Article

2011-10-21 Down Under

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2011-10-21 02:52|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 Coming to a school district near you...

Posted by Bill Clinton 2011-10-21 10:32|| 2011-10-21 10:32|| Front Page Top

#2 "The outcast of the Outback"

Posted by mojo 2011-10-21 11:14|| 2011-10-21 11:14|| Front Page Top

#3 The funny thing is that I agree with these people that race is a subjective construct, and heck, if they want to claim to be aborigine, why not? The point at which we part ways is whether this claim of status gives them any sort of leg-up, subsidy, advantage, or material distinction. You can call yourself whatever the hell pleases you, so long as you don't expect a benefit based on that label.

But I don't *like* the logic that flows from the insistence on the objective reality of race - in fact, I called Ann Althouse racist yesterday for making that very truth-claim, in an argument over the relative immorality of race vs. class hatred. Which I suppose is ironic because I do so love to hate on her New Class snobbery...

Posted by Mitch H. 2011-10-21 11:14|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/ 2011-10-21 11:14|| Front Page Top

#4 He probably didn't write his article in the right way, which would be to accuse both the "white aboriginals" and the left of blatant racism and stealing money from "real aborigines".

To prove his point, he could demand, in the name of "fairness", that those claiming to be "white aborigines" must take DNA tests from an impartial lab, and if found to not be of aboriginal ancestry, to face charges of criminal fraud.

To put things this way, he could claim to the court that first of all, he was working in defense of real aborigines; second, that he was a whistleblower against potentially felonious criminal activities; and third, that he was very likely unmasking "racists".

Importantly, part of this argument would be the typical one, that *anyone* who challenged him in this was likely *both* a racist, and either a criminal, or complicit in criminal acts.

In the law, this would strongly trump any charges of libel, as well as cast his accusers in a very negative light, as well as any judge who took up the case.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-10-21 12:08|| 2011-10-21 12:08|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm just entertained by the notion that the Left(tm) that denounced the formulas used by the 'racist' South African apartheid government is so comfortable in employing basically the same thing themselves, for the same reason - power.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-10-21 13:37|| 2011-10-21 13:37|| Front Page Top

23:56 trailing wife
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:04 Pappy
23:01
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:12 Creger Hapsburg9613
21:44 JosephMendiola
21:33 JosephMendiola
21:31 JosephMendiola
21:29 JosephMendiola
21:11 JosephMendiola
20:53 DJ Curtis C
20:31 Barbara
20:28 wr
20:20 JosephMendiola
20:12 JosephMendiola
20:06 Frank G
20:00 RandomJD
19:52 USN, Ret.
19:44 RandomJD
19:41 mom
19:17 JohnQC
19:04 CrazyFool
18:47 Beavis