blackpundit.com

Richard Sanders, a UCLA Law professor, did an in-depth statistical study of how preferences affect black law students’ academic performances, passage rate for the bar, and job prospects. His conclusion: “Blacks are the victims of law school programs of affirmative action, not the beneficiaries.”

One reason is that racial admissions preferences “significantly worsen blacks’ individual chances of passing the bar by moving them up to schools at which they will frequently perform badly.”

…the number of blacks admitted to law school would decline (by about 14 percent) if admissions were colorblind. And almost all of those admitted would end up at less elite law schools, with the percentage of blacks at the very top schools plunging from about 8 percent to 1 or 2 percent. But their grades, graduation rates, and chances of passing the bar would improve so dramatically that the number of African-Americans making it into the legal profession would rise by more than 8 percent. And most of those who make it would end up with better jobs than they get now.

I can believe this to be very true. If you send any one under qualified (black, white or jew), they will be at the bottom of the totem pole because of their lack of performance. Admissions preferences will only give blacks a more negative image (given that under qualified blacks are placed in elite schools), showing that blacks cannot accomplish.

Here is an article that states congress needs to reconnect with the realities of marriage. House of Representatives brought up the Marriage Amendment to the floor, which reflects a serious disconnect between politicians and the public. This Marriage Amendment clearly defines that a marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Less then a couple of weeks ago, Louisiana voters approved a marriage amendment to their state constitution with a vote of 71 percent. Also, many other states might have an amendment for marriage on their ballots.

Allan Carlson, president of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, says the following:

“Absent a constitutional safeguard, ultimately the question will be decided by the federal judiciary – just as in Massachusetts, gay marriage was mandated by the state’s highest court.”

And friend and I were taking yesterday via yahoo IM, and he mentioned that he is getting sick of majority rule. That immediately turned a light on in my head. Does democracy really works? I know you are asking yourself, what the heck are you talking about?

Well, let me explain what is going through my head. Supposedly, democracy is government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives or just simply, majority rules. So, now we have the people who are the voters and we have our elected representatives. First, let us look at the people. There are very few people that even bother to participate in the political area and less then 50 percent of citizens are registered to vote. But the worse problem of all is that many of the registered voters don’t even bother to educate themselves on political issues. They would rather use the he say she say information they get from their friends and families or take bits and pieces from the news channel. Also, they do not even bother to challenge the information that they get from their friends and families. So, how is the majority rule thing working again? It seems to be working with the majority uneducated. I find this to be very scary and dangerous.

Next, lets look at the politicians who represent the people or the voters. Now, many of these politicians are very educated in more then just politics. They are educated in being persuasive and manipulative. Now, what do we get when we have the majority of uneducated voters and have very persuasive and manipulative representatives? We get a political system were the top political party controls the uneducated voter by persuasion to get what the political party wants. And this is what seems like going on with the John Kerry administration, although they are not representatives. This administration is persuading the uneducated to make it sound like they are for them by lying and saying stuff like, “two Americas…one privileged, the other burdened…one America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks.” This sounds persuasive, but it’s completely wrong. I have already proved it with my post Income Tax.

My solution: I know this is going to sound bizarre, but I honestly think that before someone is completely eligible to vote, they must take a test that shows that you are knowledgeable on political topics. You might argue that this will for sure take more voters away from voting. True, but I would rather for someone not to vote then to vote for something they have no idea or clue about. Voting for something you do not know about is very dangerous. It can hurt yourself, friends, family, and others. Besides, people have to take a driving test before they drive in public. Students have to takes state tests in high school. So why not take a test for voting? Taking a test to vote will be the liberals nightmare!

Yours truly,
Black Pundit

I remember a couple of months ago or so, I was watching “Your World with Neil Cavuto”, and a guest host Stuart Varney was interviewing Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger about their new Disney Dream Desk PC for children. This is why I like Fox News. The funny thing was that the guest host Varney at Fox News immediately brushed off the intention for the interview about the children PC and start harassing the CEO Robert Iger about Gay Day at Disney Land. Varney goes to ask do the Disney Dream computer have any gay days on it and he ask, if you don’t protect children from gay day at Disney Land, then why would you protect it on the new Dream Computer. Here is Iger response:

We don’t sponsor gay days. You know, we are a company that, you know, lets anyone who is willing to pay through our gates. Obviously, there are always some exceptions. And we don’t really comment on the sexual orientation of the people who visit our parks — our guests, as we call them. And although, you know, we at times offer certain conveniences to make it easier for large groups of any kind to gather at our parks. It’s not something that we sponsor.

Yada Yada Yada!!!!

How do you not sponsor them if you have Gay Day at Disney Land? Hosting an event with intention of being gay seems like a sponsor to me. And the part were he says they are willing to let anyone through the gates who are willing to pay, well maybe you shouldn’t. Are you going to let terrorist through the gates too? Are you going to have terrorist day?

Gay day at Disney Land! What is this world coming to? Disneyland is intended to be a place for children, not for queer adults. Do you see the extent companies do just to make profits? You do not see Nickelodeon having “come screw me day” or “playboy day”. That’s absurd! I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with gay day at Disney Land. Maybe Goofy and Mickey are queers. The sad thing is, if you navigate through the gay day website, they show all the pictures of all these gay people looking all nasty and freaky looking. Now, if I as an adult cannot stomach these pictures, what makes you think children can when they do a Google search for Disney Day.

First District Court of Appeals strikes down school vouchers.

WASHINGTON, DC — The Independent Women’s Forum decries today’s decision by the First District Court of Appeals in Florida that strikes down the state law allowing children in failing schools to receive vouchers to attend a school of their parents’ choice.

The 2-1 decision by the First District Court upholds a 2002 ruling by a trial judge who claimed the Opportunity Scholarship program violates the separation between church and state since parents can use the vouchers to send their children to a religious school. Fortunately, students can still receive the vouchers pending a final appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

President Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 War on Poverty was a strong turning point for African Americans, unfortunately for the worse. This War on Poverty program was intended to help people to get started on their feet, to help people become more independent, and to rehabilitate the people who needed help. Instead, it deteriorated the African American community.

Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed.

The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the “root causes” of crime and creating new “rights” for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed.

Between the time of 1940 and 1960 the poverty rate of African American fell by forty percent. Once the War on Poverty began, there were no longer this kind of decrease in poverty.

The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.

In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 — that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards.

These articles show that social programs can be harmful than helpful. When things are handed down to people easily through social programs, people can develop a dependency. Therefore, defeating the purpose of social programs. This is harmful to the African American community. Senator John Kerry has potential to go towards these types of social programs. Look how he uses this victim attitude towards blacks:

According to a Washington Times story (July 14, 2004), Democratic hopeful Sen. John Kerry, in a speech about education to a predominantly black audience, said that there are more blacks in prison than in college.

“That’s unacceptable, but it’s not their fault,” he said. Do you think Kerry would also say that white inmates are faultless? Aside from Kerry being factually wrong about the black prison population vs. the black college population, his vision differs little from one that holds that blacks are a rudderless, victimized people who cannot control their destiny and whose best hope depends upon the benevolence of white people.