Sunday, October 14, 2012

Florida liberals announce new Jim Crow education standards

From CBS in Tampa:

The Florida State Board of Education passed a plan that sets goals for students in math and reading based upon their race. 
On Tuesday, the board passed a revised strategic plan that says that by 2018, it wants 90 percent of Asian students, 88 percent of white students, 81 percent of Hispanics and 74 percent of black students to be reading at or above grade level. For math, the goals are 92 percent of Asian kids to be proficient, whites at 86 percent, Hispanics at 80 percent and blacks at 74 percent. It also measures by other groupings, such as poverty and disabilities, reported the Palm Beach Post.

Thomas Lifton from American Thinker comments:

The message sent to young people is clear: blacks, Hispanics, and whites simply cannot be expected to perform at the level of Asians. There is a racial hierarchy of acceptable achievement proclaimed an official government body. Not since the days of segregation has a state officially proclaimed such a pernicious racial doctrine.

Of course the new Jim Crow standards don't help the kids one iota. They merely help the education bureaucrats, who don't have to try so hard with the black kids.

Liberals are finally getting explicit about holding black Americans to lower standards of achievement.

The upside is that liberals are at last applying the same racist standard to education that they apply to voting in presidential elections.


  1. There is some delicious irony here. The Florida State Board of Education has more Republicans than Democrats. Chairwoman Kathleen Shanahan was the chief of staff for Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

    Own goal, Mike.

    1. Did I say Democrat in my post... let me check... hmmm.... gee... I can't find it...

      New word for Anonymous to learn: RINO.

      Repubs are not immune to the disease.

      But there is no question that classifying people by race and treating them differently is liberal policy, 101.

    2. Yeah, right. It is clear as day that who you were talking about. That concluding paragraph in the opening post was not about liberal Republicans. It was about Democrats.


    3. Have I ever been reluctant to talk about Democrats, when I mean Democrats?

      Lots of liberal Republicans voted for The One. That's why he won in a landslide, ace.

    4. Your "arguments" are laughable, Mike. Kathleen Shanahan is no liberal. She was a chairwoman in Herman Cain's presidential campaign in Florida. Yes, Herman Cain, that leading Tea Party candidate in the primaries.

      Come up with a better excuse, pal.

    5. A.K. Desai, another Board member, is no liberal either. He was a strong supporter of Rick Perry in the primaries.

      We can go through the rest of the board, but the bottom line is that this policy wasn't a conspiracy committed by "liberals," whatever you mean by that. It cleraly had support of the conservatives on the Board, its chairwoman being one of them.

  2. there is no question that classifying people by race and treating them differently is liberal policy

    Yup, certainly true. Like when Hitler did that to the Jews, he was actually a liberal! And when southern slaveowners did it, they were liberals, too!

    History is just so simple when you're a raving lunatic.

    1. Look at that! An insane crackpot brain surgeon trying to lecture about history!
      What's next, talking dogs?

      Hitler was a fascist, just like you: about as far from being a liberal as one can be. Hint for the brain-damaged: just because he called himself a socialist doesn't make him one. You lied.

      Southern slaveowners belonged to many different political parties. For example, slaveowner Thomas Jefferson belonged to what was then called the Republican party and is now generally referred to as the Democratic-Republican party. So you lied again. Who's surprised?

      Fascists of all stripes now find their home in the Republican party, which is why you're right at home. Read Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party.

    2. Egnor learns his history straight from the source: Jonah Goldberg, that renowned historian. LOL.

    3. Goldberg's book was great. You should pick it up some time.

      Anonymous: The Democratic-Republican Party is the Democratic Party. They are the same. No, they didn't belong to many parties. They were Democrats.

      Little John

  3. Progressives up to the 1930's were infatuated with fascism. Mussolini was immensely popular with American Progressives-- the New Republic was an Il Duce fan mag.

    Virtually all American supporters of fascism were Progressive socialists (

    All slaveowners after Andrew Jackson (who founded the modern Democratic Party) were Democrats. All KKKers were Democrats (they lynched Republicans), all Jim Crowers were Democrats (Jim Crow was basically the Democratic party platform for a hundred years), all segregationists were Democrats.

    But of course after 1964 everything magically switched.

    1. There is nothing magical about your equivocations between "liberals" and "Democrats." Democrats in the south were conservative. When the Democratic pary began changing, they migrated to the Republican party, where they remain today. You do realize the south is solid red today, right?

    2. The south in the electoral college didn't go heavily republican until 1996. It went for Carter in 1976, and Clinton (several deep south states) in 1992.

      Surely you're not claiming that the racist democrat party hadn't changed by 1992.

      Why did all those bigots vote for carter and clinton?

    3. Mr. Egnor, you can deny it all you want, but the Southern Strategy was quite real. And if you don't think Watergate impacted the 76 election and the economy impacted the 92 election even in the South, you're even more egnorant than I had believed.

    4. The Republican Party has never had a Southern Strategy based on racism.

      The Democratic Party did have a racist Southern Strategy for a century. It depended heavily on Dixiecrats (permutation of 'dixie democrats') to win national elections. As long as race was a major issue in the South, they voted Democrat.

      The South turned to Republicans only after race became a much less important issue, which began in the 70's. Southerners agree with Republicans on many other issues-- fiscal policy, social conservatism, religion, etc.

      When racism was no longer a major issue, Southerners became mostly Republicans, because of agreement on a host of non-racial issues.

      Bottom line: when the South was racist, it was Democratic. When it ceased being racist, it became Republican.

      Democrats are the only party that ever had a "Southern Strategy".

    5. Um.. yeah. The Southern Strategy doesn't disappear just because you want it to. Neither does the Council of Conservative Citizens or David Duke and all the other recent KKK guys who have run for office as Republicans. The Dixiecrats of yesterday are the Republican base of today. Deal with it. Bob Jones University's no interracial dating policy did not come about because the school is a hotbed of liberalism. Tony Perkins did not buy the KKK's mailing list because he's a Democrat. NARTH's Schoenewolf scandal was not the work of a liberal. The guys who show up at Tea Party rallies with pictures of Obama as an African witch doctor or slogans reading "Let's put the white back in the White House" are not Democrats. Voter suppression laws aimed at minorities are not being pushed by Democrats. Worldnetdaily's birther nonsense is not the work of Democrats. The billboards about voter fraud that have gone up in minority neighborhoods in several swing states were not put up by Democrats. Tommy Thompson's son didn't joke about sending Obama back to Africa because he's a Democrat. And you promoting ridiculous scare stories about black people mass rioting if Obama doesn't win doesn't make you a Democrat or a liberal either.

      Of course, you're the same genius who claimed that medical schools don't care about evolution even though its on the MCAT and the licensing exams, so I suppose your continued egnorance is not surprising.

  4. Michael,

    You're batshit crazy. Dropping the standards for blacks is racist because it disadvantages blacks. Funding of public schools is based on needs and the ability to meet standards. Dropping the standards for schools with a high proportion of blacks means that that school is more likely to exceed the artificially lowered standand and hence receive less funding.

    So actually dropping the standards means less funding of black schools and more funding of Asian and white majority schools.

    1. Dropping the standards for schools with a high proportion of blacks means that that school is more likely to exceed the artificially lowered standand and hence receive less funding.

      Er...what? Exceeding the standards gets you more money, not less.

      Little John

  5. Democrats have a long history of racism. History is history and we can't change it. What they should have done is to change from being the pro-racism party to the anti-racism party. What they did instead was change from being the anti-black party to the anti-white party, with a few anti-black kooks still grandfathered in. Let's not forget that Robert Byrd died only two years ago. He was a Democrat until the day he died, also a senator and a racist until the day he died. He was twice the majority leader of the Senate (1977-1981, and 1987-1989) and once the minority leader (1981-1987)

    --Francisca S.

  6. I don't think they particularly hate black people, although there are certainly racists among them, as there are among any group, including Republicans.

    Democrats USE black people, and they use racism as an accelerant, to get power. They used to use blacks as objects of discrimination; now they use them as subjects of discrimination. Race-baiting, rather than racism per se, is their tactic.

    A good analogy is to say that Bernie Madoff doesn't hate investors, he uses them.