Peebster.Com

I’m really getting tired of hearing about Paris Hilton’s legal woes. Who cares if the girl has to go to jail for breaking the law? I see no reason to belabor the point. Are people so interested in this girl’s troubles? I really don’t get it.

The bottom line is that Paris has the maturity of a twelve year old. She is pampered and privileged and has known nothing but freedom to do as she pleases. Her mother is no better. Kathy Hilton is half the problem. Mommy let her precious get away with murder all her life. Now that a consequence has happened to Paris, her reaction in court is, “That’s not right!“ Paying for your crime is not right according to Paris. Why not? Only the little people must pay for their crimes, right?

Paris was let out of jail after spending three days behind bars because of unspecified medical issues. I’m sure it’s purely psychological. She has never had any issues that are not self inflicted. She has never had to face consequences that Barron Hilton, her grandfather, didn’t intervene with and alleviate. I just read that Barron paid $1,000.00 to the sheriffs re-election campaign. I’m sure this played a part in the sheriffs decision to release Paris and have her committed to home detention. However, the judge wasn’t playing along. The judge resentenced her to serve her time in jail. The sheriff said he will not intervene again. So Paris is in a jail cell for 40 more days. This is a good thing. Perhaps she will mature a little while there. There’s nothing like facing the hookers and drug pushers to make one more wise and worldly.

Last week a Tufts University disciplinary panel made up of faculty and students found it’s student newspaper, The Primary Source, at fault in a harassment case. It seems that during Islam Awareness Week the paper published verses from the Koran that were violent in nature and backed them up with newspaper accounts of those verses being acted out in violent Muslim outbursts. The article was very one sided and unfair to the faith and how it is practiced in the United States. The panel found that since the article was only one sided that it was guilty of harassment. The only problem was none of the facts in the article were untrue.

Think on that. Nothing in the article is untrue but it was still considered harassment because it offended some people. Would it be harassment if a Muslim has published the article? How about a scholar from the university who specializes in Islam? Guilty or not guilty?

One of the fundamental principles of our first amendment right is that if you publish facts that can be proven in a court of law then you cannot be guilty of a crime. However, it seems that at a bastion of liberal thinking, no I’ll call it a bastion of leftist thinking, feelings trump facts. The panel felt that the author and publication were at fault. There were no facts to back up the harassment charge just feelings. Do you want to live in a world were feelings trump logical thought? Where emotions trump reason? Our universities are reaching new lows all the time.

What needs to happen at our institutions of higher learning is a march towards diversity of ideas. A mix of conservative, liberal, and socialist thought. Not diversity of skin color. Not diversity of gender. Not diversity of sexual orientation or any other fad of the leftists. Ideas. These organizations should be blind to race, gender, and class.

What can I say about Paris Hilton’s 45 day jail sentence. No much really. She seems to have been caught driving on a suspended license. This made her in violation of her probation for a previous drunk driving conviction. This problem is not new with Paris. She has been caught several times driving in a manner that was illegal. None of the previous run-ins with the law seem to have made an impression. Perhaps this one will. Being in county lockup with the hookers and drug pushers may register with Paris. Maybe . . . .

I’m sure the reason for these endless infractions is that Paris doesn’t believe that the rules everyone else has to live by apply to her. She is the elite. An heiress of a billion dollar fortune. Laws are meant to keep the little people in line, not the elites. What was that judge thinking? I mean, as if!

However, on advice of council, she has acted with somberness and deliberation in this matter. Her mother on the other hand has acted like the judge had a vendetta against heiresses. Of course, that’s not true. The judge simply wanted to send a message that even Paris can go to jail if she breaks the law. Will Mom learn this lesson? Probably not. She has already filed an appeal. Her baby couldn’t possible be guilty of anything. A sensible judge on the appeals court will see the truth, surely!

Why do we never hear about Nicky Hilton. Simple. She’s in a stable marriage, has a job, and is conducting herself in mature manner outside of the view of the paparazzi. Why can’t Paris do the same?

Poor jailbird Paris. I’m sure her social set will simply see this as a positive. Ooooh! Paris the convict! Paris the Bad Girl ™. Ooooh! Go figure.

Recently the College Republicans at URI offered a $100.00 scholarship to any white, male, heterosexual that can write the best essay on how they have been victims of racism/sexism/heterophobia. Of course it was satire meant to bring attention to the unethical practice of giving preferences in scholarships based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. The leftists on campus reacted as you would expect. They decried the satire as racist, sexist, and homophobic. Pot meet kettle.

The College Democrats have asked the student senate to decertify the College Republicans because of their insensitivity. The student senate then asked the College Republicans to retract their scholarship offer and to apologize. The College Republicans have refused. The student senate then decertified the College Republicans. This means that the group cannot meet on campus and cannot use college facilities for fund raising. The College Republicans then contacted FIRE, The Foundation of Individual Rights in Education, a law firm to represent them in this issue. FIRE then sent a letter to URI’s president informing him that the first amendment has been violated because the student senate cannot compel speech. The president then instructed the student senate to reverse it’s decision and they, of course, refused.

I think this is an interesting problem in that it is a clash between two world views. One says that minorities and women need preferences in order to right past injustices and to create an equal playing field. The other says that society may be able to do that but governments should only create an equal playing field and not show preferences with public money. Which do you believe?

I guess if I were a minority or woman (and not a White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, Male, Heterosexual) I would see a pot of goodies as my just desserts. Haven’t white males been given a huge pot of goodies throughout the ages? The problem I see is that two wrongs don’t make a right. Simply because, in the past, a few white males keep their toys for themselves and those like themselves doesn’t mean that it’s time for a new group (or groups) to do the same. If it’s wrong for white males then it’s wrong for black females. Equality implies being equal.

Of course, there are those who say that there can’t be equality because the groups are inherently unequal and thus preferences are needed to balance the playing field. Perhaps that is the case. Perhaps there are inherent differences. However, I do not want government to pick and choose which groups to give preferences to and whom to withhold them from. The fourteenth amendment says that all people are to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Equal, not preferred because of some perceived advantage/disadvantage of one side. . . equal. You and I must work with our natural disadvantages.

I myself am only a little above average in intelligence. I do not think through problems with the same speed and mental dexterity as those of higher IQ. Should I be given preferences for this? If I’m not as motivated as the next guy should I have preferences? If I’m not as strong? As tall? As blue eyed? Think about it? Do you want to live in a world where the politicians pick the winners and losers? I don’t. I will work with my “disabilities” and do the best I can and go as far as I can on my own merit . . . without preferences.

I’ve been reading quite a bit about the Virginia Tech shooting lately. I tried to stay open minded about what should be the fallout of that incident. The journalists and bloggers writing about it seem to be in two camps. The first is, “We need more gun control”. The second is, “We need to protect ourselves with Concealed Carry Permits”.

It’s interesting to read the two different world views. One believes that people are animals that are just waiting to kill and thus need to be controlled by laws they don‘t pay attention to anyway. The other believes that decent people can be counted on to protect the public because there are just too few police to be around when things happen. I must admit that I like the more positive attitude better. I don’t like to think of myself as an animal that my betters need to control. I prefer to have a CCW permit and protect myself.

The idea of self protection is opposed by our Democrat brethren who believe that under no circumstances should you protect yourself. What is it that they say, “Give them your car/wallet/handbag because it’s not worth your life”. Back away and flee. Run for it. Do not confront the perp because you may loose your life.

All these things sound sensible don’t they? But once you realize that the criminal may want to visit violence on you as well as take your car then all the cowering in the corner doesn’t help much. Being at the tender mercies of someone who doesn’t see you as a human being who is work something but instead as just a mark isn’t a good thing. I prefer to confront the criminal using my brain first and then any weapons that may be handy.

Most criminals are not rocket scientists. They wouldn’t be doing what they are doing if the were. They’d be working for NASA. Criminals who carry weapons are ready to visit violence on their marks when they commit their crimes. That’s why there are so many shooting in this country every week. Why would you give them a feeling of power over you if you didn’t have to. A CCW permit would allow you to take advantage of the situation and turn the table on the perp. Of course, things could go wrong and you could end up at your own funeral but the way I see it is that you can die as a free man or as a sniveling coward. You choose.

What can I say about the Don Imus incident that has not already been said. He made crude remarks about a group of athletes and paid with his job. It’s not so much an issue of what he said but how certain people reacted that’s the real story.

When Imus called the black lady Rutgers basketball players “nappy headed hos” I’m sure he didn’t consider this to be a real problem. The reason is simple. He is a shock jock. He says crude things every time he is on the air. So if shocking statements are normal for Imus’ show what was the real issue here? Surely one turd from a sea of turds is not that shocking.

To my mind the issue was one of target choice. He picked on a group of successful athletes who do not have a platform to complain about their treatment or defend themselves. Imus picked on people who could not respond in kind. This was the real problem to me. He smeared them but didn’t get away with it. Good!

However, others who put race/sex grievance hustling above all things saw an opportunity to further their cause. They saw a white male in a cowboy hat calling black girls “nappy headed hos”. To these people this is the ultimate in white privileged males being condescending to female minorities. This is not how Imus sees it, of course. It’s just one more statement meant to shock in a show dedicated to shocking the audience.

When the media got a hold of the story and splashed it on the tube, Imus’ sponsors quickly bailed out. This caused MSNBC and ABC to follow suit and fire Imus. The race hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton soon descended like vultures to pick at the carrion. Imus made the real mistake in accepting to go on Al Sharpton’s radio show where he apologized. Of course, the race hustling Sharpton didn’t accept. Instead he protested in from of ABC headquarters. Typical.

What Imus should have done was simply apologize to his audience once . . . and only once . . . and then go to the Rutgers team and apologize in person. That’s it. Nothing more. Perhaps then this whole thing would have blow over. He made the mistake of dealing with the media and their need to make a crisis or a scandal. He shouldn’t have. It was a mistake. It cost him his job.

I just got finished reading a story about animal cruelty published by one of the major online newspapers. It was unsettling to say the least. The perpetrator had beaten his 7 month old puppy so severely that she sustained two broken legs and 4 broken ribs. The perp only stopped beating the animal because his fists were bruised and hurting. He received 45 days in jail. That’s all. 45 days. In California, where the incident took place, his actions are only a misdemeanor. Perhaps we need to rethink the laws concerning deliberate, intentional animal cruelty.

The idea of being cruel to an animal is abhorrent to me. I can’t understand the mentality of those who think so little of animals that they can be cruel to them. Don’t they understand that an animal is not trying to annoy them. They are simply reacting to stimuli. They have no control over their behavior any more than a 2 year old child. Would you beat a 2 year old?

These same type of people can also be cruel to other people because they don’t see people as being worth anything. It’s just a wrong-headed mindset and it needs to be punished either by law or by custom.

There are several exceptions to my animal cruelty stance. I have hunted in my lifetime and do not want animal welfare advocates to lump hunters in with those that commit animal cruelty. I do not believe that hunting is cruelty. The hunted animal may be wounded but the wound was not sustained because of cruelty. It was sustained because of sport. These are NOT the same things.

Of course, you can also state that food animals like cattle, lambs, pigs, chickens, and geese are not being treated cruelly because they are being killed for consumption. Some animal welfare advocates say that eating meat should be abolished because killing animals for any reason is cruelty. I do not agree with this.

Another instance I can mention is animals being used for medical and other types of research. I do not believe the researchers doing the testing are trying to be cruel. I think they are simply using animals to come up with medical and other types of advances to help humans. This is OK with me.

I have heard Ms. Newkirk of PETA say that a cow is a pig is a boy is a rat. I do not believe this. I see a large difference between the animal kingdom and the human race. Just as some of those animals see us as a food source, so we can see them as useful to us. They can be pets, food, sport, instruments in medical advancements, and other things as well.

If we are to make animal cruelty laws we need to narrowly define said cruelty so that animal welfare advocates and activist judges do not “interpret” the law to mean a hunter goes to jail or the doctor doing research needs to pay a fine. We need to be careful with how we work those laws.

Animals being useful to humans is a resounding YES. Cruelty to animals simply to be cruel or to vent frustration and anger is a resounding NO.

I don’t understand why some people want to delve into a socialist system. Socialist systems pay the unproductive with money made by the productive. It’s like stealing from Peter to pay Paul. I guess you can count on the support of Paul, right? If you have but a few Peter’s, say 25% of your population who make 50% of your productive output, and you have a lot of Paul’s, say 75% of the population, then you can get politicians elected to do that kind of legislation.

I think it’s a feel good kind of situation. Some people just feel good when they can say that they are helping others by voting for socialist ideals. Maybe it’s even a feeling of moral superiority. Of course, that only works if you don’t ask where the money comes from. Once you acknowledge that you have to take from one person to give to another, thus commit the act of theft, the morality of the act goes right out the window. I have heard some argue that it’s the greater good to take from a few and give to the many. The small act of theft is minor to the greater good.

Would this work with murder too? If we just kill a few people then a lot of people would be better off. It’s just a few worthless human lives that are no more important than say ants. Didn’t Ms. Newkirk of PETA say that a dog is a pig is a toad is a boy? So killing that boy certainly won’t be a problem if done for the greater good, right? Hello, Lenin, Stalin, Che, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Min, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

What is wrong with each of us making our own way in the world? If you are smart, motivated and have a good idea then you can go far and make a lot of money. Look at Bill Gates. If you are slothful, lazy, and stupid then you don’t go far. Look at the bums on skid row. It’s simple. You earn based on your own abilities which are directed at giving your fellow man a product or service s/he wants.

Maybe I see it as a rights issue. I don’t think people have the right to good and services they cannot pay for. Yes, this means medical as well. If you are too stupid to make it in the world thus earning enough to pay the hospital bill then you win the prize behind coffin number one. Is this harsh? Is this Darwinistic? I suppose so but the alternative is for parasites to suck the marrow from the productive. That’s not right either.

My philosophy is simple. Everybody does their own thing but must respect the rights of others to do their own thing. I don’t sponge off you and you don’t sponge off me.

Some say that it’s not reality. They point to the primary and secondary educational system. That everyone pays for the system no matter if they have kids in the system or not. I say that this is true but I agree with this collective act because it gives me . . .read that again . . . me with a benefit. It’s not like welfare which doesn’t benefit me at all but does various parasites. That’s the difference. I have no problem paying taxes that come back to me in benefits. Look at roads, bridges, public buildings, equipment, police, firemen, etc. etc. They all benefit me . . . let’s say it again . . . me.

See the difference in philosophy? I want to benefit me by pleasing others. Socialists want to please themselves by stealing from one to give to another, more appropriate (to them) person. They want to pick the winners and losers. I want the people to pick by choosing which product or service most benefits them.

A small cabal picking winners and losers or allow each of us to make that decision by making our own choices based on free will . . . not coercion.

Choose.

Something is wrong with me. I don't seem to like people very much. Aren't people suppose to be social creatures? I'm not. I don't care for parties or other social events where society rubs elbows. I don't even care for dinner with friends and acquaintances. I prefer a quiet evening at home with a book or a magazine. Sometimes just having a nice program to write is sufficient.

I get irritated when I have to be with people. I have to pretend I care about what they are talking about. I don't. I smile and I nod and I make polite conversation that I can't even remember after five minutes. It’s all show.

Of course my family is the exception. I guess I have spent enough time with them that they have become second nature to me. I actually pay attention to what they are saying and I can remember their conversations for more than five minutes. I actually care about them. They are alone in that. Others mean nothing to me. No wonder I'm single. I won't give anyone a chance.

My oldest sister has a nice second home in the mountains of West Virginia. It's a place of much wildlife and few people. I like it. It's much different from my home in a suburban gated community. In the gated community there are lawns and roads and dogs and cats and a few trees, street lights, golf courses and bike paths and other niceties of modern life. I don't care about any of it. I can't even tell you the names of my neighbors. I can't even recognize them by sight. I really don't care to. Sometimes people will wave to me out of politeness and I will wave back but it doesn't mean anything. This can't be normal.

I much prefer my sister's second home. There are bear, deer, hummingbirds, groundhogs, eagles, hawks, and an abundance of other wildlife that does interest me. I love to sit outside on the deck and watch them all go past. The mornings are cold and the afternoons are hot. It's one of those places where you turn the heater on in the morning and the air conditioner on in the afternoon. It's a wonderful place.

There are only my sister and her husband to deal with. Neither are a problem. I help out my brother-in-law with his chores and projects and he takes me sailing. It's a fair deal. I like it. It's fun to spend the summer with them in the mountains.

Is this normal? Do others feel this way? If so, how is the human population growing? It's not by me. Others seem to be picking up the slack. Strange, isn't it?

I wonder what is going on. I’ve been reading articles written by sociologists that suggest that because of the information age the middle class is shrinking. I think this might be true.

When this country was formed there was a small gentry and a large peasantry. The gentry owned the land that was paramount to affluence in an agrarian society. The many peasants farmed the land. It was a tough, poor existence for many. Then a miracle occurred.

When the industrial age hit we converted to three classes: a small upper class, a huge middle class, and a smallish working class. During this time many people moved to the cities in order to take advantage of factory work. The pay was superior to what these people could get on the farm thus the middle class grew rapidly. By the 1950’s 80% of the people in the USA were middle class. We had a small upper class and a slightly larger working class. Many felt that we had achieved a great goal.

However, in the 1980’s when Ronald Reagan passed his vast tax cuts the economy exploded. The information age had truly begun. This economy was propelled by smart, talented, motivated people. The upper class ranks swelled as higher and higher incomes were obtained by more and more people. The problem was that these advantages were not enjoyed by all. Many in the middle class were stagnant in their incomes and began to slide downwards due to inflation. These were the less motivated and the less educated. The middle class was shrinking, becoming the motivated, talented haves and the lesser talented have-nots. We were again becoming the gentry and the peasants.

The peasants were not marrying, were having kids out of wedlock, and were not pooling their money for mutual advantage which lead them to become more and more poor. The peasantry could not see their folly thus were doomed to repeat it generation after generation. The gentry were marrying selectively, only other gentry, staying married, having kids, and pooling their incomes for mutual advantage. The gentry had more and more and the peasants had less and less. I see this continuing over the coming decades.

Was the industrial revolution and it’s associated explosion of the middle class just a blip on the historical radar not to be seem again? Perhaps so. Perhaps we are doomed to being those with intelligence, motivation, education, and affluence and those that are less intelligent, less motivated, less educated and less affluent. Which group do you belong to? Why? Can you change it? Do you have the ability to change? Are you intelligent enough to care?

The University of Illinois has announced that they will “retire” Chief Illiniwek after the current basketball season. This decision was in response to the NCAA making UI ineligible to host postseason championship events. The NCAA made their decision because UI has a native-American mascot. The NCAA complaint was based on various grievance groups complaining that the Chief was racist because it portrayed native-Americans as comical, one dimensional figures. Of course, this does not deal with the facts on the ground at UI. As many athletes, students, and faculty of UI have stated numerous times, Chief Illiniwek was viewed by the school as a mascot of pride in native-Americans. The school says the chief is only portraying the “Indians” of old as courageous, spirited, morally upright people native to North America. The leftist grievance groups see it differently and pressured the NCAA to take action.

This is just same ‘ol, same ’ol for the left. Everything in the left worldview is to be viewed through a racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic, male patriarchy lens. Did I leave out any currently popular grievances? Insert you favorite here. Nothing can be viewed as positive if a white male is involved. We all know that white males are misogynist, racist, homophobic, rubes who need to be controlled by their betters . . . On the left, of course.

What UI should have done was refuse the NCAA and stood its ground. Surely the administration could have made its case for Chief Illiniwek to the public, showing the school’s pride in their mascot and facing down the doom and gloomers. So they would not get the income from hosting postseason games. That’s the price a school pays for maintaining a justifiable tradition in the face of grievance mongering victim groups. Now the school’s reputation will suffer. The students will loose their fire because their traditions have to change due to want of money and the protestations of grievance groups. What a shame. Another tradition bites the dust.

What can I say about college speech codes. They were instituted so that students, professors, administrators, and staff could feel less verbally threatened thus not have a hostile environment to work in. It sounds good, doesn’t it? The fly in the ointment is that it is against the first amendment and has been overturned in most courts that have tried the issue.

To curtail speech because it is offensive or insulting feels pretty good though, doesn‘t it? That’s why liberals always go for such foolishness. It feels good. No one insulted. No one being offended. No one feeling any discomfort. Ummm, Ummm, good! The problem is that it takes away freedom of speech from one person and gives the another a hammer to hold over his/her head.

Do I have to say that I’m against speech codes? The first amendment is for all. This means we cannot curtail speech of any kind except threatening speech. This is an adult world and we need to understand that all people do not think or feel as we do. If we allow speech codes then ultimately, someone, somewhere will be offended by practically anything that can be said and will lead us to only talking of the weather. We must have the free flow of ideas and criticisms of those ideas. We must allow disagreements. We must be allowed to talk on issues that may cause discomfort to some. We must allow the use of words that offend. This is freedom. Practice that in the classrooms of America!

You have the right of free speech. You do not have the right to curtail speech because it offends. You cannot have rights for me but not for thee. We are all equal before the law. Perhaps the administrators of higher education institutions should go back to school and learn that.

I started thinking about this today. What would I do if I had Bill's money in a trust fund. I probably would give to some organizations as acts of charity. There are a lot of charities in the world. I could pick a few and give handsomely or pick many and give well.

What to do? What to do?

The amount of money we are talking about is 53 billion dollars. In order to use this fund forever, only the interest, dividends, and capital gains earned on the money annually should be used. If you take a low 5% return on 53 billion dollars you would get 2.65 billion dollars to spend annually.

So, how to use it? I think the health care and medical fields have all the money they need. There are tens of billions of dollars being spent annual on medical research. So what other fields are there that's interesting? Then it hit me! How about education? The USA could always use more funds to help people get better educated.

Since we are talking about spending 2.65 billion dollars a year it would seem to me that the best way to use the money would be to start a free university. All students admitted would have their tuition, fees, books, room, and board paid for by the university. However, there is a cloud to this silver lining.

Each student will only be admitted based on merit and nationality. There will be no quotas or preferences based on legacy, race, color, creed, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation or ability to pay. What will be used is GPA, test scores, and community serivce. Also, to stay in school and graduate will require each student to maintain a overall 3.0 GPA. That will be tough for some but those are the conditions of a free education.

What other conditions or additions could you add to this? Let me know!

My view on global warming is simple. I do believe that the earth is getting warmer. I believe that for the most part this is a natural occurrence that happens in a historical and cyclic pattern. What I have learned from a couple of climatologists from NASA is that the Sun's tempurature and the Earth's distance from the Sun are the largest, by far, contributors to global warming. Greenhouse gases are a distant ninth or tenth placed issue that will, at future projected emission levels, only add to the warming by a few degrees at most. Besides, whether this warming is due, in part, to man's production of greenhouse gases is still scientifically unclear. The only thing that most climatologists are becoming convinced about is that Earth is warming.

The current hysteria about global warming does not help the issue at all. Having Hollywood try to convince the population by making hysterical movies is also somewhat suspect. I personally do not want to be sold the idea of global warming. In fact, I resist the idea when holier-than-thou types try to shove it down my throat. . . for my own good, of course. I'm neither a simpleton nor a crank. I can make up my own mind. What I want is to be convinced by data gathered by reputable scientists. Data that can be reproduced and pier reviewed. I want some dispassionate, disinterested, independent, critical, and skeptical science done on the issue. I do not want to hear from the high priests of Global Warming (Peace be upon it).

I do want our response to global warming to be measured and reasonable. I do not want our economy, and thus my pocketbook, to suffer because we become hysterical about the issue. I think our leaders can appoint a commission of reputable scientists to look into the matter and decide if there is a problem that can be reasonably remedied. Then I think we can get a group of economic advisors to come up with a plan to curb our use of fossil fuels and our green house gas emmissions without hurting our economy. The watch words to use here and to keep in mind are "reasonable" and "measured". No Al Gore Hysteria (tm).

A long time ago when colleges were first formed in our fair country, the people being educated were wealthy whites. Colleges, in order to attract as many tuition payers as possible, started using a legacy preference system for admissions. What this did was give preference to children of white alumni. It made sense because the only people applying to these colleges were children of white alumni.

Today, we still have that system at many universities. It isn't needed anymore since billions of dollars in state and federal loans and grants are offered every year to those that are not wealthy or white. What has replaced this system is a system of diversity, or race preferences.

Race preferences simply means that the admissions office gives a candidate special added race points in the point system used to select students. This means that a non-preferred student will have to have a higher scholastic point total than the preferred students. How this plays out is that the preferred students do not have as high a high school GPA or as high a SAT/ACT score than the non-preferred students. In other words, if you are not a member of a preferred race, you have to get in via merit alone. If this is not racist on it's face then I am unfamiliar with the term at all.

Now let's call a spade a spade. If you are a special minority such as black or hispanic you do not have to be as good as your asians and whites counterparts in order to get into these universities. How does a system like this stand when you have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which specifically forbids this kind of thing? Thanks to Juctice Sandra Day O'Connor this can be explained. In a recent court decision which I can't recall at the moment she was the swing vote that decided that race preferences are wrong but need to be in place for at least another 25 or 30 years to offset the racism that is happening in America today. So, in a nutshell, she states that yes it's against the law (Civil Rights Act of 1964) but we'll let it slide for 25 or 30 more years because we think some people need to be treated in a preferential manner because of racism. This is law! What was abhorant to these same people in 1964 is now OK as long as it's only practiced with certain races. Can you imagine what these preferentialists would say if you replaced blacks with whites in this equation?

The only preferences I see that are valid are those based on merit. Scholarships going to smart, motivated kids is a good thing that isn't racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other unpopular -ist, -ism, or -ic. Also, those that have athletic ability should be preferred. The best and the brightest should be the ones enrolled at our most prestigeous universities. Our best going to the best for the betterment of our economy. Nothing else would make sense.