There’s only one thing that “free money” (which is never actually free) does: it creates inflation. Nowhere is this more obvious than when it comes to college tuition, which rises and rises in direct proportion to the student loans made available to fund those womyn’s studies programs, the puppetry classes, and the exponentially expanding administration that’s so focused on social justice and other Leftist causes. This excellent Prager University video explains what’s really going on when politicians purport to make college more accessible for more students:
I’ve still got a few more things I want to share with you tonight, so consider this Part 2 for the day (with Part 1 here).
The coming (and inevitable) Leftist implosion
Every time I read a Kevin Williamson article, I like his writing and thinking just a little bit more. In one of his latest outings, about the inevitable fissures on the Left (as exemplified by (1) the way Black Lives Matters activists are attacking old, white Bernie and Hillary, and (2) the way the black/Hispanic majority in very Leftist Houston nevertheless voted down men in women’s restrooms), Williams has the following wonderful lines:
The challenge for the Left is that while the Republican party is mainly a coalition of ideologies, the Democratic party is mainly a coalition of interest groups, and the current model of Democratic politics — poor and largely non-white people providing the muscle and rich white liberals calling the shots — is unsustainable. The social attitudes of non-white voters are pretty plainly not those of white liberals, and, at the same time — and probably more significant — the economic interests of white liberals are pulling away from those of the people in whose interest they purport to act. Hispanic immigrants and urban blacks make below-average wages; public-school administrators and other government employees make wages that are well above average. There aren’t a lot of people in Cleveland’s Glenville who give a fat furry rat’s patootie how much interest Caitlyn from Bryn Mawr is paying on the student loans that financed her women’s-studies degree. If you’re wondering why Democrats lean so deeply into the racial rhetoric — Joe Biden’s shameful “They want to put y’all back in chains!” etc. — that’s a big part of your answer.
Rich Lowry’s article nails why I don’t trust Rubio
Marco Rubio is bright, articulate, focused, conservative, and telegenic. I ought to like him . . . but I just don’t. I’ve been pfumphering around for a while trying to put my finger on my problem with him and I think it really does boil down to his support for amnesty:
By the way, Heather MacDonald points to college as the genesis for the students’ closing minds. As you know from my earlier posts, English teachers in high school are already beginning the job, by spending their time teaching Leftist thought, rather than the glories of the English language or the opening of the Renaissance and Enlightenment minds.
Cousin It moved into my brain today when I read Jay Nordlinger’s extended rumination on pronoun insanity at America’s institutions of “higher” education. (And why, precisely, are we sending our children to be indoctrina… er, “educated” at places in which everyone is quite obviously too high to function normally?) You remember Cousin It, don’t you? A part of the extended Addams Family, Cousin It was a chattering, gender indeterminate mound of hair.
After Nordlinger explains the newest Leftist lunacy, with its savage attack on traditional pronouns, you too will find that Cousin It has taken residence behind your frontal lobe:
Recently, Donna Braquet, the director of the Pride Center at the University of Tennessee–Knoxville, wrote the following on the university’s website: “With the new semester beginning and an influx of new students on campus, it is important to participate in making our campus welcoming and inclusive for all. One way to do that is to use a student’s chosen name and their correct pronouns.”
Obviously, she thinks that “their” goes with “student” — which is very modern.
She had some advice for teachers. “In the first weeks of classes, instead of calling roll, ask everyone to provide their name and pronouns. This ensures you are not singling out transgender or non-binary students.” She also recommended that, at events where name tags are used, pronouns be printed beside names.
What are the optional pronouns, by the way? “There are dozens,” Braquet explained. These include “ze/hir/hirs,” “ze/zir/zirs,” and “xe/xem/xyr.” “These may sound a little funny at first,” said Braquet, “but only because they are new. The she and he pronouns would sound strange too if we had been taught ze when growing up.”
What are PGPs, you ask? They’re “preferred gender pronouns.” I’ll let Cornell College, in Mount Vernon, Iowa, elaborate:
A preferred gender pronoun is a consciously chosen set of pronouns that allow a person to accurately represent their gender identity in a way that is comfortable for them. For example, a trans* person may begin using a gender-neutral pronoun prior to transitioning, and a gendered pronoun afterwards, or an agender, bigender or third-gender person may choose to use a neutral or invented pronoun.
Maybe fogeys have said this for millennia, but it’s not merely that I don’t quite understand the culture, I don’t even understand the language. That asterisk after “trans,” incidentally, does not lead to a footnote. That’s the way the word is spelled.
More from Cornell College: “Recognizing and accepting alternative gender pronouns helps gender-non-conforming people feel more comfortable with their gender identities and highlights the problems created by our cultureʼs strict gender binary.”
“Strict gender binary”? I have a feeling that this means men and women. I also have the feeling that it’s not strict enough.
Cornell has some recommendations for “normalizing” the exchange of PGPs. In other words, you give yours, I give mine. This ought to be normalized.
You can do this by “introducing yourself with your pronouns: ‘Hi my name is Dave, Iʼm a visiting professor, and my pronouns are he/him/his.” Then Dave is to “ask students to include their personal pronouns when introducing themselves as well.”
Here is advice for Dave and other professors: “When choosing readings for class try to include articles or examples that use gender neutral language or that feature gender-neutral or gender-ambiguous people.”
Sorry, my dear friends among the consciousness raising warriors on the Left, but it’s just too much to ask of me (a) to remember all those new pronouns (I always was bad at learning new languages) and (b) to know on any given day what pronoun a specific person felt applied upon awakening (and yes, you, the speaker, are supposed to know).
Lately, I keep finding the word “moron” on my lips. I know I’m not the smartest person out there but it seems that, with ever greater frequency, I find myself swimming in a sea of other people’s stupidity.
Unsurprisingly given my ideological bent, I’m more aware of the stupidity on the Left — but it’s out there everywhere. Being a moron is not the same as supporting what I consider to be a bad ideology. Instead, being a moron means that people get their facts wrong, their conclusions wrong, or their methodology wrong, no matter what ideology drives them.
Today’s example of moron thinking comes from a New York Times op-ed shrilly accusing Texas textbooks of advancing a racist narrative at the behest of evil Texas conservatives. The Left has been in high dudgeon about the fact that the Texas history book states that despite their horrible circumstances Africans enslaved in America were able to find joy in their lives and create a rich culture, often connected with their adopting Christianity. This is true, of course, and speaks will of the indomitable human spirit.
The problem for the Left is that these facts run counter to the Leftist narrative that America wasn’t just a nation in the grip of bad ideas at certain time, but was and is irredeemably evil and must therefore be destroyed. Teaching that blacks triumphed over adversity doesn’t advance that narrative as well as having them painted as anguished, weak victims who could do nothing to alleviate their circumstances.
I was livid this morning. One of my children asked me to quiz her about rhetorical fallacies, which she was studying for a test. The teacher had put the examples together himself and they included such gems as saying it’s a logical fallacy to argue that guns are tools in the same way hammers are tools. Another example was that it’s a logical fallacy to argue against gay marriage. To give students an insight into good arguments against logical fallacies, he directed the students to Jon Stewart’s hyper-partisan The Daily Show. Indoctrination much?
When I complained to my resident Leftist, all I got was bewilderment. Guns are evil, gay marriage should be accepted by all, and Jon Stewart was the smartest, most informative man in television — so why am I fussing? The fact that all of those represent partisan views and the principle that they therefore should not be introduced on the taxpayers’ dime completely eluded him. School, after all, is there to teach students how to “think.”
School indoctrination is a sore subject with me, since it’s endemic in Marin, as it is in any school district that has a teacher’s union. Math is tainted both by Common Core and the fuzzy math approach that’s meant to give a pass to women and minorities who apparently struggle with actual math (you know, the kind where the results are correct).
As someone who’s bad at math (Common Core’s crazy complications are familiar to me because that’s the way they were teaching back in the San Francisco public schools’ 1960s/1970s experimental phase), I recognize the advantage of being able to reach roughly correct answers for such inconsequential things as calculating tips, measuring something that doesn’t need precise dimensions, or keeping vague track of a family budget. I also recognize what a weak reed this fuzzy math is. When the situation demands precision, I struggle.
English as taught in America’s public schools is a joke. I’ve already shared here my fury at the way an English teacher in Sandy Hook’s wake, handed out to the students strong gun-control articles. I politely protested (because my child, after all, was a hostage to grades in his class, but got nowhere). While the students get Leftist politics and lots of sex in their English classrooms, the students emerge without fundamentals such as grammar, spelling, structure, and narrative. Eileen Toplansky describes in heartbreaking detail trying to teach under-educated American youngsters when they reach college.
As the recently AP U.S. History fight showed, history is taught through a purely Marxist, anti-American lens. The books subtly and not-so-subtly tell those pliant young minds that America is the root of all evil and that the purifying answer to our nation’s wrongs is top down collectivism.
It doesn’t seem to occur to these geniuses that the things about which they complain — whether slavery, Indian relocations, Jim Crow laws, etc. — were only able to happen because of government power. The corollary is that diffusing government power dilutes a nation’s ability to do things that bug Leftists.
Typically, each Leftist cadre assumes that, when it acquires unlimited power, it will get it right. That’s why Bernie, who shrilly screams for a government that uses its guns to confiscate individual wealth, is looked upon as some type of savior, rather than the power-hungry, crazed madman he really is.
Lastly, there’s the wreckage of science in America’s public schools. The kids still get taught useful basic stuff, such as chemistry and biology, but the higher up they go, the more tainted it gets.
I have in front of me the textbook used in our local school’s AP Environmental Science class. Published by Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, G. Tyler Miller’s and Scott E.Spoolman’s 14th edition of Environmental Science purports to be a comprehensive textbook, teaching children everything they need to know about the natural world that surrounds us.
In the introduction to teachers (p. xiii), we learn that the book is all about “sustainability — the integrating theme of this book.” This theme leads to the boast that, in the new edition,
Climate change is emphasized with new coverage on the warming of the world’s lakes, climate change tipping points, and innovative [and, no doubt, prohibitively expensive] efforts to reduce methane and soot emissions.
I’m all for sustainability. Speculations about Mars’ potential habitability notwithstanding, we only have one planet that’s a sure thing for human survival, and it behooves us to treat it well. Treating it well, however, does not mean either falsifying science or destroying human kind. The environmentalists’ shtick to the contrary, we are a part of the planet’s diverse life forms, rather than an alien being that must be destroyed.
What got my knickers in a twist about the book was the random happenstance that, as I was moving it off the kitchen table, I dropped it and it opened to this page, which introduces the chapter on “Sustaining Biodiversity : The Species Approach”:
[Click on image for full size page.]
You know you’re in for it whenever you see anything about polar bears and climate change. The entire page is a sustained sob about the poor declining Arctic polar bears.
Those pathetic bears, trapped forever on teeny little ice floes that carry them out to sea, where they die a bitter, lonely death. Indeed, according to the book:
Scientific measurements reveal that the earth’s atmosphere is getting warmer and that this warming is occurring twice as fast in the Arctic as in the rest of the world. Thus, the arctic ice is melting faster and the average annual area of floating sea ice in the Arctic during the summer is decreasing. The floating winter ice is also breaking up earlier each year, shortening the polar bears’ hunting season. And much of the remaining ice is getting too thin to support the weight of a polar bear.
That’s so affecting. The only problem is that, unsurprisingly given the continuously dynamic nature of planet earth, none of that is true:
After the shortest melt season on record, and the most rapid growth on record, Arctic sea ice extent is the largest in a decade.
Not only is extent increasing, but Arctic sea ice thickness has also increased by 40% over the last five years.
Steve Goddard, who wrote the above post and generally provides invaluable actual climate facts at Real Science, concluded by saying “None of this will be reported by the criminals at US government agencies or in the press.” I’ll add that none of this will appear in school books either, which are completely invested in the pathetic polar bear scenario.
Goddard also caught the fact that the climate changistas have had to scale down their dire predictions about the declining polar bear population. The textbook indoctrinating. . . . er, “teaching” our children insists that
According to a 2006 study by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the world’s total polar bear population is likely to decline by 30-35% by 2050. By the end of this century, polar bears might be found only in zoos.
I’m dubious about anything the purports to predict with exactitude what will be going on in the natural world in 35 years, let alone 85 years. Right off the bat, that confidence about a future that will be affected by data we can’t even begin to imagine suggests a con. And indeed, with the con collapsing, these vague “scientist” collectives have abandoned the line that those polar bears on itty-bitty icebergs are dying now and, instead, are saying, “It’s still going to happen, we promise, but not for another ten years.”
Polar Bear Science is a useful site that looks at actual, you know, facts and data, rather than loosey-goosey futurist predictions. For example, the Western Hudson bears, one of the more studied bears, have shown population stability for eleven years now, no doubt explaining the new claim “scientific” announcement, above, that climate change won’t affect them for another decade. Indeed, if you scroll through the Polar Bear Science site, which relies solely on field study data, you come away comforted to know that the polar bears are doing fine, thank you very much.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (“IUCN”), which authored the 2006 study that the book cites with such elan, probably isn’t the best source for information in any event. You see, it’s guessing:
The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group admits its global population estimate is simply a qualified guess with a large potential error. So perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that for the purpose of comparing polar bears to other species of concern, the upper limit for polar bear numbers worldwide could be more than 30,000?
In subsequent updates to the above post, it appears that the polar bear population is a stable 26,000 or more and holding steady. (For more facts, not guesses, about polar bear population trends, check out these links.)
And here’s one other interesting thing about the IUCN: It’s an old organization, formed shortly after the UN, and seems to have the UN’s same impulse toward’s tyrannical insanity. Wikipedia isn’t always the best source for this information, but it offers an interesting criticism about the IUCN:
It has been claimed that IUCN put the needs of nature above those of humans, disregarding economic considerations and the interests of indigenous peoples and other traditional users of the land. Until the 1980s IUCN favored the “Yellowstone Model’ of conservation which called for the removal of humans from protected areas. The expulsion of the Maasai people from Serengeti National Park and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area is perhaps the best known example of this approach.
But back to that textbook, which is preaching to the best and brightest kids throughout America’s high schools. It shares IUCN’s anti-human slant:
Many biologists consider the rapid loss of the earth’s vital biodiversity — largely resulting from human activities — to be one of the most serious and long-lasting environmental problem [sic] that the world faces.
Children! You’re murderers! Every last one of you. And just ignore the fact that this publishing company is responsible for printing up gazillions of copies of this 500-or-so page book, with its nice laminated covers, and shiny ink-coated pages. The problems of the world are due to you, not to us. We’re just trying to profit off of the destruction you wreak.
When it comes to socialism, Lefties are just like little children. You can tell them forever that freebies are never free, and can come with a dangerously high price (whether it’s a child being kidnapped and killed by a predator offering “free” candy or puppies, or a nation having its economy and individual liberties by socialists offering “free” benefits). No matter the proof about freebies carrying risks, and no matter how often you dun that information into their heads, Lefties are no more capable of resisting temptation than is a five-year-old child.
If anything, Lefties regress even further mentally when it comes to climate science. Have you ever played peek-a-boo with a baby. It’s so cute. You cover your face, and the baby thinks you’re gone. And when the baby covers his own face, everything vanishes. What a fun game. Now you see it, now you don’t. And when you don’t see, not only doesn’t it exist, it never existed. It’s baby magic!!!
Scientists have been monitoring the environment somewhat closely for the past, say, 50 or 60 years. Because of the Victorian passion for record keeping, we’re able to access some data going back as far as 150 years. Hard science, such as core samples or clues (fossils, bones, etc.) found in sediment, rounds out that data. And that’s what we’ve got. But anthropocentric scientists are convinced that all the knowledge they’ve acquired now — and some of it’s pretty darn patchy — constitutes the sum total of all human knowledge, from which everything can be extrapolated. The fact is, species have been going extinct forever — since earth was first formed.
Examining earth trends starting with the dinosaurs, we can readily identify things that cause local or mass die-outs. Sometimes the earth’s climate changes. Sometimes an earthquake, volcano, or catastrophic flood rejiggers the landscape in a certain region. Sometimes a meteor wipes out life. Sometimes the meeting between two species results in one getting destroyed. Humans definitely did in the dodo and the mammoth.
As an aside, it’s likely that the Lefties’ beloved Native Americans, who are invariably presented to children as hippie types who would never dream of committing violence against the earth, had they populated North America in greater numbers probably would have destroyed the buffalo. After all, one of the Comanches’ hunting techniques was to drive a whole herd off a cliff. The Comanches would then take what they could carry (not much), and leave the rest of the herd to die slowly and painfully, and then to rot in mangled heaps at the bottom of the cliff. The Aztecs almost certainly turned to human sacrifice because they’d destroyed all animal food sources — i.e., protein and iron sources — in their region.
But here’s the deal: Because modern scientists, baby-like, uncovered their eyes to view Western interactions with nature only a few decades ago, they’re pretty clear that none of the previous occurrences existed or mattered. Like a baby revealing the world to itself, today’s scientists consider only what they see before them when they see it. Everything else is pushed aside and ignored.
I remember many years ago spending a vacation day in Cartagena, Columbia. It was one of the most depressing places I’ve ever seen. The encroaching jungle bore down hard on that city, and the city seemed inclined to give up the fight. It was obvious that, if the city stopped for even a while to keep the jungle at bay, the city would vanish. Nature is powerful. Nature is merciless. Nature is adaptable. Nature, by its nature, is change.
Modern science’s fear of change and rejection of Nature’s powerful adaptability means that the scientists are driven to irrational, rather than rational, analysis. Worse, once locked in the grip of this irrationality, our modern ideological science is driven to two dangerous paths: ignoring the data and indoctrinating the young.
Medicine taught us that scientific rigidity is terribly dangerous. Just look at germ theory, which scientists at first couldn’t recognize, but then wouldn’t recognize. Even when knowledge was available, ideologically driven men of “science” continued to kill patients. But maybe that’s what the scientists want in the end: a lot of children who have been trained to a suicidal mindset they’re told is absolutely necessary to save a natural order that needs their stewardship, rather than their disappearance.
There’s no rain in sight for the next fifteen days, but with August at an end and September beginning, this still feels like the last of the summer to me. Even as summer ends, though, the crazy goes on, and I’ve got the links to prove it (and many thanks to a friend who wishes to remain anonymous for his help assembling some of these links):
Not that the Left will listen to Dick Cheney
Dick Cheney is weighing in on the Iran “Deal,” saying the obvious, that it makes war more, not less, likely. Unstated is the 1930’s lesson, that the costs of waiting for war until Iran is far better armed and has nuclear weapons will make the cost in blood and gold rise exponentially.
Hillary reduced to name calling and insults
James Taranto’s BOTW today is a great one analyzing Hildabeast’s decision to begin making outlandish accusations and allusions to terrorists and Nazis. She is flailing:
“Terrorist groups” and “boxcars” do not appear to be mere gaffes. If you watch the videos of Mrs. Clinton’s comments, you will note that both inflammatory utterances are preceded by pregnant pauses, suggesting that she chose the words deliberately—that her intent was to inflame. Why?
Is the ugly rhetoric really necessary? Maybe so. In an interview with the Register, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon offers this explanation for the Sanders surge: “Voters right now are flocking to the angry, authentic outsiders and moving away from the cautious or calculating establishment insiders.” (One might add that also describes Trump and the Republicans.) Mrs. Clinton is no outsider and will never be described as authentic, so she has to try extra hard to appeal to anger.
And it’s nothing new for her. When Bill Clinton was president, Mrs. Clinton played Agnew to his Nixon. She, not he, blamed his sex scandals on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Until last week, her campaign rhetoric had been decidedly bland, and it’s hardly surprising she’d feel the need to spice it up. But as Jonathan Haidt observes in “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion”: “You can’t have a cuisine . . . based primarily on bitter tastes.”
Higher education continues to sink ever lower
This from Elizabeth Foley at Instapundit on the latest from a college that needs to be burned to the ground and the earth salted:
Censorship is strong and growing on American campuses. It’s disguised by words and phrases such as “microaggressions,” “trigger warnings,” and “political correctness,” but it all boils down to the same thing: Telling people with whom the Left disagrees to “shut up,” but hiding that dictatorial ukase behind Orwellian phrases implying kindness and sensitivity.
Incidentally, this video is the perfect companion to a video I posted earlier today, which shows how the line between satire and reality has almost vanished completely on America’s college campuses.
The only thing wrong with this video is that at times it’s a little hard to tell whether it’s a satire or is actually a documentary:
Several bizarre trends are burgeoning on American college campuses, all of which have the potential to backfire in spectacular form against the hardcore Leftists who are promulgating these ideas. This post focuses on three of the worst ideas in modern academia:
(1) The next generation of political correctness, which classifies any speech that hurts a student’s feelings as either a microaggression or a form of triggering. Older generation Lefties are slowly figuring out that these concepts are a form of censorship — but pointing that out, of course, is a form of microaggression that can trigger feelings of persecution in women, members of the LGBTQRSTUV community, people of color, people with handicaps (including young lawyers who demand corner offices at large law offices because they suffer from claustrophobia, something that really happened), victims of rape, victims of bad haircuts, people traumatized by reading about Cecil the Lion, etc.
(2) The bizarre pretense that a person’s sex is no longer a biological matter (as in X and Y chromosomes, which manifest themselves in different reproductive systems, hormones, musculoskeletal systems, etc.), but is simply a matter of preference, so that students can now claim to have a “fluid gender identity” that changes depending upon the person’s mood. On Tuesday, feeling manly, you can put on jeans and a baseball cap, and manspread over a couple of seats at a campus coffee shop; then on Wednesday, to explore your feminine side, you can put on a nice sun dress, put conditioner in your beard to make it soft and silky, and participate in the Womyn’s Group’s latest protest against male hegemony.
(3) The rabid attack on all men as rapists. The most recent examples of this campus pathology range from a manifestly delusional confabulator (as happened at the University of Virginia), to a pathetic woman desperate for attention (as seen with Emma Sulkowicz), to a scorned woman (such as the one who fell into the clutches of one of academia’s professional man haters, and then managed to drag an innocent man into a kangaroo court beyond even Kafka’s imaginings).
The last of the three trends, incidentally, is a direct by-product of the virulent misanthropy that incubates in “womyn’s studies” departments and that thrives on American campuses. If you’re interested in learning more, I highly recommend Robert Stacy McCain’s Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature. The book, which is by McCain’s own admission a work in progress, provides chapter and verse on the man-hating lesbians who occupy academia and churn out academic bestsellers. One of the more prominent examples of these “scholars” was the late Andrea Dworkin who, in 1987, published Intercourse, which asserts that all male-female penetrative sex is by definition a form of rape.
You do realize, of course, where we’re going with these three trends? One day, it’s going to happen that a young woman, whether because she’s delusional, an emotional exhibitionist, or simply vindictive, will file a complaint with her university’s sexual harassment squad claiming that, even though she consented for months to have sex with her boyfriend, she’s concluded in retrospect that her erstwhile boyfriend raped her. Being familiar with the Stalin-esque administraition her campus, she rightly assumes that, once she’s filed her complaint, her boyfriend will be summoned before a kangaroo court and run out of campus on a rail, with his entire future destroyed. Ah, sweet revenge!
But wait! In the Perfect Storm scenario, the ex-boyfriend, when called before the tribunal, refuses to bow down. He does not beg for a lawyer. He does not offer pathetic, chauvinistic attacks against his victimized accuser. He does not beg for mercy.
Instead, the accused ex-boyfriend claims that the charge against him cannot possibly be true. The reality, he says, is that during the time he was dating his accuser, his gender identity was feminine. Not only was his gender identity feminine, it was also lesbian — and to the extent his appearance on campus was externally masculine, he behaved that way because he had discovered that he had much greater sexual success as a lesbian (with sexual success defined as encounters with other women) when those same women believed he was a man. He knew, however, at all relevant times, that he was a lesbian having sex with the woman now hiding behind a screen and accusing him of the heteronormative crime of rape.
Not only does the accused ex-lesbian boyfriend deny the charges against him, he counterattacks. His accuser, he says, the so-called “victim,” has caused him deep emotional distress. She is therefore guilty of microaggressions directed at (1) lesbians, (2) women, and (3) gender fluid individuals. Moreover, the administrative tribunal itself is a triggering factor that has caused him to relive in a post traumatic stress way the horrors of a childhood with religious conservative parents who insisted that men are men, women are women, and that marriage can be only between one man and one woman.
Because of these appalling microaggressions and triggering events, the manifestly innocent ex-lesbian boyfriend, upon leaving this administrative tribunal, plans to head directly to Leslie Abramson’s office, where he will file a suit against the University and his accuser alleging discrimination, sexual harassment, gender bias, emotional distress, and all other claims necessary to compensate him for the terrible emotional wrongs committed against him. The worm will have turned.
I haven’t quite reconciled myself to the fact that today is Wednesday. I feel as if I’m caught in a perpetual Monday loop. Between work emergencies and Mom’s doctor appointments time, as Steve Miller said, “keeps on slippin’, slippin’, slippin’ into the future.”
I’ve got a backlog of articles that friends have sent me, so I’m quickly going to bring them to your attention, because I bet you’ll find them interesting. For speed’s sake (I’ve got a ton to do today), I’m going to present this Instapundit style, with just a sentence or two. This exercise in brevity will be a good discipline for me.
Climate scientists keep being proven wrong. When will they ‘fess up, rather than digging their hole even deeper?
People in porn videos tend to end up splashed with a lot of fluids — so California wants them to wear eye protection. I see a new fetish being born.
I’ve always said that the reason democracy building worked in Japan and Germany was because we totally destroyed their pre-existing societies. Slowly, slowly, others are figuring out that our failure to smash Iraq is where we went wrong with democracy building there.
We can’t tell whether we’re as solvent as oil-rich Norway or as broke as profligate Greece because our government financial numbers are lies.
All the good liberals in Marin are up in arms at the way local and regional governments are forcing our spacious suburb to become a crowded urb. I wonder when they’ll start realizing that this is not an accident. If Marinites want to see the future, they should look at Minneapolis.
An excellent rebuttal to Bernie Sanders demand for fully-subsidized college educations.
It’s always amazed people that Europe could go from the superior engineering feats of the Romans (especially water transport) to the primitive engineering of the early Dark Ages. Now you don’t need to wonder anymore about the journey from a relative enlightenment to a new dark age — you can see it happening in real time in America.
A cool granny: she flew Spitfires for the British during WWII.
Not all viruses have to be bad — here’s a clever idea for virus engineering in an era characterized by a growing number of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Looking at Sidney Blumenthal’s disgraceful antics on Hillary’s behalf, and the pass the MSM media is giving Hillary and all of her cronies, it’s worthwhile to remember how the media disgracefully smeared Scooter Libby, who ended up in prison thanks to the media witch hunt.
Anyone surprised that the IRS paid billions in fraudulent refunds?
It’s gotten to the point where much of what passes for “science” is fraud, ignorance, propaganda, and plain-ole’ lies.
Because Californians don’t suffer enough economically, gas taxes are probably going up. I used to believe that I would live out my days in California. I don’t anymore. I’m already planning an exit strategy.
I’m sorry for the long silence, but to quote Granny Clampett, “I was just plumb tuckered out.” Between escalating work demands and the usual family demands, I haven’t had either spare energy or spare time. It was only two days ago that I stopped being in denial and accepted that, for the time being at least, I have a 3/4 time legal job that requires a heightened level of commitment and organization. (Incidentally, I’ve found that, for managing large projects, Microsoft’s One Note, when combined with a good calendaring program, is very helpful.) I still intend to blog, but I just need to buff up my time management skills a bit.
And that’s it for the excuses. On to the post itself:
It’s not such a wonderful life
Victor Davis Hanson has scored another home run with his post examining at Obama’s new world order as another Pottersville: