In response to O’Reilly’s comment about “non-traditional” Americans deciding the election, Colbert put up a graphic showing what he thinks non-traditional America looks like . . .
An upper-middle class black man; a bi-racial woman who likely has only half African ancestry; and a white Spaniard who looks like Liev Schreiber. All of them wearing nice clothes, all obviously educated, with shining teeth and jobs that add to the tax coffers. In other words, not the people we mean when scholars of the Dark Enlightenment talk about non-white, non-traditional America.
Entire planet supports Obama . . . right down to the shamans in Peru.
The MSNBC poll is, of course, highly skewed. People most likely to submit a response to it are the people reading MSNBC outlets, i.e., Obama-supporters. And the article doesn’t even give us the population size of the poll. Even so, I think it captures a real trend: Obama is not a politician but a panacea. He’ll cure what ails ya.
Of course, the ailments in Peru are completely different from the ailments in Singapore, which are different from the ailments in Denmark (are there ailments there?). But that’s the whole point of a snake oil. Whatever the problem is–whatever you think is ‘wrong with the world’–Obama is the answer. You don’t even need to formulate the question. He stands for whatever you stand for, and against whatever you’re against.
Beneath the article about Professor Sanders’ report on affirmative action at UCLA, a commenter posted the following:
Part of me thinks the commenter is a troll; the post is just too funny to be earnest. However, another part of me knows it’s real. I’ve dealt with people who actually think this way. So, I’ll treat it as real, and, taking away the grandiose rhetoric, I’ll translate the demands:
1. Fire Professor Sanders for saying things that hurt our feelings. And stop professors from using math or science without first making sure that their conclusions fit our worldview.
2. Administrators, make us feel better about ourselves again. Tell us sweet lies about how smart we are.
3. Accept students based on their race, not their intellectual achievement. Then, when they get to campus, tell them sweet lies about how their phenotypes make everyone smarter.
4. Apropos Demand # 3, stop accepting students based on their intellectual achievement. Change your standards to accommodate people of color, who can’t compete intellectually with whites and East Asians.
5. Don’t just change your admissions standards; change your laws. Our phenotypes give us a right to take over institutions and countries built by whites.
Blacks and “Hispanics” (i.e., Amerinds) are complaining about a report compiled by UCLA law professor Richard Sander. The report suggests that blacks and, to a lesser degree, Hispanics may receive preferential admission to the school because of their race and despite their lower scores. Race-based admissions are illegal in California.
Thing is, the protestors seem to be in favor of affirmative action. And Sanders’ report simply concludes that affirmative action is being practiced at UCLA. So why are the protestors protesting? Shouldn’t they be glad that UCLA administration has found a way to practice AA without falling foul of the law?
Apparently not. From one side of their mouths, they demand that race be a factor in admissions. From the other side, they protest a professor who says that, at UCLA, race may be a factor in admissions. These blacks and Hispanics want AA but they don’t want white people suggesting any of them needed AA to get into the school. That’s racist.