5 For 5
This new congresswomen Alexandra Ocasio is a perfect 5 for 5 for terrible ideas.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
Incivility
Ross Douthat wisely deconstructs the latest form of Trump protest.
With the anti-Trump progressive folks, even if they are - as they insist - "on the right side of history" - they are awfully dumb at showing it. They've got one move and one move only: obstruct, vilify, try and take down. In case they haven't figured it out yet, it's dividing the hell out of the country and empowering Trump himself. The smarter liberals think this is a function of bad tactics. I disagree. I think it's a vacuity of ideas and reflective of there being "no there there." Liberals abandoned patriotism, working class issues, pragmatism, a shared belief in individual liberty in exchange for "diversity," "tolerance," and social justice. The only possible result for Liberals choosing this path is failure or tyranny, neither of which I see as desirable.
Ross Douthat wisely deconstructs the latest form of Trump protest.
Thus in the civil rights era, the sites of protest — lunch counters, city buses — were carefully chosen to make segregation look at once evil and ridiculous, and the protests were calibrated to make it plain that the police officers and vigilantes enforcing the institution were the bad guys. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was no plaster saint of civility or centrism, and he was often willing to earn a reputation as a disturber of the peace. But he still chose his disturbances strategically, which is why the images on American television screens featured Southern Christian Leadership Conference activists sitting peacefully in lunch counters or facing down attack dogs — rather than, say, turning Lurleen Wallace out of her favorite restaurant.See...the Civil Rights protestors, in addition to being morally correct, were also very smart and very clever.
With the anti-Trump progressive folks, even if they are - as they insist - "on the right side of history" - they are awfully dumb at showing it. They've got one move and one move only: obstruct, vilify, try and take down. In case they haven't figured it out yet, it's dividing the hell out of the country and empowering Trump himself. The smarter liberals think this is a function of bad tactics. I disagree. I think it's a vacuity of ideas and reflective of there being "no there there." Liberals abandoned patriotism, working class issues, pragmatism, a shared belief in individual liberty in exchange for "diversity," "tolerance," and social justice. The only possible result for Liberals choosing this path is failure or tyranny, neither of which I see as desirable.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Say What You Will...
We are now openly discussing the border crisis. Andrew Sullivan even points out this crisis has been going on since the end of Bush Administration and all throughout the Obama Administration.
Regardless of the humanitarian or political side of the equation, it should be pointed out that Trump was the ONLY candidate in 2016 who wanted to even talk about immigration. In fact, that, coupled with his anti-PC attitude is the reason for his election, IMO.
What does this reveal? It reveals that establishment Republicans and Democrats were fully willing to together sweep the border problem under the rug and try to get the public to ignore it BECAUSE it is a difficult issue. Trump, on the other hand, wanted to bring the issue to the forefront and deal with it. Now maybe he's crass, maybe he offended some folks, maybe he made some very poor PR moves -- but let's give the man credit for being on top of an important and difficult issue long before the public, or the establishment politicians wanted to examine it. That is what you call leadership.
We are now openly discussing the border crisis. Andrew Sullivan even points out this crisis has been going on since the end of Bush Administration and all throughout the Obama Administration.
Regardless of the humanitarian or political side of the equation, it should be pointed out that Trump was the ONLY candidate in 2016 who wanted to even talk about immigration. In fact, that, coupled with his anti-PC attitude is the reason for his election, IMO.
What does this reveal? It reveals that establishment Republicans and Democrats were fully willing to together sweep the border problem under the rug and try to get the public to ignore it BECAUSE it is a difficult issue. Trump, on the other hand, wanted to bring the issue to the forefront and deal with it. Now maybe he's crass, maybe he offended some folks, maybe he made some very poor PR moves -- but let's give the man credit for being on top of an important and difficult issue long before the public, or the establishment politicians wanted to examine it. That is what you call leadership.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Starbucks Closing 150 "Urban" Stores
Get woke, go broke.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with...oh who the hell cares.
Get woke, go broke.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with...oh who the hell cares.
Monday, June 18, 2018
Yep
Iranian Feminist argues Western Liberals exacerbate the problem of misogyny in her country.
Because predominantly Western feminists are interested in self-promotion and advancement, not the cause of liberating women from actual oppression.
Iranian Feminist argues Western Liberals exacerbate the problem of misogyny in her country.
Because predominantly Western feminists are interested in self-promotion and advancement, not the cause of liberating women from actual oppression.
Sunday, June 17, 2018
World Cup
Players who caught my eye:
#9 Shirt on Brazil. Gabriel Jesus, or something.
Chicharito's incredible touch on the set up to the goal.
Ozil. One of my favorite players ever...one of the few who is it simply pleasurable to watch him touch the ball. Others like this? Pirlo. Who else?
Ronaldo. My god, the free kick.
Isco on Spain. High quality.
Marcelo on Brazil. Reimagines how left back (my position can be played).
Rafa Marquez - inspires me to play at least another year
Players who caught my eye:
#9 Shirt on Brazil. Gabriel Jesus, or something.
Chicharito's incredible touch on the set up to the goal.
Ozil. One of my favorite players ever...one of the few who is it simply pleasurable to watch him touch the ball. Others like this? Pirlo. Who else?
Ronaldo. My god, the free kick.
Isco on Spain. High quality.
Marcelo on Brazil. Reimagines how left back (my position can be played).
Rafa Marquez - inspires me to play at least another year
Asians at Harvard
Yikes.
Here's my take: it's definitely racism, but not clearly the wrong policy for Harvard. I realize my views are extraordinarily odd on this particular issue, but it basically boils down to the fact that yes, I believe racism exists (everywhere, not just in the US) and that simultaneously it isn't that big of a problem. Or, I should say, it is not as a big a problems as the amount of ink spent on it suggests.
So...let's be honest on issue - is it so repugnant that whites/Harvard are suspicious and do not want too many Asians at Harvard? Because this is the subtext, of course. Let's try and provide the most charitable explanation. I have some particular insight into this issue - I teach a lot of Chinese-from-China students and my wife attended a predominantly Asian-American high school. A recurring theme from her and my Chinese students is that there is an incredibly unhealthy, competitive attitude towards education within these cultures. Chinese immigrants in California are obsessed with high schools, test scores, and trying to game the college system to get their kids into the best schools. Many do not succeed and end up at the variety of UC schools. But for failing, this is pretty good! But is celebrating this model desirable? It would increase test scores for sure. Would it be good for society?
Say Harvard were to become entirely meritocratic. It would be 50% Asian and 50% Jewish. Okay. Maybe this is a preferable outcome. Maybe the ivy league starts to resemble the national universities in Asia. Are we so sure this is a better outcome? Maybe the "best" outcome is what is already happening, ie a certain percentage of Asian students are let into Harvard/Ivy league, enough so the educational culture does not transform into something more akin to the cutthroat Chinese culture, and brings very high level of Asian-American students more into the American education model of grade inflation, providing favors for alumni, and some sense of a more "broad" liberal arts style learning.
So I guess what I'm saying is that maybe a little racism isn't such a bad thing. Or at least a preferable thing than manipulating language to try to assuage the terror of everyone being considered racist, or completely overturning American culture in order to root out all racism. Hint: it won't work, nor be desirable.
Yikes.
Furthermore, there is a common fear — repugnant to me I should add — that if a student body becomes “too Asian,” many white students will be less interested in going there. I taught at UC Irvine for several years and found it to be a delightful experience, but this is exactly what many schools are afraid of (the UCI student body is disproportionately Asian, and the honors class I taught in my first year had only one non-Asian student in it).
And so they come up with every excuse possible — sometimes cemented in by self-deception — for maintaining a “balanced” student body.
It is incorrect to call it “racism,” but it is non-meritocratic and we should move away from those attitudes as quickly as possible.For perhaps by single favorite blogger, it takes incredible mental gymnastics to conclude this isn't racism.
Here's my take: it's definitely racism, but not clearly the wrong policy for Harvard. I realize my views are extraordinarily odd on this particular issue, but it basically boils down to the fact that yes, I believe racism exists (everywhere, not just in the US) and that simultaneously it isn't that big of a problem. Or, I should say, it is not as a big a problems as the amount of ink spent on it suggests.
So...let's be honest on issue - is it so repugnant that whites/Harvard are suspicious and do not want too many Asians at Harvard? Because this is the subtext, of course. Let's try and provide the most charitable explanation. I have some particular insight into this issue - I teach a lot of Chinese-from-China students and my wife attended a predominantly Asian-American high school. A recurring theme from her and my Chinese students is that there is an incredibly unhealthy, competitive attitude towards education within these cultures. Chinese immigrants in California are obsessed with high schools, test scores, and trying to game the college system to get their kids into the best schools. Many do not succeed and end up at the variety of UC schools. But for failing, this is pretty good! But is celebrating this model desirable? It would increase test scores for sure. Would it be good for society?
Say Harvard were to become entirely meritocratic. It would be 50% Asian and 50% Jewish. Okay. Maybe this is a preferable outcome. Maybe the ivy league starts to resemble the national universities in Asia. Are we so sure this is a better outcome? Maybe the "best" outcome is what is already happening, ie a certain percentage of Asian students are let into Harvard/Ivy league, enough so the educational culture does not transform into something more akin to the cutthroat Chinese culture, and brings very high level of Asian-American students more into the American education model of grade inflation, providing favors for alumni, and some sense of a more "broad" liberal arts style learning.
So I guess what I'm saying is that maybe a little racism isn't such a bad thing. Or at least a preferable thing than manipulating language to try to assuage the terror of everyone being considered racist, or completely overturning American culture in order to root out all racism. Hint: it won't work, nor be desirable.
Astonishing Father's Day Fact
85% of all prisoners come from fatherless homes.
Also, majority of ISIL fighters come from fatherless homes.
For everyone who talks about prison reform, incarceration rates, etc, maybe a more effective way of combatting the problem would be to focus on the father-issue (and what kind of substitutes are out there, if any) than the race component. Then again, that makes a presumption those who talk about the issue care about solving it (vs. identifying and exploiting grievance).
85% of all prisoners come from fatherless homes.
Also, majority of ISIL fighters come from fatherless homes.
For everyone who talks about prison reform, incarceration rates, etc, maybe a more effective way of combatting the problem would be to focus on the father-issue (and what kind of substitutes are out there, if any) than the race component. Then again, that makes a presumption those who talk about the issue care about solving it (vs. identifying and exploiting grievance).
Friday, June 15, 2018
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Kurdish Women Fighting ISIS Ask Western Feminists For Help
Hahaha. Don't you silly Kurds know the Western feminists are busy getting drunk and discussing the important issue of whether men can write good female characters in network television drama.
Hahaha. Don't you silly Kurds know the Western feminists are busy getting drunk and discussing the important issue of whether men can write good female characters in network television drama.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Monday, June 11, 2018
Good Luck With That
"Why can't we hate men?"
Why anyone would interact with these nutjobs is beyond me.
"Why can't we hate men?"
Why anyone would interact with these nutjobs is beyond me.
Sunday, June 10, 2018
What Makes A Country Good At Soccer?
The Economist asks. It's a good article.
1. Talent
2. Healthy Love for the Game
3. Expertise
The Economist asks. It's a good article.
1. Talent
2. Healthy Love for the Game
3. Expertise
Thursday, June 07, 2018
Gavin Newsom
So it'll be Cox vs. Newsom. I'm sure Newsom will win and it will reveal the foolish direction California is taking itself. I may vote Republican for the first time in my life. We'll see. That is based more on my dislike for Newsom than knowing anything about Cox.
Here's why: San Francisco has turned to shit. How is it possible the voters should reward Newsom for his tenure? In the midst of being the home to the most dynamic economic engine in the world (Silicon Valley), somehow the city politicians didn't figure out housing prices, homelessness, crime, drug use, etc. So much so, 46% of all SF residents are considering moving. It's an astounding political failure -- that in the midst of so much prosperity, one cannot figure out how to manage the very basics of governance. Furthermore, Newsom has explicitly stated his flouting of federal immigration laws in favor of SF and other places becoming sanctuary cities. This he does while living in Marin County (where I'm from), which protects itself from the consequences of such an immigration policy by pricing out any multicultural element from the real estate market. Marin residents benefit from cheap labor, of course, via garden maintenance, nannies, and restaurant employees. But there's no way they share schools, hospitals, or neighborhoods with the same population they hire to fix their roofs.
And oh yeah, he slept with his best friend's wife. But on the positive side - he was one of the first major politicians to favor gay marriage. What a brave stance for the mayor of San Francisco to take! One year before the whole damn country jumped on the bandwagon!
Problem with Cox - and I'll need to read more - he seems like he loses every election he runs in. Not a good sign.
So it'll be Cox vs. Newsom. I'm sure Newsom will win and it will reveal the foolish direction California is taking itself. I may vote Republican for the first time in my life. We'll see. That is based more on my dislike for Newsom than knowing anything about Cox.
Here's why: San Francisco has turned to shit. How is it possible the voters should reward Newsom for his tenure? In the midst of being the home to the most dynamic economic engine in the world (Silicon Valley), somehow the city politicians didn't figure out housing prices, homelessness, crime, drug use, etc. So much so, 46% of all SF residents are considering moving. It's an astounding political failure -- that in the midst of so much prosperity, one cannot figure out how to manage the very basics of governance. Furthermore, Newsom has explicitly stated his flouting of federal immigration laws in favor of SF and other places becoming sanctuary cities. This he does while living in Marin County (where I'm from), which protects itself from the consequences of such an immigration policy by pricing out any multicultural element from the real estate market. Marin residents benefit from cheap labor, of course, via garden maintenance, nannies, and restaurant employees. But there's no way they share schools, hospitals, or neighborhoods with the same population they hire to fix their roofs.
And oh yeah, he slept with his best friend's wife. But on the positive side - he was one of the first major politicians to favor gay marriage. What a brave stance for the mayor of San Francisco to take! One year before the whole damn country jumped on the bandwagon!
Problem with Cox - and I'll need to read more - he seems like he loses every election he runs in. Not a good sign.
Tuesday, June 05, 2018
George HW Bush
Said this in the early 1990s and was called a racist. But just think if people had actually listened, there would be a lot less personal debt and misery.
Said this in the early 1990s and was called a racist. But just think if people had actually listened, there would be a lot less personal debt and misery.
This is a must-read story. Would really enjoy hearing people's thoughts on this. This is important and fascinating. Debt is an underexplored issue in our demographic. What do y'all think? https://t.co/hBTP5avTnR— Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) June 2, 2018
China
China catching up in science. I'm probably the only China-bear left on the planet, but I do think they have one distinct advantage today and that's a national sense of purpose. I believe a significant portion of the Chinese truly believe in their nation and feel destined to become the most powerful country in the world. Whereas in America today, we are openly hostile to one another, and a small, but significant portion don't even like America, nor believe in it. Or at the very least, none of their actions suggest they do. We've always become petty whereas they have delusions of grandeur. And I think delusions of grandeur, although dangerous is preferable to pettiness.
China catching up in science. I'm probably the only China-bear left on the planet, but I do think they have one distinct advantage today and that's a national sense of purpose. I believe a significant portion of the Chinese truly believe in their nation and feel destined to become the most powerful country in the world. Whereas in America today, we are openly hostile to one another, and a small, but significant portion don't even like America, nor believe in it. Or at the very least, none of their actions suggest they do. We've always become petty whereas they have delusions of grandeur. And I think delusions of grandeur, although dangerous is preferable to pettiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)