punks from R.I.T. roll into town looking for a fight. Nor, incidentally, is it uncommon to find him volunteering for any number of charity events, from wheelchair basketball games to Big Brothers/Big Sisters to memorial golf fundraisers.

The reason I distinguished the PIGS from the Greek fraternities on campus is because the PIGS actually take pride in not behaving like the typical frat, which generally is known to demean its pledges by forcing them to engage in any number of denigrating, ritualisic activities throughout campus. Personally, I've always regarded this as a virtue and an exhibition of good character -- the same type, by the way, that the PIGS look for in potential members and obviously found in Arman Partamian, who spent some of his free time as a volunteer EMT with the Geneseo fire department.

Though the "littles" may be required to take part in various organized drinking activities before they get their jerseys (signifying official entry into the organization), the PIGS tell all interested parties upfront that they will be treated like equals during orientation; they simply want all their prospective brethren to have fun, hang out together, and get to know everyone in the organization as they create bonds and friendships that will last a lifetime. The fact that alcohol is involved is secondary; you don't become a PIG if you don't like to drink.

If President Dahl and his fellow critics really want to take productive measures to mitigate the potential for "binge drinking"-related student deaths, perhaps they could advocate the abolition of tyrannical laws that encourage fraternity parties in the first place by preventing young adults from drinking legally in bars and restaurants.

Or maybe instead of alienating his own students by castigating them as evil reprobates -- the vast majority of whom graduated at the top of their respective high school classes -- Mr. Dahl could accept that fact that most college kids are going to drink and work within that construct to try to form partnerships with them that could somehow reduce the potential for tragedy.

Then again, maybe there's just not an "answer" here. As difficult as it is, maybe you just have to accept the fact that sometimes people make mistakes and that accidents happen.

These are sad days in Geneseo, but blaming the PIGS or fraternities in general for decisions individuals make misses the point and tarnishes the memory of Arman Partamian, who from my vantage point made a choice to join an organization that welcomed him and made him happy.

There will always be critics and second-guessing, and there are few words to comfort parents who've lost a child. But if I may, I'll offer just one thought: If you have a son the state and its accomplices consider a "renegade," that in itself is a badge of honor and you should be damned proud.

Arman Partamian, rest in peace.

Dr. Walter Block Lays the Smack Down

On his politically correct majesties colleagues who patrol the so-called Affirmative Action Diversity Task Force at Loyola University New Orleans.

And it is good.

NYPD: Criminal 'Crime-Fighters'

A gang of cops allegedly attacked and sodomized a Brooklyn man for allegedly smoking a joint in a subway station.

[Michael] Mineo was walking from his home to the Prospect Park subway station on Empire Boulevard at Flatbush Avenue at about 2 p.m. on Oct. 15 when two uniformed officers spotted him allegedly smoking a joint.

They chased him into the station, and at some point, Mineo allegedly swallowed the marijuana. Five cops tackled him near a token booth, where they beat him and stood on his neck, said [Mineo's attorney Stephen] Jackson and the law-enforcement sources.

One officer then allegedly pulled Mineo's pants down and shoved a police radio's antenna into his rectum.

The cops then hauled a bleeding Mineo into a police car and issued him a desk-appearance ticket before cutting him loose, Jackson said.

They also warned him not to report the incident or they would upgrade his charge to a felony, according to the attorney.

Jackson said his client heard one of the officers yell, "No! Don't do it!" as his pants were being pulled down. His roommate and co-worker, Jason Amolsch, found him yelling that the "cops violated him."

The report notes that this alleged assault is reminiscent of the 1997 police assault on Abner Louima, but whereas Louima was black and his attackers white, Mineo is white and his alleged attackers white, black, and Hispanic.

This difference, however, is largely irrelevant. While there undoubtedly may be racially-motivated attacks by police, much more dangerous is the monopoly on the use of force every single one of them, regardless of race, wields over the rest of us.

It's pretty clear our PC police state has merely given us the pleasure of being beaten by a more colorful contingent of government thugs.

(Via Anthony Gregory)

Obama's 'Wage Gap' Hypocrisy

My friend Lisa De Pasquale debunks claims in recent Obama ads that women aren't paid wages commensurate with men's, and also points out that Our Holy Savior might talk the talk but doesn't even walk the walk when it comes to his own campaign staff.

One ad claims that women make only 77 cents for every dollar men make, but as Lisa notes, "this statistic doesn't take experience, years in the workforce and hours worked into consideration.  When those factors are included, the 'wage gap' virtually disappears."

Lisa cites statistics from Deroy Murdock showing that Obama's female employees average $45,152 while the men average $54,397. But what's more, if Obama's female staffers wanted to be paid on par with the men, it looks like they should jump ship and work for McCain. Mustard Teeth's female employees actually make more on average than the guys do, $55,878 to $53,936.

Both candidates are evil, immoral, and atrociously anti-liberty in ways both similar and varied, but McCain is correct to dismiss a "wage gap," regardless of whatever haggard female plant workers in Obama's ads claim.

Employers should be free to contract voluntarily with their employees and pay them whatever they like for whatever reasons. Period.

And don't buy this hype about some perceived "wage gap." If women really were willing to work for 77 percent of what men make given the exact same amount of experience, education, and skill sets, employers would never hire men.

Once a Hack, Always a Hack

Is it just me, or does anyone else get a kick out of watching so-called conservative pundits piss and moan about the monstrous welfare check the federal government is getting ready to write in misguided hope of curtailing the recession?

From Gingrich and Kristol to Malkin and Coulter, the neocons are either railing against the Bush administration subsidies or trying to pin the financial disaster on liberals and the Clinton administration.

For starters, this is hardly a Repuglican vs. Demonrat issue. Both major parties have championed politically-correct, irresponsible monetary policy for decades. Whether it was Clinton's affirmative action-based lending policies or Bush's "ownership society," forcing banks to lend to people who can't pay their bills is financial suicide, to say nothing of the putrid marriage of socialism and fascism this cultivates.

Michelle Malkin says this is a time for "ideological principle" and "ideological courage." Is she serious? There may have been a day when Republicans would have at least refused to continue subsidizing a problem that was caused by their own subsidization policies in the first place, but I can't seem to remember any in the past eight years.

And poor David Limbaugh. He must have been in a coma since 2000. He's blaming liberals alone for "creat[ing] this monster of a financial mess by their incorrigible commitment to the magic of government."

Just today, Ann Coulter complains, "at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients."

Each of these commentators is right in some respect. We are in a financial crisis; government welfare policies eventually come home to roost; responsible middle-class taxpayers will receive no benefits as they're robbed so the federal government can keep profligate CEOs and homebuyers afloat; and this most certainly is a time for ideological principle and courage.

However, every one of these pundits is more committed to being a Republican shill than an ideological trendsetter. Just a few months ago, Ann Coulter was bashing John McCain. But hey, now that there's an election around the corner, all that matters is that the GOP wins (forget for a moment that it matters not who wins). Let's defend McCain and go back to bashing Bill Clinton.

If these guys really wanted to see a return to even a semblance of ideological purity and restrained government (which they don't), they would start penning columns right now urging everyone in the country who opposes this fleecing of America in order to bail out financial institutions -- which at last count was right around 93 percent of voters -- to write in Ron Paul on election day.

They had their chance to support the only Republican presidential candidate in the past 200 years who actually would have signficantly scaled back the leviathan state; who never would have endorsed the Fed and Treasury's continued bankrupting of the American citizen; and who would have been able to use a national stage to articulate the immorality of fiat currency and government-imposed inflation.

Of course, that would have caused them to fall out of favor with all their conservative and/or Republican readers who have voted for the very policies that are now proving so unsustainable.

So complain all you want. As long as you continue to endorse and vote for the establishment, you're just as much a part of the problem you're hyprocritically railing against right now.

Too Cool for School

A small Texas school district is set to allow teachers to pack heat to protect against school shootings.

Still, this is an example of fighting the symptom instead of the disease. Because politically correct bureaucracy makes it virtually impossible to expel thugs from public schools, the state facilitates school violence in the first place.

PC Dress Codes

In an episode that highlights the silliness of political correctness, police in Easton, Md., have ticketed an 18-year-old man for walking down the street without a shirt on.

Apparently lawmakers feared they'd run afoul of civil rights laws by discrimating only against women going topless, so they felt it better just to discriminate against everyone. Gotta love equality!

According to Easton Police Lt. Gregory Wright, "people without shirts are considered a public nuisance."

Thankfully we can't say the same about our government nannies!

UPDATE: I'm providing this link to the story as well, given that links from the Sun tend to disappear after a couple weeks.

How the Fed Created the Subprime Mess

Via the LRC blog, Stan Liebowitz explains how Fed-driven affirmative action policies in mortgage lending loosened underwriting standards that led to wide-scale defaults.

Shake That Groove Thing -- Or, Just Shake a Lawmaker

A New York City court has just upheld a law cracking down on those most vile threats to humanity known as, uh, people who like to dance at bars!

Seriously, I have no idea why terrorists would want to target the Big Apple. State lawmakers seem to have done a fabulous job of ending life there all on their own.

The city's 80-year-old cabaret law banning dancing by patrons in ordinary bars and restaurants is legal, the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled Thursday.

The Gotham West Coast Swing Club and several people had sued, saying the law violated their constitutional right to free expression.

But the appeals court backed the law, which was enacted in the Prohibition era to crack down on speakeasies.

"Recreational dancing is not a form of expression protected by the federal or state constitutions," the court wrote.

Well, it would seem to be fairly straightforward that state constitutions wouldn't protect things like recreational dancing, given that they tend to serve as contracts between government and citizens, not as guidelines for what people are allowed to do in private establishments. I also don't believe there's anything in the Constitution indicating how I have to put my pants on in the morning, or what type of car I have to drive.

But unless the government actually owns the clubs, I seem to remember something in that there document that protects the individual's right to private property, which would include his right to use it as he sees fit so long as it harms no one else.

Oxford's Gay Rules

Apparently, the many thousands it costs to attend Oxford don't buy students free speech rights. According to Maria Grasso, you can use the term "gay" to refer to homosexuals, but just don't be overheard using the term to make fun of your buddy's pool shot.

PC in Private

A friend of mine wrote me yesterday, irritated that his five-year-old daughter has to sing about Kwanzaa at her school play.

According to the official Kwanzaa website, "Kwanzaa is a cultural holiday, not a religious one, thus available to and practiced by Africans of all religious faiths who come together based on the rich, ancient and varied common ground of their Africanness." Mysteriously, the website doesn't mention that the holiday's founder, Ron Karenga, is a convicted felon.

My buddy, who happens to be American, isn't so much irritated that his daughter doesn't really have any "Africanness" to celebrate as he is that "this is as much an invented holiday as 'Sweetest Day' is." (For the record, I figured "Sweetest Day" was the new politically correct term for Valentine's Day, but it turns out it's pretty much just another excuse to get kids all hopped up on sugar.)

Apparently, our PC culture hasn't only invaded government schools but private preschools as well, where it seems we must satisfy the delicate sensibilities of anyone capable of taking offense.

While all holidays technically are invented, Kwanzaa aims to celebrate the "cultural diversity" between blacks and whites, but somehow tends to come off smacking of little more than the promotion of racial and cultural polarization -- something that isn't endorsed by my friends, who have already taught their daughter to count (and even speak to some extent) in Spanish and Italian.

Personally, I don't get too worked up about this, and I know my friends don't either. But as I told them yesterday, nothing speaks louder than the act of taking your business elsewhere if you do.

Do I Believe My Ears?

Kudos to Hannah Storm and Dave Price, co-hosts of today's CBS Thanksgiving Day parade, who poked some fun at political correctness a couple minutes ago (about 11:35 a.m.).

Price pointed out a snowman on a float, when Storm said something to the effect of, "I think it's more politically correct to call it a 'snowperson' nowadays." To which Price replied, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Why don't I just go a little further and call it a 'winter precipitation person?'"

Too funny.

UPS Downed by the Nanny State

Via AP:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that UPS Inc. violated anti-discrimination laws by automatically barring the deaf and hearing-impaired from driving parcel delivery trucks.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson's 2004 ruling that the Atlanta-based company's practices breach the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Henderson, in a class-action case representing as many as 1,000 would-be drivers, ruled that the hearing impaired should "be given the same opportunities that a hearing applicant would be given to show that they can perform the job of package-car driver safely and effectively." The San Francisco federal court order was stayed pending appeal.

According to the article, the class-action suit was brought by "would-be" drivers, not even those who are deaf who have been relieved of duty by UPS. And, of course, no mention of whether UPS prohibits the deaf from holding IT or clerical positions. What next, California, forcing UPS to hire blind drivers, too?

Was UPS discriminating against deaf "would-be" drivers? Absolutely, and it should have every right to do so as a private company capable of determining its own employment standards. Just as NFL coaches have every right to discriminate against running backs who can no longer rush for 100 yards per game, or as medical schools have the right to discriminate against students who faint religiously at the sight of blood.

The inherent irony with the ADA is that driving positions will "mysteriously" begin to dry up as deaf applicants apply. And worse, instead of hiring the deaf for less-demanding positions, as they probably would have before, UPS will likely ignore them altogether now, for fear that a decision not to hire for reasons unrelated to a disability will be exploited as a result of a court's new precedent.

New Ashcroft Book is a Joke

So says Debbie Schlussel, who excoriates Ashcroft for ending most terrorist money-laundering investigations, letting known terrorists go free, and prosecuting for hate crimes Americans who expressed sentiments critical of Islamist activity.

John Ashcroft is one of the people most instrumental in empowering extremist Muslims in America after 9/11. He did this by implementing "Initiative to Combat Post-9/11 Discriminatory Backlash," a Justice "civil rights" program under which the most benign statements about Muslims in e-mails and online were prosecuted as hate-crimes. Since Ashcroft implemented this program, the Justice Department is clear that overzealously prosecuting free speech against Muslims is more important than going after terrorists, and the record bears that out. There are far more indictments and convictions under this absurd program than there are of terrorists.

From the Justice Department website:

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, members of these groups, and those perceived to be members of these groups, have been the victims of increased numbers of bias-related assaults, threats, vandalism and arson. Reducing the incidence of such attacks, and ensuring that the perpetrators are brought to justice, is a Civil Rights Division priority. The Division also has placed a priority on cases involving discrimination against Arab, Sikh, Muslim, and South-Asian Americans in employment, housing, education, access to public accommodations and facilities, and other areas within the Civil Rights Division's jurisdiction [emphasis original].

The FBI has since harassed Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs over comments left on his blog. Ashcroft's Justice Dept. arrested and indicted Michael Bratisax, a quadriplegic veteran in a wheelchair. His crime: He sent e-mails against Islam to extremist Imam Hassan Qazwini after Nicholas Berg was beheaded. Qazwini didn't see the e-mails as threats, because he responded to them and engaged Bratisax in a discussion. Still, Ashcroft's Justice Department sought jailtime for the wheelchair-bound man. Yes, because of Ashcroft, free speech for non-Muslims is dead in America.

But put the shoe on the other foot, and . . . nothing. I know. I got serious death threats from Muslims beginning in 2003. I reported them to the FBI and Justice Department. And I still haven't seen a thing done to any of them. So what was that about Congress not establishing or preferring a national religion? Seems that part of the Constitution is dead, too. Thanks to John Ashcroft.

Ah, the opulent competence of our government officials. If Debbie's even half right, there's no point in fighting on the battlefield if we're dedicated to hanging ourselves with political correctness at home.