Saturday, March 31, 2007

Britain: Must not Use Black Accents on TV

"Cadbury Trebor Bassett has been forced to axe the 10 milion pound TV campaign for Trident, its biggest product launch of the year, following hundreds of complaints that the ad was racist and showed "harmful stereotypes"....

One ad showed a black man speaking in rhyme with a strong Caribbean accent and other executions show white people speaking in rhyme in Caribbean accents.

Viewers complained that the exaggerated behaviour and strong accents were a humiliating and negative depiction of black or Caribbean people.

Source

Apparently, black speech differences are just too shameful to be mentioned.
"Media Matters" is getting ever more cautious

And a good thing it is. I guess they did not like it when they got called Nazis even on the Puffington Host. I referred to their hypocritical defense to that charge yesterday.

They are still taking aim at popular politically incorrect broadcasters but are sticking to reporting (selected) facts rather than calling for censorship of any sort. They are now (Gasp!) leaving it up to their readers to decide what if any action needs to be taken about what they reveal. Or so it seems from their recent old-news "revelations" about popular and very incorrect sports announcer Sid Rosenberg. Rosenberg is clearly what Australians call a "stirrer" -- someone who is deliberately outrageous in order to stir up a reaction. Most Australians like stirrers.

Why shouldn't people say outrageous things anyway? It might be very helpful if more people knew what others thought of them.

Friday, March 30, 2007

"Racist" Sex-Prosecution in SC?

We read:

"The arrest of two women teachers on charges of having sex with their male students has brought cries of lingering racism in one of South Carolina's most conservative counties and evoked some of the South's oldest and deepest-seated racial taboos. Both women are white. The boys, six in all, are black.

Some of the blacks who make up more than a quarter of Laurens County's 70,000 residents are upset over the handling of the two cases, particularly the release of the teachers on bail.

They say the cases reflect the way crimes by whites against blacks in the segregated South were treated less seriously than other offenses, and blacks who leveled accusations against whites were less likely to be believed. "If this had been black teachers, they would not be out of jail right now," said Corinnie Young, a 49-year-old bookstore employee who is black....

Jerry Peace, the county prosecutor and a white man, said that the teachers are wearing electronic tracking devices and that their release on bail, $125,000 for one, $110,000 for the other, was based not on race, but on the danger to the community and the likelihood that the defendants might flee.

In any case, it would be unusual for someone accused of such a crime to be held without bail. Deborah Ahrens, a visiting professor of criminal law at the University of South Carolina, said of the bail amounts for the two teachers: "For the clients that I've represented in the past that were up for similar offenses, that sounds about right."

Source

That the teachers should be presumed innocent until proven guilty is apparently not accepted by the protesting blacks. Why? Is that itself racist? One might have thought that the white teachers would be praised for their apparent lack of racial discrimination, though.

For another one of these absurd prosecutions, but one involving whites only, see here.
Hypocrisy at "Media Matters"

The Leftist "Media Matters" is trying to get newspapers to stop carrying columns by Ann Coulter. They are urging their members to ask their local newspaper why they carry her columns. And that is fair enough. Anybody and everybody is free to criticize their local newspaper. More people should do so.

But "Media Matters" are denying that they are doing exactly what they are doing:

"Media Matters does not contest, nor do we seek to eliminate, Ann Coulter's right to write and say what she believes. Nor do we contest or seek to eliminate the rights of news organizations to promote her views by running her columns or hosting her on television. We simply urge them to reconsider whether their decision to do so serves their readers and viewers.

Source

So if the local paper said: "Yes. We have reconsidered and we think her columns are great" that would be all that "Media Matters" wants? Not very likely! They are running a campaign to prevent her from being heard and just denying that they are does not reverse that reality. But sailing under false colors comes as second nature to Leftists, of course.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Black teachers "overworked"

You can't win. If you ignore black/white differences you are "insensitive". And if you do your best to acknowledge black/white differences you can get it wrong too:

"In 2005, a group of black teachers complained to administrators in the West Windsor-Plainsboro school district that they were being treated in unfair and insensitive ways. Among other problems, they said they were being asked to "over-represent" their race, administrators said. Other teachers would come to them for help in working with black students....

Black teachers have stressed that it wasn't racism they were dealing with but a lack of cultural sensitivity that became a problem as more black teachers were hired, school officials said. "For example, if you're an African-American teacher, a (nonblack) teacher may come to you for advice about an African-American student's problem," said school human resource specialist Katherine Taylor. "But you can't always be a representative of your race. As teachers, we need to see students as students (rather than races)."

Source

So now they are apparently doing "diversity workshops". I guess that might overwork the black teachers too.

I strongly agree that we should see students just as students but how do you reconcile that with showing special consideration for black/white differences? You can't have it both ways -- unless you are a black or a Leftist, of course.
Economy Drive "racist"

As with the Oliphant story below, any action taken by an employer to deal with an un-co-operative black is "racist" -- this time in Toledo. Democrat Mayor Carty Finkbeiner fired Perlean Griffin because she refused a new job assignment -- whereupon she accused him of racism:

"A long-time city employee, Ms. Griffin was terminated Tuesday after she refused to support the mayor's restructuring of the affirmative action-contract compliance office.

The mayor's plan to eliminate an $11.9 million budget deficit calls for affirmative action to move under the department of human resources and contract compliance to fold into the finance department....

Later, Mr. Finkbeiner denied to reporters during his news conference in the mayor's conference room on the 22nd floor that he was racist, and insisted the fallout over the last week was caused by a "personality conflict" between Ms. Griffin and Theresa Gabriel, the director of human resources.

"Ms. Griffin told me that directly," he said. "I told her she would be able to run an independent operation, as she has been doing. She refused to go to work at human resources, and that was her call."

"The simple truth of the whole issue has nothing to do with anything other than Ms. Griffin's lack of willingness to work in the human resource department because of a personality conflict," Mr. Finkbeiner said.

Source

It seems that behavior that would never be tolerated from a white must be tolerated from a black or a Muslim. If that's not racism and bigotry, I don't know what would be.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

A Profitable Race Card

We read:

"Bill Oliphant thinks he's been suspended from officiating basketball and baseball games because he's black. The local boards that represent both sports say that's not true, and they're outraged over Oliphant's accusations....

Both organizations claim Oliphant hasn't followed their procedures or regulations regarding meeting attendance or certification, but he said they are using this as a cover to deny him assignments....

Two of the approximately 43 referees who officiate varsity boys' and girls' basketball games in Orange County are black: Otis Cowart and T.C. Wilmer, a female. "I'm not aware of any discrimination," Cowart said. "I know Bill is unhappy, he has a dilemma, but I don't think it's about discrimination or racism. There have been no problems for me."....

This isn't the first time Oliphant has taken a case to U.S. District Court. He and Sussman settled with the Central Hudson Valley Board of Girls Softball Officials last year for $20,000, according to sources familiar with the case. The case centered around Oliphant missing a mandatory meeting and not paying a $25 fine. He and his lawyer maintained Oliphant attended a meeting in Rockland County and, again, said the incident was driven by discrimination.

Bobby Moran, secretary/treasurer of the organization from 2001-05, said he thinks the case hurt the group financially. Sources confirmed that the softball board's members paid $5,000 of the settlement, the other $15,000 coming from an insurance policy with the state association. The board had to pay another $5,800 in legal fees. Dues have gone up this year from $50 to $65 and several sources say softball umpires are turning down assignments with Oliphant.

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why," said Moran, also a basketball official. "It's unfortunate the way this has all gone down. But nobody wants to step up and say anything because they are afraid they will get sued."

Several officials interviewed echoed Moran's sentiments and said that Oliphant is arrogant, often unprofessional and chronically late to meetings and games. Documents obtained by the Times Herald-Record confirmed that in 2004 two softball umpires - Moran and Steve Aurigemma - asked not to work with Oliphant....

Source
Limbaugh "insensitive"! Who knew?

From a Leftist site:

"Following the controversy surrounding nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh's derogatory song parody, "Barack, the Magic Negro," 630 KHOW-AM radio co-host Dan Caplis defended Limbaugh against charges of racism. Stating that although the song about Democratic presidential candidate and Illinois U.S. Sen. Barack Obama was "offensive," Caplis said that calling Limbaugh a bigot "is going too far." In his defense of Limbaugh, however, Caplis ignored Limbaugh's well-documented history of racially insensitive remarks.

Source
Statements about Groups are Different from Statements about Individuals

If I make the statement: "Men are taller than women", most people will correctly interpret what I said as implying that men are ON AVERAGE taller than women. But there will always be some lamebrain, usually a Leftist of some kind, who will say something like: "But look at Andrea. She is taller than most men here". The lamebrain will think that he has made a devastating refutation of the initial statement by saying that. All he has shown, of course, is that he cannot tell the difference between statements about groups and statements about individuals.

A statement about the tallness of an individual is tested by measuring that individual. A statement about the tallness of a group is tested by measuring all people in the group or a representative sample of them. The two statements are OPERATIONALLY different. They say different things so they are tested differently.

So the statement that "blacks are very crime prone" implies NOTHING about any individual black. Blacks ARE very crime prone but there are still many blacks who are law-abiding.

I would hope that everybody was familiar with that bit of elementary logic but discourse about groups has got to the point where Leftists in particular tend to claim that statements about a group refer to ALL members of that group. And there is no doubt that the statement "ALL blacks are criminal" would be both racist and incorrect. In contrast, the statement: "blacks have a very high rate of criminality" is both correct and may not be in any way racist. Facts are not racist. Leftists, however, DO tend to assert that such statements are racist. But when were Leftists ever concerned about logic? Not very often. Their aim is usually to sound good rather than to be logical.

Sorry if all that seems elementary but the elementary does often seem to need spelling out.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Mysterious Criticisms "Racist"

About a month ago, a Law professor at University of Wisconsin/Madison, Leonard Kaplan, said in class certain things about the Hmong ethnic minority in Wisconsin. The Hmong are a people from Vietnam who live a primitive lifestyle but who opposed the Communists in the Vietnam war. To escape persecution by the Communists, many were given refuge in the USA -- where they have shown their gratitude by becoming a highly criminal group.

Kaplan was initially reported by someone who was not at the lecture of making some sweeping and derogatory statments about the Hmong. For a Jewish law professor to make sweeping and derogatory statemnents about another racial group does of course greatly strain credibility and the accusations were subsequently withdrawn. But around a month has now gone by and no-one so far seems willing to summarize what he did say. One has to suspect that he simply mentioned some undeniable truths. But whatever he said is still "racism"!

Source

Making ANY statements about ethnic minorities is probably "racist" these days. Maybe Kaplan referred to this notorious case.
"Racist" to Satirize Illegal Practices?

We read:

"The Boise State University College Republicans hosted a lecture by former Canyon County Commissioner Robert Vasquez last night in the Student Union Building. Fliers posted around campus promoting his speech, titled “America’s Illegal Alien Invasion,” have sparked protests. The student newspaper reports:

"The flier, a copy of which is also posted on the College Republicans Website, invites everyone to 'Celebrate Cesar Chavez Week' by coming to Vasquez’s speech, where a drawing will be held in which participants can win a free dinner by climbing through a hole in a fence. 'Climb through the hole in the fence and enter your false ID documents into the food stamp drawing!' the flier states."

Representatives from 18 student and community groups gathered outside the Boise State Student Union Building to protest the language on the flier. Several speakers said the language on the flier was “offensive,” “racist,” “malicious,” “undignified,” “hateful,” and “dangerous.”


Alicia Clements, a member of Idaho Community Action Network, told the Idaho Press while the flier distressed her, she was even more disappointed when she read that the flier said their comments were all in fun. “Who would find this funny?” Clements asked. “Racism and prejudice is an extremely painful experience,” she said, speaking from her own life experience. “This must be challenged. It is dangerous and could ultimately ruin our society,” Clements added.

Source

Monday, March 26, 2007

Attack on Free Speech in Chicago School

"Two suburban Chicago students filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court claiming their high school violated one of the students' civil rights by not letting her wear an anti-gay T-shirt. Heidi Zamecnik, 17, of Naperville, and Alexander Nuxoll, 14, of Bollingbrook, are students at Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville.

In response to a National Day of Silence event in April 2006, Zamecnik wore a shirt to school that read "MY DAY OF SILENCE, STRAIGHT ALLIANCE" on the front and "BE HAPPY, NOT GAY" on the back, according to the suit filed Wednesday.

On the Day of Silence, students can refrain from speaking as an effort to highlight discrimination against homosexuals. According to the suit, one school administrator ordered Zamecnik to remove the T-shirt and another official ordered her to cross out "NOT GAY" with a marker.

Source
Attacks on Conservative Bloggers

We read:

"The American Airlines club at Miami International Airport is blocking the websites above [Michelle Malkin, Powerline, Charles Johnson, Hugh Hewitt], after its filtering program, Content Watch, convicted them of the captioned crimes. They are "jailbirds" now, and they are allowed no visitors — at least no internet visitors. (The case of Michelle Malkin is a bit more complex, since visitors are allowed, once they acknowledge that they are about to be exposed to her “Drugs/Alcohol” and her other “Illegal Activities.”)

It is most disturbing that mainstream Republican and conservative writers are being banned on the internet at public locations in the United States — and being smeared with accusations of drugs, violence, hate, pornography, and illegal activities. We did not do a comprehensive check of websites of a more liberal orientation, but we did note that Daily Kos was operating just fine.

Source

Sunday, March 25, 2007

VERBAL Child abuse??

Some Florida nuttiness:

"A bill (HB 1169) that expands the legal definition of child abuse to include abuse that results in 'mental injury' was approved unanimously Wednesday by the House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee. It has two more committee hearings before it can go before the full House for a vote.

A similar bill (SB 2736) is filed in the Senate.

Bill drafters aimed to answer legal concerns about the right to free speech with exemptions for constitutionally protected speech, such as political speech.

'We're going to make sure that no other child suffers mental child abuse and we don't get a conviction,' the bill's sponsor, Rep. Gayle Harrell, R-Stuart, said before the committee vote.

Source

"Mental injury"? Almost anything could be said to cause that: All school discipline, for a start. Interested Participant has some appropriate comments.
US court strikes out porn law

We read:

"A US federal court has ruled that a 1998 law designed to block children from viewing internet pornography violates the US Constitution's free speech protections.

The ruling sided with a challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had argued that the provisions of the Child Online Protection Act were too restrictive.

Judge Lowell Reed of the US District Court in Philadelphia wrote in his ruling that while he sympathised with the goal of restricting minors from seeing pornography, other means that were less restrictive of free speech, such as commercial software filters, were available to block pornographic content.

The Child Online Protection Act made it a crime for any person to provide minors access to "harmful material" over the internet. Violators could be fined up to $50,000 and imprisoned for up to 6 months.

Source

Some of my fellow STACLU-bloggers don't like this decision but, as a libertarian, I of course approve of it. One group of parents should not be able to force their preferences onto the rest of the country. Let them keep track of where their children are and let them learn how to work the "Off" switch.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Muslims lose one



We read:

"A Paris court today acquitted the editor of a satirical French weekly sued by two Muslim groups for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, in a case seen as a test for freedom of expression. Applause broke out in the courtroom at the announcement of the verdict, which ruled that three cartoons published by the weekly Charlie Hebdo in February 2006 were not insulting to Muslims.

The Paris Grand Mosque and the Union of Islamic Organisations of France took Philippe Val, the Charlie Hebdo editor, to court for reprinting cartoons that first appeared in a Danish newspaper, sparking angry protests by Muslims worldwide. They argued that the images drew an offensive link between Islam and terrorism and asked for 30,000 euros in damages.

Source

I cannot resist mentioning that the lawyer for the Paris Mosque was named Christophe Bigot. And Pajamas Media says it was not much of a victory.

I have never studied French but I think the first cartoon above says: "Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists" and "It is hard to be loved by fools" and the second says: "It is Charlie Hebdo's fault"

Update:

I am told that the second cartoon should be translated as: "Charlie Hebdo must be veiled".
Racism in Louisiana

Now that existing governor Blanco is bowing out, the Louisiana Democrats are trying to decide who will be their next candidate for governor. One of the Republican contenders is Bobby Jindal -- of Indian (from India) origin. Jindal does of course have the most politically admired skin-color in America (at least if you go by the media). That is the context for this:

U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon of Napoleonville said Democrats need a centrist, white candidate to beat Jindal

What a racist! If a Republican had said that, it would be blaring from the front page of every newspaper in America, but, as it is, you may see it only here.

P.S.
I don't believe Melancon is a racist at all. He was just describing reality as he saw it. But Republicans are not allowed to do that. Any non-servile mention of race by a Republican is "racism".

Friday, March 23, 2007

The ACLU will Love this!



"Indiana's bright blue "In God We Trust" license plates may have just begun to hit the streets, but the plan behind them was born in last year's legislature. The law creating the plate was sponsored by Rep. Woody Burton, R-Greenville, a conservative member of the House who has supported a state constitutional ban on gay marriage and has spoken favorably of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in public schools. As Bureau of Motor Vehicles officials pointed out, the bill also received wide bipartisan support in the House and Senate when it passed last year.

Patrons leaving the BMV office in Hobart, which has issued 2,867 of the new plates since January, were torn on whether they were making a religious statement, a patriotic statement or they just liked the flag-draped design better than Indiana's pale green on green field design. "I'm Catholic and I'm American so it represents the things I stand for," said Nick Bavanic of Crown Point.

It is also the only game in town for the driver who wants a new license plate this year, instead of a renewal sticker for the old plate. Indiana changes its license plates every five years.

Source
'Hate Crimes' Bill Reintroduced

We read:

"Liberals call it a "hate crimes prevention" bill, but conservatives denounce it as "anti-Christian" legislation. Whatever you call it, the bill is back -- reintroduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) on Tuesday. Liberals are pressing for passage, and conservatives are pressing President Bush to veto the bill if it reaches his desk.

"If there was ever a bill which needed to be vetoed -- this is it," said Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. "Most Christians might as well rip the pages which condemn homosexuality right out of their Bibles because this bill will make it illegal to publicly express the dictates of their religious beliefs."

Lafferty and other conservatives argue that the bill will "elevate homosexuality" -- a type of behavior, they stipulate -- to the same level as race and other characteristics that can't be changed. "The fact is that Conyers' so-called hate crimes bill is a fraud, designed for only one purpose: to add homosexuals, cross-dressers, drag queens and transsexuals to the ranks of federally protected minority groups," TVC said.

Source

Insofar as the bill targets speech, it would probably be unconstitutional but it is clear that any avoidance of homosexuals -- such as rejecting one as a carer or teacher or church-member or customer -- would become criminal. Comment from The ACLU. They don't go near the apparent fact that the bill will create new crimes. They pretend that it will just extend to the Feds prosecutorial powers already held by the States.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Victory for Free Expression at San Francisco State University

No Punishment for Stepping on Hamas, Hezbollah Flags:

"In a crucial victory for free expression, San Francisco State University (SFSU) announced yesterday that its College Republicans will face no punishment for hosting an anti-terrorism rally at which participants stepped on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags. SFSU's decision comes after months of pressure from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), national and local media, and the public-all of which called on the school to uphold the students' constitutionally guaranteed right to free expression.

"We are relieved that SFSU has come to its senses and recognized that it cannot punish students for constitutionally protected expression," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "But the fact remains that the university should never have investigated or tried them in the first place. This was a protected act of political protest and it is impossible to believe the university did not know that from the start."

SFSU's shameful attack on free expression began after an October 17, 2006 anti-terrorism rally at which several members of the College Republicans stepped on pieces of paper they had painted to resemble Hamas and Hezbollah flags.

Source