Free Markets, Free People

Stray Voltage

Is it Friday already?  A tip of the hat to Ott Scerb – nice to see him back in action.

So, a CEO has written a little guide for the special snowflakes that inhabit many of our colleges and universities.  He gives them 5 points they need to learn before they leave their “safe spaces”.  Below is number 1:

To all those of you looking for your “safe place,” I have to wonder: How the hell do you walk out of your dorm (or your parents’ basement) without getting hit by a bus every day?

So on behalf of CEO’s across the country, I’d like to share with you a few lessons that you might want to learn before graduation.

1. The Business World Doesn’t Give A Damn About You

No, really – it’s true. You saw something on the internet that you found offensive? You’ve got the sniffles? Your boyfriend broke up with you? Well, that sucks. Deal with it. I expect you to get your work done on time. Hit traffic that made you late for the fourth time this week? You should have learned after the first time that you needed to leave your house early.

Listen, even the best bosses have their breaking points. Excuses might fly in college, but they’re NOT going to fly when we’re paying you to actually get things done.

I liked this one because it says what they don’t seem to realize yet.  In the big, wide world, they’re essentially unimportant.  And only good work can make them important to any company.  Start the crap they’ve started at school and they can find themselves in the unemployment line very quickly.  Read the rest here. [link fixed]

Speaking of the Special Snowflakes, aka The New Red Guard, here they are trying to get something for nothing again claiming racism and bias at Harvard Law School:

“A group of Harvard Law School activists are demanding the graduate school do away with tuition fees, which they argue are “racially biased.”

Members of the group Reclaim Harvard Law School published an open letter Sunday addressed to Law School Dean Martha L. Minow and members of the Harvard Corporation — the University’s highest governing body — demanding an end to tuition costs that they argue impose an unfair financial burden on students of color, The Harvard Crimson reported.

Tuition at the law school will rise to $59,550 for the 2016-2017 academic year, and students are graduating with an average of $149,754 in debt, according to the law school’s website. Reclaim Harvard Law called the trend “outrageous” and asserted, “as a matter of justice, education should be free.”

“The effects of HLS’ astronomical tuition fees are racially biased,” the group wrote in their letter. “Due to the legacy of centuries of white supremacy and plunder, people of color are less likely to have amassed wealth in the United States. Therefore, these fees disproportionately burden students of color, not only by creating a barrier to attending HLS, but also by constraining the career choices of those who do attend by saddling them with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. How can Harvard Law graduates be expected to advance justice or the well-being of society when they are forced to make career decisions based on paying off this burdensome debt?”

The group did not provide any proposals on how Harvard Law School could feasibly do away with tuition, saying, “answering this is the very job we are paying extraordinary amounts of money for them to do.”

I suppose it never occurs to them that they are among the elite who have been chosen to be members of a particular Harvard Law class and that this seems to most to be exactly what it appears – a horribly obvious attempt to use emotion as an argument to get others to pay for your education.  Makes you wonder how good they’ll ever be as lawyers.

One of the things climate alarmists seem to be spectacularly unaware of is how spectacularly poor their “scientific” track record is.  For instance:

Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

And:

Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

Of course, now it’s warming and carbon dioxide.  In both cases, not only is the science far from settled, it seems to be spectacularly wrong again.  At least when Watt talked about a new Ice Age it had actually been getting cooler for 20 years.  That was enough for them then.  But the fact that it hasn’t warmed at all in 20 years?  Yeah, not significant.  Funny stuff.  Expensive if they get their way, but then as mad as the world has become and with the pending signing of the Paris accords, the excuse to get into your wallet is there, science or no science.

Alarmism is a cottage industry and now that the politicians are involved, it is a cottage industry to pays well.

In answer to the absurd bathroom controversy that seems to be brewing up everywhere, the retail giant Target put out this press release:

We believe that everyone—every team member, every guest, and every community—deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally. Consistent with this belief, Target supports the federal Equality Act, which provides protections to LGBT individuals, and opposes action that enables discrimination.

In our stores, we demonstrate our commitment to an inclusive experience in many ways. Most relevant for the conversations currently underway, we welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.

We regularly assess issues and consider many factors such as impact to our business, guests and team members. Given the specific questions these legislative proposals raised about how we manage our fitting rooms and restrooms, we felt it was important to state our position.

Everyone deserves to feel like they belong. And you’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.

I guess you can find idiots in every walk of life, even among those who run retail giants.  Tell me, Target, if, in the name of inclusion you end up excluding the desires of the majority of your customer base, how much good will do you think your stance on this sort of nonsense inclusion will buy you.

Considering that, I just became a ex-customer of Target. That sort of absurd nonsense does not make me feel “accepted”, certainly not “respected” and  anything but “welcomed”.  My “feelings” obviously mean nothing to you. Target, you are pandering, and you’re ignoring your customer base. Social engineering isn’t a retail responsibility.  Giving your customers what they want is.

Maybe they’ll figure it out.  And maybe they’ll figure out that if you wish to accommodate a minority that “feels” a certain way about themselves, perhaps a single restroom that is “gender neutral” is the answer, and not having them force themselves into dressing areas and restrooms where their natural equipment says they shouldn’t be.  This isn’t rocket science, but it appears to be for the ignoramuses at Target.

ESPN has also earned my boycott:

Curt Schilling was fired by ESPN on Wednesday, for expressing an opinion online earlier in the week which just happens to be the view held by the vast majority of the American people. Earlier this week, Schilling posted a picture of a transgender person, and made a comment regarding the effort to let transgender men use women’s restrooms.

The comment read:

“A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”

He’s absolutely right … it is pathetic.

What’s even more pathetic is that Schilling has to hold a certain point of view, apparently, to continue to hold his job. Well, that’s “inclusive” isn’t it? Bye bye ESPN. I thought you were a “sports network”. Apparently you’re an politically correct social engineering network and something I just don’t need in my life.

Finally a bit of good news.  Last week I reported that Florida had essentially done away with civil forfeiture and I gave them kudos for dumping that unconstitutional form of stealing by police (illegal search and seizure).  Well, Nebraska earns those kudos this week:

The newly signed law provides sweeping reforms. First and foremost, Nebraska now requires a criminal conviction to forfeit property. The accused must be convicted of an offense involving illegal drugs, child pornography or illegal gambling to lose their cash, vehicles, firearms or real estate. Nebraska joins just nine other states that require a criminal conviction as a prerequisite for most or all forfeiture cases.

Way to go, NE.

Hope you all have a happy and safe weekend!

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

12 Responses to Stray Voltage

  • The link in your first item appears to be broken.

  • Your first item is wrong.

    “1. The Business World Doesn’t Give A Damn About You”. Just take a look at Target, ESPN, the NFL for that matter. This shit is coming from the Board of Directors on down. They can do it, because we have de facto oligopolies anymore. And as long as they all do this shit, its left to consumers to eat the check. Silicon Valley and all the Major tech companies are on the vanguard of supporting SJW movements.

    Business world would be self correcting if it still had competition.

    I really don’t have much sympathy or respect for the ‘donor class’ or the ‘1%’. It seems the adage that “Fish rots from the head” in business is true.

    • “Your first item is wrong.”

      Agreed. As part of their greater social activist movement, hardcore campus ‘SJW’ leftists have been joining top corporations and working their way up for years – decades. Bruce’s faulty premise is that the “special snowflake” demands on campus reflect whole and permanent life choice, personality, and character. Actually, the demands are opportunistic, calculated strategic maneuvers to exploit assessed conditions. Given different conditions, they calculate differently and adjust their means, although as you point out, they plot their course to the same ends.

      Respecting them as any less than dedicated, smart and skilled, Machiavellian competitors is an error. Bruce seems to be making that mistake.

    • But you guys are acting socially and economically as if the trend can continue in their direction without a backlash. Trump is evidence the start of the backlash is here.
      Asshats like Zuckerberg better invest in other things because their revenue depends on lots of capital being spent on lots of shit that people ‘want’ but don’t really need. Target sells that shit.
      Any kind of crash that’s really a crash will kill that. Google, face book, all depend on a first world structure delivering revenue based on the internet or sustained consumer spending on ‘stuff’.
      Considering the actual unemployment numbers and job loss we might get to see people being forced to choose butter over bytes on a wider scale. Especially if the ruling party policies sew up the next election.

    • Revealed .. at last .. the cause of “Modern Depression” .. the first item (above).

      About a year ago, the Japanese cable TV channel, NHKW, presented a piece on a new phenomenon, Modern Depression. In an hour long report, they first highlighted the differences. While “Depression”tended to afflict persons in their 50’s, “Modern Depression” afflicted persons in their 20’s.

      Next NHKW outlined the symptoms:
      1) They couldn’t function at work
      2) They could meet with their friends at a bar after work.

      After much discussion of the studies related to “Modern Depression,” it was stated that the major cause was that these poor afflicted folks just couldn’t take criticism from their bosses at work, who were older and misunderstood the pressures of being a young worker.

  • “Business world would be self correcting if it still had competition.”

    The SJWs would adapt.

  • You’re going to have to work nights and weekends from time to time.

    —–if you give me OT or comp time sure. I’ll work like a beast for you from 9-5 M-F but that’s it. I figured out family time comes first. But that’s the beauty of being young I guess- like me you would in fact work nights and weekends to complete the project. Now I’m older my boss knows not to even ask me, and I’m off email weekends. I’ll never get promoted but the sh-t eating grin I flash as I leave at 5:00 to my coworkers who are just settling in for a few more hours is worth it.

  • Strange times make for strange bedfellows.

  • ish, I didn’t expect that link to embed with that nasty image.

    I watch some of this guy’s stuff on social justice. He’s someone I wouldn’t agree with on a lot of issues, but when it comes to Social Justice he does a good job of documenting the insanity.

  • The other half of civil forfeiture, also known by the SCOTUS name of Kelo v. City of New London, should be fixed with something like giving the original landowner ‘first right of refusal’ to buy back the property, at the same price for which it was taken, before it can be sold to another private party.
    This would effectively make all eminent domain takings for purely “public” use.

  • Under the Sanders free college proposal, families from the top half of the income distribution would receive 24 percent more in dollar value from eliminating tuition than students from the lower half of the income distribution. The non-tuition costs of attending college, including living expenses, are larger than the costs of tuition and fees for most students. Free college, which does not address these expenses, leaves families from the bottom half of the income distribution with nearly $18 billion in annual out-of-pocket college costs that would not be covered by existing federal, state, and institutional grant programs. Devoting new spending to eliminating tuition for all students involves a tradeoff with investing the same funds in targeted grant aid that would cover more of the total costs of attendance for students from less well-off families.

    Methinks that $18 billion figure is a bit small, especially if “everybody” will get free tuition.