Wednesday, March 12, 2003

WHY LIBERALS LOSE

OK, read this and ask yourself, "What's wrong with this picture?"
Ono waging full-page ad campaign for peace

Yoko Ono paid $42,000 for a full-page ad in today's [San Francisco] Chronicle, because "it is a pretty urgent message," she said by e-mail Tuesday. "It is my contribution to the community."

The San Francisco version of Ono's message is "Imagine Peace Spring 2003." Ono has taken out identical or similar ads making brief statements in last week's Los Angeles Times, the L.A. Weekly and the Village Voice, and another will appear in the Washington Post this weekend.

She prefers free weeklies to commercial newspapers.

"If I knew another paper like the L.A. Weekly and Village Voice, I would have chosen that in San Francisco," she writes. "Those two papers can be picked up by anybody in the city without spending money. They are truly for all PEOPLE" (the capital letters are hers).

L.A. Weekly, Village Voice, NY Times, San Francisco Chronicles -- all are newspapers in communities where people ALREADY OPPOSE THE WAR!

Targeting millions of left-wing urban pacifists with an anti-war message is just typical liberal stupidity. It's a waste of Ono's money and effort. Her ads cannot possibly inspire San Franciscans or Greenwich Villagers to be any more anti-war than they already are.

Why isn't Ono taking out newpaper ads in conservative places like Tulsa, Tupelo and Tallahassee? Why not try to inspire anti-war sentiment out there in 'red-state' America?

Why? Because Ono is a feeble-minded liberal idiot, that's why. Not to mention, she can't sing a note, her "art" is pretentious nonsense, and she will forever be hated by millions as The Bitch Who Broke Up The Beatles.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

THE TROUBLE WITH 'SCHOOL CHOICE'

As our friend, John Ray from "up north" Down Under, points out, an ambitious public school "choice" policy in Florida is foundering on the rocky shores of racial realtity:

"Pinellas school officials acknowledged Tuesday they are limiting enrollment in several elementary schools, including the brand new Douglas Jamerson and James Sanderlin elementary schools in south Pinellas. ... The reason, in part, is that not enough nonblack students want to attend schools in predominantly black neighborhoods. ... [S]chool officials might not have enough nonblack kids to meet the all-important race ratios. ... under an agreement with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the district agreed to prevent any school from having more than 42 percent black students for four years."


Que pasa? The secret truth — what no one will dare say — is that the overwhelming majority of parents (black, white, "other") do not want their children to attend a majority-black school. Why does the NAACP not want any school to be more than 42 percent black? Because they assume that any school with 43 percent or more black students would be "segregated" and therefore bad. Non-black parents make the same assumption, and therefore, there aren't enough available non-black kids to make this "choice" experiment work.

Another way of saying this is that both black and white parents consider the term "good school" to designate a majority-white school. Black parents back school desegregation programs because they want their kids to have access to "good" (i.e., white) schools. And in communities with large black populations and vigorous desegregation policies, white parents typically respond by moving to suburban districts with "good" (i.e., white) schools. So that both desegregation policies and the typical "white flight" response to those policies are different expressions of the same (unspoken) assumption.

Now, the sentiments of those parents who participate in "white flight" (choosing homes in "good" school districts with relatively few black students) are typically characterized as racism. But this ignores the fact that the NAACP, in pushing for integrated schools, is acting on the same sentiment, i.e., "good school = majority white school" or, perhaps more accurately, "bad school = majority black school."

This has been the fundamental problem with school desegregation since the Brown v. Board decision in 1954. The implicit logic of the Supreme Court's decision was that white schools were better than black schools, in an almost metaphysical way. The import of Brown was not -- as liberals then claimed, and conservatives now claim in retrospect -- was not, I repeat, to impose a regime of "colorblindness" in matters of education. Rather, the Court reasoned, black children were being denied a positive good: attending school with white children. (If you doubt this interpretation of the Court's logic, I invite you to carefully study the decision and its appendices.)

If this was what the nation's highest tribunal believed, and was indeed the argument of the NAACP, then the same logic had quite opposite import for white parents. Who could blame white parents for reasoning that, if even blacks considered it a wrong for their children to be forced to attend school with other black children, then court-ordered desgregation was now wronging white parents by forcing their children to attend school with black children.

All this was troublesome enough when it was applied to the Jim Crow South in the 1950s and '60s, and it proved no less troublesome when applied to Detroit and Boston in the 1970s. When white parents in liberal Northern cities rioted in reaction to court orders compelling their children to attend school with black children, it should have been obvious that the entire edifice of Brown had been erected on a weak philosophical and legal foundation. Remember Ayn Rand's dictum: Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Blacks and whites are equal, or they are not. If the races are equal, then no matter your race, it makes no difference if your child's classroom is 99 percent black or 99 percent white. American parents do not believe this. By their choices -- blacks in pursuit of "integration," whites through "white flight" -- both black and white parents exhibit a profound, if unconscious, belief in white superiority.

However mischievous such a belief may be be, per se, it is all the more damaging because it cannot be publicly expressed. Indeed, many of those who most vociferously argue for racial equality are equally vociferous in acting on premises of white superiority. White liberals like Bill and Hillary Clinton refused to send their daughter Chelsea to Washington, D.C.'s majority-black public schools, but then again so do the affluent blacks in Washington like Clarence Thomas. When the privileged and the powerful of both races in the national capital seek out majority-white schools for their children, why should we be surprised at similar behavior by ordinary parents in Pinellas County, Florida?