Another crisis of color: New York City's seven elite high schools are swarming with white and yellow students–because they are the ones who scored highest on the entrance test. Unlike the teacher celebrated in the movie "Stand and Deliver," who taught poor Hispanic students to pass the grueling AP calculus exam,  the teachers' union and their legislative butt-licks have a different solution: dumb down the entrance requirements. Reject some of the white and yellow students who ace the exam in favor of some who don't, but have a different hue. 

In other words, tell black and Hispanic students that they are intellectually inferior and cannot properly earn their places. 

These are the words of the great visionary, Martin Luther King: 

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Sorry, Dr. King. We will judge them by the color of their skin–but we'll call it "diversity." 

Above all, let's let the teachers' union tighen their grip on the school system. If teachers are judged on their performance, and not the color of their tenured contracts, they too may find themselves looking for other institutions. Why don't teachers rise up against the mediocrity their union champions? Where is their pride? 

The demise of the species draws nearer.

(Courtesy of Numbers the roach.)

Google shamefacedly revealed that most of its workforce is white and male. Company officials deplored the lack of diversity; an unnamed industry analyst said the culprit was its policy of hiring the most qualified. 

Google compiled its workforce statistics as mandated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. With government help, Google will strive to lower its embarrassing share price, promoting equality among American businesses.

Earlier this year, Jesse Jackson launched a campaign to get blacks and Hispanics on the boards of Google and other large tech companies. Rumors fly that B'nai Brith of Los Angeles is considering an initiative to get Jews onto NBA rosters.

In a similarly disgraceful disclosure, members of cockroach colonies around the world have admitted to being almost exclusively brown and small. Said a spokesman, "The white ones kept getting squashed." This rationale is not expected to stand up to governmental challenges.

(Courtesy of Numbers the roach.)

Jonah Hill, an actor of great girth and modest talent, has been in the headlines for his use of a "homophobic slur." A paparozzo spent a day baiting him in hopes of provoking something newsworthy, and Hill obliged, calling him a "faggot." Now Hill is turning his large buttocks upward to the nation in penance. "I played into exactly what he wanted and lost my cool and in that moment I said a disgusting word that does not at all reflect how I feel about any group of people."

Hill has been a vocal defender of gay rights, even risking the wrath of Putin by criticizing anti-gay laws in Russia. Unless he is considered truly cynical, few will suspect him of homophobic feelings.

Then why is he abasing himself? The oppressive tyranny of political correctness insists. Every remark has to be dissected for any trace of anything that might be construed as offensive (or was once offensive) to any group of people, even when people who are labeled feel they have nothing in common with each other. (I realize I have already insulted the avoirdupois-challenged.) 

How much do homosexuals–other than the media whores–really care about this? Homosexuals I know call each other faggots all the time. 

What Hill did was benign: he was angry, and reached for an insult. This one, which is much in vogue, was the first that came to mind. It had no meaning. He, like many people, probably started saying it before he knew what a faggot is. 

If the PC guardians insist on literal interpretation of epithets, they should get to work on, for example, asscan, chode, cuntosaurus, dipstick, douchebag, fucktard, jerk-off, tool, twit, and wanker. Consider all the people who might be thought to be violated by these terms! (Masturbators are especially vulnerable; shame prevents defenders rising to their cause.) 

Or we could lighten up. People say shit all the time. Who cares?

(Courtesy of Numbers the roach.)

Fifty US Senators signed a letter to the commissioner of football urging that the demeaning name "Washington Redskins" be changed. The team should have a name reflecting the dignity of Native Americans. What should it be? No doubt the Senators told the owner to look no further than the reverential spirit of the team's boosters.   

Rumors swirl about another offensive team name, the New York Giants. Look for a change to the New York Dimensionally Challenged. 

This is the wonderful Andre the Giant (that is, Vertically Independent).

Ah, words! 

(Courtesy of Numbers the roach.)

 (Courtesy of Numbers the roach.)

During the recent evolution of Homo sapiens, the attributes considered most desirable in a male have changed a great deal. Physical strength, once essential to producing and protecting a viable child, has given way to status, even if it has been gained by the accident of birth and the daring cowardice of one's underlings.

In North Korea, this is the male exemplar.

This is the ally:

This is the result:

If only this was a joke.

(Courtesy of Numbers the roach.)

A week ago, Boko Haram, a group of gentlemen striving to turn Nigeria into a sharia state, kidnapped 276 girls from their school. Boko Haram insists that educating women violates the will of Allah. These girls will now be sold as sex slaves or child brides, which is more what the deity had in mind for them.

It is impossible to argue with the fundamental Darwinian logic of Boko Haram.  As shown here

educated women bear many few women than do those who remain illiterate. Other religions claim to be guardians of humanity, but men stand by while women render themselves infertile by reading. Islam alone understands that the future of the species can be guaranteed only by female illiteracy and ignorance. 

(Courtesy of Numbers the roach.)

How deeply do humans thirst to share their thoughts about literature? The Outdoor Co-Ed Topless Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society–a real entity, recently celebrated in the media; I could not invent something so degenerate–offers an answer. Young women congregate to bare their souls about books, while baring their breasts. Anyone who suggests that they are drawn together by anything but naked intelligence is sexist. 

I don't understand why humans like to show those things off—the way they protrude and hang, as if by a cruel misstep of evolution. But people love to look at them. My question is: if you want to display your tits, can't you just do it? Why do you have to drag books into it? What have they ever done to be so humiliated?

Herein are the scholars. I know you are looking at them so you can guess what books they are reading and what the conference about them was like. Otherwise you'd just be some kind of pervert. 

If you've gotten this far: SHAME ON YOU!

(Courtesy of Numbers the roach.)