Story here. It is not just that leftists are bereft of common sense; they want voter fraud. How else could one explain their palpably irrational position? An opponent devoid of arguments is an opponent legitimately psychologized.
Category: Leftism and Political Correctness
Diversity, Inc.
Another excellent column by Victor Davis Hanson. Excerpt:
A university, for example, might highlight its “rich diversity” by pointing to gay students, female students, Punjabi students, Arab students, Korean students, and disabled students — even should they all come from quite affluent families and backgrounds. Key here was that “diversity” was admittedly cosmetic, or at least mostly to be distinguishable by the eye — skin color, gender, etc. — rather than internal and predicated on differences in political ideology or values. A Brown or an Amherst worried not at all that its classes included very few Mormons, libertarians, or ROTC candidates; instead, if the students looked diverse, but held identical political and social views, then in fact they were diverse.
In the end the only kind of diversity liberals care about is politically correct diversity. They are not really interested in diversity or in dissent or in civility. They hijack these terms and pilot them towards Left-coast destinations. They think they own these values. Same with accusations of racism. They think they have proprietary rights in this enterprise. So there is white racism but no black racism. It's nonsense, but that's a liberal for you.
Related post: Diversity and the Quota Mentality
Of Christograms and Political Correctness
Monterey Tom liked my 'Xmas' post and sends this:
Many Catholic artifacts related to worship are marked with the Roman letters IHS, which is a partial Latin transliteration of the Greek form of 'Jesus' and can also be read as an acronym for the Latin Iesus Hominum Salvator (Jesus Savior of Man). However, some have construed the IHS to be an acronym for "In this Sign", as in "In this sign you shall conquer." Some who were desirous of defending the judgements of the Obama administration used that last and incorrect notion to justify covering all of the IHS images at Georgetown University two years ago on the ground that Muslims would see the IHS as a symbol of Christian aggression. My reaction to that claim is that the event presented the U.S. government with what educators now call a "teachable moment." The only problem being, I suspect, that no one in the White House gang actually knew the true meaning of the letters and probably shared the Muslim belief that the Crusades were wars of aggression aimed at forcefully converting the peace-loving Muslims and enriching the pope.
Although it is true that 'IHS' is, as Tom writes, "a partial Latin transliteration of of the Greek form of 'Jesus'," it is not true that it abbreviates Iesus Hominum Salvator, at least according to the Catholic Encyclopedia: "IHS was sometimes wrongly understood as "Jesus Hominum (or Hierosolymae) Salvator", i.e. Jesus, the Saviour of men (or of Jerusalem=Hierosolyma)."
Being a pedant and a quibbler (but in the very best senses of these terms!), I was all set to quibble with Monterey Tom's use of 'acronym' in connection with 'IHS.' After all, you cannot pronounce it like a word in the way you can pronounce 'laser' and 'Gestapo' which are clearly acronyms. But it all depends on how exactly we define 'acronym,' a question I'm not in the mood for. The Wikipedia article looks good, however. I am tempted to say that, while every acronym is an abbreviation, not every abbreviation is an acronym. 'IHS' is an abbreviation.
Acronym or not, 'IHS' is a Christogram, and sometimes a monogram. As it just now occurred in my text, 'IHS' is not a monogram but a mere abbreviation. But again it depends on what exactly a monogram is. According to the Wikipedia monogram article, "A monogram is a motif made by overlapping or combining two or more letters or other graphemes to form one symbol." Clear examples:
In the first monogram one can discern alpha, omega, chi, and rho. The 'chi' as I said last post is the 'X' is 'Xmas.'
From pedantry to political correctness and a bit of anti-Pee Cee polemic. To think that 'IHS' abbreviates In hoc signes vincit shows a contemptible degree of ignorance, but what is worse is to worry about a possible Muslim misreading of the abbreviation. Only a namby-pamby Pee-Cee dumbass liberal could sink to that level. That is down there with the supine foolishness of those librul handwringers who wailed, in the wake of 9/11, "What did we do to offend them?"
If hypersensitive Muslims take offense at 'IHS,' that is their problem, not ours. There is such a thing as taking inappropriate offense. See Of Black Holes and Political Correctness: If You Take Offense, is That My Fault?
As for Georgetown's caving to the White House demand, that is contemptible and disgusting, but so typical. To paraphrase Dennis Prager, there is no one so spineless in all the world as a university administrator. They should have said loud and clear "Absolutely not!"
Merry CHRISTmas!
Merry Scroogemas!
In this season especially we ought to find a kind word to say about the much maligned Ebeneezer Scrooge. Here's mine: Without Scrooge, the sexually prolific Cratchit wouldn't have a job and be able to support his brood! This thought is developed by Michael Levin in In Defense of Scrooge.
And is there not something preternaturally knuckleheaded about the calls from some liberals that the presentation of Dickens' masterpiece be banned? They ought to consider that there is more of anti-Capitalism in it than of Christianity — an irony that no doubt escapes their shallow pates.
A Diversity Paradox for Immigration Expansionists
Liberals love 'diversity' even at the expense of such obvious goods as unity, assimilation, and comity. So it is something of a paradox that their refusal to take seriously the enforcement of immigration laws has led to a most undiverse stream of immigrants. "While espousing a fervent belief in diversity, immigrant advocates and their allies have presided over a policy regime that has produced one of the least diverse migration streams in our history." Here
In the once golden and great state of California, the Left's diversity fetishism has led to a letting-go of academics in the Cal State university system with a concomitant retention of administrative 'diversity officers.' Unbelievable but true. Heather McDonald reports and comments in Less Academics, More Narcissism.
My only quibble is her failure to observe the distinction between 'less' and 'fewer.' Use 'fewer' with count nouns; 'less' with mass terms. I don't have less shovels than you; I have fewer shovels. I need fewer shovels because I have less manure.
They Pay So Much for So Little
Update (11/27): I am told the sign is a fake. I suspected as much. Fake or not it makes an important point. The point being that (i) the Left has done much to destroy the universities, and (ii) government programs, e.g., federally insured loan programs, have done much to cause an education bubble. The cost of education nowadays is shockingly out of proportion to the value of what the student receives. This shows what happens when government interferes with the market. (This is not to say that I am opposed to all government regulation as so many liberals think. They think that if you are a conservative you must be a laissez-faire capitalist. That's just plain stupid, but par for the course for the typical liberal who is apparently unequipped to make a simple distinction between conservative and libertarian.)
Compare the education sector with the electronics sector. I paid a paltry $800 over a year ago for my current Hewlett-Packard computer with huge flat-screen montor . It's an amazing piece of equipment and unbelievably cheap given what I am getting. ( I paid around $2000 in less-inflated dollars in 1985 for an Apple II-c which was a piece of junk compared to this machine. No hard drive, a mere 128 kilobytes of RAM.) Why so cheap? Because of competition and market discipline.
It is not that big-government liberals intend to make things worse; the worsening is an unintended consequence of their foolish and ill-thought-out policies, policies that fail to take into consideration the realities of human nature. One such reality is that if you make it easy for people to borrow monstrous sums of money, they will follow the path of least resistance and do so. Another such reality is that the educational institutions will raise their tuitions and fees to absorb as much as they can of this easy money without any concern for what they are doing to the students' long-term financial health or to the country's.
In I Too am a Debt-Peon, Justin Smith reports that his first year in the graduate program at Columbia cost him $45,000 which he financed using federally-insured loans. $45 K! I don't know which is harder to believe, that any institution could get away with charging such an outrageous amount for a year's worth of courses in a subject which, noble and magnificent as it is, notoriously bakes no bread, or that anyone could be so stupid as to go $45 K into debt in pursuit of a degree in a subject which, magnificent and noble as it is, notoriously bakes no bread. Luckily for him, Smith managed to get funding for the rest of his graduate study, and even luckier, got a job.
But now he complains about having to pay back the debt that he freely and foolishly assumed, and says that he will do what he can to avoid repaying it, thereby stiffing the taxpayers that financed his foolish adventure.
The Policy of Stealing from the Productive
The Link Between Postmodernism and the Left
From Thomas Nagel's essay, "The Sleep of Reason" in Concealment and Exposure (Oxford 2002), p.174 (emphasis added):
. . . I think there is a more direct link between postmodernism and the traditional ideas of the Left. The explanation of all ostensibly rational forms of thought in terms of social influences is a generalization of the old Marxist idea of ideology, by which moral principles were all debunked as rationalizations of class interest. The new relativists, with Nietzschean extravagance, have merely extended their exposure of the hollowness of pretensions to objectivity to science and everything else. Like its narrower predecessor, this form of analysis sees "objectivity" as a mask of the exercise of power, and so provides natural expression of class hatred. Postmodernism's specifically academic appeal comes from its being another in the sequence of all-purpose "unmasking" strategies that offer a way to criticize the intellectual efforts of others, not by engaging with them on the ground, but by diagnosing them from a superior vantage point and charging them with inadequate self-awareness. Logical positivism and Marxism have in the past been used by academics in this way, and postmodernist relativism is natural for the role. It may now be on the way out, but I suspect there will continue to be a market in the huge American academy for a quick fix of some kind. If it is not social constructionism, it will be something else — Darwinian explanations of virtually everything, perhaps.
The Brain-Dead Left
Here, by James Taranto. And while we are on the brain theme:
Does a Full-Time Homemaker Swap Her Mind for a Mop?
Dennis Prager's latest column. It put me in mind of Lydia McGrew.
Better Green Than Dead
Anti-PC Haiku
Writing 'they' for 'he'
They sacrifice grammar
To the god of PeeCee.
Lakoff Deconstructed
Here.
Another Silly Expression: ‘Junk Food’
There is no such thing as junk food. Food is food. When I go backpacking, I eat crud I would never eat at home, stuff loaded with fat, salt, and sugar. Dinner might consist of couscous with ‘Vienna’ sausages. If you are an American you know what the latter are: morsels of mystery meat laden with fat and sodium. But when you are schlepping 40-50 lb loads over 12,00 foot passes, all the while sweating like a pig, this is is exactly what you need. You need fat, sodium, sugar, and strong coffee laced with more sugar. The frou-frou salad and green tea can wait for later.
Tell the food fascists of San Bancisco and elsewhere to shove it.
The Manifesto of the Modern Protester
I found the following in the archives of my first weblog. The hyperlink has long been dead. The author is Nicholas Antongiavanni. Curiously timely in light of the antics of the 'Occupy Wall Street' crowd. This may be only an excerpt. I cannot find the original document.
1. No ill is so trivial that it can be borne, even for a day; no grievance is so slight that its redress can wait, even for an hour.
2. Until the world is made perfect and justice reigns supreme, getting on with life or transacting any public business is immoral and selfish.
3. Therefore all means (up to and including violence) are justified–nay, obligatory–in stopping the movement of ordinary life until such time as all grievances are redressed.
4. One's moral worth is determined far more by one's social and political opinions than by one's actions or behavior toward others.
5. With one exception: The most noble, moral, and courageous thing one can ever do is participate in (or, better yet, organize) a protest.
6. Therefore, whatever a protest is ostensibly about, it is fundamentally about itself.
7. There are no such things as chance or fortune or bad luck or inherent, irreducible flaws or problems. If something–anything, anywhere–is wrong, unfair, unequal, tragic, inconvenient, annoying, vexatious, or merely perceived to be such, it is not only someone's fault, that someone is profiting unjustly at the expense of someone else. Which is to say, Lenin's "Who/Whom" question–"who" is sticking it to "whom"?–is fundamentally true regarding all human interaction.
7a. All peoples and individuals may therefore be categorized as either oppressors or oppressed.
7b. The oppressed as a whole are a coalition of various oppressed groups. Whatever their apparent differences, they share the same fundamental interests by dint of their all being oppressed.
7c. Whatever the oppressors say about standards of justice or morality is a priori wrong, since it must be presumed to be sophistry concocted for their selfish benefit. The most clever–and most pernicious–of these sophistries is the notion of natural right, i.e., that there is a permanent standard of justice not determined by human choice or opinion. But in truth every professed standard of natural right is a tool of those oppressors who devise and promote it. The only reliable information about justice comes from the oppressed, because they alone are public spirited and pure of heart. Also, because the oppressed alone suffer whereas the oppressed only cause suffering, the oppressed alone can judge what suffering is and how it affects the human soul. Since there is no permanent standard of justice, the response or reaction of the individual soul to any action or actions is the only dispositive factor in determining the justice or injustice of any action. Therefore, justice and injustice are whatever the oppressed say they are.