|
|
|
A MAN WITH A MEMORY LOOKS AT INTEGRATION
|
Mississippi has just signed a civil
rights lawsuit settlement that requires it to spend
more money on its black colleges and universities.
This demonstrates a landmark liberal failure, but
YOU WILL ONLY READ IT HERE.
All those who are allowed to speak,
meaning liberals and respectable conservatives,
are required to have no memory. But I remember that
one goal of the civil rights movement was the abolition
of overwhelmingly black education on every level.
Integration, as only some black leaders
now admit, was supposed to bring on the millennium
in education. Races were supposed to be the same
in everything but skin color, so the only thing
preventing equal education was separate schools.
Southerners who actually cared about
blacks said black problems could best be dealt with
in black schools.
If I had told an integrationist in
1960 that the NAACP would be fighting for better
funding for overwhelmingly black higher education
in 2001, he would have laughed at me. It turns out
that having a black higher education system is indispensable
in dealing with many black problems.
In 1960, as today, liberals laughed
at the common-sense solution to any problem. Back
then I insisted that punishment, not "rehabilitation,"
would reduce crime. That was very unfashionable
in 1960.
It is generally conceded today that
the more repeat criminals that are locked up, the
lower the crime rate will be. Only the truly hypnotic
left still believes that criminals are merely "victims
of society." For example, the New York Times
said last year that, "Crime is on the decrease,
EVEN THOUGH PRISON POPULATIONS HAVE INCREASED."
As usual, what is a contradiction
to a liberal is common sense to a sane person
Today's young folks have an answer
to that kind of totally warped inability to face
reality. They say, "Well, DUHH!"
|
LIBERALISM
IS NOT AN "ALTERNATIVE VIEW," IT IS
INSANITY THAT WE MUST GROW OUT OF
|
Sane social policy can only be reached
after we have gone through a horrible, costly, disastrous
period of taking liberal policy seriously. So it
was with crime and so it must be with black education.
Until we look at the old, insane leftist
arguments as what they really are and reject them,
we cannot return to sanity.
Most people now know how insane the
old liberal policy on crime was. Criminals are not
just victims of an evil society, as every liberal
said in 1960. They must be punished for crime to
be prevented.
On race policy, liberals still require
conservatives to forget how insane their original
justifications were. Policy in that area will remain
a disaster as long as that denial persists.
Nothing liberals advocate ever WORKS.
So liberals have to deal with constant failure,
and they are used to it. They have several established
ways of doing this.
First and foremost, liberals use respectable
conservatives to make sure their repeated failures
are never mentioned. In 1960, integration was supposed
to get rid of what were then considered the incredibly
high black rates of illegitimacy, drug use and crime.
Now those 1960 black statistics are the average
WHITE rates, and blacks are much, much worse off.
Blacks are better off now in some
ways, such as pay. But their RATE of improvement
in these areas was just as fast before integration
and affirmative action policies were established.
So liberal policies are a disaster,
as usual. But no conservative who does not want
to be shrieked at and then ignored ever mentions
such a thing.
The reason liberalism always fails
is because it always violates common sense. One
old common-sense saying was "one rotten apple
spoils the barrel." Naturally, liberals sought
to deal with those terrible black statistics by
dumping the black students in wholesale with white
students. The only result, as the old wisdom would
have predicted, was that whites went down to black
levels.
|
|
|
TO
BE RESPECTABLE, YOU MUST MAINTAIN LIBERAL DENIAL
|
|
No one remembers today that almost every
"intellectual" in the 50s and 60s said that
the only way to economic EFFICIENCY was to have all industry
owned and run directly by the government. Back then, "socialism,"
which represented the Inevitable Future of Social Progress,
was defined as "government ownership of the means
of production."
This idea is so stupid it is hilarious,
so no conservative is allowed to remind anyone of what
was once Inevitable and Efficient. You will never see
that anywhere but here.
Likewise, the fact that integration was
supposed to lead to improvements in the statistics on
illegitimacy, drug use, crime, and so forth has been flushed
down the Memory Hole of every respectable conservative.
O'Reilly on the Fox Cable News Network gives
the justification for busing that is popular today. The
purpose of busing, liberals say, is to take hostages:
If you have white students forced into ghetto schools,
their parents will be forced to vote for more ghetto school
money.
Liberals never put it this way, of course.
But their ORIGINAL argument for busing was that it improved
education, and nobody will dare remind them of THAT nonsense!
The other argument liberals NOW use for
integration is Holy Diversity.
The 1960s justification for integration
was the exact OPPOSITE of Diversity. With integration,
"Negroes" would be just like whites, "except
for the color of the skin."
On one program, O'Reilly was discussing
home schooling with William Bennett. Bennett said that
home schooling worked great, but he guiltily admitted
that it does not provide Holy Diversity.
Bennett is one of our leading respectable
conservatives. To be a good one of those, you have to
be genuinely too stupid to see reality. So Bennett is
honestly puzzled that Holy Diversity doesn't seem to be
necessary to a good education.
It would never occur to Bennett or Jack
Kemp or other respectables that the exact opposite is
always the case.
So when Bennett said this, O'Reilly dutifully
jumped in and said, "That is what I like about public
education. Diversity is good." But he did not stop
there. His next sentence, without a break, was, "I
CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE KEEP PUMPING MORE MONEY INTO PUBLIC
EDUCATION AND IT KEEPS GETTING WORSE."
Well, DUHH!
A routine respectable conservative could
say that and believe it, but O'Reilly is no fool. Surely
he can see that his second sentence answered the first!
|
|
FOOTNOTE
ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
|
|
All New York liberals oppose minimum mandatory
sentences for all crimes BUT ONE. They say that rapists
and drug dealers should not be subjected to minimum sentencing
But anyone caught with a gun in his home
in New York -- for the first offense -- gets a one year
minimum prison sentence.
When liberals are serious about something,
the first thing they do is dump the liberal approach to
it.
|
|
|
|
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|