Even on the American Independence Day there are those in the American left that can’t spend at least one day without trashing the country:
This July 4, let’s not mince words: American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it.
Of course, evaluating the wisdom of the American Revolution means dealing with counterfactuals. As any historian would tell you, this is a messy business. We obviously can’t be entirely sure how America would have fared if it had stayed in the British Empire longer, perhaps gaining independence a century or so later, along with Canada.
But I’m reasonably confident a world in which the revolution never happened would be better than the one we live in now, for three main reasons: Slavery would’ve been abolished earlier, American Indians would’ve faced rampant persecution but not the outright ethnic cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated, and America would have a parliamentary system of government that makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic collapse. [Vox]
You can read the rest at the link, but be warned the article makes some major assumptions to support its thesis. For example if the British did try to end slavery sooner in the American colonies does anyone think the South would not have revolted?
That sound you hear is the shattering of a cherished Democratic orthodoxy: race-based preferences in education.
Mr. Adams is an African-American who serves as Brooklyn’s borough president and aspires to run for mayor. On almost any issue, he lands where you would expect a big-city black Democrat to land. But when he cheered Mr. de Blasio’s bid to replace the Specialized High School Admissions Test with criteria meant to sneak in a racial rebalancing, he suddenly had a rebellion on his hands.
Asian-American moms and dads made their displeasure known. So after hastily convening a meeting with angry constituents (and, according to the New York Post, threats from Chinese-American donors), Mr. Adams announced that he wasn’t with the mayor after all.
He’s not alone. Every elected Asian-American in New York City politics has now blasted Mr. de Blasio’s plans. At the City Council, Peter Koo and Margaret Chin are against it; in the state Assembly, Ron Kim and Yuh-Line Niou are opposed; and in Congress, Grace Meng —a graduate of Stuyvesant, one of the affected schools—says she’s “disappointed” by the mayor’s proposal and was particularly “insulted” by the way his schools chancellor framed the issue. What makes this drama so unusual is that every last one of these pols is a Democrat, part of a larger community that overwhelmingly votes Democratic.
Whites have traditionally been the losers from affirmative action. Proponents sometimes justify this as the price to be paid for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Whatever the merits of this argument, the Asian-American experience is hard to squeeze into the box of racial privilege.
In the 19th century, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first U.S. law to deny immigration and naturalization based on race. In the 20th century, during World War II, Japanese-American citizens were confined in internment camps. To this list the 21st century adds racial discrimination at our most elite universities, which, as they did with Jews a century ago, limit the number of Asian-Americans they admit. (……)
As Ms. Chin points out, even if you are an Asian-American with little education, work as a manual laborer, and have no political connections, you understand that an objective exam represents opportunity and upward mobility. You also understand that if merit is replaced by softer (“holistic”) criteria designed to tilt the racial balance (e.g., Harvard has given Asian-American applicants lower “personality” ratings), it will be your children who pay the price. In other words, Democrats are now dealing with an Asian-American community that doesn’t buy the argument that racial justice requires discriminating against a racial minority. [Wall Street Journal]
You can read more at the link, but yet despite all the discrimination that Asian-Americans have faced in the past and even now by affirmative action policies in colleges, they have still been able to have by far the highest per capita household income of any race, even higher than whites.
I have long been following this lawsuit here at the ROK Drop and now the lawsuit has forced Harvard to release how they select their applicants. The way the admissions process is set up it makes it harder for Asian-Americans to be accepted to the prestigious university:
In an intense legal battle over the role of race in Harvard University’s admissions policies, a group that is suing the school says Harvard lowers the rankings of Asian-American applicants in a way that is unconstitutional.
Harvard says that its admissions process is legal — and it notes that the plaintiff group, the Students for Fair Admissions, is backed by the same activist who previously challenged the University of Texas’ affirmative action policy.
The SFFA says Harvard uses “racial balancing” as part of its formula for admitting students and that the practice is illegal. In response, Harvard says the group is misinterpreting data that the highly competitive school shared about how it chooses students.
Citing a 2013 analysis by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, the SFFA said in a federal court filing on Friday that if academics were the only criterion, Asian-American students would have made up more than 43 percent of students who were admitted, rather than the actual 18.7 percent.
Even if other criteria — such as legacy students, athletic recruiting and extracurricular and personal attributes — are included, the plaintiffs say, the number of Asian-Americans at Harvard would still have risen to more than 26 percent.
Saying that the admission rate for whites outpaced that of Asian-Americans over a 10-year period — despite outperforming them in only the “personal” ratings — the plaintiffs allege that “being Asian American actually decreases the chances of admissions.” [NPR]
So how does Harvard justify not admitting Asian-Americans based on their academic performance? By penalizing them for their “personalities”:
Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university.
Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found. [New York Times]
I am not sure how an admission personnel can make an accurate determination about someones “courage” or “liability” from an application packet. I think it is arguable that the personality scores are being used as a way to manipulate the stupid body to reflect what the university wants it to look like.
Could you imagine what the uproar would be if a university for example in the South was using personality scores to limit the number of African-American students? I do find it interesting that since it is Asian-Americans being affected by Harvard’s policies that the usual race hustlers we see in the spotlight for issues like this are no where to be found.
Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain who has had his various food and travel shows come to South Korea multiple times was found dead of suicide in France:
Anthony Bourdain in South Korea filming his show Parts Unknown.
“It is with extraordinary sadness we can confirm the death of our friend and colleague Anthony Bourdain,” CNN said in a statement Friday morning. “His love of great adventure, new friends, fine food and drink and the remarkable stories of the world made him a unique storyteller. His talents never ceased to amaze us, and we will miss him very much. Our thoughts and prayers are with his daughter and family at this incredibly difficult time.”
President Trump also said he was shocked to hear of Bourdain’s death.
“That was very shocking when I woke up this morning,” Trump told reporters at the White House before heading to the G7 Summit. “I enjoyed his show. He was quite a character, I will say. But, so, I just want to extend my condolences and also to the family of Kate Spade.” Spade, the famed handbag designer, committed suicide earlier this week. [Yahoo News]
You can read more at the link, but Bourdain really enjoyed Korean food. Here is what he had to say about Korean chefs:
I have, for some time, believed that the chefs doing the most interesting work in America — chefs who are in fact redefining what “American food” means — are Korean.
When I go out for dinner with non-Korean chef friends, all they want these days is Korean food. They get excited by the deep, tangy, spicy funk of kimchi; thrilled by the little plates of pickles and snacks that accompany the main courses; intrigued by what is, to them, often a whole new spectrum of flavors.
Date night with my wife? Korean barbecue. And God help me, among a very small circle of friends — all of them sworn to secrecy, and on all of whom I possess horrifying and incriminating photographic evidence that ensures their eternal silence — I have, after much soju, actually gone to Korean karaoke. [CNN]
One of my favorite episodes of Bourdain’s original show No Reservations was when he traveled to South Korea with a Korean-American who worked in his office. They had a lot of fun in that episode. You can view the episode at this link.
Finally condolences to Bourdain’s family and friends.
I was born in what was then one of the poorest countries in the world. But my parents had high aspirations for themselves and their children. I became @WorldBank president. Never give up on your dreams. Poverty is not destiny. #InheritPossibilitypic.twitter.com/xvGZdsGj8q
Korean tourism numbers may be up on Guam, but they are not spending nearly as much as Japanese tourists:
Yeon Hee Oh, left, and Hong Kyu Kim, tourists visiting the island from Seoul, Korea, together strike a comical pose for a photo during a stop at Puntan Dos Amantes, or Two Lovers Point, on Saturday, March 31, 2018.
Visitor arrivals from Korea are making up for a decline in arrivals from Japan, but since last summer, Guam Visitors Bureau officials have noted the average Korean tourist spends much less on island than the average Japanese tourist.
Lately, they’ve been spending about one-third of what the average Japanese visitor spends here, according to the tourism agency.
As of January, the average Japanese traveler spent about $578 per day on island, compared to only $187.40 per day for a Korean traveler. The figures are similar for February, according to GVB, although that spending report hasn’t been released.
“We’re seeing a lot more cost-conscious visitors,” Nico Fujikawa, GVB tourism research director, said about visitors from Korea. “They’re looking for a deal. They’re kind of like locals.” [Guam PDN]
