Elsewhere (244)
David Rutz on the “woke eight-year-old” manoeuvre:
The phenomenon came to my attention via @Neontaster, who discovered this trend of eight-year-olds (or children of a similar age, depending on their Woke Quotients) whose opinions, shockingly, seem to perfectly mirror those of their progressive parents… Let’s state the obvious: When pundits tweet out these little stories, all they’re doing is sending out their own opinions, but doing so in a way that (a) makes them look like great parents for raising such emotionally advanced children, and (b) shields them from criticism. Because what kind of jerk is going to attack a child, for God’s sake?
And what kind of person, I wonder, would be that preening and dishonest. And while we ponder that.
Madeleine Kearns, a young Scottish woman, on a bewildering year at a ‘progressive’ New York university:
It was soon obvious to my fellow students that I was not quite with the programme. In a class discussion early in my first semester, I made the mistake of mentioning that I believed in objective standards in art. Some art is great, some isn’t, I said; not all artists are equally talented. This was deemed an undemocratic opinion and I was given a nickname: the cultural fascist. I’ve tried to take it affectionately.
Tim Newman on life skills and the lack thereof:
What isn’t normal is for a kid to run around swearing. Letting slip a swear word indicates the kid has his ears open. Running around swearing indicates his parents don’t care, and if they don’t care about his language you can be absolutely sure they don’t care about other things, some of which are essential to his development. A child who routinely uses bad language, especially in front of adults, is not going to do very well in life.
And again, entirely unrelated, of course, on polyamory and children:
Were any of these friends shagging either or both of your parents? I ask mainly to understand how you’ve turned out.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
The end of the constipation?
The Everyday Feminism membership page (http://everydayfeminism.com/membership/ ) has three buttons proudly stating, “Sign-up me up!”
Aw.
“I’m sorry, Brenda. I’m going to have to rush you.”
“Is it (a) brain damage, or (b) intersectional feminism?”
“Is it (a) brain damage, or (b) intersectional feminism?”
Alas, that is a chicken or egg question.
champ,
Yeah, great minds think (sorta) alike. I do recall GR’s article there, but his idea would likely get passed on to the consumer. It would be fun to hear these leftists admit such, though. What I want is to see them directly, out of their own pockets, pay back the money the taxpayers put up to build the venues these clowns need to make their money. The movie people may not use such forums, however they could get hit based on the tax incentives that governments supply to lure the production companies in.
@WTP,
Yeah, the movie comapnies have a sweet gig going on with the tax breaks that they semi-extort from the states and cities. I.E., if you don’t keep giving us our tax breaks, we will move to a more accommodating state/city…and you will lose all of these supposed high-paying jobs in your state/city…
Sit in productive discomfort.
Operating a double drum compactor was the first thing that came to my mind.
There needs to be a tax on athletes, entertainers and such. Especially here in the US where the building where these clowns make their millions and millions are funded by tax . . .
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sunday-reflection-repeal-the-hollywood-tax-cuts/article/2503964 . . .
Of course, yes, with film companies there is that bit about . . .
. . . if you don’t keep giving us our tax breaks, we will move to a more accommodating state/city…and you will lose all of these supposed high-paying jobs in your state/city… . .
Yes, good old traditional free market economics, that . . .
Entirely Just The Same, as long as assorted tax resetting is being considered, where those with the massive and ongoing tax break state an opinion and get yelled at for stating that opinion, in the U.S. there is indeed a rather massive market that has been getting absolutely major tax breaks for years, and getting rather criticized for quite a few rather major financial excesses in the process.
If the U.S. absolutely dropped the tax break on all faith based organizations, regardless of what faith or organization or individual, that could open up all sorts of things . . . .
Those Everyday Feminists of pallor should stop treating blacks as if they have “special needs”
Currently doing the rounds:
Some of the thread below it may entertain. You can practically hear the collective ovulation.
“Forget all the bad connotations of socialism,” he added, casually. “Forget about the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe… forget about that.”
The Labour Party’s Executive Director of Strategy and Communications would like us to forget events fore and aft of the fall of the Berlin Wall so he can put his own version of events in place. Luckily we have a German to put the record straight.
The Labour Party’s Executive Director of Strategy and Communications would like us to forget events fore and aft of the fall of the Berlin Wall so he can put his own version of events in place.
Seumas Milne is a real piece of work. His bizarre mental processes would fill an entire textbook.
The signees, many from the anthropology department, “each committed to combating white supremacy in our pedagogy,”
Anthropology started going downhill after This man re-invented it as a pseudo science.
As I’ve noted many times, it’s curious just how often leftist ‘activism’ is difficult to distinguish from a mental health issue.
Pretend to be badass at riot, get arrested, then whine you need your “service animal.”
Yes, good old traditional free market economics, that . . .
Not sure what you’re saying here but picking and choosing winning and losing industries is not the government’s job. On top of that, it forces other tax payers to pick up the slack by means other than free market economics.
Entirely Just The Same, as long as assorted tax resetting is being considered, where those with the massive and ongoing tax break state an opinion and get yelled at for stating that opinion, in the U.S. there is indeed a rather massive market that has been getting absolutely major tax breaks for years, and getting rather criticized for quite a few rather major financial excesses in the process.
If the U.S. absolutely dropped the tax break on all faith based organizations, regardless of what faith or organization or individual, that could open up all sorts of things . . . .
Entirely Not Just The Same. The original point here is that these socialist entertainment clowns make millions while taxpayers who have no interest in what they are selling, subsidize their income by paying for venues that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Faith institutions, not to say that there aren’t exceptions, do considerable work for the benefit of their communities. I don’t see significant numbers of faith-based institutions profiting off of the capitalist system while simultaneously calling for its downfall. But maybe out there on the left coast, it’s more obvious. Either way, not the point. And Not Entirely Just The Same.
You can practically hear the collective ovulation.
Heh. One gets the impression that women prefer “toxic” masculine men over metrosexuals in skinny jeans and ironic beards.
Has anyone ever met a “metrosexual”? I haven’t and don’t know anyone who has. I think it was a giant practical joke by the news media.
Seumas Milne is a real piece of work. His bizarre mental processes would fill an entire textbook.
He and Owen Jones…
Has anyone ever met a “metrosexual”? I haven’t and don’t know anyone who has. I think it was a giant practical joke by the news media.
Were somewhat thick in Orlando. Worked with a couple of guys who would fit the bill. Still see a few downtown.
They morphed into
hipsters
I stand corrected.
Yes, good old traditional free market economics, that . . .
Not sure what you’re saying here . . .
Oh, saying here, saying there, saying all over . . . .
. . . but picking and choosing winning and losing industries is not the government’s job.
Well, very specifically, that is indeed one of the government’s jobs . .
But generally speaking, quite exactly. And because, generally speaking, picking and choosing winning and losing industries is not the government’s job, one does indeed thus notice that whether film industry or faith industry, giving a tax break has always been and will remain the exact same tax break.
Because they are the same, as you basically point out yourself, the original point here is that these faith based clowns make millions while taxpayers who have no interest in what they are selling, subsidize their income by paying for venues that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Film and theatre institutions, not to say that there aren’t exceptions, do considerable work for the entertainment of their communities. I don’t see significant numbers of entertainment institutions profiting off of the capitalist system while simultaneously calling for its downfall.
—Of the last two links, from the former:
From the latter:
Soooo . . . there are indeed quite genuine religious organizations and individuals, as opposed to the merely faith based variety, and those genuinely religious occurrences are to their local communities exactly the same thing as the dinner theatre actor with a day job.
As far as an industry benefiting from tax breaks, I can indeed appreciate that you don’t want the good Reverend J. Worthington Foulfellow and his tax benefits to be the same thing as Patrick Stewart shoving his feet in his mouth to his knees, but the reality of that will never change.
They morphed into hipsters
Quite.
A sequence being preppys, then yuppys, “metrosexual” being one such phase, and then hipsters, and they will shift off to something else . . .
Hal, that was one great big pile of TL;DR. Simple questions. Yes or no.
1) Should governments be picking winning/losing industries by subsidizing one kind over another via special tax incentives? Yes or no.
2) Is a religious institution, ones that provides aid and comfort to the poor, downtrodden, what have you (and not that I agree with the approaches taken by most of them myself), on par with a multi billion dollar film industry? Is this fundamental to the argument you are trying to make?
Hal, that was one great big pile of TL;DR.
Or in simple terms, nuance.
1) Should governments be picking winning/losing industries by subsidizing one kind over another via special tax incentives? Yes or no.
Ah, but you’re extremely aware that you’re not asking a yes or no question. Nuance again. On my part, being conservative rather than mere right wing, the very easy followup questions are which industries, and why should they be getting a tax break? As I note above, there can be very definite tactical and strategic reasons for providing very major forms of assorted protections.
As I noted in a conversation yesterday evening, for rather awhile assorted airlines were very able to cover all sorts of small airports and provide all sorts of very nice bells and whistles, because there were, more or less, a very definite base of mandating regulations, and then each airline would build from there . . . and then lots of deregulation occurred, following which, moo lots of baaa things shifted about mooooo, where I haven’t done any flying for rather a few years, but baaaaa I’ve read that mooo the, ah, atmosphere, has moo changed just a little bit.
2) Is an entertainment institution, ones that provides aid and comfort to the poor, downtrodden, what have you (and not that I agree with the approaches taken by most of them myself), on par with a multi billion dollar faith industry? Is this fundamental to the argument you are trying to make?
That was easy, wasn’t it. And rather telling of how easy to note that a tax break is a tax break.
Quite basically, to recap;
A) Patrick Stewart, a member of the entertainment hindustry manages to shove both feet into his mouth up to the knees.
B) Given Champ’s note pointing to a call to punitively raise taxes—one ‘o’ them left wing things, ain’t that???—You have a proclamation of What I want is to see them directly, out of their own pockets, pay back the money the taxpayers put up to build the venues these clowns need to make their money.
C) At that point, or so, I note that, well, actually, the issue with going after the secular entertainment industry is the several billions of dollars that are produced by that industry which help all sorts of people all over the place.
D) And then if you really want to go after tax breaks given to an industry, and make ’em pay their own way instead of mooching off of the tax payers, there is the utterly well documented example of the faith entertainment industry.
—And it seems to be D) here that you’re suddenly sidestepping on, apparently trying to argue that, well, actually, a tax break isn’t a tax break if it’s o’ them special tax breaks, glory hallelujah, can ah get an Amen!.
Hal, I know what nuance is. It’s that thing that BS likes to pretend to be. So again, TL;’DR. Though any answer to question #1 other than “no” is a “yes”. When governments attempt to pick winners and losers, they do so with other peoples’ money. This right here is the fundamental problem with government meddling in the economy. The taxpayer is stuck with the cost and the risk and the politicians claim the glory if it even sorta works and the more numerous failures are either ignored or blamed on others. Opposition to such is not “right-wing”, it is simply classical liberal. And especially in regards to the purchase of sports arenas and such. The economic impact studies are mostly BS that ignore opportunity costs.
As for a tax break is a tax break regarding Hollywood vs. churches, no it is not. While I have plenty of reservations about how some churches spend their money, they for the most part perform charitable works. I am not much of a church goer but I have worked with churches in this regard. To put them in the same category with the entertainment industry, one that has done much to undermine and destroy Western Civilization, when churches and synagogs and such work to provide the very backbone on which much of Western Civilization has been constructed.
As for glory hallelujah, can ah get an Amen!, not being a proper Christian myself, let me use the more liberal faculties at my disposal to say, F*** you.
Hal, I know what nuance is.
Excellent!!—Now demonstrate.
It’s that thing that BS likes to pretend to be. So again, TL;’DR.
Right, starting with As for a tax break is a tax break regarding Hollywood vs. churches, no it is not. and continuing all the way through to has been constructed.
Because, as you point out,
So; Tax break or no?
—Barring strategic considerations, where both the secular and the faith based entertainment industries fail to get firearms onto the battlefields and therefore don’t qualify.
As for glory hallelujah, can ah get an Amen!, not being a proper Christian myself, let me use the more liberal faculties at my disposal to say, F*** you.
Cognitive Dissonance.