Category Archives: culture

Couple Thoughts about Academic Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

The American Association of University Professors has decided to censure the University of Illinois because the school decided to withdraw it offer of employment to a “professor” who went off on an anti-Israel tirade on Twitter.

First thought: U of I Chancellor Phyllis Wise is taking the AAUP’s censorship seriously. Why? The man objected, loudly and vociferously, to Israel’s defending itself against the Palestinian Authority’s terror war that it launched from Gaza.

Second thought: the censure was done by voice vote. It was carefully anonymous. How can any action by a body like this be taken seriously by a body like a university when the voters are so timid or so ashamed of their votes that they avoid being on the record with their vote?

Third thought: Anita Levy, Associate Secretary for the AAUP’s Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, & Governance said that U of I’s decision

violated Professor [Steven] Salaita’s [the professor in question] academic freedom and cast a pall of uncertainty over the degree to which academic freedom is understood and respected[.]

This is facially untrue. Salaita’s rants cast a pall over his own ability to respect the academic freedom of his peers and more importantly, of his students, and to teach and to grade in an objective manner. By withdrawing their offer of employment, the U of I was acting to preserve true academic freedom, not the freedom to behave in the manner selected academics deem appropriate.

Random Paranoid Thought on Future Tech

Posted on by
Reply

In just 15 years, [Ray, inventor, futurist, and a director of engineering at Google] Kurzweil believes, the human brain will become a hybrid of biology and technology, and we will “put gateways to the cloud in our brains.” And as the cloud becomes more and more advanced and is able to store increasing amounts of information, so too will our brains. By the late 2030’s or early 2040’s, Kurzweil said, the majority of brain function, at least in terms of information processing and thought processes, will be non-biological.

Our brains in the cloud. Hmm…. With the cloud’s notoriously poor security. Our brains get snooped on or hacked by anyone with a kiddy script or by any government with a wild bug up its….

Or peer pressure not just up close, but inside, as the denizens of that cloud decide they don’t like what you’re doing or thinking. So they think otherwise, en masse, from within your own brain.

Like I said, paranoid. Or not.

Great Britain and its EU Referendum

Posted on by
Reply

Chris Deerin, writing for CapX, has an article titled England will be torn apart by the EU referendum. The setup is this: Prime Minister David Cameron promised a few years ago that were he reelected Prime Minister (i.e., were his party reelected to sufficient strength that it could at least form a coalition government and he selected Prime Minister), he’d hold a Great Britain-wide referendum by the end of 2017 on whether Great Britain should leave the European Union. In the event, Cameron’s party was reelected to an outright majority, he was selected to be Prime Minister, and he’s moving to keep his promise: Great Britain will hold the promised referendum by the promised deadline.

Deerin is concerned, as you might discern from his article’s title. Actually holding the referendum, he fears, will mean the end of Great Britain regardless of the outcome.

Below is a letter I wrote to CapX demurring from Deerin’s position.

I don’t share your concern for a couple of reasons. In no particular order: what the pols in London think isn’t particularly relevant (Cameron has no plan, by the way? Not so much: he made a promise, and he intends to keep it; that his party has changed, or is changing, its collective mind isn’t important to honoring a commitment.) The question is for individual Brits: how do they see themselves? Your existential question, indeed: who are they?

Second, say the referendum does rend Great Britain. That works out to Scottish independence, no small matter to a significant per centage of Scots.

Third, consider the alternative: no referendum, and Great Britain stays in the EU. Our own John Jay expressed concern during the ratification debates that were our Constitution accepted as it was written, the States would bear the same relationship to the central government that counties have to a State: just political subdivisions that exist solely to ease the carrying out of the State’s decisions. That’ll be the fate of Great Britain if there’s no referendum or if the referendum supports staying in the EU.

Finally, dissolution: the recently completed referendum on Scottish departure from the Union was most enthusiastically argued. There is considerable angst among those whose position was voted down. They’re recovering, and the Union remains sound.

So it will be with Great Britain following the larger referendum, regardless of its outcome. Except that voting to leave will be a stout blow for British liberty.

Eric Hines

Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

A brief post about the movie Aloha. This is a movie I don’t intend to watch anytime soon because I don’t go to theaters to watch movies. I don’t need to see it, anyway, for this post; I’m commenting on the hoo-raw surrounding it.

One such is the bellyaching about the movie’s name. Not supposed to name a movie about a Hawaiian person “Aloha” because that word has special meaning to Hawaii’s special snowflakes. I guess that means no one better make a movie about a Texan and call it “Howdy.” Boy howdy.

Then there’s this:

Cameron Crowe has apologized for offending anyone over his casting of Emma Stone in a partially Asian, partially Hawaiian role in his film “Aloha.”

Never mind that Stone is, by all accounts, a fine actress. Never mind, either, that one of her character’s hang-ups was the lack of any outward sign of her Chinese/Hawaiian ethnicity; the character looked like a white girl. Like the actress who played her does. Mm, mm. Gotta whine about that, too. In response, Crowe’s being downright chicken. And in his cowardice, he’s throwing Stone under the Oahu Bus.

In the end, this is folks wasting their talent and energy looking for excuses to be offended. It isn’t pure cowardice, not by the whiners or by guys like Crowe; it’s worse than that. It’s insidious, it’s a running away from the truth of life.

Another Argument for the UK to Leave the EU

Posted on by
Reply

Under EU law, governments have some leeway in limiting access to welfare, but in most circumstances can’t discriminate between their own nationals and those of another EU country.

But those rude Brits disagree. They want to make scarce resources preferentially available to British citizens. How terrible is that? The British government, for instance, requires those who apply for child welfare payments actually to live in the UK and to do so legally.

And this effrontery:

The British government justifies this condition “to prevent a burden on the welfare system.”

Never mind that the Brits have no requirement to justify to foreign jurisdictions how they spend their resources. But it doesn’t matter:

…Mr [Michael, the European Commission’s lawyer in this matter] Wilderspin retorted that “an increase in the financial burden cannot justify a failure to comply with EU law.”

Pay up, Sucker. It doesn’t matter if you haven’t the money, or have other uses for what you do have. Your [dare I say it?] Betters Know Better.

Time to leave guys. The EU has gotten arrogantly dysfunctional.