Posted on | March 28, 2015 | 44 Comments
The Independent, a left-wing British newspaper, published an anonymous student’s diatribe about “injustice” at universities:
‘White men should never hold elected
positions in British universities again’
University is supposed to be amazing, a transformative experience which is informed by student unions across the country. Yet people don’t give a toss about their student unions, no one cares about the NUS [National Union of Students], and activism is dying at all but a few hardcore universities. This generation of students has been pissed on by the government and fees, and privatisation, and all anyone seems to want to do is roll over and let it happen.
Do you know why this is? It’s because our universities and student unions are too similar to our government; they are too stunted by white men. White men might want to appropriate injustice as theirs, desperate for something to struggle against, but it’s a hobby they’ll pick up and drop as soon as the first comfortable finance job beckons them over.
We need to ban white men and their activism dilettantism from student unions. We need powerful women and minority ethnic people to bring their passion back to the heart of student politics. Being a student union president should no longer be a place for privileged whiteboys to swing their d–ks around before graduating into a world that is in no way affected by what they claim to fight for.
More importantly, we obviously live in a world that looks favourably on white men. In order to bring about change in our racist and sexist society, it must start in our universities. If women and minority ethnic people were in positions of leadership across all universities in the country, we would have a diverse graduating class of future leaders in every industry.
“Oh but, it’s racist to ban someone on the basis of their skin colour, and sexist to ban them on their gender,” cry the assembly chorus of confused souls trying to turn the language of progress into a weapon to further entrench the establishment. It’s not. You’re at university, go and ask a humanities professor. Learn something.
White men have had the last several millennia in charge, and it’s been a s–tshow from start to finish. A new generation of powerful women and minority ethnic people is ready to lead and change. It is time for you to bow down.
Posted on | March 28, 2015 | 5 Comments
If the motives to wipe the hard drive on Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server weren’t already crystal clear, a new development last night put it in Ultra HD. Gawker’s Jeff Girth and Sam Biddle uncovered a secret, private intelligence network run by Sidney Blumenthal for Hillary’s benefit, apart from the State Department’s own Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Hackers got e-mails that went through Hillary’s private server between her and Blumenthal, e-mails that show her own private intel group was also warning her that Libya was collapsing in the weeks and months prior to the sacking of the consulate in Benghazi . . .
Predictably, Hillary deleted the evidence on her private server.
Obstruction of justice is like a career with these people.
Posted on | March 28, 2015 | 30 Comments
by Smitty (via HotAir)
Dismissing the liberal arts seems to have become a litmus test for conservative politicians.
Earlier this month, addressing the issue of student debt, Sen. Marco Rubio joked that students ought to know in advance “whether it’s worth borrowing $40,000 to be a Greek philosophy major. Because the market for Greek philosophers is tight.” His remarks echo North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, who in 2013 mocked liberal-arts courses and said, “I don’t want to subsidize [a major] that’s not going to get someone a job.” Gov. Rick Scott of Florida and former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas have passed legislation encouraging students to major in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) disciplines rather than the liberal arts.
There is no shame in the liberal arts per se. It’s their inversion into a quagmire of illiberality that we denounce:
Can we just stipulate that anyone using the word “narrative” in a political context is probably a Godless Commie sodomite & worth ignoring?
— IGotOverMachoGrande (@smitty_one_each) March 28, 2015
Everything about modern liberalism is about destroying the mind, as though the goal of education were some infantile, Commie Zen. Or maybe breeding immature dependency upon the uber-State is just a Cloward-Piven driven plantation management strategy.
Thomas Jefferson recognized that a broad education could ensure the survival of the new democracy. He recognized that “even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” To defend against this threat, Jefferson wanted “to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purpose.”
Alive Today, one suspects that Thomas Jefferson would arrive at UVA armed with a rubber chicken and flog-march President Teresa Sullivan right off campus. Amiright? If the ridiculous insult to education, justice, and rationality itself perpetrated at UVA bears any useful fruit, may mark the turning point when we start to flush our institutions of those inimical to learning.
If my little guys want to study liberal arts, the short list includes Hillsdale.
Update, from the comments:
. . .those who obtain degrees today in the liberal arts disciplines are not thinkers; they are mere parrots capable of rote recitation of whatever lunacy their professors insisted the learn.
Societal improvement shall commence subsequent to the purge of this intellectual deadwood.
Posted on | March 28, 2015 | 2 Comments
Ain’t It Interesting Barack,
All International Intelligence Battling,
Another Inimical Institution Begets
Agression. Instinctively, Intrisically: Bejing.
Posted on | March 28, 2015 | 134 Comments
A California jury on Friday rejected the claim by Silicon Valley executive Ellen Pao that her rights had been violated by her former employer, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byer. And this verdict is a teachable moment.
The modern concept of employee “rights” is antithetical to economic liberty. Employment in a free-market system is always a matter of voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. You need a job. You apply to an employer. Among many applicants for the job, the employer chooses you. This is the basis of a contractual agreement: You do the work, the company pays you. It’s simple.
If you subsequently become dissatisfied with your job, you can quit and go work someplace else. If the company becomes dissatisfied with your work, they can fire you. This is also simple.
Oh, but you’ve got “rights,” you say. So if you don’t get a promotion you want, or you don’t think you’re treated fairly otherwise, you’re going to file a discrimination lawsuit.
Might as well get the word LOSER tattooed on your forehead.
Winners don’t file lawsuits. Winners don’t whine about “discrimination.” You know why? Because winners win. Even if, in the course of a lifelong career of winning, the winner suffers an occasional defeat, the winner just grins and moves on with his life. Company X doesn’t treat him right? They don’t appreciate his valuable skills? Fuck Company X.
The winner will find a job at Company Y or, perhaps, he’ll walk out and start his own company. Life’s too short to waste time working for a bunch of losers who don’t appreciate quality work.
If Ellen Pao was such a hotshot in the venture capital field, don’t you think there would have been other companies eager to hire her away from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byer? It’s a very lucrative field, and if Ellen Pao was such a goddamned rising star, it stands to reason that some other firm would have jumped at the chance to hire her. So if she felt she was a victim of discrimination, all Ellen Pao would have had to do is to talk to somebody at a rival VC company, “Hey, Kleiner passed me over for promotion. You guys hiring?” Boom — they’d leap at the opportunity to have this young genius Ellen Pao on their payroll.
That’s didn’t happen, did it?
Hell, no, it didn’t happen, because Ellen Pao is a loser.
The world doesn’t owe you a living. No employer is obligated to hire you or give you a promotion. Ellen Pao’s claim that she was a victim of “gender discrimination” was just a typical loser’s way of rationalizing her own failure. And the lawyers who thought they could get rich off her case are nothing but greedy parasites exploiting “equal opportunity” nonsense. Pao and her lawyers sued for $16 million and they’re walking away without a nickel, and if they’d gotten a nickel that would have been five cents more than what they deserved. Fuck you, losers.
UPDATE: David Graham at the Atlantic:
The verdict is the culmination of a three-year case in which Pao said she’d been denied a promotion and then fired, and that she’d been retaliated against after complaining about discrimination. Her suit opened up a range of questions about the culture of tech investing and Silicon Valley more broadly. . . .
She says she was pressured into an affair with a colleague, and when she broke off the affair, was punished. She was denied a promotion and then fired.
The case she later brought was seen as an important moment for tech, long a place where men got ahead by default and women were outnumbered and often felt marginalized. . . .
Pao couldn’t convince a jury to side with her, but the case forced Silicon Valley’s widespread gender inequality out into the open, and put specific instances of harassment into the court record. As my colleague Olga Khazan wrote, the system as it stands is stacked against women.
How many ways can I say “bullshit”? Any high-stakes, highly competitive business environment is likely to be male-dominated and if women feel “marginalized” in such an environment, whose fault is that? There are nevertheless females who flourish in such environments, however much they may be disadvantaged and outnumbered. To talk about “gender inequality,” to claim that men get ahead “by default” in such environments, is a misleading waste of words. The company is competing in a market; if the company is successful — and Kleiner has been vastly successful — that success justifies its policies, and the wise employee is the one who adapts best to the company’s policies.
If you don’t like the policies at Kleiner, don’t work for Kleiner.
Also, don’t tell me you were “pressured into an affair.” That’s another typical loser rationalization. Ellen Pao rolled the dice — gambling that she could fuck her way to a promotion — and she lost that bet. Period. End of sentence.
UPDATE II: Phil McG in the comments links to a Vanity Fair profile of Pao and her husband and comments:
Meet the new Affirmative Action elite. They go to Princeton and Harvard, then earn millions of dollars. But as soon as some minor setback happens to them, it turns out that they were poor wretched victims of racist or sexist discrimination all along!
The Ivy League elite of Special Snowflakes.
UPDATE III: Here is a Business Insider profile of the major personalities involved in the Pao lawsuit. The man with whom Pao had an affair in 2006, Ajit Nazre, also allegedly hit on another woman at the firm. All in all, this story is worthy of a Tom Wolfe novel.
Posted on | March 27, 2015 | 60 Comments
The point here is that in example after example, the prevailing narrative sold by the media and social justice activists has been disproven after an investigation of the facts. When it comes down to it, it’s cheap and easy for Obama to say something in public to show solidarity with popular opinion. But having to back up that same popular opinion in a legal proceeding . . . is often impossible.
Whenever I see the liberal media jumping to a particular conclusion, my instinct is that the opposite must be true. Whenever I see the liberal media ignoring a story, I figure that story must be very important. Is it possible that the liberal media sometimes might be correct about one of these “social justice” narratives? Hypothetically, I suppose, but you’re seldom going to lose money betting against them.
Posted on | March 27, 2015 | 20 Comments
A trophy case framed in brass, set inside a wall near the entrance to the Bronx High School of Science, testified to the triumph of the school’s debate team. So did classroom 203, the de facto debate headquarters, where the sunlight danced off a collection of plaques and trophies.
The dynamic force behind that success was a teacher and coach named Jon Cruz, who transformed the debate team from a relatively modest club to a juggernaut that had nearly 300 members. . . .
One of his signature sayings, which he used to pump up students before an important round of debate, a recent graduate recounted, was to take them aside and say, “You know you’re a big deal, right?”
At the same time, the popular teacher and respected coach was regularly communicating with teenagers from outside Bronx Science. According to investigators, he was using a messaging app to flirt, cajole and coerce, to extract suggestive photographs of the boys, sometimes in the nude.
“Pictures just have a huge impact on me,” Mr. Cruz wrote in a conversation with a teenager from upstate New York, according to a criminal complaint. “Seeing your feet and face and muscles and room and awards and stuff reinforce what a big deal you are.”
Mr. Cruz, 31, was arrested on March 6 on charges that he persuaded three teenage boys to send him nude or suggestive photographs in exchange for gift cards. He was charged with possessing, receiving and producing child pornography. . . .
You’ll want to read the whole thing, including the part about the teenage boy in California whom Cruz sent “$10,000 over several years,” but then “became less complimentary and more abusive” when the boy didn’t meet Cruz’s expectations for more “hot” photos.
Posted on | March 27, 2015 | 38 Comments
California officials announced Thursday that the state would stop enforcing a key provision of a voter-approved law that prohibits all registered sex offenders from living near schools.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said it would no longer impose the blanket restrictions outlined in Jessica’s Law that forbids all sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, regardless of whether their crimes involved children. . . .
The California Supreme Court on March 2 unanimously ruled that Jessica’s Law violated the constitutional rights of parolees living in San Diego County who had argued that the limitations made it impossible for them to obtain housing.
Keep in mind Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown has initiated a controversial prison “reform” program in California. In his first three years in office, Brown authorized the release of 1,400 criminals who had been sentenced to life in prison. Under Brown’s “reform,” California officials are releasing “non-violent” offenders from prison, which is why Robert L. Ranson was set free in June 2013:
He was considered a non-violent offender because his most recent prison term was for possession of a firearm by a felon. Ranson had previously served time for two carjackings and an assault with a firearm, prison officials said.
Carjacking, assault, possession of a firearm by a felon — yeah, let’s just turn that guy loose. What could possibly go wrong?
A man on probation as a “non-violent offender” under California’s prison realignment program has been charged with kidnapping, raping, and torturing a 16-year-old girl in South Los Angeles, and detectives suspect he may be connected to three other recent murders. Robert L. Ranson, 30, was arrested in late March  after the girl escaped from a U-Haul van in an alley near Imperial Highway and New Hampshire Ave., according to police and booking records. The girl was covered in gasoline and said her attacker, later identified as Ranson, had tied her hands and taped her mouth, and was trying to light her on fire when she ran away, naked.
Now they’re going to let sex offenders live near schools.
No way that policy could lead to trouble.
Will the last sane person leaving California please turn out the lights?
« go back — keep looking »