This Is Why We Write About MONA

About the only even halfway decent excuse for the MSM's constant reporting of crimes apparently committed by Men of No Appearance is, gosh darn it, there''s just no time to give full chapter and verse when breaking news comes in. Sometimes the details don't come in for days, and by then the news cycle has moved on.

Well, OK, libs. Let's test that theory out: FAIL!

A safely multicultural mob of scumbags hoves into view and suddenly the press gives us the full low-down on the suspects, even down to their hair cuts.

Nothing Says 'True Conservatism' Like....

... A fanatical dedication to the leader even in the teeth of reason.

The most notable thing about the Cameroonatics in that thread is that they're completely unable to articulate a positive reason for supporting The Dave. He's going to win the election and his opponents are all Nazis is about as far as it goes. Even these freaks can't actually think of anything nice to say about their messiah.

Ferrets In A Sack Update

Y'know, I'm beginning to suspect that maybe the Equality and Human Rights Commission isn't best qualified to enforce compulsory tolerance on Britain.

Still, what really caught my eye was an answer to a great mystery: just how do these freaks become 'communidee leaders' anyway?

[Stonewall chief Ben Summerskill] is himself an important Labour figure from one of the party's influential families.

Folks, I'm just shocked - shocked! - to find that a 'gay rights activists' actually turns out to be a leftist establishment pol. As ever, nothing says 'people's party' like having 'influential families' in it. But even that can't compare to the irony of a professional gay who got the job by dint of good breeding.

But What Was The Artist Trying To Say?

Shockingly enough, it turns out that this particular Murderer of No Appearance is not an Eskimo.

Still, some things are apparently still too controversial to mention. We're told Morrison has a record of violence against women. Really? Any particular type of women? Any common factor at all?

It gets better. His mother - who helped - ahem! - let him destroy evidence - is no ordinary police officer. Nope, she works on 'hate crimes'.

Who'd have thunk it: a grievance mining shakedown artist with a son who turns out to be a racist nutcase. What are the odds, hey? You know, it's almost like rabble-rousing race-hustlers and honkey-hating loons are two sides of the same coin....

Also exposed: the femiloons. 'Football couch' Morrison met with quite a lot of tolerance for his violence against women. When trouble-makers call the police on their neighbours, the cops won't leave without making an arrest even if everyone in the house thinks they're out of their mind, but a guy who really does beat up women? Yawner-rooney, dude!... Say, do you ever think the whole campaign was just an excuse for liberal activists to harass traditional families?

Take That, Bike Boy!

Ha! I can beat that. Behold: Iain Dale complaining that too many Tories are letting their lifestyle dictate their political beliefs.

As Yoda would say: this stuff, make it up you cannot.

Who Even Knew The Incas Had Cars?

Will no one think of the polar bears?

A warm spell spanning four centuries allowed the ancient Incas to use mountain land for agriculture and led to a massive expansion of their empire, experts claim.

New research reveals how an increase in temperature between AD1100 and 1533 allowed the Incas to cultivate more land, and develop irrigation, canals and terraces.

I'm Waiting For Them To Go For 'Deadwood Man'

I take this as not only proof the whole of Tory policy is decided by sound bites, but also as evidence that they've given up making any actual sense:

The new target voter is a woman in her thirties or early forties, who is likely to do a responsible clinical or clerical job in the NHS. She worries about the future of the health service, but also about the state of her children’s schools, the fate of her ageing parents, and also the cost of childcare.

Free clue: when a single organisation has enough employees to be a voter bloc on its own, it's too big!

More to the point, are thirty-something women outside the NHS OK with their kids going to terrible schools?

Then there's this:

We are not really talking about the well-off doctors or senior managers. They are now quite likely to back us anyway.

Say what? The whole 'Tories as the party of the rich' meme is a liberal invention. Meanwhile, in the real world, liberalism is a disease of the poor and the rich, since neither has to put up with the consequences. It's the folks in the middle who get squashed. The overpaid public sector manager who spouts liberal garbage, while sending his kids private and staying well away from any... enriched parts of town is a cliché for a reason.

This latest thrust isn't just lousy politics, it's lousy reality.

Courts: Reality Now Illegal, Libs: Yeah, We Never Really Liked It Anyway

Mainstreaming? I see no mainstreaming!

Like I keep saying, if liberals ever denounce vampires as a 'right-wing myth', start laying in garlic and stakes.

Needless to say, the logic on show in this decision is up to the usual standard. There's no facility for offenders predators to seek a review of their inclusion on the register. Well, y'know, apart from the whole 'trial by a jury of their peers' thing. That's the review right there. They were found guilty and put on the register as part of their sentence.

Ah, but that's the thing: even people with Captain Hook's feel for the public mood can sense that going easy on predators just days after their crimes have been described in open court might be a little too obvious. They'd much rather kick that can down the road until the public spotlight moves on, and a whole bunch of folks making a life and a living out of supposedly rehabilitating dangerous predators can get together and decide that the dangerous predator in question is indeed rehabilitated.

This is the crucial issue. The hipsters would rather we kept the whole thing on the abstract level, as though a penchant for sexual predation was a psychological quirk like claustrophobia or OCD. When our alleged betters whine about 'emotionalism', this is what they mean: folks reminding the public that for every offence there's a victim who's life will never be the same again. How're they supposed to keep up the whole Therapy Nation vibe when people keep dumping bodies on the floor?

Still, even stating all the above is giving this argument too much credit. Let's pretend that the rehab industry isn't a bunch of sleazy snake oil salesmen and all these freaks really need is a psychological oil change and some karmic WD40 - they're still convicted sex offenders and the Register is merely calling them what they indisputably are.

Again, this is a crucial battleground in the culture war. What is PC if not an attempt to prevent people calling stuff what it is? It says a lot about how good the hipsters argument really are that they want to stop anyone actually discussing them.

(Oh... and by the way, how come libs aren't taking out onions for wife beaters unfairly refused firearms certificates? They've served their time - shouldn't they get the chance to have their cases reviewed too? Presumably by the owner of the local gun shop. Fair's fair!)

I'm So Old....

... I remember when school kids had to worry about the older kids stealing their dinner money.

All of which raises an important question: is 'drawing a line under it' the new 'lessons have been learned'?

Well, that and one other question 'wear have all the professionals gone'?

Geek: You Know What We Need? More Lying!

Yes, it's a mystery why ecolunacy is losing traction.

Actually, in one respect it does remind me of Churchill's line about people who stumble over the truth, but pick themselves up and carry on. Yes, the fact ecoloons keep jetting round the world warning of the dangers of flying would tend to undermine their credibility, but no, the answer is not for science to become even more cult-like.

Consider this though: when people point out that a disproportionate number of ecofreaks tend to live in small palaces, that's an actual fact. Meanwhile, the ecofreaks try and link sceptics to holocaust deniers and ponder how they can best bamboozle the public into accepting their wacky ideas. Just who's doing the science here?

Celebrity Swears

Stung by recent criticism of the output of its Siamese twin, the Guardian decided to rebut criticism of the BBC by soliciting the opinions of.... people who produce scripts for the BBC.

Aren't nationalised industries great?

Personally, I can't wait until the Guardian starts polling arms company executives on defence policy. Until that day, we'll just have to wonder whether the existence of 'celebrity writers' might just be part of the problem.

On the plus side, the Guardian featuring articles from celebrity writers about the BBC surely gives the lie to all those who complain that the MSM is too incestuous. The most noticeable feature of these articles is the sheer lack of self-awareness of these people. The whole thing reads like something from Ross - they really don't have any idea how they come across.

Take Tony Jordan's article. Take away the obscenities and the oh so daring! sexual references and you're left with.... well, nothing really. The guy isn't being foul-mouthed for effect, the naughty words are the effect. He swears a lot, what more do you want from a writer?

The most - indeed, only - interesting thing about Jordan's rant is what it says about the BBC's attitude to the working class. The 'soft bigotry of low expectations' doesn't quite cover Jordan's belief that working class authenticity is conveyed by sounding like a perv with Tourettes.

Mind you there's always Billy Ivory there, Guardian of the Working Class, ready to..... hey, haven't I seen this somewhere before?

Again, the most notable point about Ivory's article is the complete absence of any actual arguments. He throws out all the usual diversity duckspeak but never explains in what sense evil, straight white guys are making him write rubbish scripts.

To the point: nothing speaks to the inbred bubble world of the BBC than the arguments of its defenders. Or, more precisely, the lack of any actual arguments. They simply assert their own supremacy and denounce opponents as bigots. That's the problem with a political monoculture like the BBC: there are no normal people around to tell them their talking points suck.

Robocop Isn't Meant To Be An Inspirational Movie

I guess I can't say I wasn't warned: they told me if I voted UKIP, the police would be storming houses and seizing opposition literature... and they were right.

This is bad enough on its own merits, but under what train wreck interpretation of Peelian principles is this a policing matter? What are we talking here?

1. Serve The Public Trust
2. Protect The Innocent
3. Uphold The Law
4. Defend The Privileged Position Of Official Sponsors Of This Crappy Boondongle
   

The 'Secret Policeman' Was Not Available For Comment

Having spent twenty years leading the charge against anyone on the right who fails to grovel sufficiently to PC, the BBC has now decided accurately quoting stuff people say is sleazy and underhand.

Let's check the scorecard again: when knuckle-draggers are secretly filmed late at night by a fraudster impersonating a police officer, that raises important questions about the culture in the police, but when a senior member of the BBC's management calls for the BBC to deliberately bias its output in a leftist direction, it's underhand for anyone to cite that as evidence of leftist bias.

Still, on the plus side, in so far as this article, like any by a BBC staffer, would have had to be checked and approved by multiple layers of management - none of whom apparently found anything unusual in Stephenson's comments - we may finally, years after Macpherson, have found an actual case of institutional prejudice.

Of course, that in turn leads to the real crunch question: are you still a crazed, tin-foil hat wearing loon if you claim the BBC is biased? Or does it mean that the people the BBC has smeared for years have been totally vindicated?

There's a wider issue here too. If politics is your bag then, yes, bias in the BBC's factual output should be your main concern, but from the perspective of culture war, their overtly fictional output is where it's at. It's that word again: metacontext, the wider cultural assumptions which set the terms of political debate.

Take taxes: no matter how well the right makes the intellectual case for lower taxes, they're going to be up against it just as long as they're working in the context of a society that sees keeping your own money as greedy and, as a corollary, big government as the source of all social progress. Ditto, law enforcement. So far as BBC drama is full of bent coppers, crusading lawyers and super-articulate criminals, who are actually victims of society, maaaaaan, then the right is facing an uphill struggle.

But even that's not the biggest knock on the BBC's biased drama output. The effects on the cultural weather is one thing, but the even-worse problem is that it leads to so much just plain awful TV.

It's not just the absurdly anachronistic, mood killing, political commentary in shows like 'Robin Hood' or 'Doctor Who', or the fact that as soon as a character quotes scripture you know he'll be the killer. Nope, it's that these people have absolutely nothing to say. Hey, any organisation that considers pushing liberalism in the arts to be edgy and innovative is clearly running on empty.

This isn't just a matter of their drearily predictable liberalism. Joss Wheddon (Buffy/Angel/Firefly) is a far-out moonbat, but his best work has mass appeal precisely because it rises above the specifics of politics and hits on broader themes. Meanwhile, the BBC is full of people penning paeans to their own bravery in producing the seven hundredth show featuring corrupt businessmen and heroic ecoloon activists. Compare and contrast the BBC's saccharine sweet love letter to legal fascism 'Judge John Deedes' with Wheddon's creation 'Wolfram & Hart'. To the point: it comes to something when you get a better critical analysis of the inherent contradictions in the left's pact with lawyers from a show about a vampire than from a supposedly serious BBC drama.

That's what wrong with the BBC. Not just the bias, or the waste of public money, serious though both these issues are. The biggest problem is that the end product is so lifeless and predictable. I can't do better than finish off with a quote from John Nolte on a genuinely innovative piece of work:

After forty years of liberal rule in Hollywood it is nihilism that’s old-fashioned. It is moral relativism that is tired. It is political correctness, the always-noble people of color, the always-evil white guy, and the metrosexual that is cliched. A film with a clear divide between good and evil is something new. A film that celebrates patriotism, heroism, sacrifice, freedom, and honor is something revolutionary. In 1955 300 would be old-fashioned. In 2007 it makes a counter-culture statement as strong as Easy Rider in its day.

Actually, The West Is Superior

Of course, when it comes to liberals defending depravity, one cause fires them up more than any other. Listening to liberals try to work their moral equivalences mojo on this is going to be special!

In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a "wedding" ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard - essentially raped by her "husband."

Of course, many working women in Britain have trouble finding affordable child care so who are we to condemn?

This is why I keep saying liberal multiculturalism is a fraud. Liberal tolerance for other cultures is predicated on the idea that, say, Islamofascist lunatics are just like Guardian readers but with stupid beards and bad personal hygiene... no, wait, that's exactly like Guardian readers.

Iran isn't just like Islington, but with a wacky dress code. Islam is a complete ideology that dictates every aspect of life to its adherents. In so far as words have meaning, it is perfectly valid to discuss Islamic ideology. But no: libs are busily sticking their fingers in their ears and singing 'Imagine' loudly.

The Truth Is... They're Kooks

Libs are enraged that Her Majesty invited all the members of the London Assembly to her party, not just the ones they approve of. Apparently, there's no excuse for public figures being seen to endorse extremists - they should meet with sensible, middle of the road moderates like this guy.

Hmmmmm... what definition of 'extreme' are we using here? Either 'extremism' is another of those words Cameron doesn't really understand (much like 'conservatism') or liberals have, as it were 'moved on' from 'reclaim the night' to 'she was asking for it'.

Of course, the BNP have been accused of The Racism! unlike St Gary, who lead an all black gang that targeted exclusively white women.

I think it's worth emphasising that last bit here, since the MSM won't tell you that. The fact police search disproportionately more young, black men compared to the population at large is proof of racism, but a 100% split between victim & victimiser.... that's just some wacky coincidenks.

Needless to say, St Gary has never been pressed on the racism. As for the rapes... Let's just say that I generally find that remorseful people express actual, y'know, remorse, rather than, say, blaming everyone else and issuing prissy demands that no one be allowed to mention their true nature as a sicko pervert.

Still, let's take a moment here to imagine the likely reaction on the left to a Melanie Philips column which claimed single parent families made boys grow up to be gang rapists.

Exactly.

Funnily enough though, as this latest incident testifies, being a racist thug and sexual predator has proved to be no bar to St Gary climbing aboard the Good Ship Truther. Hey, not to give aid and comfort to the enemy, but as a rule, I find that if you're trying to pass off your loony movement as a grass roots effort by a *representative* group of July 7 survivors, you probably want to go light on the whole 'paling around with perverted bigots' thing.

Hollywood: Smart!

Who knew Marxists would have no respect for private property?

At Least We Can Rule Out Goblins, Elves And Aliens

Master MONA Monitor Lurker points out the interesting case of the Molesters of No Appearance.

Libs Discover Constitution, Hilarity Ensues

Just in case General Dannatt ever tires of being a liberal hate figure, I have the perfect way for him to rehabilitate himself.

Of course, libs will point out that Sir Jacko was retired when he risked becoming a chattering class hero by calling Yanks STOOPID. After all, the constitution prohibits serving soldiers criticising Her Majesty's Government, right? PC Plod can hammer home Labour talking points with all the subtly of a comedian at a rugby club dinner, but soldiers are different. Well, except for this guy, obviously.

Hmmmm.... let's review the scorecard here. Talking about logistical short-comings on the battlefield is a slippery slope that leads to a military junta, but giving a public backrub to a bunch of Islamofascist thugs..... What could be wrong with that?

(On the plus side though, this kind of savvy public dhimmitude Islamic outreach would explain why 2005 was so peaceful on the home front.)

UPDATE:

Down in the comments, TDK reminds us that Dannett himself is horribly compromised. All of which rams home the point that Dannatt is no more or less than the natural end product of a politicised Army. Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of the Nu Labour era has been the corruption of the professions: doctors release the medical records of anyone foolish enough to speak out against the government, police officers jabber endlessly about the lowest crime rate in history (while wearing body armour and carrying cs gas) and flag officers are too busy ordering up shiny new toys to actually win the war.

Mob of No Appearance

Clearly, this MONA thing is getting out of hand: now they're hunting in packs.

A Further Thought About The Wicked Websters

Suddenly, Prison Works: Hey, say what you like about these two tards, but in so far as their offence involved sitting down and typing stuff, they surely qualify as the type of 'non-violent offenders' liberals keep insisting shouldn't be sent to jail. But no: sexual predators get community orders, but these guys are just too dangerous.

Hmmmmm.... do you ever get the feeling the left's supposed objections to prison are purely tactical? They can't admit that they think dangerous predators - especially those from 'close-knit communities' - are just differently-moralled members of the ethically-diverse community, so instead we get these absurd claims that locking up predators doesn't make people safer and, anyway, community service is tougher than prison.

Heh

A Yank reads a report from the Cardiff Test Match disgrace.

Outrage D'Jour: No Dhimmitude Here Edition!

So, speech that has the potential to cause 'grave social harm' - that must be some speech - rates nearly five years in the slammer, except in the case of people who really do have a record of violence.

Unicorn Arrested!

Not really - it's the even-rarer creature, the sexual predator released to strike again.

At least, I assume they're rare, judging by the way the hipsters whine and complain when anybody raises this issue. See, now I'm wondering - are we still lager-swilling idiots, sucking our brains out with daytime TV, or is the fact that this kind of thing keeps happening exactly as we predicted proof that it might just be our eye-rolling pals who are the idiots?

This isn't passive smoking or mobile phone towers. A dangerous predator was set free and struck again almost immediately. Conclusion: releasing predators is a bad idea.

At this point you're probably wondering just what kind of idiot judge could set a known predator free. Well, keep wondering:

The judge, who cannot be named for legal reasons....

Hey, I think the idea of giving convicted criminals anonymity is an legal and moral outrage, but judges? These people hold public office but we're not to know how they choose to perform their duties? Say what?

Like I keep saying, judicial independence means independence from political influence, it doesn't mean independence from the wider culture. Judges are meant to reflect the common morality, not just the warped morality of our fashionably disengaged hipster class. Still, in so far as they feel the need to hide behind anonymity, at least they can't deny knowing where the public really stands on this issue.

Fired/Not Fired: Civil Service Edition

Here we go again:

Fired.

Not Fired.

Everyone Has Aides!

I'll admit this is great for connoisseurs of 'ferrets in sacks' but the real punchline is this:

To his critics Mr Phillips was doing New Labour's bidding. To his friends he was forming the debate. However, many in the ethnic minority communities were alarmed, arguing that it was his job to defend minorities, not give succour to attacks on them.

Actually, we knew that anyway, but it's good to see them admit it in public.

Rudy Was Right!

Seems to me that in it's increasingly absurd attempts to alibi our thieving MPs, the BBC has inadvertently let the cat out of the bag.

Yep, people are more likely to commit crimes in environments where crime appears to be tolerated. Say, why does that sound familiar?

Still, in so far as the BBC's argument appears to be that fine, upstanding MPs were driven to larceny by life inside an incestuous, bubble world that made them lose touch with reality in the rest of Britain, all I can say is this: takes one to know one.

More Supporting-Of-The-Troopyness

If a spate of robberies mean liberals want to ban manikins in military uniform, banning the burkha should be a cinch, right? After all, I'm pretty sure the bank robberies weren't committed by 2 Para, whereas the Islamic connection to violence is a little more, ahhh, direct.

Actually, the real question is raised by this:

But an officer from Bolton Council has written to Mr Shahabi and threatened him with a fine if he does not move the doll.

Say what? I admit I haven't kept up with our ever-evolving legal system, but absent the passage of the Military Manikins Act of 2009, I'm wondering what statute the council are intending to use to enforce this fine. Well, that and wondering what exactly is the moral difference between council officials citing bogus laws to shakedown anyone who doesn't share their pathological hatred of real public servants, and private sector protection rackets.

Seems to me that if people are freaking out over a dummy, they're the ones with a problem - although, come to think of it, this is the perfect example of the liberal thought process: there's a spate of robberies, so the council wants to fine a shopkeeper. Of course!

Maybe he should claim society made him put the dummy up? Either that, or replace it with a dummy in a gimp suit, in which case the council would no doubt be vigorously harassing the complainants.

UPDATE:

Link fixed

Public Service Announcement

If you're disgusted by the Daily Mail's coverage of the Gary McKinnon case, feel free to hack into their computer system, cause hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage and leave a message saying how you think Paul Dacre should be raped to death by rabid monkeys. If anyone objects, just say you're dyslexic and you were investigating the Kennedy assassination - apparently, that covers everything.

Reliable Witness!

Hey, let's not be prejudiced here. Just 'cause a guy thinks mass murder is a ducky way way to spend an afternoon doesn't mean he'd stoop to lying, right?

Of course, not every case of torture excites the left...

No, We Don't Want To Lose You, But We Think You Should Go (To Smackhead Comp)

This is what baffles me about cases like this: surely even some liberals see how bizarre this sort of thing is.

Still, I have to admit though, I am intrigued by the idea that you can draw a line round a place - a 'border', to coin a phrase - with certain rights only available to those inside that border. It sounds crazy, but it could work!

Of course, the other mystery is why exactly it matters. Surely all this 'school choice' wasn't a just a slippery liberal scam? Then again, the educrats has spent years claiming they want families to get involved with their children's education. Apparently, they mean 'involved' in the same way pigs are involved in ham sandwiches.

Liberals have suddenly turned into Lord Kitchener, as in 'Your Country Needs You To Send Your Children To An Awful School'. Still, at least Word War I generals had an end point in mind. They might have been prepared to sacrifice thousands, but they wanted to win the war and bring the slaughter to an end. The educrats are writing off the life chances of thousands of children every year and we're supposed to accept that's just the way it is. Some schools are good, some are terrible. Luck of the draw, init?

Liberals are convinced that the whole of the private sector is one enormous conspiracy, with everyone meeting on the golf course to plan how to rob the public. Hence the Competition Commission and a gazillion other quangos. Meanwhile, when it comes to education, education, education, they openly operate a cartel expressly designed to ensure that no school, no matter how hopeless, can fail to get its latest draft of victims. Can we jail them yet?

New Liberal Argument: And You're One Too!

Nazis, Nazis, Everywhere! Our PC PCs have marked the anniversary of the day Islamofascist lunatics klilled 52 people to warn us that the real threat is from right wing extremists.

Hey, isn't it always?

Still, one thing sets me thinking:

Sources have told the Guardian that while they believe the neo-Nazi terrorist threat has grown, they have no specific intelligence of an attack.

Say, didn't that used to be known as profiling?

Sure it did, and hipsters were enraged! at the idea that just becuase someone has some wacky ideas, they could be labelled a terrorist. I guess that's gone the way of 'no more boom & bust'.

Oops, guess we can't say that:

Sawyer revealed that the Met commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, had asked the counter-terrorism command, SO15, to examine what the economic downturn would mean for far-right violence.

'Economic downturn'? That's OK, but surely he can work global warming in there somewhere?

Still, at least we've got them on record. Yes, Virginia, the police are deploying highly-skilled anti-terrorist officers to chase down kooks playing with fire instead of actual terrorists. Something to bear in mind when the jihadists strike again and we get a chorus of 'my resources fell down the stairs, guv'.

Liberal Intelligence: All The Evidence For It Must Be Classified

For those of you keeping score at home, expecting A-Level students to know words and stuff is a sign that you're a degenerate elitist who wants to ride down the masses with your polo horse, but dealing with chemical spills, car crashes and burning buildings is just like working at a car wash, but with higher-pressure hoses.

Hmmmmm..... is anyone keeping track of just how many moron professions there are out there? It goes without saying that libs think Sandhurst is just a finishing school for the thick but rich. Ditto, the Five-oh. Businessmen? Fast-talking barrow boys the lot of them.... Apparently, whole swathes of the country aren't nearly as smart as the people who fall for the cunning Cadbury's Gambit.

Then again, if Sonia Sotomayor's point is so defensible, why do liberals have to lie about it?

It is, however, worth making two points about Sotomayor and the Ricci case. First, although some Republican senators and conservative pundits are likely to portray it this way, it would be silly to argue that reversal by the supreme court means that Sotomayor was legally "wrong". The case presented a genuinely difficult issue, and as reflected by the fact that it was supported by four supreme court justices, New Haven's arguments were perfectly plausible

I believe the legal term for that is 'garabage'. Here's reformed lawyer, and actual smart person, Ann Coulter:

This week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the white and Hispanic firefighters, overturning Sotomayor's endorsement of racial quotas.

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone."

Indeed, the dissenters argued that the case should be returned to the lower courts to look for some hidden racial bias in the test. For Sotomayor, the results alone proved racial bias.

In other words, every judge distanced themselves from Sotomayor's goofy reasoning. It was a 9-0 wipeout for the wackadoodle 'any chance of a lawsuit' test.

Hey, if libs are so smart, how come their arguments fall apart as soon as they're forced to state them honestly?