Readers may recall the comical Marxist Bea Campbell and her urge to see the population being enlisted by an egalitarian state, in which “emancipating governance” would be based, rather curiously, on greater state control. Ms Campbell’s other convictions include a belief that Erich Honecker was more “progressive” than David Cameron, and that families and civil society are, everywhere, “riven by power, patriarchy, conflict and the unequal distribution of resources and respect.” To which, less than seriously, I added:

It isn’t clear how one might ensure that “respect” is distributed in an egalitarian fashion. Perhaps the same approach could be applied to other inequities in life – fashion sense, talent or the possession of pleasing features.

Well. Here’s a lesson for us all. Don’t joke about these things.

Herb Deutsch steers us to the New York Times, where Professor Daniel S. Hamermesh has unearthed a shocking truth:

Being good-looking is useful in so many ways. In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse… and get better deals on mortgages.

Naturally, he asks:

How could we remedy this injustice?

A “radical solution” is proposed, albeit of a kind that crops up remarkably often:

Why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals? We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibited… We could even have affirmative-action programmes for the ugly.

Good luck marketing that. “Excuse me, madam. Has anyone told you that you bear a striking resemblance to a fire-damaged troll and may have special needs? Step this way…” Oh, come on. Who wouldn’t want to be regarded as officially ugly? Imagine the compensation claims by failed, overweight actors with dodgy teeth, and leather-faced strippers with asymmetrical breasts. Perhaps we should all apply for a job as the new face of Cosmetics Company X, then cry discrimination and threaten law suits when politely shown the door. It could be a lucrative hustle. And what about the short, the overly tall, the inarticulate or the shy? Do we draw a line somewhere, or do we go on indefinitely, compensating all possible categories of human imperfection?

For newcomers, some short films from the archives.

Temptation. Small children, marshmallows and delayed gratification.

Misremembered. Just whose memory is it?

Tempted by Sunlight. Two words. Goth Cruise.

500 Flavours of Soda. Carbonated pleasures.

The Whale That Exploded. It can happen, people.

Photograph of Jesus. Strange goings-on at the Hulton Photo Archive.

And by all means mosey through the greatest hits.

Thinking, it will be recalled, is the activity one performs before one has arrived at the answer.

Fabian Tassano ponders dangerous thought. And how to prevent it:

A mediocracy encourages people to react personally. Instead of considering whether something is true, people ask themselves, “how does this affect me? Should I have an emotional reaction to this?” An example. When I once suggested to my younger brother – who, like me, spent part of his education in the state sector – that state schools seem to be bad for many people, and to damage them psychologically, his response was “Thanks a lot, that makes me feel really great.” The only way my brother could apparently regard the hypothesis that state schools are awful was in terms of a possible insult to himself. I understand my brother’s reaction, and I suspect many alumni of state schools have a similar attitude. The trouble is, if no one who attended a state school is able to have an impersonal/objective approach, and be willing to admit it was damaging, those responsible for perpetuating the state school system can go on doing so unchecked, while claiming the moral high ground.

Regarding the opening quote, this, also spotted by Fabian, seems relevant. 

“Sensitivity” is letting other people’s reactions to you decide your behaviour. So instead of choosing to do what you think is right and then defending it, you say something or try out something or listen to other people demand something… and try to adapt to that.

Peter Robinson talks with Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield about grade inflation, illiberal “liberals” and the state of academia. In five parts:

1. Leaning left.

2. A culture of self-criticism.

3. Everyone is excellent.

4. Diversity in all things (except of course in thought).

5. “Sensitivity,” indignation and the right to be agreed with.

Michael Moynihan on doctrinaire feminists versus The Non-Leftist Other™. 

Strip it of its lame humour and we are left with gender studies Stalinism; feminism is the radical idea that women are people – with political views identical to my own. If you like to “kill stuff” – and I assume, with the Palin hunting reference, that also means animals – one cannot claim the feminist mantle. Do real feminists offer indulgences for those in remote parts of the world, where access to Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s is limited and killing stuff is normal? What about impoverished and oppressed women in, say, Afghanistan who haven’t the time for weekly meetings on anti-racism and criticism/self-criticism sessions on how to be a Bay Area humanitarian?

Charlotte Gore on stupid expectations. 

I invested a lot of time and effort in becoming a bit of a JavaScript Ninja. I could (and still can) make extremely advanced and graphically awesome User Interface widgets for websites. What I discovered is that however worthy this skill might be, there’s no bloody market for it… It turns out what is in demand are people with WordPress expertise, who can write plugins and customise themes to a professional standard. So, hey, I moved into that instead… Should I be entitled to claim unemployment benefit simply because no-one wants a JavaScript Ninja?

And, via Samizdata, Squander Two on asymmetrical warfare.  

Of course fighting out of uniform gives you a huge advantage; of course hiding amongst non-combatants gives you a huge advantage. Such tactics would give anyone — the British, the Israelis, the Americans — the same advantages, yet they don’t use them. There’s a reason why civilised people disallow such behaviour, and that is that every single time you step into battle disguised as just another member of the public, you make Bloody Sunday more likely.

Feel free to add your own.