Category Archives: culture

Precious Snowflakes

Posted on by
Reply

A four-month investigation into a University of Kansas professor who used a racial slur in class has concluded the word was used in an educational context and not intended to be racist.

Assistant communication studies professor Andrea Quenette has been on paid leave since November, when a group of eight graduate students filed a discrimination complaint after she used the slur in response to a question in class.

Graduate students, no less.  Do they really let children into graduate school these days?

Quennette used whatever word it was—even Fox News shied away from saying what the word was as it reported the simple fact of its use in the article at the link (honky?  whitey? ??)—in the course of discussing events at another school in her—get this—communications class.

But the graduate school’s children—some of whom weren’t even present—spent their energies not on learning but on seeking out an excuse to feel offended.  They wrote in their…complaint…that

Dr Quenette’s deployment of racially violent rhetoric not only creates a non-inclusive environment in opposition to one of the University of Kansas’ core tenets, but actively destroys the very possibility of realizing those values and goals[.]

Apparently deploying actual education, arraying actual discussions of events, doesn’t produce safe spaces, but rather destroys the very possibility of realizing a serious education for these precious little ones.

Dissent Democrat Style

Posted on by
1

The Democrats in the Federal government permit dissent: they dissent from anyone else’s right to dissent.  Here’s a case in point.

Attorney General Lynch told the Senate last week that her department had referred a request to prosecute climate dissent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Specifically, it was referred to the FBI’s criminal investigative division.

Yep.  President Barack Obama’s (D) Attorney General actually referred a case of disagreeing with the Left to the FBI for criminal investigation.  Or for a security review.

One of the Senators questioning Lynch at that hearing was Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI), of RICO the dissenters infamy.  While he wondered idly about using the FBI in a “civil” case of suing climate scientists for dissenting over global warming, he had nary a word about the criminal investigation, nor even Lynch’s decision to refer dissent for criminal investigation in the first place.

Tax Dollars

Posted on by
Reply

Yours, and mine, at work. The paper from which the following excerpt was taken (h/t The Wall Street Journal) was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Ice is not just ice. The dominant way Western societies understand it through the science of glaciology is not a neutral representation of nature. The feminist glaciology framework draws attention to those who dominate and frame the production of glaciological knowledge, the gendered discourses of science and knowledge, and the ways in which colonial, military, and geopolitical domination co-constitute glaciological knowledge. Even in a globalized age where the place of women and indigenous people has improved markedly in some parts of the world, masculinist discourses continue to dominate, in subtle and determinative ways. Feminist glaciology advocates for a shift of preoccupations in research, policy, and public perceptions from the physical and seemingly natural, to a broader consideration of “cryoscapes,” the human, and the insights and potentials of alternative ice narratives and folk glaciologies.

The critique and framework outlined here illuminate experiences and narratives that emerged historically but remain potent today. Public discourse on the cryosphere continues to privilege, quite explicitly, manly endeavours and adventures in the field, and those who conduct their science in the manner of masculinist glaciologists and other field scientists of decades and centuries past….

The call for a feminist glaciology is not limited to ice and glaciers, but is a larger intervention into global environmental change (and especially climate change) research and policy.

Those were your tax dollars, and mine. Yeesh.

Stability vs Prosperity and Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

It appears that Mark Carney, Bank of England Governor, prefers stability at the expense of British prosperity and national sovereignty. He said last Tuesday that

uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the coming referendum on Britain’s future in Europe is already being felt in financial markets, and that a vote in favor of leaving could cause a short-term hit to the wider economy.

A possible departure represents “the biggest domestic risk to financial stability,” Mr. Carney said, with potential consequences for Britain’s balance of payments with the rest of the world, its housing market, foreign investment and its banks.

“It is a risk to domestic financial stability, and it has some potential to amplify pre-existing risks to financial stability[.]”

Of course things will be turbulent during the transition from EU member, subject to lots of EU regulation that runs contrary to British law or what the Brits would prefer to be British law (things like being required to spend British taxpayer money as benefits to non-citizens and to non-citizen family members not even resident in Great Britain—Prime Minister David Cameron’s tentative agreement with the EU is only a temporary measure).

Don’t want the uncertainty of the outcome of the referendum? Then Carney should get behind the exit and reduce the uncertainty.

What would the British get from leaving the EU? Quite a lot. London’s financial district would be free to operate on free market principles, not EU rules. Great Britain’s tax laws would be set according to what’s good for Brits and British business and for attracting foreign businesses and investment, not according to protecting precious continental jurisdictions from the evils of tax competition. Great Britain’s private enterprises would be free to operate in accordance with British law and not EU regulation.

What would the British lose from leaving the EU? Those impediments. Not much else.

Staying in the EU would provide a strong measure of economic stability; those rules are established and well understood. But that stability is only intermediate; the EU will dissolve in the foreseeable future. The current refugee flow crisis is not the threat, though, for all the press it’s getting. No, the threat is exactly what the British would be avoiding if they succeed in leaving: economic dissolution. That threat was made manifest by the Panic of 2008 and emphasized by the Greek default crisis. These exposed the utterly differing and irreconcilable economic philosophies of the constituent members.

The transition ensuing from that dissolution will be far more destructive than any sneezes from a Brexit in the next couple of years.

The Need for a Republican President

Posted on by
Reply

The need is starkly illustrated by a couple of developments involving cases, the Supreme Court, and Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.

One development is this:

Dow Chemical Co had agreed to pay $835 million to settle a class-action case rather than risk an appeal without the conservative justice.

The other is this:

The state Rifle and Pistol Association decided against filing a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case fearing the conservative Scalia’s death will make winning the case virtually impossible.

[Rifle and Pistol Association President and National Rifle Association board member, Tom] King said his lawyers advised that going forward could damage the case because the High Court at the very least would likely deliver a split 4-4 decision that would leave the law in place.

This puts a very high premium on electing a Republican president, so we have a good chance of nominating and confirming a conservative judge to the Supreme Court.