November 19, 2003

New Daily Orange Hilarity! 

Guess what! The DO contains articles on diversity and gay rights today! WOW! What a shock! They've never covered those issues before!

Okay, that was patronizing. Sorry about that. The DO begins today with the top headline, "Bill would promote increased diversity," and subheading, "Proposed legislation offers increased aid to schools that meet quotas." Allow me to express my feelings phonetically:


That's the sound I would be making if you were talking to me in person right now. QUOTAS ARE RACIST! WHY CAN'T THEY UNDERSTAND THAT? Want some quotes from the story? Good. Check these out:

"If Congress approves a new bill, Syracuse University officials could have an incentive to further diversify the undergraduate student population over the next few years."
That's always a good sign.

"The bill...states that any college or university with an Asian-American and Pacific Island undergraduate enrollment of 10 percent or greater will be eligible for an increase in general funding."
There's a word for this kind of thing: Ri-friggin'-diculous.

"In addition to the specified enrollment quota, the university must also have a large number of students who qualify for need-based financial aid."
Okay, I see two implications here. First of all, they're trying to receive more money by recruiting students who need more money. Does that seem a bit counterproductive to anyone else? Also, they seem to be suggesting that a more diverse student population would automatically contain more students who qualify for more financial aid. I'm glad they take their stereotypical worldview seriously.

"Of course [the bill] is an incentive for the university to build upon the Asian-American population and Asian-American studies..."
Of course.

"It will help us build upon academic instructions where Asians are underrepresented."
Have they actually analyzed the school to see if Asians are underrepresented, or are they just assuming it? Furthermore, why do they care in the first place? IT MUST BE THE PERVASIVE RACISM ON CAMPUS THAT LED TO THE HORRIBLE PACIFIC ISLANDER BLACKFACE INCIDENT! OH NO!

"If the bill is approved, government officials would divide up nearly $30 million among qualified universities for the 2004-2005 fiscal year."
Urge to kill rising...rising...rising...

"[A congressman they interviewed]...believes that education is the gateway to success in the United States..."
Brilliant deduction, Holmes.

"Of the population of Asian-Americans...many have low English skills, and this bill would give them a bit of extra money to boost their success."
Right. Because we can't go to the trouble of TEACHING THEM TO SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!!!!!!

"Syracuse University is very passionate about advancing opportunities for all of its student body."
Of course, by "all of its student body," they mean all minority students. At least that's what it seems like.

Okay. That's the diversity article. There's also yet another editorial that supports "gay rights" while not so subtly insulting Christians and conservatives. I won't go through the whole thing because it's basic cookie-cutter liberal relativism that doesn't need to be dissected again, but I'll include a few of the best quotes for your enjoyment. First, the title:

Gay marriage ruling should set example
Nobody saw that coming.

"At its core, gay marriage is a matter of personal freedom. The logic is simple: To deny citizens rights based on their sexual orientation is unconstitutional."
That's simple logic for simple minds. When you think about it, it's not based on sexual orientation at all. If two heterosexual males wanted to marry for some reason (maybe they made a bet...who knows?), they would also be denied under the ban. The law applies equally to everyone!

"The court did not fall prey to the religious, moral and ethical arguments on both sides of the marriage debate."
I didn't realize morals and ethics were no longer applicable to public policy. I guess we just outlaw some things arbitrarily.

"The Massachusetts decision is laudable because it recognized...that marriage is simply defined as the union of two spouses to the exclusion of all others."
Marriage wasn't defined that way until now, arsehelmet! It was always taken for granted that marriage was between a man and a woman until the gender police showed up.

"The right's attempt to use gay marriage as a divisive national issue will ultimately prove futile and is mistake in the long run."
It wouldn't be a divisive national issue if people like you would stop whining about it. By the way, the editorial really does say "is mistake in the long run." Good proofreading, guys.

"Marriage, as an institution, is wrought with connotations of religion, society and morality."
Didn't you say that those things weren't important? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

"The Massachusetts court chose to reduce marriage to its most basic: a right for all to be accorded equal privileges under the law."
All right, I'm going to say this one time, and one time only: GAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY, BUT THEY CHOOSE NOT TO EXERCISE IT BECAUSE THEY WANT SPECIAL PRIVILEGES! Everyone has an equal right under the law to marry one person of the opposite sex who has no blood relation to them. Let's leave it at that and move on.

One final note: You may have noticed that my writing style has become a bit...angrier lately (although I did delete the other "F' Ted Rall" post). I decided the blog needed a bit more attitude, so I'm going to try and keep that up (even without actual profanity).

Posted by CD on November 19, 2003 01:45 PM
Semi-Intelligent Comments

< MTCloseComments old="10" >