Free Markets, Free People

Freedom and Liberty

1 2 3 94

Delusional and desperate

I’m speaking of our POTUS. Yesterday at a commencement ceremony at the Coast Guard Academy, he declared that climate change was the biggest threat to our national security out there.

No. Really.

Even the ever malleable Jeb Bush couldn’t take that:

U.S. Republican Jeb Bush said on Wednesday that the Earth’s climate is changing but that scientific research does not clearly show how much of the change is due to humans and how much is from natural causes. While President Barack Obama and many scientists believe humans are largely to blame for climate change, Bush said the degree of human responsibility is uncertain. The former Florida governor challenged Obama’s determination earlier in the day that climate change is now a threat to U.S. national security.

It’s not just the degree of of change caused by humans in question but the effect of CO2.  But we “deniers” know that.  That and the fact that without a doubt the “evidence” which the alarmist have used has been fudged make any reasoning person “skeptical” of the declared “science”.   Add in the abysmally wrong models as well as the temperatures from the last 17 years and anyone who isn’t a skeptic has blinders on and isn’t interested in science.

But, with Iraq collapsing, Saudi Arabia buying nukes while Iran develops them, Lybia in chaos and a haven for ISIS, Syria imploding, Yemen falling to extremists, Egypt cozying up to Russia who is taking the Ukraine bit by bit and China is challenging us in the South China Sea, global warming climate change isn’t even on the radar screen as far as national security problems go.

No, the cult of climate change is precisely what Bush said it is:

The problem is climate change has been co-opted by the hard-core left and if you don’t march to their beat perfectly then you’re a denier.

And we all know what they want to do with “deniers”, don’t we?

So why are we hearing all this nonsense in the midst of all this chaos in the world?

In his frantic search for something positive for us to remember him by, President Obama has lately turned to “climate change,” casting it in recent weeks as a matter of health, of environmental protection, of international obligation, even as a matter of his daughter’s health. She suffered an asthma attack as a child, and he thinks the changing weather had something to do with it. Nothing has worked so far to persuade the public that everyone is doomed unless the government steps in to change the weather. President Obama is likely to find that manufactured climate hysteria won’t work.

Legacy.  He’s screwed absolutely everything else up during his tenure as president.  This might be his last shot at what he thinks will be a positive legacy.  If implemented, it would likely be just like the other monstrosities he’s now trying to run from.  But he’s going to try.

And reason 2?

With six months to go until the next global climate treaty talks in Paris, environmentalist and former US vice president Al Gore has declared that ‘the future of the world depends’ on their outcome. Lord Nigel Lawson, former energy secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s government, delivers his assessment of the prospects of the world reaching a new climate deal.

Everyone with consciousness knows nothing is going to change when they meet.

Spiegel journalist Axel Bojanowski calls it the “big climate show”. Although big declarations are being made, behind the scenes “creative steps” and “tricks” are the real order of the day. One example of trickery comes from Russia, Bojanowski writes: Although Russia has announced it wants to reduce emissions 25% by 2030 compared to 1990 – this is in fact trickery. Because of the collapse of its industry during the 1990s, the country is emitting only half as much CO2 as it did in 1990. That means with respect to climate targets, Russia intends to emit more CO2 in the future.” And not less! In Paris do expect the signing of a “binding international treaty”, but one that will be chock-full of non-binding requirements. The circus (which no one takes seriously anymore) thus will continue.

But … he can then claim, legacy.  Because it’s not something actually having an effect, it’s the intent that’s important in the post-modern world.  So, as we’ve seen in the past, he’ll talk the talk and consider that to be “action taken”.

Somehow, however, money will migrate from your wallet to the government’s in all this while whatever it is the alarmists want done won’t get one iota closer to happening than before.

It’s all about income redistribution and that’s precisely what will be the outcome to this “national security problem”, just hide and watch.

~McQ

Hypocrisy in academia … what a surprise!

As you can probably tell by the frequency of these sorts of posts, I’m fascinated by watching the left’s civil war, especially in academia.

On the one hand we have defacto speech codes on college campuses that describe anything considered to be hurtful to be “hate speech”.  And, of course, you can’t utter “hate speech” without sanction and shaming by the left – or being shouted down if you dare to introduce a topic that doesn’t conform with the ideology of certain vocal minorities.  “Safe spaces” and “micro-aggression” along with “trigger warnings” are the what, as Kathleen Parker calls our “swaddled class”, use to attack those who apparently threaten their pseudo-well-being.

On the other hand, we see real hate defended – or at least that’s the case at Boston U where this execrable excuse for an assistant professor has just been hired:

 On Friday, her new employer’s spokesman, Colin Riley, told FoxNews.com that the tweets came from Grundy’s personal Twitter account and that she was “exercising her right to free speech and we respect her right to do so.”

Then, amid a deluge of angry emails from former students, the school sought to amend the comment.

“The University does not condone racism or bigotry in any form and we are deeply saddened when anyone makes such offensive statements,” Riley told FoxNews.com Saturday.

Well, isn’t that nice – defending what in anyone  else would have been termed “hate speech”. (What Dr. Grundy said can be seen here.)  Obviously she thinks all of this is acceptable even if she is woefully wrong (in terms of history).  Quite simply she’s a “troll.”  Anyone of the opinion that’s how she’ll likely be in the classroom as well?  Yeah, me too.

And then there’s where she went after an apparent rape victim simply because she’s white.

Ms. Grundy, a newly hired black sociology professor who recently apologized for tweeting that white males are a “problem population,” is now accused of mercilessly mocking Meghan Chamberlin in a Facebook thread on Feb. 25, Fox News reported.

The woman who wrote, “my name is *Sai*, but you can call me Dr. Grundy,” posted the comments after Ms. Chamberlin took issue with an article on racism and sexism by The Grio that the Facebook thread had linked to, Fox News reported.

“I LITERALLY cry and lose sleep over this,” Ms. Chamberlin wrote, adding she had been raped as a child, Fox reported. “What this article did was tell me that I’m not aloud [sic] to ask for help… Because I am a WHITE woman… So when I read this article… you do understand what that does to me, right? It kills me…”

“‘I literally cry’…. While we literally die,” replied the woman identified as Sai Grundy, using the same profile photo the Boston University professor used on tweets she acknowledged last week, Fox News reported.

“[T]ry this article. A white woman explaining this issue to other white women… who manages NOT to cry while doing it!” Ms. Grundy wrote.

Ms. Chamberlin responded: “No really. I got it. You can take your claws out, thanks.”

To which Ms. Grundy exploded:

“THIS IS THE [expletive] I AM TALKING ABOUT. WHY DO YOU GET TO PLAY THE VICTIM EVERY TIME PEOPLE OF COLOR AND OUR ALLIES WANT TO POINT OUT RACISM. my CLAWS?? Do you see how you just took an issue that WASNT about you, MADE it about you, and NOW want to play the victim when I take the time to explain to you some [expletive] that is literally $82,000 below my pay grade? And then you promote your #whitegirltears like that’s some badge you get to wear… YOU BENEFIT FROM RACISM. WE’RE EXPLAINING THAT TO YOU and you’re vilifying my act of intellectual altruism by saying i stuck my “claws” into you?”

Ms. Chamberlin responded: “I am choosing to ‘exit’ this conversation. You don’t know me. I don’t know you. It’s really as simple as that.”

Ms. Grundy responded: “YOU DONT HAVE TO KNOW ME. what you SHOULD know is that you don’t know more about this issue than marginalized women. And instead of entering this conversation with an iota of humility about that, you have made it a celebration of your false sense of victimization. now go cry somewhere. since that’s what you do.”

This is someone who is going to teach sociology to students? This is a person committed to “diversity” and learning?  Given her Twitter tirade, what white student is going to bother taking her class?

Let’s face it, she’s a racist.  And yeah, I don’t buy this new definition that you have to have “power” and not be a “minority” to be racist.  That’s the usual leftist copout.

She’s as racist as they come.  She also indulges in hate speech.  And she has every 1st Amendment right to do that, a right I defend completely.

However, the exercise of such a right in the manner in which she has exercised it has consequences.  Far fewer students than might have taken her class will take it now.  And many alumni are promising never to contribute another dollar to the school if she’s employed there.  Not only that, Boston U’s reputation has taken a horrible hit.

Debora Tyler gets to the essence of Grundy’s trolling and tirades:

Professor Saida Grundy recently introduced herself as a new faculty member at Boston University with a blast of obscene and abusive bigotry against a race and gender student group.  A brief refresher in the psychology of scapegoating explains why she must be terminated: blaming a racial or gender group for social ills is an intransigent form of ignorance that blocks the capacity for complex problem solving. Isn’t that capacity a quality required of professors?

The AP reported she made statements “critical” of white students. This is an example of AP leftwing bias. She did not make “critical statements.” The hate she expressed is typical of classic scapegoating, paralleling the Nazi transference of blame against Jews. Professor Grundy characterized the entire group of white college males as a problem population. From her tweets: “white masculinity isn’t a problem for america’s colleges, white masculinity is THE problem for america’s colleges… for the record, NO race outside of europeans had a system that made slavery a *personhood* instead of temporary condition.” We can overlook her tweets’ problematic capitalization and punctuation, but must Boston University students be forced to suffer her baneful and ill-informed opinions? Her assertion about the unique “personhood” of European slavery is particularly, and stunningly, ignorant.

Boston U. must be so proud …

~McQ

What do people use their brains for today?!

A less sensational title would be “what the heck ever happened to critical thinking”?

Example:

The University of Colorado-Boulder would like students to inform on each other when they witness “bias incidents,” by reporting the perpetrators and turning over all relevant information—including names, phone numbers, addresses, and university ID or Social Security Numbers—to the administration.

What counts as a bias incident is, as always, entirely subjective. An official who spoke with The College Fixclarified that “this in no way is meant to curtail free speech.”

Say what?  “This is in no way meant to curtail free speech”?  I can’t think of anything which would tend to chill it more than reporting something as arbitrary and subjective as a “bias incident” with name, phone number, address and SSAN to the administration, can you?

For the purposes of this protocol, a “bias-motivated incident” is any of the following:

  • Discrimination — Occurs when an individual suffers an adverse consequence, on the basis of one or more of their protected classes.
  • Harassment — Verbal or physical conduct that unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work or academic performance or creates an intimidating or hostile work or educational or living environment.  Examples may include, but are not limited to, epithets, images, slurs, jokes; electronic communication or other verbal, graphic or physical conduct.
  • Acts of Intolerance — Conduct motivated by discriminatory bias or hatred toward other individuals or groups based on perceived or actual characteristics of race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, veteran status, political affiliation, or political philosophy or other attribute.

Good grief … why not spend your entire collegiate career pretending you’re mute?!

But … and there is always a “but”:

Nevertheless, the university’s website encourages students to report each other for engaging in a broad range of constitutionally protected speech.

What a load.

What in the world do these people who “administer” colleges these days use for critical thinking.  They may as well feed their brains to zombies for all the good they do them.

~McQ

Equality: the wrong perspective

I’m always intrigued when I find this sort of nonsense about “equality” being trotted out as anything but stupidity on a stick.  But here we go:

‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says.

‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’

Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.

So, what to do?

According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

Instrumental position?  I’m not sure what that means, but in the larger sense, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time a philosopher got it wrong because everything was based on a false premise.  That somehow the “family” is at the root of inequality of opportunity. In reality, as you’ll see, he’s not at all interested in equality of opportunity.  He’s more interested in equality of outcome.  To make that happen, you have to control the variables.

But there’s more to this examination by philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse.  The premise is nonsense as history has proven.  To their credit, Swift and Brighouse sort of get it, but they have a goal in mind, so they really don’t.  They just hide the goal in a bunch of blathering about families and “equality” and attempt to convince you they’re pushing “equality of opportunity”.

‘Nearly everyone who has thought about this would conclude that it is a really bad idea to be raised by state institutions, unless something has gone wrong,’ he says.

Intuitively it doesn’t feel right, but for a philosopher, solutions require more than an initial reaction. So Swift and his college Brighouse set to work on a respectable analytical defence of the family, asking themselves the deceptively simple question: ‘Why are families a good thing exactly?’

Not surprisingly, it begins with kids and ends with parents.

‘It’s the children’s interest in family life that is the most important,’ says Swift. ‘From all we now know, it is in the child’s interest to be parented, and to be parented well. Meanwhile, from the adult point of view it looks as if there is something very valuable in being a parent.’

He concedes parenting might not be for everyone and for some it can go badly wrong, but in general it is an irreplaceable relationship.

‘Parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and wellbeing of adults.’

It seems that from both the child’s and adult’s point of view there is something to be said about living in a family way. This doesn’t exactly parry the criticism that families exacerbate social inequality.

Here comes the “but” however.  And it leads to the very same place it always does:

Swift and Brighouse needed to sort out those activities that contribute to unnecessary inequality from those that don’t.

‘What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children’.

The test they devised was based on what they term ‘familial relationship goods’; those unique and identifiable things that arise within the family unit and contribute to the flourishing of family members.

Got that?  In case you missed it they said “what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children.”  Control in the name of “equality” as defined by … who?

My next question was “who is ‘we'” and by what right do ‘we’ pretend to have the power to allow or disallow activities that parents determine might help their children and are within their power to give them?  Certainly not me?  You?  Who?

I think we all know.

Now we arrive at “equality” crap.  Equality has somehow become the standard by which you must live your life.  In the US, equality has always meant equality of opportunity, equality before the law, etc.  The leftist view has always been “equality of outcome” and has spawned such monstrosities as socialism and communism in its name.  Where these two are headed is toward the latter.  And how do that do that? By the fact that they’re interested in restricting parents in what they can do for their children so the outcome is more likely to be “equal”.

For Swift, there’s one particular choice that fails the test.

‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’

We’ve now pretty arbitrarily defined “familial relationship good” and we’ve decided that certain things don’t really contribute that to which we’ve now restricted parents – producing familial relationship goods.  And while research points to bedtime stories as being much more of an advantage to those who get them than private schooling, the intimacy of such a “product” and the trouble enforcing their ban (and its unpopularity) see them wave it off … for now.

‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.

This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift’s mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch.

‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.’

But, as they finally admit,  it isn’t really just about fostering and producing familial relationship goods so much as “leveling the playing field”.  So out of necessity, the family goods list must be short and universal, or they’re a “no-go”. They just can’t seem to find a way to make the family unit regressive enough to go after it, so they’re reduced to going after things that may provide an advantage to some children over others – like private schools.

Now these two have taken a ration of grief based on click bait headlines which have claimed they’re for the abolition of the family.  Well, they’re not, really.  But they are for “leveling the playing field” – i.e. that is the goal of this exercise.  So they’re not at all above finding ways to restrict families who might be able to provide activities and events that they feel (see the arbitrariness creeping in) provide advantages to their children that others don’t enjoy.

It’s certainly not a stretch to believe they’d be fine with doing away with family vacations – after all, not all children can afford to go on vacations and the advantages they would provide to those who can would lead to “inequality”.  And besides, they’re not necessary to produce “these desired familial relationship goods”, are they?  Special summer camps?  Yeah, no, sorry.  A voice coach?  Really? You have to ask?

You get the point.  Everyone hates the word “elite” so load your discussion with those type trigger words.  Imply that you don’t want to hurt the family, but you do want the “children” to have equal opportunity.  And ease them into these restrictions you propose with one that is viscerally easy for the vast majority who don’t have children who attend “elite” private schools.  A little class warfare always helps.

Folks, this isn’t “philosophy”, this is socialist snake oil in a new package.  Once you’ve seen it, you never forget what it is regardless of how they dress it up or pitch it.

~McQ

 

News bites

Our bias media is amazing at times.  AP in reference to the Garland event:

Pamela Geller at AP headquarters, where she said she had no regrets over TX cartoon contest that left 2 dead.

Why should she?  It is the actions of the two dead that led to their deaths.  Why would Geller regret doing what she did because two terrorists decided to attack it?  Seems like blaming the victim to me.

Here’s the dirty little secret about “why” we see such a push-back/defense of the terrorists from the left:

Unable or unwilling to formulate a strategy to comprehensively defeat jihad or even to adequately defend our nation, our elites adopt a strategy of cultural appeasement that only strengthens our enemy. Millions in the Muslim world are drawn to the “strong horse” (to use Osama bin Laden’s phrase), and when jihadists intimidate the West into silence and conformity, the jihadists show themselves strong.

And that’s why they are having little problem recruiting more jihadists.  The ill informed zealots actually think they are winning or can win.  Because the West as it now appears, is spineless.  So people like Geller are to be condemned and vilified.  Appeasement.

Meanwhile, in Idaho, a little book banning:

The Great Depression is part of our nation’s history. So why would an Idaho committee seek to ban one of the greatest books written about that time period?

John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men” is under fire from a Coeur d’Alene committee which says the book is too dark and depressing for teens to read.

They’re also complaining about the book’s inappropriate language.

You know, I read “Of Mice and Men” when I was about 15, along with “Cannery Row”, “Grapes of Wrath” and just about everything else Steinbeck wrote.  I was living in Monterey, CA at the time and he was a bit of a local legend.  I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would ban that book.  It is terrific.  But, well, we have helicopter parents now who are concerned with a few bad words in a book, but who are otherwise willing to turn their kids over to the tender mercies of public school administrations who teach 2nd graders about sex, etc.

I don’t understand it — never will.

By the way, that would be the same public schools busily engaged in teaching “white privilege” in our schools.  For example:

According to PEG, white culture is based on “white individualism” or “white traits” like “rugged individualism,” “adherence to rigid time schedules,” “plan(ning) for the future,” and the idea that “hard work is the key to success.”

Minority students shouldn’t be expected to subscribe to those values because they are foreign to their culture, according to PEG.

Juan Williams has written about it and strongly disagrees.

“The tradition of black Americans throughout history is one that values the opportunity for education,” Williams said. “That includes being on time and working hard in school. You won’t find a black mother or father who says that’s not our tradition.

“We’re all in the same American culture. In any job you have to be on time. That’s just the way the world works. These people are engaged in cultural and political arguments that are based on negative stereotypes of black capacity to achieve in any situation. They are not helping these kids.”

Ya think!?  But that’s what your tax dollars are going toward.

Have you ever wondered where “liberation theology” came from?  Would you believe the godless commies?

Ion Mihai Pacepa has been called “the Cold War’s most important defector,” and after his defection, the Romanian government under Nicolae Ceausescu placed two death sentences and a $2 million bounty on his head. During the more than ten years that Pacepa worked with the CIA, he made what the agency described as “an important and unique contribution to the United States.”

He is reported in fact to have given the CIA “the best intelligence ever obtained on communist intelligence networks and internal security services.”

“Liberation theology has been generally understood to be a marriage of Marxism and Christianity. What has not been understood is that it was not the product of Christians who pursued Communism, but of Communists who pursued Christians,” Pacepa said in a recent article. In his role as doctrinal watchdog, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger called liberation theology a “singular heresy” and a “fundamental threat” to the Church.

Pacepa says that he learned details of the KGB involvement with Liberation Theology from Soviet General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, Communist Romania’s chief foreign intelligence adviser, who later became head of the Soviet espionage service, the PGU.

In 1959, Sakharovsky went to Romania together with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, for what would become known as “Khrushchev’s six-day vacation.” According to Pacepa, Khrushchev “wanted to go down in history as the Soviet leader who had exported communism to Central and South America.” He chose Romania as his point of export, since it was the only Latin country in the Soviet bloc and provided a logical liaison to Latin America because of the similarity of language and culture.

Pacepa claims that the Theology of Liberation was not merely infiltrated by the KGB, it was actually the brainchild of Soviet intelligence services.

“The movement was born in the KGB, and it had a KGB-invented name: Liberation Theology,” Pacepa said.

We first learn this week that “hate-speech” limitations came from these guys and now “liberation theology”.  Next you’ll tell us they infiltrated anti-war groups during the VietNam war … oh, wait.

On the good news front, the FBI has finally purged the Southern Poverty Law Center from its list of sources:

Christian groups are celebrating with the news that the Federal Bureau of Investigation appears to have scrubbed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) from its hate crimes webpage, where the controversial group was listed as a resource and referred to as a partner in public outreach.

A letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, drafted by Lieutenant General (Ret.) William G. Boykin, Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council (FRC), calls such an association “completely unacceptable.”

Cheers! Have a good weekend.
~McQ

How times have changed when it comes to free speech – just ask the NY Times

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I’m going to talk about how the left continues to attack free speech by trying to argue that somehow what they consider “hate speech” isn’t a part of it.  We watched CNN’s Chris Cuomo embarrass himself (well he probably wasn’t embarrassed, but he should have been) when he admonished the right to read the Constitution because it clearly didn’t support such speech.  And I pointed out yesterday the totalitarian origins of “hate-speech” exemptions from free speech rights.

That said, I’m fascinated by the attacks on this event in Texas and its sponsor, Pamela Geller.  Agree or disagree with her agenda, in terms of free speech she had every single right in the world to put that on and not expect to be attacked.   The presumption that she would be attacked is just that, a presumption.  It isn’t valid in any terms but apparently the left feels that their presumption that an attack would happen is all that is necessary to condemn Geller’s event as a hate-fest and hate-speech.  You have to wonder what they’d have said if no violence had erupted?

The usual suspects, however, attacked her.  In the particular case I’ll cite, it was the NY Times.  Watch how they set up their editorial “But!”:

There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.

End of editorial.  That’s the crux of the free speech argument.  There are no “buts” after that.  However, there is for the NYT:

But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

Pure editorial opinion masquerading as some sort of “fact”.  What is the NYT doing here?  Arbitrarily deciding what is or isn’t hate.  And how dangerous is that?  See the USSR and all previous and existing totalitarian regimes.  They do that every day.

Anyway, in 1999, the NYT wasn’t in such a rush to equate an extraordinarily similar event as “an exercise in bigotry and hatred”.  You may remember it:

The Times in 1999 endorsed the showing at a public museum in New York of a supposed art work consisting of a crucifix in a vial of urine, arguing, “A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time.” 

And what happened at that time?

Well, apparently the “image ridiculing” this religion was tolerated to the point that no violence occurred, meaning one can assume that leaders of that religion must have made it clear that it didn’t “justify murder” and none occurred.  That’s as it should have been.

So why, then, if the Times believed in free speech in 1999 when an obviously a large segment of the population viewed the crucifix in urine as offensive, provocative and sacrilegious, does it not believe the same thing in 2015 when the same conditions exist?

Because of the “but”, of course.  A “but” that didn’t exist when it was a religion being ridiculed that was not in favor with the left.

Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.

The Times has yet to answer how “inflicting anguish” on millions of Christians who have done nothing to the artist is somehow “striking a blow for freedom of expression” or how that display wasn’t motivated by “hate” (hint: because their definition of “hate” is arbitrary).  It sure had no problem putting it’s editorial heft in support of that “hate” then.  And there’s no argument by anyone who can reason –  it was as “hateful” as anything at the Garland event.  And pretending otherwise is, to borrow the NYT term, “hogwash”.

~McQ

There is no “line” between free speech and hate speech – nor should there be

But the LA Times thinks there is as it states in its piece about the Garland, TX attack by Islamists:

The Garland attack refocused public attention on the fine line between free speech and hate speech in the ideological struggle between radical Islam and the West.

Hate to break it to them but what they categorize as “hate speech” is a subset of “free speech”.

Of course the term is now in popular use all across the world, but it has very interesting and nasty origin as the Hoover Institution discusses here.

The origin of the term comes from the Soviet Union and its satellites in arguments about the 1948 UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (udhr).  The arguments during its drafting and particularly the area concerning freedom of speech showed the world the totalitarian concept of “free speech” as articulated by the USSR and its satellites.

The drafting history of the protection of the freedom of expression in the udhr does not leave any doubt that the dominant force behind the attempt to adopt an obligation to restrict this right under human rights law was the Soviet Union. On the other hand, led by the U.S. and uk, the vast majority of Western democracies, albeit with differences in emphasis, sought to guarantee a wide protection of freedom of expression and in particular to avoid any explicit obligation upon states to restrict this right.

In particular the USSR sought language that addressed “hate”:

The first draft was limited to the prohibition of “any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hostility that constitutes an incitement to violence.” However, a number of countries led by the Soviet Union were adamant that incitement to violence was insufficient, and sought a broader prohibition against “incitement to hatred.” Poland expressed dissatisfaction with a provision only prohibiting incitement to violence, since it did not tackle “the root of the evil,” and worried that freedom of expression could be abused and “contribute decisively to the elimination of all freedoms and rights.” The Yugoslav representative thought it important to “suppress manifestations of hatred which, even without leading to violence, constituted a degradation of human dignity and a violation of human rights.”

Of course we all know how loosely such a term as “hate” can be interpreted and how arbitrarily it can be applied, especially by a state bent on oppression of the opposition.  And, of course, that was the point.  The totalitarian regimes were looking for the blessing of the UDHR to sanction their planned oppression.

Eleanor Roosevelt found the language “extremely dangerous” and warned against provisions “likely to be exploited by totalitarian States for the purpose of rendering the other articles null and void.” She also feared that the provision “would encourage governments to punish all criticism under the guise of protecting against religious or national hostility.” Roosevelt’s concern was shared by, among others, the five Nordic countries. Sweden argued that “the effective prophylaxis lay in free discussion, information, and education,” and that “fanatical persecution” should be countered with “free discussion, information and debate”. Australia warned that “people could not be legislated into morality.” Furthermore, it noted that “the remedy might be worse than the evil it sought to remove.” The uk representative stated that “the power of democracy to combat propaganda lay . . . in the ability of its citizens to arrive at reasoned decisions in the face of conflicting appeals.” When challenged by the Soviet Union, the uk representative pointed out that during World War II, Hitler’s Mein Kampf had not been banned and was readily available in the uk, and that its government “would maintain and fight for its conception of liberty as resolutely as it had fought against Hitler.”

Of course, at the time this was being discussed, the West was adamantly against the restrictions that the Soviets were seeking, i.e. including “hate speech” as a legitimate reason to limit speech. They clearly understood the implications of such restrictions and how they could and most likely would be used.

Fast forward to today:

All western european countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.

So, in essence, Europe has capitulated to Soviet demands a few decades after the communist nation ceased to exist.  It apparently buys into the notion that that state has the right to limit speech if hateful and reserves to itself the right to define what is or isn’t hate.  Eleanor Roosevelt, of course, was right – such laws are “likely to be exploited by totalitarian States for the purposes of rendering” free speech “null and void”.  That’s precisely what totalitarian regimes always do, with or without the blessing of a UDHR.  They are going to control speech and they’re going to suppress as “hateful” anything they don’t agree with.

Interestingly it was a representative from Columbia who said it best:

Punishing ideas, whatever they may be, is to aid and abet tyranny, and leads to the abuse of power . . . As far as we are concerned and as far as democracy is concerned, ideas should be fought with ideas and reasons; theories must be refuted by arguments and not by the scaffold, prison, exile, confiscation, or fines.

Kirsten Powers points out that we’re slowly drifting toward tyranny when she talks about how it once was on the college campus and how it is now.  Contrary ideas are now characterized as “violence” and intolerance to those ideas is rampant for some.  Interestingly, for the most part, those who would ban speech they disagree with mostly find themselves on the left side of the political spectrum, which, at least, is historically consistent.  They’re heirs to the Soviet Union’s attempts to oppress free speech.

They must be very proud.

~McQ

The hypocrisy immune left and free speech

It is interesting to me to examine events and the reaction too them in certain contexts, such as left and right.  Below is a listing I found on Facebook (h/t Christopher Buckley) which succinctly states the left’s reaction to each of the events listed:

Rioters in Baltimore: EXPRESSION OF SPEECH
Stomping on US flag: EXPRESSION OF SPEECH
Crucifix in a jar of urine: EXPRESSION OF SPEECH
Cartoon art display: UNPROTECTED INCENDIARY HATE

In fact, rioting is now being redefined (or at least the attempt is being made) from a criminal enterprise to a “free speech” event if a protected minority is involved.  If it’s a bunch of straight white guys, they’re going to jail.

Stomping the flag and a crucifix in a jar of urine have always been defended by the left as free speech.  Burn the flag – free speech.  Neo-Nazi’s marching in a Jewish neighborhood – free speech.  The list goes on.

However, it appears that there is a line somewhere on the left where that changes.  Outrageous acts focused on offending certain groups are always free speech.  Outrageous acts, of exactly the same nature but against protected groups, yeah, screw free speech, it’s hate speech.  And, of course, the protected group is the “victim”.  On the other side, however, the deeply offended group is told to get over it, free speech is inviolate … well, except … yeah.  I’m not sure how the left keeps it straight in their tiny little heads and don’t keel over from an overdose of hypocrisy.

But then, they seem to have developed some sort of tolerance for hypocrisy over the ages – no pun intended.

~McQ

All around the cobbler’s bench …

The monkey and weasel are disgusted.

Baltimore:

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake is denying it, but a senior law enforcement source has told Fox Newsthat she gave an order for police to stand down as riots broke out Monday night.

“The source, who is involved in the enforcement efforts, confirmed to Fox News there was a direct order from the mayor to her police chief Monday night, effectively tying the hands of officers as they were pelted with rocks and bottles.

Asked directly if the mayor was the one who gave that order, the source said: “You are G*d damn right it was.””

This claim follows Rawlings-Blake’s comments on Sunday, when she said they were giving space to those who “wished to destroy.” On Monday, she tried (unsuccessfully) to walk that comment back.

Happy, happy … just let ’em do a little looting and trashing and all will be well.  Oh, and let’s redefine a few things shall we?

The mayor, in an interview with Fox News’ Bill Hemmer on Tuesday, denied any order was issued to hold back on Monday.

“You have to understand, it is not holding back. It is responding appropriately,” she said, saying there was no stand-down directive.

Responding appropriately?  I wonder how “appropriately” she’d have responded had it been, say, her house or business they were looting and trashing.  Absolutely no respect for private property.  None.  And nonsense excuse making to boot.

The big question:

Yes, the dirty little secret that no one wants to admit is that Baltimore, and so many other urban areas and inner city communities in America are a reflection of the abject failure of liberal progressive socialist policies as advanced by the Democrat party.

The preeminent question is whether or not those in Baltimore and other places will recognize who is truly responsible for their plight. Or will they continue to be manipulated and propagandized by the liberal progressive media and the poverty pimps like the one supposedly heading down from New York City.

Most of us can answer that question – “they continue to be manipulated and propagandized by the liberal progressive media and the poverty pimps like the one supposedly heading down from New York City.”  Oh, and the Republicans.  Just watch 2016.  The “plantation” has a huge hold.

Next question.

Apparently Ben Affleck is mortified by his ancestors:

This brings the total number of Affleck’s known slaveholding ancestors to 14, and the number of slaves either owned or “held” as a trustee or on behalf of an estate by these ancestors to 242.

It seems that this was discovered while doing a PBS program and Affleck asked they be, uh, unmentioned.  You see, he is ashamed of them.

Okay, I can understand that … however, why hide it?  Why not say, hey they were wrong, what they did was wrong and I certainly don’t support what they did.  Seems to me that would be much more powerful than trying to hide the past.  And, to quote Hillary Clinton – “what difference does it make”?!

Oh, liberal credentials of course.  And white guilt.  Dude has to hand in the credentials and burn with white guilt.  Pity.

Anyone wonder what Ben would have done if he’d been born during that era to one of his slaveholding ancestors?  Yeah, I think Ben wonders that as well.  Heh.

If you need another example of “crony capitalism” (and I put that in quotes because this is no more capitalism than lead is gold), it is playing out with the FDA and a couple of Senators … oh, and their corporate cronies:

People who are trying to do good for their families and the planet by living a simple life based on traditional skills are facing yet another assault. Artisanal soap makers say new regulations, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), will put them out of business. Many soap makers are rural “kitchen table” operations that rely on the income to fund their simple living lifestyle.  Some use milk from goats they raise and ingredients they harvest from the land.

The form includes a statement on behalf of handmade body care product makers that says, in part: “My products comply with FDA labeling requirements and the ingredients are commonly known (i.e, olive oil, oatmeal, sugar, coconut oil, etc).  My best customers are in my community. I cannot afford the user fees proposed in S. 1014. Further, my business has no capacity to do the reporting requirements for each product batch (10-50 units) as it could be several hundred FDA filings per month.” Those who sell online will also be affected.*

The view of Sen. Feinstein and her corporate backers (listed below) is that the Personal Care Products Safety Act (Senate Bill S.1014) will make the world a safer place by scrutinizing “everything from shampoo and hair dye to deodorant and lotion.” She introduced the amendment to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, because of troubling negative health effects from chemicals used in personal care products.  She says the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act should be more progressive like laws in Europe rather than antiquated US regulations in effect since the 1930s.

Yes, friends, having solved all the important problems of the world, our Senatorial nannies are going to back their corporate sponsors and attempt to regulate out of business this incredible threat to the American public.  And who are their Corporate sponsors?

Companies and brands that support the bill:
Johnson & Johnson, brands include Neutrogena, Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Lubriderm, Johnson’s baby products.
Procter & Gamble, including Pantene, Head & Shoulders, Clairol, Herbal Essences, Secret, Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci, Ivory, CoverGirl, Olay, Sebastian Professional, Vidal Sassoon.
Revlon, brands include Revlon, Almay, Mitchum
Esteee Lauder, brands include Esteee Lauder, Clinique, Origins, Tommy Hilfiger, MAC, La Mer, Bobbi Brown, Donna Karan, Aveda, Michael Kors.
Unilever, brands include Dove, Tresemme, Lever, St. Ives, Noxzema, Nexxus, Pond’s, Suave, Sunsilk, Vaseline, Degree.
L’Oreeal, brands include L’Oreeal Paris, Lancome, Giorgio Armani, Yves Saint Laurent, Kiehl’s, Essie, Garnier, Maybelline-New York, Vichy, La Roche-Posay, The Body Shop, Redken.
It almost makes you laugh, it is so transparantly obvious what is going on here.  But here’s the official justification:
Feinstein says her proposal is a “streamlined national system of oversight” and it won’t cost the taxpayer anything because it’s funded by industry user fees (until they pass the extra cost to the consumer, that is). Big multinational soap makers may be able to manage the increased fees and paperwork called for by Senate Bill S.1014 but the the Handmade Cosmetic Alliance says they will cripple their cottage industries. They tried to explain this to Feinstein without success.
Same old crap, different day.  Run the little guy out of business and, with additional fees, raise the price to the consumer.  Also note that while there is a period of “public input” the die seems to be cast.  No one is listening … it’s all pro-forma.
‘Merica … where it is important we be more like Europe, because they’ve done such a bang up job over there.
~McQ

Approaching the cliff or already over it?

Reading over at PJ Media I ran across this by Robert Wargas:

As Baltimore burned, the rest of us tweeted.

The riots followed a weekend in which GoFundMe shut down a fundraising page for a Christian-owned bakery that was hit with a huge fine for refusing to serve a gay wedding. GoFundMe has said its policy precludes raising money “in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.” The key word here is “hateful”: if you can expand or contract that word at will—which many people in this country can and do—you can accomplish anything.

Every week this country is consumed in a new distended orgy of polarized, mutual hatred, set against the backdrop of outrage mobs, race riots, shuttered businesses, scandals, Twitter-induced career ruination, gleeful smear parties, and partisan hackery.

Admit it: You’ve asked yourself where America is going, and how long it can survive the trip. Admit it.

I admit it.  In fact, we’ve been talking about it for years here.  The fact that it is accelerating comes as no real surprise here.  Nor does it come as a surprise that we have the “leadership”, or lack thereof, in Washington DC from which we currently suffer.

In fact, Wargas points out something that Ace at Ace of Spades was wondering the other day:

[T]he New Normal has prompted Ace of Spades to ask: “Is it time to formally separate America into two or more sovereign nations?”

“No one actually seems happy in this national marriage,” writes Ace. That is sadly true.

Indeed it is.  And it seems, at least to the side that loves liberty, that the anti-liberty faction in winning.

Of course, our own Dale Franks has been suggesting this may happen for years.  It sort of puts you in the same shoes as generations of Christians who’ve looked at what was happening all around them and asked “are we in the “end times” as foretold in the Bible?”

Are we at the edge of seeing this 200 plus year experiment go careening off a cliff?

Who knows?  In my experience, something like this has to get a lot worse than it is for that to happen.  And we have to remember that we’re bombarded daily with, well, what bleeds leads.

Certainly though, bombardment or not, it is clear that we’re not “doing better” as a country in just about any category you can point too.

The question is, as in our last civil war, are there irreconcilable differences?  There certainly were then and it appears there are now.  How does one paper over such differences when neither side seems willing to give?

I’m not so sure “getting better” is possible anymore, or at least not possible before some major rupture once again makes it possible. I hope I’m wrong. I hope I look back at this post in 2020 and laugh at myself. But who honestly thinks they’ll be laughing in 2020?

I’m not so sure either.  However, here’s a little bit of a test to see if there’s even a chance.  From Elizabeth Price Foley over at Insty’s:

LORETTA LYNCH’S FIRST TEST:   She’s sending two DOJ officials to Baltimore to meet with community leaders.  That’s good.  But the real question is:  What will they do and say, once they arrive?  Will they mimic Erick Holder’s DOJ, and prioritize lectures about white privilege and racism?  Or will they provide a voice of calm and reason, and unequivocally condemn the random violence?

Lynch has a chance to break with the embarrassingly biased Holder past and start rebuilding trust in DOJ as a department interested in actual justice (for all).  Will she take it?

Bets anyone?

~McQ

1 2 3 94