Elsewhere (202)
Thomas Sowell on dubious graduation messages:
Two themes seem to dominate Commencement speeches. One is shameless self-advertising by people in government, or in related organisations supported by the taxpayers or donors, saying how much nobler it is to be in “public service” than working in business or other “selfish” activities. In other words, the message is that it is morally superior to be in organisations consuming output produced by others than to be in organisations which produce that output. Moreover, being morally one-up is where it’s at. The second theme of many Commencement speakers, besides flattering themselves that they are in morally superior careers, is to flatter the graduates that they are now equipped to go out into the world as “leaders” who can prescribe how other people should live. In other words, young people, who in most cases have never had the sobering responsibility and experience of being self-supporting adults, are to tell other people — who have had that responsibility and that experience for years — how they should live their lives.
Michael Strickland learns that interracial smiling can be a sign of “white fragility” and therefore proof of racism, at least when people of pallor do it:
They continue to ponder if they are racist for crossing the street the wrong way, or when they smile at people of colour. “Am I doing the ‘white guy smile’?” asks one of the students.
Robert Tracinski on the vanity and incompetence of Mrs Bernie Sanders:
While her husband has been out promising everyone free college, [Mrs Sanders] used to run a $25,000-per-year private college — which just announced it will be closing down due to the crushing weight of debt it incurred under her leadership. The debt was backed by fraudulent claims about millions of dollars in pledged donations. The case of Burlington College is a nice little microcosm of what we can expect from her husband’s economic agenda: grandiose schemes for expansion and improvement and lavish benefits offered to everyone — based on lies and financed by reckless, unsustainable borrowing, resulting in eventual collapse. It’s a microcosm of socialism in one other respect, too, which is that Jane Sanders and her friends and family did pretty well skimming the gravy off the top of the system while she ran it into the ground.
And Katherine Timpf on what that student debt is getting you:
A professor at Santa Monica College took a group of students on an “EcoSexual Sextravaganza” trip earlier this month, during which they “married the ocean”… The students were specifically instructed to think of this marriage as one involving sex, and encouraged to “consummate” the marriage and “make love to the water” by sticking parts of their bodies into it.
Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
I find her arguments compelling and wish to subscribe to her newsletter.
More on his visit here and here. The humiliated protestors screaming their hatred of Milo and promptly being shut down by one of their own favourite chants is quite amusing.
Yes, it’s interesting how voluntary support, given willingly, is viewed as a kind of moral contamination, something to shun ostentatiously. But taking funds that have been confiscated from strangers, from people who may not wish to support your project, and who may find it worthless and absurd, somehow this signals the purest of motives, a higher moral plane.
I used to argue with “Angela” about this. She mounted a robust defence of the state-funding of the arts, saying “artists should not have to live in poverty”. Which might be debatable, just. Maybe. But what she didn’t mention is these state funds are, in part, paying for what looks to be the social life of her, her (ex)husband, her mates, and various lovers which they all share between them. That they “run” these social events serve only to inflate their egos and their sense of entitlement.
She mounted a robust defence of the state-funding of the arts, saying “artists should not have to live in poverty”. Which might be debatable, just.
If, say, I devoted my waking hours to making huge and ugly porcelain shoes that no-one wanted to buy, and went on doing it anyway, I doubt I could credibly claim that my lack of sales was a matter of great social injustice. It would merely be a matter of very poor judgement and comical obstinacy.
It would merely be a matter of very poor judgement and comical obstinacy.
Indeed. But there is an argument that a wealthy society should *maybe* pay for *exceptionally* talented people to engage in activities which are culturally of benefit but not commercially, i.e. the study of philosophy, or ancient Hebrew texts. This *maybe* could be extended to pay for *exceptionally* talented artists. Perhaps. The argument is there to be made. For example, if a state-run hospital opens in a certain district, is there a case for the walls to be decorated with paintings produced by a talented local artist? The debate is there to be had.
But these talentless wasters like Angela and her mates use this question to justify participation in an industry which campaigns for and receives public money granted by people just like her, which siphons money away from genuine artists – even assuming those genuine artists should be subsidised in the first place.
But these talentless wasters like Angela and her mates use this question to justify participation in an industry which campaigns for and receives public money granted by people just like her,
And so, inevitably, coerced public subsidy becomes an institutional hustle and a license for attitudes like this. Or like this.
As I’ve mentioned before, one of my local publicly-funded galleries – a glorified coffee shop for two dozen middle-class lefties – can be relied on to disappoint any aesthetic expectation – and to go on disappointing precisely because there’s no obvious mechanism for correction. No box office takings to fret about, no bums on seats, no commercial metrics. If no-one turns up or likes a thing, or if they find it ludicrous and insulting, it has no consequence for those involved. And so the featured artists, or pseudo-artists, often chosen for their political noises rather than any discernible talent, can expect taxpayers to serve as patrons, over and over again, whether they wish to or not, while being immune to the patron’s customary discrimination between promising art and opportunist flim-flam.
Being indulged with an exemption from the preferences of one’s supposed audience and customers is an arrangement that in practice most often rewards and encourages, not great art – (or inspired innovation, or better phones or better washing machines) – but the peddling of drek. As illustrated here many, many times. Art, even good art, which is rare and not always agreed upon, is not an emergency service or part of the welfare state. And it seems to me that what “Angela” and her peers are demanding is rather like a caste system, in which self-appointed, socially and politically homogeneous Brahmin are to be exempt from normal social and economic proprieties, normal determinations of value and merit. Because they imagine they’re above such things.
[ Added: ]
And regarding who gets to choose those deemed worthy of exemption and subsidy, see also this and the subsequent discussion.
And it seems to me that what “Angela” and her peers are demanding is rather like a caste system, in which self-appointed, socially and politically homogeneous Brahmin are to be exempt from normal social and economic proprieties, normal determinations of value and merit. Because they imagine they’re above such things.
Exactly. And I don’t think it ever occurred to them that they weren’t artists in the sense that somebody with talent, skill, and a portfolio is.
The commencement address to beat all commencement addresses
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/alexandersolzhenitsynharvard.htm
From the reportage on Milo’s visit to UCLA (Emphasis supplied):
One protester was dressed in a Native American costume, and he spoke to the crowd through a megaphone.
“I’m tired of people making fun of me and hurting my feelings.
Well, then stop auditioning for the part of an Hekawi chieftain on a remake of F Troop“.
This guy in the red loin cloth?
And again, note this:
It isn’t about “social justice.” It’s about the thrill of mob power.
dicentra: “I gave my cat a bath the other day…they love it. He sat there, he enjoyed it, it was fun for me. The fur would stick to my tongue, but other than that…”
– Steve Martin
[My other favourite Steve is ‘The Stevening’. Or ‘The Stevil’. Or whatever he’s calling himself these days]
My other favourite Steve is ‘The Stevening’. Or ‘The Stevil’. Or whatever he’s calling himself these days
For God’s sake, don’t tell him. He’ll be asking for a cut of the door. Or worse, the bar.
And the protesters win again. They block the entrance to the building, why didn’t the people wishing to attend the event just push on through them? Were the police protecting the protesters? How is this any different than someone blocking my access to any public space, a sidewalk, a park, etc.? They should be charged with assault.
And furthermore, socialism is theft.
And the protesters win again.
Well, a lot of people who’d queued for an hour or more were prevented from hearing a talk they’d travelled to attend. A talk, for God’s sake. No tormenting of blind orphans or beating of kittens. Just two people talking onstage. It’s hard to see much sanity in wilfully thwarting random members of the public in this way. After all, the talk went on, was watched online by most of those who’d been prevented from getting in, and was publicised widely, and watched online widely, precisely because of the protestors’ attempts to obstruct and disrupt, and the fuss they made.
I mean, if some ludicrous leftist figure were holding court at the local university, as is often the case, I can’t readily imagine what would make me spend my evening trying to prevent people from getting into the venue and hearing that person speak, however much I might find their views ridiculous or objectionable. It’s not something that sane people tend to do. And so the protestors’ behaviour only makes sense if you assume a less noble motive than the one being stated, i.e., the thrill of frustrating people and feeling powerful.
a lot of people who’d queued for an hour or more were prevented from hearing a talk they’d travelled to attend. A talk, for God’s sake. No tormenting of blind orphans or beating of kittens. Just two people talking onstage.
Every time they do this someone decides to vote Trump.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/31/donald-trump-politically-correct-speech-codes-column/85163810/
Every time they do this someone decides to vote Trump.
Lots of someones, I should think.
why didn’t the people wishing to attend the event just push on through them?
I think it’s important that they don’t. Conservatives must be seen as the sane, peaceful ones in order for things to swing back in our direction.
It is kind of fun to think about grabbing a few of my larger, meaner, friends and pitching a few of them down the stairs though…
I think it’s important that they don’t. Conservatives must be seen as the sane, peaceful ones in order for things to swing back in our direction.
Which is what conservative people have been doing for 20-30 years. Much akin to the George Will/Karl Rove mentality of “don’t go to war with people who buy ink by the barrel”, it’s a loser. I’m not advocating breaking heads, I am advocating exercising one’s rights to attend a public event. Get a few larger people like myself in front and just move through the the crowd that is blocking you. This can be done. I’m not one for these political rallies and such but I do believe that one has a right, an obligation even to exercise such a right when threatened, to attend a public event. Sure, people were able to watch on TV and Internet, but I don’t think that’s the point based on where things have gone in this country.
Engage Conspiracy Mode!
“A candidate might muster 500 supporters to a speech on a college campus, but if Adam sent just five recruits to demonstrate outside the auditorium, he discovered that the media would give equal coverage to both the rally and the demonstration.”
Every time an anti-Trump protestor throws a stone, a shitlord is born.
I’m not advocating breaking heads, I am advocating exercising one’s rights to attend a public event. Get a few larger people like myself in front and just move through the the crowd that is blocking you. This can be done.
WTP, I don’t disagree in principle. The problem is, the game is rigged. There is no doubt in my mind that if the protesters described at Milo’s latest event had attempted to push through, two things would have happened:
1) The would have been arrested on some bogus charge of “inciting violence,” “disturbing the peace,” “assault,” or some such (Remember during the recent DePaul University debacle, the Police Commissioner was connected to the protesters); and
2) The media would have played the “Milo’s minions are evil” angle to the extreme.
These people want a forceful response. My emotional side agrees with you in spades, but the realities argue for a different course of action.
Sadly, the day is quickly approaching, I fear, where social mores and decorum have lost all meaning. The Leftists who’ve relied upon “polite society” to ignore their trespasses will be very surprised when that day arrives.
Deep Thoughts™ from the Libertarian candidate:
“And look, libertarians agree with socialism as long as it’s voluntary,” he said.
OK.
He’ll be asking for a cut of the door. Or worse, the bar.
Oh, do a quick bit of work with a chainsaw. He’ll be happy and you can announce you’re being artistic . . . .
What Sherman said.
We have to keep turning the other cheek until they actually hit one of them; after that happens I promise I will be out in front with you, WTP.
The problem is, the game is rigged… during the recent DePaul University debacle, the Police Commissioner was connected to the protesters
That is correct. Another example is the result of the recent vote in Austria which was declared won by a leftist Greenie after the mail-in ballots reversed the 52%-48% edge that the right-wing candidate Norbert Hofer had after the regular ballots were counted. The self-proclaimed elite that is running our institutions will stop at nothing to protect its sinecures.
Seems apposite.
Via dicentra.
The problem is, the game is rigged.
Then stop playing their game. So long as they act and we cry foul, we are reacting to their game. Stop playing defense. How long do you continue to turn the other cheek? When they stand in your way you have every right to move them. Conceding is not winning. Again, I am not advocating cracking heads. I am advocating, literally, pushing back.
Again in reference to turning the other cheek, that girl at DePaul snatched the microphone out of Milo’s hand. She shook her fist right in his face. If the police and government will not act to protect the citizens, they must be held accountable. If they refuse to respond, the citizens have the right, and I would say the duty, to provide their own security.
WTP, I truly understand and appreciate what you’re saying. The problem is confrontation, preferably physical, is their game. Again, I don’t disagree with you. But is Milo or Christina Hoff Summers going to come find you when the Chicago PD takes you away? I doubt it.
It’s going to take more than just a few shoves to accomplish what you’re talking about.
Yeah…looking at the picture you posted, I’m really not getting a sense that physical confrontation is the game of those pajama boys and girls. As for fearing the police, well good thing MLK never worried about such. These cops, even the Chicago ones, are nowhere near the kind that he faced. The left is not afraid of the police, and they are the ones doing the assaulting and obstructing. I would like to see how such a case would really play out. I am really curious as to why we hear nothing about Milo or Brietbart suing DePaul for breach of contract or some such.
Seems apposite.
Also this disturbing news.
Meanwhile, at Yale, Students Tell English Profs to Stop Teaching English: Too Many White Male Poets.
Yes, the faculty must let students decide which courses are mandatory. What is it about the course that has given them a case of the ass ?
Because if one learns English, one then can recognize the arglebargle of Useless Studies and will then realize that the way they use words is meaningless, I guess.
“We have spoken. We are speaking. Pay attention.”
Y’all need to STFD and STFU and take the damn class, it is obvious you need it.
Diploma mill wallpaper . . .
. . . and being triggered.
One of our local SJWs (a LGBTQI activist no less, they’ll run out of letters soon) has been suspended by her uni:
https://newmatilda.com/2016/06/01/latrobe-suspends-safe-schools-co-founder-and-academic-roz-ward-for-criticising-racist-australian-flag/
Let’s start that debate:
I think we need to write those kids a check.
Franklin Graham Wants Bella Abzug To Speak Up For Women– But There’s Just One Problem
Students… are ill-prepared to take higher-level courses relating to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, ability, or even to engage with critical theory
Perhaps someone should tell these clowns that Angry Studies and “critical theory” are, to borrow a phrase, the lowest difficulty setting on campus. Devised by, and for, credulous mediocrities.
We have spoken. We are speaking. Pay attention.
Having chosen to take a degree in English literature – a language originated on a smallish island in the northern hemisphere and developed by the pallid Englishmen who lived there – the students seem upset that the key figures in the history of that language are very often pallid Englishmen. As if this were some kind of surprise, indeed an outrage. The students also seem to imagine that, for instance, Shakespeare’s work utterly ignores issues of gender, sexuality, race and disability. Which suggests they really ought to try reading some of it. Or does the content not actually matter, just whether the author’s skin matches that of the indignant students?
In the name of diversity.
. . . the students seem upset that the key figures in the history of that language are very often pallid Englishmen.
—Yes, Prime Minister
“Shakespeare’s work utterly ignores issues of gender, sexuality, race and disability.”
Wasn’t Richard III a humpty-backed Quasimodo?
Has anyone else seen this car-crash?
https://news.vice.com/video/jeremy-corbyn-the-outsider
Has anyone else seen this car-crash?
Seumas has spotted something.
By the looks of it, it must be a member of the actual working class.
What?
Regarding David Taylor’s link and the rayciss Australian flag, I was a bit puzzled why or how the flag could be rayciss.
Fortunately one “Bill Logan” in the comments section provided the answer:
Clear indeed; I am now shocked and offended by the Flag of Alaska with its Big Dipper and Polaris, the symbolism of which must, by the same reasoning, be all about Alaska as part of The Great Satan dominating the entire northern hemisphere.
Don’t get me started about those perfidious Brazilians who apparently flaunt the domination of half the universe with their flag.
Where are the…Bella Abzugs
I’m not sure what the quoted writer is complaining about. I’m pretty sure there was only the *one* Bella Abzug, and thus using her name as a plural isn’t a call for the woman herself, but rather for her modern-day equivalents.
I could likewise ask “where are the Frederick Douglass’, the Martin Luther Kings” etc., and the question would be perfectly valid, despite the metabolically-challenged condition of those two gentlemen.
‘Seumas has spotted something’.
Oh that bit is priceless.
Steptoe and team are all preparing for PMQs. Iain Duncan-Smith has just resigned, nominally over disability benefits, and George Osborne’s budget was in trouble. During the course of the meeting Steptoe insisted that he would stick to questions quoting Amnesty International over the refugee crisis, saying words to the effect of ‘It’s not my job to embarrass the government on this’.
He’s the Leader of the Opposition, by the way. Part 1 of the job description being ‘Take every opportunity to embarrass and discredit the government that is offered to you on a plate’.
That look from Seumas Milne comes from realising that the boss still wants to stick with the full frontal assault on the enemy’s defences – minus a preparatory bombardment – even though someone’s discovered a way of taking it from the flank.
If even Milne thinks you’re a useless wanker, the chances are you might actually be one.
Stuck-Record said…
“Pointing out inconsistencies in social justice warriors leads you into bizarre logical Möbius strip thought patterns.
One. Prisons should be abolished because they are sexist and racist.
Two. There is a rape epidemic in society generally, and further education specifically.
Three. The conviction rate for rapists is appallingly low. It needs to be increased.
Four. More rapists (men) should therefore be arrested, charged, convicted and –
Five.. What? Oh yes. I forgot. We closed the prisons.
Six. We should reopen all the prisons…”
Wishing to amend…
Six. Start the bonfires/ovens.
Meanwhile there ARE serious moves afoot to close all womens’ prisons in the UK.
I think I’ve mentioned her before but Scottish Laurie Penny-wannabe Vonny Moyes is on top form telling the world about the language of menstruation
https://twitter.com/scotnational/status/739530279849721857