Author Archives: BZ

Oakland schools: blacks can’t be suspended

Posted on by

Because that would be, clearly, racist.

First, from KRON Channel 4, in the San Francisco bay area:

Oakland Schools: Students who act up, mouth off won’t be suspended

by Mario Sevilla

OAKLAND (KRON) — The Oakland Unified School District has approved a controversial move to eliminate kicking students out of school for swearing at teachers and ignoring instructions.

The school board voted unanimously on Wednesday to no longer allow teachers and administrators to suspend students out of class for non-violent offenses.

Why?

Civil and child rights advocates have been lobbying for such changes based on statistics showing that minority students are disproportionately punished for disobedience.

One commenter in this article indicated: “Future BART employees.”  Nicely done.

SFGate.com also weighed in:

Oakland to halt school suspensions for willful defiance

by Jill Tucker

Mouthing off in class or failing to follow a teacher’s instructions will no longer lead to suspension in Oakland schools, a ban that will be phased in and be fully in effect just over a year from now, the school board unanimously decided Wednesday night.

Oakland has been criticized for the disproportionate suspensions, leading to an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights and a 2012 voluntary agreement that required the district to employ a range of practices that reduced suspensions. Among them are the district’s Manhood Development classes for African American males as well as restorative justice, which requires victims and offenders to talk about the behavior and ways to address it.

Community activists from the Black Organizing Project, Public Counsel and Californians for Justice, among others, applauded the school board vote, but said more was needed to address the needs of disadvantaged students in the district.

Gosh, I wonder just how many Caucasoids there are in the Oakland School District, vs the number of blacks?

Further, could it possibly be that a “disproportionate” number of blacks are suspended because a higher number of blacks actually misbehave?

All this does is reinforce to persons who don’t need this kind of reinforcement that there are no consequences to actions.  This is the same school district that validated “Ebonics” in 1996.

The clear bigotry of low expectations.

BZ

 

 Share

Tsarnaev: death

Posted on by

From the BostonGlobe.com:

Tsarnaev sentenced to death

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death Friday for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the terror attack on the finish line of the storied race that killed three people and injured more than 260 others.

Tsarnaev, 21, had been convicted last month in US District Court in Boston of 17 charges that carried the possibility of the death penalty.

Three people were killed and over 260 people were wounded when two pressure-cooker bombs exploded near the Boston Marathon finish line on April 15th of 2013.

Frankly, I’m surprised the death penalty was acquired.

BZ

 

 Share

Another black racist teacher:

Posted on by

Grundy_Boston_University_c0-82-675-475_s561x327

The look of an obvious black female racist.

From CNN.com:

Online fury over Boston University professor’s tweets on race

by Katia Hetter

(CNN) Fury erupted this month over incoming Boston University sociology and African-American studies professor Saida Grundy’s tweets about white men, race and slavery.

College student Nick Pappas wrote about Grundy’s tweets on his website SoCawlege.com a week ago with the headline “Boston University assistant professor Saida Grundy attacks whites, makes false statements on Twitter.”

My; what did Grundy write?

Her personal Twitter account has since been made private, but the Boston Globe reported some of the tweets: “why is white america so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population?” and “every MLK week i commit myself to not spending a dime in white-owned businesses. and every year i find it nearly impossible.”

Grundy called white males a “problem population.”  Anyone besides me, now, thinking that Grundy would like to formulate the G word?

FoxNews.com related:

The tweets were first noticed by student Nick Pappas, who posted them on his website “SoCawlege.com” and questioned how Grundy could be able to teach a diverse classroom given the racial hostility in her tweets.

“You have to teach college aged white males eventually, no?… this seems like you are unqualified to grade their work as you clearly demonstrate some kind of special bias against them,” he wrote.

Good luck to any young Caucasoid male walking into a Grundy class — that is, if you’re sufficiently stupid to actually submit to walking into one of her classes.  She would have absolutely nothing to teach you, frankly.

I go by the Reverse Rule, which is: if the roles were reversed, what would happen?

That is, if Grundy were a Caucasoid male, would his anti-black Tweets result in his actually getting hired by Boston U and, further, his free speech defended by Boston U?

Of course not.

Racial hypocrisy.

Oh, but wait.  We were just told yesterday by a white female UK privileged Goldsmiths University student that she can’t be racist or sexist because she is named Bahar Mustafa.

Good point.  This black female chick can’t be racist either.

Isn’t it cool how Leftists can be all things to all people whenever necessary?

BZ

 

 Share

“Ethnic” Leftists racist once more

Posted on by

Mustafa Looks White To Me

Mustafa looks very white to me; pale, even.  Perhaps we should take up a collection for some tanning bed sessions on GoFundMe?

First, the headline from Breitbart.com:

Student Who Banned White Men From Diversity Event Insists: “I Can’t Be Racist Because I’m Not White”

by Donna Rachel Edmunds

A student who banned white people and men from a students’ union equality event has insisted that she can’t be racist because she is an “ethnic minority woman”.

Publicity for event claimed that it aimed to be all about “challenge the white-centric culture of occupations”, “diversifying our curriculum” and building a “cross-campus campaign that puts liberation at the heart of the movement”.

But when Bahar Mustafa, Goldsmith University’s Students Union Welfare and Diversity officer, took to Facebook to invite people to the event, she insisted that it was for “BME Women and non-binary people” only, adding “if you’ve been invited and you’re a man and/or white PLEASE DON’T COME”.

There you go.  See?  Isn’t it heartening to know that racism can come in so many different ethnicities?

However, some people called her silly.

But Ms Mustafa has hit back, insisting that she can’t be racist because she’s not white. Speaking during the final student assembly at Goldsmiths last week, she told the audience “There have been charges laid against me that I am racist and sexist towards white men.

“I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.

“Therefore, woman of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system.”

Seems to me she’s already benefiting.  She’s enrolled in an upper class London University, she’s a “Student Diversity Officer,” and she is benefiting from a student loan.  Doesn’t quite sound so onerous to me.  Let’s just listen:

Here’s the kicker.  You’re gonna love this:

“Reverse racism and reverse sexism are not real,” she said. “We will not be silenced; we are militant. The world is not ready for minorities to challenge the status quo, but resistance to our resistance is futile.”

Aha!  Reverse racism and reverse sexism are not real.  Good to know.

Mustafa, you sure as hell look white to me.  Frankly, you look like one of my girlfriends when I was in college myself, minus the nose ring.  But that really isn’t the issue, because racism doesn’t just come by melanin count, it also comes by ethnicity.  This time, it’s Middle Eastern of some variety.  She just “looks” white, eh wot?  Right.  She’s a “woman of color” like I’m a nuclear engineer.

But, wait.

I’m not a nuclear engineer.

Who’s to say her hair and eyebrows aren’t dyed in unity with “ethnics.”  Who’s to say she didn’t change her name a year or so ago prior to enrolling in Goldsmiths University?  I certainly can’t say.  Wouldn’t be prudent.

But, wait.

In the video, her hair is dyed lighter than in the photo above.  She is trying to look more “white.”  I’d say it’s working.

But, wait.

Doesn’t that make her just another white racist?

BZ

 

 Share

Ben Carson: wrong on ethanol

Posted on by

Dr Ben CarsonI know that Dr Ben Carson is a highly educated and good man, and I suspect that he is likewise a very compassionate and considerate man.

However, he has now provided sufficient information for me to conclude that I’ll never vote for him.

First, from HotAir.com:

Ben Carson: Let’s slash Big Oil to pay for ethanol

by Jazz Shaw

Newly announced presidential contender Ben Carson was out talking to the Cornhuskers and the inevitable subjects of ethanol, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and subsidies for King Corn came up. 

Uh-oh, do I hear some potential pandering in the wings, pray tell?

Whilst there in Iowa, Dr Carson said, however:

“I don’t particularly like the idea of government subsidies for anything because it interferes with the natural free market.”

Nicely played sir.  Agreed.  Go on.

“Therefore, I would probably be in favor of taking that $4 billion a year we spend on oil subsidies and using that in new fueling stations” for 30% ethanol blends, Dr Carson said.

Oh boy.

This is where Dr Carson and I part ways, and part ways Big Time.

Dr Carson wants E30 in our vehicles.  Are you kidding me?  E30?  That will be one of the largest destroyers of current ICE engines imaginable, other than kicking one out the back of a C-130 at 38,000 feet.

He’s suggesting cutting subsidies for domestic energy companies in the oil and gas industry. Not for everyone, mind you. Just them. And then reallocating that money away from fossil fuels and into ethanol processing. Just five seconds before that Carson had been claiming that he didn’t want anyone interfering with the free market, but now he’s saying to cherry pick one specific set of companies in the energy sector, remove a subsidy from them, and then redirect it to benefit the ethanol industry? It’s difficult to imagine a more egregious example of the government picking winners and losers, with the winners just happening to be in the first caucus state.

Hot Air disapproves in a political fashion:

If you want to have a discussion about removing all subsidies across the board, then fine. We’re all ears. Carly Fiorina has proposed the same thing and it’s a worthy topic of debate. But when you start talking about just picking the pockets of oil and gas developers and using it to pay for ethanol, you may as well be running for the Democrat nomination. Poor showing, Dr. Carson.

But has anyone considered the physical-energy aspects of the plan?

Hold that thought.

I’d never much wanted to write this, but Dr Ben Carson lacks a major component that most political figures must possess: presence.  It is a tool that Dr Ben Carson completely lacks.  That said:

Second, calling out the “subsidies for Big Oil” is the language of the Left, and as usual it’s complete horse hockey. As anyone who follows this topic knows, the subsidies received by oil and gas companies are not specific to them. They are precisely the same as subsidies given to almost anyone who sells anything, including Apple and Microsoft among so many others. In fact, you couldn’t just cancel the subsidies to the fossil fuel segment of the energy industry without rewriting the rules entirely just to exclude them. That’s a left wing, anti-energy talking point and Carson should be embarrassed to be saying it in front of an ostensibly conservative crowd.

True.  But moreover, what do we know about ethanol?

First, that the greater the gradient (E-15 to E-30), the greater amount of water is contained.  Internal combustion engines don’t like water, they aren’t built to have any water in the fuel system.  High compression motorcycle engines eschew ethanol completely.

Corn crops marked for ethanol might even be illegal.

Further, globally, America earmarking corn for fuel reduces the amount of corn available for the rest of the world in terms of edible food.

As in: corn for food vs corn for fuel.  As in: who starves and who profits from corn?

It is clear that Dr Carson wishes American corn to be utilized as a domestic fuel source, as opposed to a global food source.

But realize: even way back in 2005, ten years ago, Ethanol was recognized as inefficient.

Even Forbes.com, a site most certainly supportive of business, suggests that ethanol is moribund at best.

It’s Final — Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use

OK, can we please stop pretending biofuel made from corn is helping the planet and the environment? The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released two of its Working Group reports at the end of last month (WGI and WGIII), and their short discussion of biofuels has ignited a fierce debate as to whether they’re of any environmental benefit at all.

The IPCC was quite diplomatic in its discussion, saying “Biofuels have direct, fuel‐cycle GHG emissions that are typically 30–90% lower than those for gasoline or diesel fuels. However, since for some biofuels indirect emissions—including from land use change—can lead to greater total emissions than when using petroleum products, policy support needs to be considered on a case by case basis” (IPCC 2014 Chapter 8).

And here we go with the poor:

With more than 60 nations having biofuel mandates, the competition between ethanol and food has become a moral issue. Groups like Oxfam and the Environmental Working Group oppose biofuels because they push up food prices and disproportionately affect the poor.

Yet:

So why have we pushed corn ethanol so heavily here in the U.S.? Primarily because it was the only crop that had the existing infrastructure to easily modify for this purpose, especially when initially incentivized with tax credits, subsidies and import tariffs. Production, transportation and fermentation could be adapted quickly by the corn industry, unlike any other crop.

Let’s summarize: ethanol is inefficient.  You get more “bang from your buck” from petroleum products.

MPG plummets with ethanol.

Horsepower plummets with ethanol.

And ethanol destroys engines.

Concurrent with: ethanol is energy-inefficient and — simultaneously — drives food prices higher.

Way to go, Dr Carson.

I suggest: you might want to think this over for a week or two.

BZ

 

 Share