It has become apparent that many people still do not understand the weight society places on race, and "making society colorblind". After hearing a conversation earlier in the day about racial equality in our nation, I've become convinced that most people have no idea how race relations should work.

First of all let's set a base definition of race:
"Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.." Done.

Now I can describe the problem. Some students sitting at a table close to mine were discussing how the US is racist because of our policies towards race. Says one student, "Just look at the CEOs of the US, the numbers of super-rich whites is well over 10 times the amount of super-rich blacks."

Student #2, then explains how we as a society should embrace them, and give them advantages so that they may lift themselves out of the rut that we [whites] had placed them in. He was basically arguing for another Robin Hood theory of from the rich to the poor, or in this case, from the naturally priveledged to the naturally challenged. Student #1 agrees that more needs to be done to help the underpriveledged colored peoples of the United States.

Student #1 then brings up the terrible relief effort that the United States put forth when it came to help the blacks in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Student #2 agrees and he slowly wraps his lips around the ACLU's stiffened penis.

I was on the verge of vomiting and shitting all over their "racially accepting" faces. Their argument not only lacks any real basis, it's completely backwards in every possible manner.

First of all, it would make sense if the "super-rich" ratio of blacks to white is 10-1. Blacks only make up 12% of our population. So for anyone to argue that it should be higher would be asking that a higher percentage of blacks be "super-rich". Not that there's anything wrong with that, in fact that would be wonderful if some high and mighty white people got pulled off their high horses, however, that would also be saying that blacks are MORE successful that whites and completely negating their argument.

The last comment they make has to do with the Hurricane Katrina effort. I completely agree, the US showed a very ugly side when they simply sat on their heels when the people of New Orleans needed their help the most. However, the problem with New Orleans was not racial, it was a simple lapse of responsibility of the government. If anything it had to do with the fact that the residents of New Orleans were poor and Democrat rather than black. However satisfied with that comment you may be, my real point has to do with what the two students made about "helping bridge the racial gap" in the United States.

There's a reason I defined Racism at the beginning of this article, it's because I wanted everyone to see that racism is the belief that the color of someone's skin is what makes them different on levels that have nothing to do with race.

Everyone with an IQ above that of an eggplant realizes that to disallow anyone an opportunity because of their skin color is bad, and should be dealt with. However, most people do not realize that the same rule should apply to people who are given extra opportunities based on their skin color. And it is for this reason that many people think that minorities cannot be racist against whites. This is untrue simply due to the definition of racism above.

If we as a people are willing to say that blacks deserve more opportunities than whites because they are black is to concede that blacks are inferior and need extra help to get their footing in society.

My friend described her experience at the dining hall the other day. She works at the front desk and swipes ID cards for students to enter and eat. Because of a fear of student stealing items, the policy for the hall is for people with backpacks and such to leave them on a rack near the entrance, also as policy she has to remind people to leave their belongings at the racks. After a line of people, a black man walks through and she asks him to leave his things at the racks like she did for everyone else. The man becomes irritated and tells her that she didn't have to remind him and that he wasn't going to steal anything. It was quite obvious from his other comments that the man assumed she told him that because he is black.

It's unfortunate that it has come to this, and I realize that the two students speaking of race are making points regarding the fact that our society has stereotyped blacks as theives and criminals. However, what would it be if she asked the person in front and behind him to put their stuff away but not him specifically. She would be playing into the notion that blacks are sensitive about the issue, and she would have treated him differently SOLELY based off of his skin color.

Many would argue with me, they would say that this is tolerance and that no one is hurt if she doesn't tell him anything. I disagree, the more times we omit telling him what we tell others, the harder it's going to be on him when he IS told to do those things. To not tell him would be to treat him as superior, that he doesn't need to be told. Read the definition...that's racist.

This does not mean that any mention of race or any acknowledgment of race is racist. I can say that I have many asian friends, without being racist. Nor is it racist when I walk down the street and recognize people based on their skin color. By definition, racism is when you begin to apply character and ability to race. So when I posted earlier about "Black Betty" being played at hockey games, I stick to it. The fact that a mostly white crowd is cheering for a song about a black woman is not racist.

The reason this whole subject is so touchy is because of the perpetuation of the "helping hand" to minorities. The more we as a population think minorities think differently, THE MORE THEY ACTUALLY WILL BE DIFFERENT! To reserve designated spots at business positions and universities is the same thing as reserving seats on a public bus for minorities.

I've said this time and time again, the only reason why people embrace or celebrate cultural differences is because they see those people as different.

So I come across this story that the standardized tests on the state level are not on par with the same type of tests that are given nationally. The examples given were that in Mississippi, 89% of students tested proficient or higher in reading at the state level exam, but only 18% were proficient or higher based on the national level.

Flustered, I googled the national rankings of states for education. I eventually found a site that gave me what I wanted, a quantifiable number assigned to each state based on their educational performance (http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm). After viewing the info, I turned to the "Factors" on which the ranking is based, and I was shocked to read the requirements.

There are 13 possible "factors" that will give positive numbers. Out of those 13, 6 of them have to do with these standardized tests. I looked over all the "factors" and I realized...the standardized tests only work POSITIVELY instead of negatively. For example the percentage of 8th graders that test "proficient or better" in reading counts as positive points for the state's education system; but the percentage of those who fail aren't counted against. Now I realize that if they counted both, it would only inflate the difference between "smart" and "dumb" states. However, if you look at the actual numbers, it's quite depressing.

There are 13 ways to get positive points, and 8 ways to lose points, and those 8 "factors" don't even have to do with the failing of standarized tests.

28 out of 50 states have negative scores. Their actual performance isn't even counted against them, and over 50% of American States are recieving negative scores.

Some state education officials are crying that the federal standard of proficiency -- competency over challenging subject matter -- is too high. I wouldn't buy that bullshit arguement even if the US was number 1 worldwide in terms of primary education. Turns out, we aren't number 1...it turns out the only thing we're number one at is wasting money and not getting any fucking results.

In a 2005 research, the US posted an impressive 24th out of 29 nations on a test given to all 29 nations. Well, this must be because our national standards are far too high...hey where did you go you fucking faggot state officials?

The problem: we as Americans don't give a shit about our education. It's only reinforced when we elect a man who has no more than a squirrel, a dirty sock, and an empty can of Budweiser in his head, as our president. We have to stop the idea that anyone can be successful in the US. That, and the whole "self esteem, it's the effort that counts" mentality that has plagued our schools for far too long.

God forbid we tell our students that they can't read and write properly. God forbid we tell them that their efforts are complete garbage if they don't have any results. God forbid our education system take some fucking initiative and FUCKING FAIL SOME STUDENTS!

Even without reading the contents of the "No Child Left Behind" I know what it's about. It's about dumbing down the material in classrooms so that some halfwitted inbred piece of shit doesn't fail. Hey I got a solution to that problem, shoot the kid in the face so that he doesn't pollute the genepool of non-retards. Don't get me wrong, retarded and handicapped people are fine, but normal people who are too stupid, too lazy, or too stubborn to accept failure are not fine. They're a burden, a drain, the next "Vehicular Dining Attendee Specialist", which is a fancy saying for some fuck-up, drop-out who asks me if I want fries with my burger at the drive-thru.

We need these people to do the shitty jobs non-idiots don't want to do...we just don't need them in our schools. We don't need to tell them that they're going to be a raving success, we need to tell them to go get the mop and clean up the cleveland steamer that I left for them in the bathroom sink, and the ass cheese that I used to write "Lick This Off" on the mirror.

Fuck you US education system, and a big fuck you to stupid people. I hope you all die painfully, very, very painfully.

It feels so good to be right.

A new Supreme Court ruling has decided that the federal government does not need to fund public universities that do not allow the military to recruit on campus. Like the title of my blog would suggest, I'm right.

And to all you people who are angry by this decision, maybe because you think the court has become far too conservative, the ruling was 9-0...so yeah, you're wrong.

The overstanding rule for public education is that it is based on the notion of "all inclusive"...or in other words no one benefits before anyone else based on non-academic performance. And however strong that rule applies to keeping the openly discriminate military off campuses, it applies that much more heavily to people who want a cheaper education. The people who ask the military to get off campus, I assume would be willing to pay a higher tuition, but those who are not against, or agnostic to the idea, would be paying the price as well.

And although gays are restricted from military recruitment, those students would be deprived of their public education...and just as a reminder, public education is a constitutional right, serving in the military is not.

But anyway, I win you fucking cocksuckers...eat shit and die, bitch.

Now they're just getting absurd: "...a new town being built in Florida will be governed according to strict Roman Catholic principles, with no place to get an abortion, pornography or birth control."

HOLY SHIT! Well, it's not SO bad. The land the town sits on would actually be owned by a private entity...actually just one person, the guy who owned Dominos Pizza. Wow, with such a crazy idea floating out there I wonder where the ACL...oh god there they are...

"Civil libertarians say the plan is unconstitutional and are threatening to sue." FUCK! Look assholes I can't stand it when people go apeshit and start preaching shit too, but I look to stop it by making fun of them, not stealing their money.

It seems that everytime someone comes up with a fucked up idea the ACLU is there to tell them it's unconstitutional...oh and they want your money too.

Fuck you ACLU. You know what? I was thinking of suing the ACLU because they use the word American in their name, but I don't want to associate myself with them. So, they're being unconstitutional because they're representing me as an American when I don't want them to.

But I ended up not suing the ACLU...you know why?

CAUSE I'M NOT THE ACLU!

More proof that the world we live in is unsafe for thinking creatures: In Atlanta a district judge declared that textbooks that stated that Evolution is only a theory and not fact be taken out of school circulation.

Umm, hello...it IS a theory. For as much as I'm against the re-introduction of "Intelligent Design" in schools, I can't start lying about why I think this way. Sure the people who insist on teaching the bible in classrooms are weirdos, but the people who take matters into their own hands and try to convince themselves that they are correct are no better in my book.

Now of course by now you're thinking, "Dalton, if you don't think Evolution is fact, then why are you against the teachings of another 'theory' in classrooms?" I'll show you why:

In a recent state legislative decision Utah senators voted down a bill that would force teachers to say that Evolution isn't empirically proven. In response to the decision one senator proclaimed, "I don't believe that anybody in [the senate] really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape."

Of course he's speaking figuratively. But somehow, EVERY SINGLE person that I've talked to that supports Intelligent Design is, in fact, an idiot. That can't say much for the cause. It's not to say that supporters of Evolution aren't stupid, god knows that retards hide in the darndest of places. I'm just saying that if not a single person that supports Intelligent Design can seem to understand how a jar of pickles works, then maybe we should label this as a quack theory.

Just my opinion. And I'm always right.