Elsewhere (143)
Susan Kruth and Harvey Silverglate on educational environments and the things you can’t say in them:
On campuses across the country, hostility toward unpopular ideas has become so irrational that many students, and some faculty members, now openly oppose freedom of speech. The hypersensitive consider the mere discussion of the topic of censorship to be potentially traumatic. Those who try to protect academic freedom and the ability of the academy to discuss the world as it is are swimming against the current… Hypersensitivity to the trauma allegedly inflicted by listening to controversial ideas approaches a strange form of derangement — a disorder whose spread in academia grows by the day.
Note how the code words and euphemisms that have replaced salty language have become so numerous that readers now struggle to guess what the offending word was. See also this.
Thomas Sowell on the current occupant of the White House:
People who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama’s competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs. You cannot tell whether someone is failing or succeeding without knowing what they are trying to do. When Obama made a brief public statement about Americans being beheaded by terrorists, and then went on out to play golf, that was seen as a sign of political ineptness, rather than a stark revelation of what kind of man he is, underneath the smooth image and lofty rhetoric.
And Peter Suderman reminds us why tar and feathers should never be out of fashion:
Professor Jonathan Gruber was, by most accounts, one of the key figures in constructing the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. He helped design the Massachusetts health care law on which it was modelled, assisted the White House in laying out the foundation of the law, and, according to the New York Times, was eventually sent to Capitol Hill “to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.” Jonathan Gruber, in other words, knows exactly what it took to get [Obama’s] health care law passed. And that’s why you should take him seriously when he says, in the following video, that it was critical to not be transparent about the law’s costs and true effects, and to take advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter” in order to get it passed.
Note that our progressive Professor Gruber is happy to admit deceiving the electorate – deliberately, at length and on a grand scale – in order to get his own way. Along with $400,000 in consultancy fees.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets in the comments. It’s what these posts are for.
On an overnight talk radio program this a.m. the hosts were discussing this moronic piece of excrement over at HuffPo: “She Looks Black, but Her Politics Are Red: What Mia Love’s Victory Means for the Face of the GOP”
(Mia Love just won her race in Utah’s 4th district for the House of Reps. [I live just a few blocks outside her district.] She’s the daughter of Haitian immigrants, a Mormon, a Republican, and a fan of Ludvig von Mises.)
The hosts proceeded to pick apart the absurdities and falsehoods in the article, as is their wont, but they were utterly missing the point of the article. When analyzing Leftist speech, you never analyze the content, you analyze the purpose of the utterance. Not what they say but why.
The Why is summed up in the neat aphorism that Team Red thinks Team Blue has bad ideas, but Team Blue thinks Team Red are bad people. They desperately need that formulation, both emotionally and strategically. As long as Team Red is 100% evil, then they, the Opposite Team, are 100% good.
As Sowell points out in Vision of the Annointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, Team Blue is heavily invested in its own smug self-regard and vanity. The cheapest way to obtain such high self-regard is to project all evil onto your putative enemies.
The elections of Tim Scott (first Southern black man ever elected [not appointed] to the Senate) and Mia Love (in deep-red, pasty-white Mormon Utah) threaten that narrative at its very root.
And they can’t have that.
Ergo, Mia Love and Tim Scott aren’t “really black” — they don’t count toward non-evilness points. No credit for you, ya filthy teabagging rednecks. No credit ever.
That’s why he wrote the article: to deprive Mia Love of her blackness, thereby maintaining the narrative. The truthfulness or accuracy or validity of his arguments is irrelevant as long as they server their purpose.
Which, beside propping up all that unearned self-regard, keeps the rest of the black folk from realizing that the filthy teabagging rednecks don’t actually hate them.
And they definitely can’t have that.
Rage is the opiate of the Marxists.
Marxism is the opiate of faculty lounges.
My wife was rather shocked by this story, asking how such people can live with themselves. I explained it’s because they already know they are more moral and working on a higher authority, thus the ends justify the means.
Some are like that.
But then, four percent of us have been born without the burden of caring whether something is right or wrong.
Four percent of us are sociopaths. I reckon the concentration is higher in the circles Gruber runs in.
Much. Higher.
Link fixed.
…thus the ends justify the means.
Or, dicentra’s sociopath theory may have something to it.
The arrogance is breathtaking, whatever
More from Mr Gruber.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/12/in-a-third-video-obamacare-architect-brags-about-exploiting-the-american-voter/
Hope the American voter gets really mad.
Hope.
Ever hear of that expression, “Hopping mad”?
That’s just about to be me, if one more Gruber tape calling–wait, a third tape??? Hang on, I need to find my pogo stick.
‘Apparently the people of the Falkland Islands earned the nickname “Bennies” among members of H.M Forces stationed there, due to their similarity to the simple-minded wool hat fancier from Crossroads.
After some party-pooping officer decided to ban the term “Bennies” so as not to offend the Bennies, the troops started calling them “Stills”. As in “still Bennies”‘.
The GOC responded by banning the term ‘Stills’.
It will come as no surprise to you that from then on the pongoes and the crabs started calling the Islanders the ‘They’res’.
Mags,
Unfortunate indeed! *snork*
And, yes, that programme was very carefully staged if not, in fact, partly or wholly scripted.
The camera angle in that clip which shows the view of the stage from the POV of the knees of the person in the row behind Mr Baldfatangrymanc makes it quite clear just how managed the reality was.
Which point is, of course, highly telling.
wtp,
If true, that story is genuinely horrifying.
Dicentra,
When analyzing Leftist speech, you never analyze the content, you analyze the purpose of the utterance. Not what they say but why
Yes, that.
Especially, as I’ve noticed, that even the slightest query of facts or procedure etc. directed at their own arguments is very often met with a furious denunciation that one is either a mindless, dupe following the herd or a knowing collaborator with the forces of darkness.
or a knowing collaborator with the forces of darkness.
[ Strokes amulet. ]
[ Strokes amulet. ]
That’s actually rather spooky.
I think it must have been the power of the amulet that caused that stray comma to appear between mindless and dupe in my post to Dicentra.
I’m currently rocking a ‘Dr-Strange-and-his-wandering-eye’ number. Gratuitous commas are only the beginning.
Dr-Strange-and-his-wandering-eye’
Sure beats what I’m supposed to be doing right now ; – )
If true, that story is genuinely horrifying
Well it seems at the very least the academic that drove the original conviction overturn “retired” from Northwestern University due to
http://dailynorthwestern.com/2014/10/31/campus/murder-conviction-of-alstory-simon-overturned-after-doubts-shed-on-protess-investigation/
The McKinney case is a whole other issue I haven’t looked into but on a surface read it seems like our noble professor is/was working to free that convict using dubious means.
As for the private dick employed by the professor…
http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/11/03/when-ethical-causes-are-pursued-by-unethical-means-the-anthony-porter-alstory-simon-mess/#more-24137
Note that our progressive Professor Gruber is happy to admit deceiving the electorate – deliberately, at length and on a grand scale – in order to get his own way
Looks like it’s liars all the way down.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/13/nancy-pelosi-says-she-doesnt-know-who-jonathan-gruber-is-she-touted-his-work-in-2009/
Looks like it’s liars all the way down.
I’d imagine quite a few people will be experiencing sudden-onset amnesia.
Sort of related to Pelosi / Gruber…
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/13/photo-heres-a-bunch-of-liberals-literally-burying-their-heads-in-sand/
More on things that cannot be said in, around, or about educational environments:
http://www.oregonlive.com/faith/2014/11/devout_christian_claims_portla.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2014/11/steve_duin_blog_evangelizing_f.html
I found it interesting and disturbing that the mentor/supervisor who got her sacked and the local newspaper columnist both attributed her “bigotry” to both her Christian faith and her Russian ethnicity. Apparently this sort of ethnic bigotry is considered reasonable in the hypersensitive public school environment, but asking “do kids really need to learn about this sexual stuff so early?” is a horrific thoughtcrime.
Not to mention that her private asking a question about curriculum and expressing a concern to her mentor that the sex ed curriculum may be too explicit or not age-appropriate has been spun around into some kind of at-risk students’ mental heath emergency of “intolerance” for gay students and “evangelizing” for heterosexuality.
Note well that at no time did this poor woman express an opinion on this matter to a student. Nor did she indicate that she was going to do so. And also note that she, apparently an American citizen, is being held responsible for the policies of Vladimir Putin, because they come from the same ethnic background.
Apparently this sort of ethnic bigotry is considered reasonable in the hypersensitive public school environment, but asking “do kids really need to learn about this sexual stuff so early?” is a horrific thoughtcrime.
They are not against bigotry. They are not against intolerance. They are not sensitive, hyper or otherwise. They are not against evangelization.
They are against their enemies — anyone who resists their attempts to control and oppress the rest of the world.
They use the language of values and standards as a weapon, not as a way to actually establish those standards and values.
Time to stop being astonished at the brazen double standard and start figuring out ways to stop those weapons from being effective.
Step 1: Look at why they say something, not at what they say, and then counter their goals.
More news on Gruber story.
According to this the White House has lied.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/smoking-gun-video-jonathan-gruber-admitted-obama-was-in-the-room-when-cadillac-tax-lie-was-created/
The amount of smug anti-Christian dog-piling and moral preening in the comments of that Oregon articles saddens me. I’m not Christian, but I grow very tired of people talking about them flippantly as if they’re all moral and intellectual lepers from a by-gone era. Further, the level of righteous indignation in the comments suggests to me that this woman must have been openly scolding gay and lesbian students for their sexuality while insisting that the earth is 6000 years old!. She did not do this, of course.
How quickly society has moved into the “21st century” of enlightened tolerance and non-judgmental behaviour.
“Time to stop being astonished at the brazen double standard and start figuring out ways to stop those weapons from being effective.”
I’d be glad to hear more suggestions on how to do this, since they really don’t seem to care that people notice their hypocrisy. The idea seems to be “well but some hypocrisy is justified because the opponents are worse, and justified hypocrisy isn’t hypocrisy.”
But yes, they obviously “evangelize” for a very specific view of sexuality all the time, and aren’t opposed to the idea of bossing people around on personal subjects. They just want to be sure they are the ones doing it. The maneuvers they use to manipulate are often quite obvious. Like all the talk of suicide is emotional blackmail plain and simple–if there’s a suicide crisis among the youth of the nation, it has more to do with general anomie and nihilism in the culture, especially alienation caused by divorce, than anything specific to being gay. But the primary way they have made it a thought crime to question sex ed or gender theory or anything like that is by saying “but the kids will kill themselves!” You can show charts and stats disproving the hypothesis, and they just double down. Dumb people are scared by the suicide talk so they go with the ones who are “preventing suicide.” What then?
What then?
They’ve put the machinery in place. They’ve got a fuzzbox and they’re gonna use it. It’s all about psychodrama, and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
For another example, just look at the reports from employment tribunals in the UK. They’re all about misfits suing the public sector, or people pretending to be misfits suing companies in the financial services industry. They’re the only organisations who have the money to pay the compensation.
… this smug jaggoff Gruber admitting that an already wildly unpopular… “signature” piece of Obama legislation was written precisely to fool them, to take advantage of their lack of political sophistication, and [touting] an intentional lack of transparency as a stroke of policy genius…
Which “them” is Gruber talking about. Certainly not those who saw through Obamstrosity Care from the git go, or Republican congresscritters, who voted against it.
Which means Gruber isn’t calling voters in general stupid, just the progressive ones.
‘A high school in Colorado Springs bans students from meeting outside class for prayer and fellowship.’
‘A Pine Creek choir teacher had given permission to Windebank and his fellow worshippers to meet in an empty music practice room. No complaints ever ensued from other students or faculty.’
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392665/one-nation-under-godlessness-michelle-malkin
After three years (with no complaints) this is banned.
I’d be really grateful if someone could explain the ‘legal’ justification, which cites “the separation of church and state,” and how it stands up in this case.
Is the ‘problem’ not the worship itself, but their discussion of current issues through a Christian perspective?
Oh, I’m really sorry – must have done something wrong – the link hasn’t worked. Apologies.
Fixed. I don’t think Typepad auto-links the mobile version of a URL.
Many thanks David!
Left out http:// by mistake.
I am an idiot.
Sorry for the extra hassle.
No problem. At least it wasn’t runaway italics. That really chafes my cheeks.
Wouldn’t want to do that!
I’m using a phone (not a particularly smart one) not a computer, so the opportunities for ‘text styling’ are severely limited.
I can only italicise in my dreams.
this programme was … so utterly and spectacularly dishonest that it resulted in the basest form of propaganda I think I have ever seen on air.
The IEA’s Ryan Bourne pokes through some of the programme’s many errors and distortions, in two parts, here and here.
“No problem. At least it wasn’t runaway italics. That really chafes my cheeks”
Hahaha. Plonkers who don’t understand HTML! Eejits all of ’em.
Scientist’s shirt clearly tells women that they are only good for display purposes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2014/11/13/why-everyone-is-freaking-out-about-what-shirt-a-scientist-wore/
From the article
Shirts covered in half-naked women should not be worn in the workplace, because it sends a clear message to the women around you — their bodies are really just there for display.
Aha, but what if your work place is Hooters?
This is one of those casual assumptions that drives me mad. Scantily clad woman on a shirt/poster/television equals YOU ARE ONLY GOOD FOR DISPLAY. That’s just the way it is, OK!. That’s the message it sends. Because I said so. If you disagree, you are a sexist and probably a misogynist.
For what it’s worth I think the guy has poor taste. But what’s worse is the amount of hand-wringing and posturing over a gaudy shirt.
“Runaway italics”?
Was that me? In which case, my apologies, landlord.
My wife’s damson vodka )of which there is plenty( makes for many poor keystrokes.
Yeah, I know.
*places alms in penitence jar and backs away expecting sword descending whilst whimpering “I’m not the little fish”*
hand-wringing and posturing over a gaudy shirt
I think Instapundit summed it up well:
I also like the term “social justice troll.” Captures the dynamic, I think.
places alms in penitence jar and backs away expecting sword descending whilst whimpering “I’m not the little fish”
Luckily, I’m infinitely corruptible. Hey, I could get used to my new tough nut image. I need tattoos and a leather jacket.
By the way, the spam filter is being a bit twitchy again. If anyone has trouble with comments not appearing, email me and I’ll prise them free.
Remember Dear Abbey chastising Einstein to comb his hair? Well, neither do I, but still.
I think I had a comment vanish, but it might not have been important. Maybe you can read it first before ushering it through.
That said.
I don’t like that dude’s shirt either. I don’t like the images of sci-fi bra-buster, six-pack abs, impossibly hot babes.
If one of the guys at the IT place where I work had worn such a thing, I’d be peeved. I don’t think it’s appropriate for the workplace.
But I also wouldn’t join an Internet wilding to humiliate the guy on the greatest day of his life. I wouldn’t insist that it’s what’s keeping women out of STEM. If he’s an Aspie (like most techies), he’s probably clueless about how such a shirt might affect a female co-worker. He has zero intent to offend, intimidate, or dehumanize.
If I said anything at all, I’d say it to him, in private, to avoid humiliation and suchlike.
Those feminists who made him cry on camera are bullies and sadists, not champions of women in science.
Push back twice as hard.
I think I had a comment vanish, but it might not have been important. Maybe you can read it first before ushering it through.
Dicentra, there’s nothing in the spam filter. Am mystified. Try posting it again?
I don’t like that dude’s shirt either. I don’t like the images of sci-fi bra-buster, six-pack abs, impossibly hot babes.
I’ve yet to see this point raised anywhere yet, but it seems to me to be highly likely that the shirt was actually a PR misfire on the part of ESA’s marketing department.
An organisation willing to shell out significant cash on this short film with Aidan ‘Littlefinger’ Gillen is clearly one that is very image conscious.
Taylor’s death metal style is very clearly his own obviously, but I don’t believe for a minute that ESA would have let him loose in front of a camera dressed as he was and showing his tattoos off unless they were actively trying to send a message – the message being “Scientists aren’t boring or wimpy. Look – this dude’s a top scientist and he’s got death metal tattoos and a Grant Morrison ‘Invisibles’ style Hawaiian shirt on – he just must be cool!”
They thought it would be appealing to young people to make them go into the sciences.
How were they to know that it’d get completely trashed by the poisonous barking of their Moral Superiors?
While we’re on the topic of Taylor’s sartorial choices, I notice that the usual suspects have managed to capitalise on the inevitable backlash they’ve had dished out to them as further “evidence” that life for middle class women in Western first world countries is one long continuous and terrifying ordeal on a par with life for women in the Congo.
For instance, Jezebel.com has a report titled Woman Gets Death Threats for Tweeting About Disliking A Dude’s Shirt.
When you scroll, down, you discover that what the writers have described as ‘death threats’ in the title turn out to be absolutely nothing of the sort.
I mean how are these – even the second one – even remotely credible as death threats?:
LOL so wearing a shirt with good looking women = women abuse? You’re an absolute MORON. Jump off a cliff. Please.
Please kill yourself
it is just a shirt, mi lady.
These people are just so utterly odious, I wish people would stop paying attention to their bleating and get on with their day.
When you scroll, down, you discover that what the writers have described as ‘death threats’ in the title turn out to be absolutely nothing of the sort.
Yes, but Jezebel doesn’t exist to impart either credible arguments or accurate information, or indeed a sense of proportion. It doesn’t exactly have a great track record on that front. It exists to bolster and propagate a worldview that’s pretentious, unrealistic and perpetually unhappy. The “poisonous barking” you mentioned. Apparently, that’s very in now.
For instance, when Glenn ‘Instapundit’ Reynolds criticised the hyperbolical indignation and reactiveness of the Atlantic’s Rose Eveleth, he was immediately and falsely accused of “doxing” Ms Eveleth and “putting women in fear for their safety.” So an article about practised irrationalism and dishonesty was met with more practised irrationalism and dishonesty. And the woman most responsible for distorting what actually happened and circulating actionable lies was Janet Stemwedel, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University. She specialises in ethics.
the message being “Scientists aren’t boring or wimpy. Look – this dude’s a top scientist and he’s got death metal tattoos and a Grant Morrison ‘Invisibles’ style Hawaiian shirt on – he just must be cool!”
And that message was immediately shot to hell when he broke down and cried over the criticism.
In a way I had a parallel experience last year. I had been wearing a tie to work every Tuesday (not a common thing for engineers to do anymore), taking a picture of it and posting it on Facebook. Well my edgy (female) cousin thought it would be cute for Christmas to send me one of those tacky painted ties with a quite buxom broad in all her glory painted on it. I of course wore it, took a picture, posted it on FB, and then being cursed with a couple ounces of common sense, wore a pull-over sweater over it. Needless to say, the comments from my female friends were quite interesting. In fact, think I just might repost…
Dicentra, there’s nothing in the spam filter. Am mystified. Try posting it again?
Come to think of it, I prolly hit Preview, then clicked away from the page without actually posting.
Meh. Not worth a rewrite. Sometimes it’s like that.