I can’t decide if Douthat is dishonest or just stupid in this column. But one thing is certain: whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is misconstruing the purpose of Affirmative Action in order to attempt to destroy it:
As this generation rises, race-based discrimination needs to go. The explicit scale-tipping in college admissions should give way to class-based affirmative action; the de facto racial preferences required of employers by anti-discrimination law should disappear.
A system designed to ensure the advancement of minorities will tend toward corruption if it persists for generations, even after the minorities have become a majority.
Douthat arrives at his conclusion by implying–but never stating directly–that Affirmative Action isn’t needed in a place where there are more People of Color than whites. But of course Affirmative Action has never been meant to correct numerical discrepancies in population–rather it is meant to account for and help correct the pervasive systematic discrimination that sees the highest rungs in society dominated by those who have most benefited from the systematic oppression of minorities: white men, and in particular, rich white men.
There is probably some merit in more focus on class in college admissions, as Douthat notes, but he seems to suggest that merely to gloss over a reality he would as soon not admit: that even with Obama as President and a second woman and Latina about to sit on the Supreme Court, the most powerful positions in society are still overwhelming held by white men, who benefit from their own sorts of Affirmative Action, including Legacy Admissions, family wealth and connections.
Douthat is either a fool or a liar to think the problems faced in overcoming discrimination by People of Color* will be erased as their percentage of the population increases.
And if he doubts that, maybe he can spend some time poking at post-civil war southern society, and see how much good having a majority did Black southerners then. The idea that majority status and a few high-placed People of Color can wipe out very real oppression is ridiculous on its face, which is likely why Douthat conceals it.
*And seriously, what the fuck? “if current demographic trends continue, nonwhites — black, Hispanic and Asian — will constitute a majority of Americans under 18. By 2042, they’ll constitute a national majority,” Douthat writes. As though somehow the moment white people are outnumbered they are suddenly doomed? And as though all People of Color can be conveniently lumped together when it suits him, facts be damned?
1 comment so far
[Update: Awesome. Adams' website currently has the same essay as Townhall, but all references to feminists have been changed to his personal derogatory term for LGBT students. h/t. He's a real deep thinker, that Adams.]
Mike S. Adams, who you may remember, is currently running around screaming about being oppressed. Exactly how a fundie professor who gets to make stupid assertions in public is being oppressed is, as always, unclear. But two things are clear:
1) Adams is yet another wingnut who falsely believes he knows how to use satire;
2) Adams doesn’t understand that a professor has different classroom obligations from his/her students.
Adams begins with a long whine about how feminists didn’t appreciate his satire about silencing feminists students in his classroom, then moves on:
Dear Bernard Ayotte, (R-Bigotsville) May 7, 2009Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, wingnuts.
Rep. Bernard Ayotte, a Republican, said he couldn’t support the legislation because it would provide legal protections to people whom he said suffered from hormonal imbalances causing same-sex attractions.
“By all indications, homosexuality in human beings seems to be generated by imbalances in the human body,” he said. “As legislators, it is important that we do not base our statutes on genetic aberrations.”
“All indications,” of course, means “shit he picked up from a guy hot on the trail of Obama’s REAL Indonesian/Kenyan/Muslim/Atheist birth certificate.” But really, someone who isn’t completely stupid should get into Ayotte’s ear and get him to clarity if he thinks homosexuality is a genetic defect or a hormonal imbalance. If he’s going to make embarrassing claims, he could at least keep them straight.
Not that it would do any good, because even if the science actually backed him, what difference would it make? If LGBT folks were genetically and hormonally different, would that make it okay to deny them equal protection under the law? (While I’m typing this, somewhere, a creationist is accusing all evolutionists of being eugenicists, no doubt.)
Also, hasn’t the argument from the far right traditionally been that being gay is a choice? What happened? Was that explanation for bigotry not polling well?
So what is your point, Mr. Ayotte? It couldn’t just be that you’re a bigot cloaking your bigotry in a veneer of pseudo-science, could it?
Ayotte added that his lack of support for the legislation shouldn’t be interpreted as discrimination against gay people.
He doesn’t want to discriminate against gay people, he just thinks they inferior and don’t deserve equal protection under the law. That clears that right up.
So much for States’ rights, eh, Mr. Steele? May 6, 2009Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, wingnuts.
Here’s a free tip for the embattled supposed leader of the Republicans, Michael Steele: ignoring the supposed importance of “states rights” when the states don’t act the way you want is a good way to confirm to everyone that your party is still a hypocritical, bigoted bunch of losers.
I’m sure you’ll remember your commitment on this issue next time you need something from Governor Perry.
Dear Mr Halperin May 1, 2009Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, News and politics.
Kindly go fuck yourself.
R. S. McCain: women are things! now that I’ve got that out of the way, let me put up a smokescreen to conceal it April 24, 2009Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, sex, wingnuts.
1 comment so far
As many of my readers will have already observed, there’s some high quality misogynist wingnuttery being emitted from R. S. McCain. Like someone embarrassed to have passed gas, McCain first puts up a post that clearly works under the assumption that women are merely objects to be used by men. When this is pointed out, he fires off some updates to his post, all designed to shield him from the accusations he brought upon himself by his overtly despicable original post.
His original scenario has already been thoroughly torn down at the links above, so I won’t bother elaborating there. Instead, let’s have some fun “unpacking” his first update, to use McCain’s own words. He writes,
Rosenau continues to trounce Martin Cothran’s arguments. April 24, 2009Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, Science, wingnuts.
1 comment so far
Josh Rosenau obviously has more tolerance for dealing with dishonest hacks than I do, because he’s still explaining the myriad problems with Cothran’s arguments, and doing so expertly. It seems that his extensive experience dealing with creationists has helped Rosenau immensely.
This time round, Rosenau is taking Cothran to task for first approvingly citing Pat Buchanan’s work and doing so on Yom HaShoah. Cothran’s bumbled through a couple of replies, but as usual, offers nothing but strawmen, dishonesty and incomprehension. And this from an instructor in logic, no less!
add a comment
In the national security equivalent of BillO inadvertently revealing he thinks gay people should be ashamed to be gay, Pat Robertson has discovered the shocking truth: there are queer people and liberal people in the government! Shocking!!!!1! MUST CREDIT PAT ROBERTSON ZOMG ITS A SMOKING GUN!!!
It — it shows somebody down in the bowels of that organization is either a convinced left-winger or somebody whose sexual orientation is somewhat in question.
Oh NOES! They have found out that people who don’t agree with them still have some power! And Pat Robertson sure does seem with “bowels” here, doesn’t he? Just sayin’.
Elections have consequences, Pat. Suck on it.
Dear Ultra-Orthadox Jews: April 6, 2009Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, Religion, wingnuts.
1 comment so far
Two ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspapers have altered a photo of Israel’s new cabinet, removing two female ministers.
Limor Livnat and Sofa Landver were grouped with the rest of the 30-member cabinet for their inaugural photo.
But Yated Neeman newspaper digitally changed the picture by replacing them with two men. The Shaa Tova newspaper blacked the women out.
Publishing pictures of women is viewed by many ultra-orthodox Jews as a violation of female modesty.
Remember, these far-right papers are pandering to the kind of people who think using threats of violence to keep women to dress “modestly” and sit at the back of buses. Like Fundamentalists of every religious stripe, Jewish Fundies are odious beyond belief.
Now if you’ll excuse me, the internet is full of people trying to tell me how immoral atheists are.
Absolutely Horrifying February 10, 2009Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, Things I Hate, wingnuts.
Of late, I’ve been increasingly convinced that snark is a far better weapon for dealing with the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts than anything else: like their Republican overlords who want the economy to collapse in order to help their electoral chances, wingnuts rarely argue in good faith, and responding to crazy people on their own intellectual terms accomplishes little aside from providing a false legitimacy to their counter-factual and odious positions.
So, while I’ll happily have a serious discussion with a thoughtful conservatives, wingnuts are usually best responded to by mocking. Usually.
But then one comes across something like this:
While we must equip both our sons and our daughters to be strong lights in a dark age, our sons are likely to be called to lead and provide for their families, while our daughters are likely to be called to be helpers. Even if they’re never called to marriage, our hope is that our daughters will feel content as a helper in our home (or a relative, if we die) – or even in the church. If God were to never bring them husbands and we were to die (the grand “what-if” question we’re asked), and nobody was willing to take them into their own family, then we are perfectly confident in God’s provision.
Our daughters are much more capable of taking care of themselves than I was at their age and I still managed to find a very good job (without having attended college) when I had to. College and being groomed for independent living isn’t the magic pill so many people think it is. Sometimes it can even make one less equipped for life’s trials. Talk to women who were raped while living alone; indoctrinated by feminist, atheist professors; or duped into putting off marriage or children (for the sake of a degree or a career) until it was too late.
Unfortunately, I’ve known people who think this way–though fortunately they put their beliefs in to actual practice much less than the above family does. Leaving aside the rampant misogyny and what almost certainly amounts to abuse (since, even if one wants to argue their right to raise their children as they see fit, they have no right to pressure an adult child to stay under their “protection”), it is truly terrifying to see this mother admit she has no interest in helping their daughters prepare to survive in the event of their deaths.
And they do it all in the name of protecting their daughters. It’s truly sickening.
Honestly, snark is an inadequate weapon for dealing with evil of this magnitude.