Election 2016: Jeb Bush’s wife, family issues key to 2016
**Posted by Phineas
Here’s a thought experiment for you: Imagine a university that, through sheer chance, wound up with a mostly Black or Asian student body. Concerned faculty meet, their brows furrowed gravely. What can be done to fix this problem?
And then, a solution! Solicit advice from students and alumni on how the university can make itself ”more White.”
And now imagine the national furor that would erupt.
That’s what should happen to Western Washington University in Bellingham, which is worried that it is too White:
Western Washington University sent a questionnaire to students asking them for advice on how the administration could succeed at making sure that in future years, “we are not as white as we are today.”
The question notes that WWU’s racial make up does not perfectly reflect the nation at large, and asks students to consider strategies that other universities have used to focus on skin color as the paramount indicator of a student-applicant’s worth.
The president of WWU has stated that his explicit goal is to reduce the white population on campus, according to Campus Reform.
“I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, that we as a faculty and staff and student body, as an administration, if we 10 years from now are as white as we are today, we will have failed as a university,” said Bruce Shepard, president of WWU, in a 2012 address.
Maybe I’m just a parochial, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, supremacist White guy from a middle-class, suburban background, and so I’m too reactionary and by definition racist to comprehend the enlightened attitudes of our academic betters. Evidently I’m too stupid to see that nothing is more important than skin color. And I’m just crazy enough to still take seriously something once said by another noted reactionary:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
WWU President Bruce Shepard probably would like to tell Dr. King he had it backwards: he should have wanted his children judged not for the content of their character, for then they could have earned admittance to Western Washington University based solely on the color of their skin.
This is progressive racialist nonsense laid bare. Instead of looking for real diversity, such as an intellectual diversity ranging from Right to Left and a cultural diversity not inextricably tied to skin tone, the academic Left divides society into group identities, to which everyone is assigned regardless of individual belief (1). You can bet WWU’s struggle to be less White is informed by Critical Race Theory and is meant to battle the Leftist scapegoats, structural racism and White privilege.
The only factors that should ever be considered in admissions decisions are academic performance and, if you want to give aid, economic need. One of the few things California has done right in recent years is to ban “affirmative action” in college admissions, though that battle is never truly over.
If I were a student a WWU, I’d transfer. I wouldn’t want to be associated with such a race-obsessed institution. If I were a donor, I’d cancel my donation. And if I were a citizen of Washington, I’d demand to know why the state legislature is funding an institution that not only discriminates based on race, in contradiction to everything this nation is supposed to stand for, but asks for advice on how to do it better!
This is just bunk. (3)
(1) An example I came across years ago: a man of Black African ancestry, born in Francophone Africa but raised in France, identifies wholly with France — French culture, French history, the French language. His heart stirs when he sings La Marsellaise (2) or sees La Tricolore. Now, is he “French,” or (in American racial-cultural terms) “Black?” The gentleman himself would tell you he is French, and proudly so. The racialist, on the other hand, sees only the melanin in his skin. The rest just makes him a self-hating victim of “cultural imperialism.”
(2) Whatever else I might say about France, they do have the best national anthem on the planet.
(3) I’m sure you know what word I really meant. But, this is a family show.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
I love it!
— Josh Romney (@joshromney) April 15, 2014
Now THAT is how it’s done, y’all.
The Hill’s Gossip Blog reports that Chelsea Clinton is no longer ruling out a potential run for political office:
Chelsea Clinton says when people ask her these days whether she wants to go into politics, her answer isn’t an automatic “no.”
The 34-year-old former first daughter told Fast Company in an interview published Monday, “for so long the answer was just a visceral no. Not because I had made any conscientious, deliberate decision, but since people had been asking for as long as literally I could remember, it was no.”
Now, the only child of former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explains, “I live in a city and a state and a country where I support my elected representatives. If at some point that weren’t the case, and I didn’t support my mayor or my city councilwoman or my congresswoman or either of my senators — and I’m lucky to live in a state where I have lots of women representing me, you know — maybe then I’d have to ask and answer the question for myself, and come to a different answer.”
I have nothing against Chelsea Clinton personally, and from what I’ve seen she’s conducted herself over the last several years with class, dignity and grace, but if her politics are anything like her parents’, and I strongly suspect they are, then she’ll just be another Clinton for conservatives to oppose on down the road. Question is – will the American people experience Clinton fatigue in the future much as they seem to have Bush fatigue? As they say, stay tuned.
The “War On Women” theme was a key component of Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. And since politicians tend to repeat what works, the Democrats are pushing the same theme again for 2014 — and, no doubt, as preparation for a Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 where all opposition will be treated as evidence of sexism. But have they taken it too far? Just maybe.
“The level of hyperbole — actually, of demagoguery — that Democrats have engaged in here is revolting. It’s entirely understandable, of course: The Senate is up for grabs. Women account for a majority of voters. They tend to favor Democrats. To the extent that women — and in particular, single women — can be motivated to turn out in a midterm election, waving the bloody shirt of unequal pay is smart politics. Fairness is another matter. Since President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, it has been illegal for employers to pay women less than men for the same work.”
The problem is that comparing what all men and all women earn is deceptive. Men tend to choose more jobs that require long hours, or that are dangerous — hence the much higher rate of vocational death among men than women — but that also pay more. Women tend to prefer jobs that offer flexible or shorter hours, and clean indoor conditions.
Then it turned out that the Obama White House itself pays women workers less than men. White House Press Secretary Carney didn’t mention his wife’s choices, but did argue that the number was misleading because women held different jobs. Well, yes. Federal law says you have to pay people the same for the same work; it doesn’t say you have to pay secretaries the same as press secretaries. This is true both in the White House, and in the private businesses that the White House was attacking.
Make sure to read the whole thing, especially if you want to learn more about other Democrats who don’t practice what they preach when it comes to their standard and definition of “equal pay” … including NC’s own Senator Kay Hagan.
Reviving the “war on women” meme is just another desperate election year tactic (like playing the race card) for Democrats who want to maintain control of the Senate and win more seats in the US House, as Reynolds notes above. But at least in the case of the phony equal pay argument, even many of the left’s reliable media outlets aren’t on board with it, so it looks like – at least in this case – the Democrats have engaged in a spectacular fail.
Well, it’s a crucial election year and the last one of Obama’s final term in office where he and his party still feel they have a significant amount ‘left to accomplish.’ So what better way (for them) to try to play on the emotions of voters than to do what the left does best? Trot out the tired, stale race card:
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.) said on Sunday that “to a significant extent” there are parts of the Republican base that are motivated by racism.
In response to a question on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Israel declared that “not all” Republican lawmakers are racist.
“To a significant extent the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism, and that’s unfortunate,” he added.
Israel’s charge followed comments from Attorney General Eric Holder last week that he believes he wasn’t treated respectfully by lawmakers at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, in part, because of racism.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week also said she believes “race has something to do” with Republicans’ reluctance to address immigration reform.
Other Democrats will seize on the “elements” part of Israel’s remarks to try and note that he didn’t mean “everyone” in the Republican party here, but don’t fall for it. This is a classic modern-day Democrat tactic when they’re boxed into a corner (metaphorically speaking) and desperate to win: Throw the race card on the table, make it look like they’re not smearing an entire party, but leave it up in the air to revisit the issue by declaring at a later time the hidden “racist intent” behind any and all opposition to whatever proposal the President (and/or his party) puts on the table. And in effect pretty much leaving them in the driver’s seat to determine who and what qualifies as a “racist” under their “race-meter.” This from a party that believes there are only a few reasons why anyone would dare oppose them: racism/sexism/bigotry/classism.
It’s sad, sick, pathetic – shutuppery at its worst. Let’s hope voters see right through it in November.
**Posted by Phineas
With the recent announcement of more than seven million sign-ups for Obamacare, the administration and its supporters have been running around shouting “Success! SUCCESS!!”, as if an enrollment figure means that the implementation of the law itself, with its myriad problems (for example) (1), will be just a matter of working “the bugs” out.
Nevertheless, seven million was the administration’s goal, and they met it. So, how does one explain this victory? How did they do it?
Senator Ted Cruz is ready with the answer:
(1) For lots more, check out my Obamacare archives.
via Dan Mitchell
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
Got a lot on my plate this weekend but wanted to send a quick note to let you know there will likely be some changes soon which may allow me more time to blog than I’ve had in the last couple of years. I’ve really struggled over that time to balance personal responsibilities with my number one passions – political/pop culture writing both here and on social media, and found that with my schedule the way it is that social media sites like Twitter and Facebook allowed for more “real time” information sharing than the blog.
In the coming weeks and months I am going to make a concerted effort to push more content on the blog, because as much as I love social media, oftentimes 140 characters to use to write with just isn’t enough space.
Because eventually I’d like to turn writing into my livelihood, I need the funds to write, to keep the blog going, to pay for hosting, design and re-design efforts, and everyday expenses. Plus, I’d like to also start paying my awesome co-blogger! I’ve had a PayPal account for years that I’ve rarely made appeals to contribute to, but now I am.
In addition to the PayPal account, I’ve also generated a “Go Fund Me” account (both links are now posted in the upper right side column on this page), and have set a goal there of $5,000. This will be an ongoing effort, but my goal is to have this money raised in a month’s time. If you support this blog and know others who do, please contribute via the PayPal or Go Fund Me links and make sure to share them on your Twitter and Facebook pages. I really appreciate the support already given but more is always encouraged and very much appreciated. Thank you!
A Democratic Alabama state representative is under fire for a racially charged challenge he made last month that has backfired big time. TheBlaze reported that during a legislative session discussion on abortion rights, Rep. Alvin Holmes speculated his Republican counterparts would be in favor of abortion if black men impregnated their daughters. Rep. [Holmes] then offered to pay $100,000 cash to anyone who could show him a “bunch of whites” who have adopted black children in Alabama.
Well, the representative is now being asked to put his money where his mouth is after a Facebook group entitled Faces of Families in Alabama began posting photos of multi-racial families in the state. The Facebook page has already garnered more than 7,000 ‘likes,’ and on Wednesday, the group gathered on the steps of the State House to demonstrate just how many multi-racial, adoptive families reside in Alabama.
The Daily Mail has pictures of some of the beautiful families that were in attendance at the Wednesday rally. Time to put up or shut up on your offer, Rep. Holmes. But he won’t, and here’s his “official” reason why. In shorter terms, he’s a shameless race-baiting welcher.
Holmes, you may recall, also sneered on the floor of the Alabama state House a couple of months ago that he didn’t like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas because Thomas is “married to a white woman.” Guy sounds like a real winner, eh? Now just imagine for five seconds Holmes was a Republican …