As I pointed out in my recent article, Mentioning The Unmentionable About The Chinese “Model Minority, anti-female prejudice is deeply embedded within the culture of the world’s most populous nation. Unsurprisingly, similar negative attitudes prevail in Vietnam as well.

The country’s gender ratio has changed from a normal 105 boys to 100 girls at birth, to 110 boys versus 100 girls, essentially where China was a decade ago.

Vietnam’s preference for boys over girls is further tipping the balance between the sexes in Asia, already skewed by a strong bias for boys among Chinese and Indians. The trend could lead to increased trafficking of women and social unrest, a U.N. report says. [...]

“The consequences are already happening in neighboring countries like China, South Korea and Taiwan. They have to import brides,” said Tran Thi Van, assistant country representative of the Population Fund in Hanoi, adding that many brides are coming from Vietnam.

“I don’t know where Vietnam could import brides from if that situation happened here in the next 10 or 15 years.” [...]

It estimated Asia was short 163 million females in 2005 when compared to overall population balances of men and women elsewhere in the world. It said sex ratios at birth in other countries, such as Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh, should be monitored to avoid uneven trends there.
[Vietnam prefers baby boys to girls, Detroit News 11/2/07]

“Import brides” — like human beings were some sort of commodity. This is the language of slavery.

Furthermore, concerns about social instability are not unfounded. Tens of millions of young Asian males adrift could get into a lot of trouble: many could be organized into activities ranging from criminal gangs to foreign military adventures.

Kimberley Yuracko, [Send her mail] a blonde feminist law professor at Northwestern, has written a paper called Education Off the Grid: Constitutional Constraints on Homeschooling which suggests that the Constitution requires states to regulate what parents teach their children, to prevent racism or sexism.

The paper relies on federal state action doctrine and state constitution education clauses to argue that states must — not may or should — regulate homeschooling to ensure that parents provide their children with a basic minimum education and check rampant forms of sexism. This paper argues, in other words, that while there is an upper limit on how much states can constitutionally regulate and control children’s education, there is a lower limit as well. There is a minimum level of regulation and oversight over children’s education that states may not with constitutional impunity avoid.

This, of course, is nonsense on stilts. The Constitution doesn’t mention education. But that’s not all.

Paul Horwitz at Prawfsblog describes it:

But she also argues that the state may be obliged to “preclude the teaching of certain counterfactual claims such as the natural superiority and inferiority of the races or the danger to women’s health of intellectual development. In addition, the basic minimum [educational standard required by the state and federal constitutions] may limit the extent to which parents may teach their children idiosyncratic and illiberal beliefs and values without labeling or framing them as such.” So, in Yuracko’s argument, there is a constitutional obligation for the state to ensure not just that homeschooled kids receive at least a minimally competent education, but also to ensure that they receive at least a minimally liberal education. That is controversial. PrawfsBlawg: “Teach Your Children Well”….Or Else!

Of course it was the part about “counterfactual statements” about race and gender that got my attention.

There isn’t as much as an even chance that the State could get those facts right in their regulation of homeschooling. Children in public schools aren’t being taught the facts now, are they? It’s Galileo all over again, with his “counterfactual” claim that the earth went round the sun.

Vdare.com Note:This is a report from a VDARE.com reader. Guilt-by-association types will please note that it doesn’t mean we agree with everything Nick Griffin stands for, or vice-versa. If we were in the business of guilt by association, we might wonder if this sort of violence was inspired by kids these days reading too many reports from the Southern Poverty Law Center.(Plaintiff’s lawyers take note–the SPLC’s pockets are extremely deep.)

On Friday, October 26, British Nationalist Party (BNP) Chairman Nick Griffin attempted to deliver a speech at Michigan State University on the “Islamization of Europe.” According to the Michigan Messenger, some 30 people showed up in support and another 75 to protest.

The event began with the Pledge of Allegiance, which was greeted with loud boos from protesters. Kyle Bristow, chairman of the Michigan State University Young Americans for Freedom (MSU-YAF), introduced Griffin. At the end of his introduction, Bristow showed his defiance to the protesters by declaring, “You cannot take our hearts, you cannot take our tongues, and you cannot take our freedom!” These are the words Griffin had spoken following his acquittal of the charge of inciting racial hatred for his description of Islam as a “wicked, vicious faith.”

The Griffin event was videotaped and video footage is available on MSU-YAF’s blog, the Spartan Spectator.

Prior to the event, groups such as the Young Democratic Socialist Club, Anti-Racist Action (which was bussed in from Detroit to disrupt the event), Students for Economic Justice, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), Chicanos y Latinos Unidos, La Raza, and various other left-wing extremist organizations held a protest in which they beat an effigy of Nick Griffin. The protesters are pictured below.

The onslaught of verbal abuse made it difficult for Griffin to deliver his planned hour-long speech. As the video footage clearly shows, the “tolerant” liberals tried shout him down. At one point someone even pulled a fire alarm. Refusing to yield, however, Griffin spent his allotted time taking questions from the audience.

Immediately after the event, Bristow reports that approximately six supporters of Griffin were chased by protesters wielding baseball bats, canes, and sticks. Fortunately, no one was harmed. In a press release posted on the Spartan Spectator, Bristow said that he was “amazed at the level of savagery that occurred at a so-called institution of higher learning.”

The Griffin event was not the first time that “savagery” was on display at MSU. Last November, MSU-YAF hosted Rep. Tom Tancredo, whose speech on immigration was also greeted with loud shouts from protesters. Bristow says that the protestors destroyed a digital camera, spat on YAF members, kicked YAF members, pulled fire alarms, and, following the event, slashed the tires and keyed the cars of YAF members. Both the O’Reilly Factor and the Hannity & Colmes Show covered the event.

In April, YAF hosted Chris Simcox, president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Protesters shouted the speaker down until police intervened. Video footage of the event is available on YouTube. The event was also covered by Fox News.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) placed MSU-YAF on its list of “hate groups” following Tancredo’s speech at MSU. However, YAF remains defiant. Indeed, they recently announced on their blog that they plan on bringing Simcox back to campus on November 13.

MSU-YAF seems to make all the right enemies. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the group is behind 2 of the 23 “extremist” events that have been held in Michigan. After YAF hosts Simcox in November, they will be responsible for 3 of the 24 “extremist” events in Michigan, making them responsible for a full 12.5% of all “extremist” events that have taken place in the state.

MSU-YAF has also hosted speeches by Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian, author of the upcoming The Born Gay Hoax Ryan Sorba, and many others. On election night 2006, when Michigan passed Proposition 209 and banned race preferences, Jennifer Gratz thanked MSU-YAF in her victory speech for helping to defeat affirmative action in the state.

If you are interested in congratulating MSU-YAF, they can be reached at yaf@msu.edu.

“End of the Housing Bubble: Minorities Hurt Most” reports the New York Times for the umpteenth time:

What’s Behind the Race Gap?

Last year, blacks were 2.3 times more likely, and Hispanics twice as likely, to get high-cost loans as whites after adjusting for loan amounts and the income of the borrowers, according to an analysis of loans reported under the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. (Asians are somewhat less likely than whites to take out high-cost loans.)
Researchers and industry officials agree that there is probably no single explanation for the lending patterns, though the history of banks’ avoiding minority neighborhoods, the practice known as “redlining,” is a good place to start.

It’s the Original Sin Theory of Race: any time, any where blacks or Hispanics mess up, white people have to be the original cause. Obviously, income is hardly the only factor in creditworthiness: expenditures relative to income and other sources of wealth, such as inheritances, play a role. (It’s bizarre that we’ve become so brain dead from political correctness that nobody dares even point out that white people tend to have wealthier relatives than blacks and Latinos have.)

If you read between the lines of the article, however, you’ll see that one cause of NAMs (Non-Asian Minorities) getting hit harder by ridiculous subprime mortgages was the government’s long war against redlining:

The biggest home lenders in minority neighborhoods are mortgage companies that provide only subprime loans, not full-service banks that do a range of lending.

It may be that these borrowers do not have access to traditional banks, because there are no branches near them. The Community Reinvestment Act, enacted 30 years ago, was intended to address redlining by forcing banks to make loans in lower-income areas. But the law’s provisions do not apply to banks in neighborhoods where they have no branches.

“You could go into a middle-class area in Queens County that is white and there will be lots of banks on the shopping street,” said Alfred A. DelliBovi, president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York and a deputy secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush administration. “If you go to an area that is equal income and that is black, you won’t see many.”

Banks typically locate branches where they believe they will get the most deposits. A lower savings rate and a distrust of banks stemming from a legacy of redlining may help explain why there are fewer branches in minority neighborhoods, Mr. DelliBovi said.

Huh?

Let’s put it in plain English: a big reason that legitimate banks stay away from NAM neighborhoods is because if they operate in NAM neighborhoods but don’t hand out loans to NAMs at the same rate they provide loans to WaAs (Whites and Asians), the government will sue them for racial discrimination. So, they just stay far away, leaving NAM neighborhoods to high pressure boiler room operations.

Finally, toward the end of the article, the reporters toss in an undigested quote that hints at the real story, but still ignores the government’s role:

“If we turn the clock back 30 years ago, we had redlining,” said Nicholas Retsinas, director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. “In the last few years, we have had the opposite — an overextension of credit by lenders and an overextension by borrowers.

From the Boston Globe:

The difference myth

We shouldn’t believe the increasingly popular claims that boys and girls think differently, learn differently, and need to be treated differently

Here’s my favorite line in the article:

Scientists have turned up some intriguing findings of anatomical differences between the sexes.

Who would have imagined it? It’s amazing what science can accomplish!

Here’s my favorite comment from Boston Globe reader Aging Cynic:

Anyone who goes within a mile of this subject in Boston is toast. Ask Larry Summers. If the “progressive” echo chamber wants me to nod my head, they can make me do it. (They can’t make me like it, however). This issue is so over. I understand when people won’t take “no” for an answer. Why won’t they now take “yes”? Do I need to be REEEALLY sincere?

This is from law professor Ann Althouse:

Althouse: “Unforgiven: Why is Clarence Thomas so angry?”

That’s the title of this Jeffrey Toobin piece in The New Yorker. I don’t think that’s a very accurate title and suspect his editor was hot to spread the Thomas-is-angry-meme. What concerns Toobin is Thomas’s attachment to conservative politics.

She goes on to quote Toobin’s concluding paragraph, (as she notes, not “about anger at all”) which says that “There is less to celebrate in the way that Thomas has used the opportunity to speak power to truth.”

This is switch on Anita Hill’s claim to have been “Speaking Truth To Power”–actually, of course, she was engaging in a series of malicious lies–on behalf of the majority party in the Senate at the time, which hardly seems to fit the Mahatma Gandhi/Rosa Parks image conjured up by those words.

And what Toobin calls speaking “power to truth” is no more than strict constitutionalism, and a belief that criminals, if guilty, should be punished.

But what Toobin is objecting to is who Thomas is believed to be mad at: Democratic Senators, and liberal journalists like Toobin. (And Anita Hill, of course.)

After what he went through in his confirmation hearings, and in the press since, I don’t blame Thomas for being mad at any of those people–but Toobin seems to think it’s wrong.

But…if Thomas were angry at America, and at white people in general, and used his seat on the Supreme Court to set criminals free and enshrine racial preferences as a constitutional principle--I don’t think Toobin would object to that at all.