April 20, 2004
Misery Loves....Um, well. You see......if....um......
Posted by Jeff A. Taylor at 8:58 PM
Nice dismemberment of John Kerry's new, new Misery Index with special attention to the manipulation of college costs.
An outstanding read on media scares
Posted by Jon Sanders at 2:05 PMKudos to Catherine Seipp for this article in NR Online.
The constant "Eek, a mouse!" tone of girlish fright has seeped from feminist rhetoric into the general rhetoric of the left. ... The feminization (and psychotherapization) of American culture so influences the newsroom now that gut feelings are too often treated with the respect of hard facts. (Emphasis added.)
Seipp has, in the context of media, hilariously identified the problem that Mike Adams discussed at UNC-Chapel Hill last night and that we here dubbed Komfort Über Alles!
NC State columnist: Israel's a "spoiled brat"; Hamas are "heroes"
Posted by Jon Sanders at 11:30 AM
And gosh, things would be so much better for the United States if we stopped allying with the Middle East's first democracy since it ticks off Islamic terrorists. And hey, if Israel can't hack it without us, then "they will be forced to deal with the consequences."
At this point I'd like to ask, while doing an impersonation of a German version of Regis: "Izzat your Final Solution?"
More rape-scare stat-mongering at Duke
Posted by Jon Sanders at 11:18 AM
From the Duke Chronicle today:
"Most Duke men did not realize how prevalent sexual assault is on campus. When we told them that statistics show 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted while on Duke's campus, they were appalled."
Really, this stuff is getting old. If those stats are correct, and they're not, then that means there are more sexual-assault victims than left-handers among Duke's females.
"Most Duke men knew somebody who had been raped, and a fair number knew somebody who had committed sexual assault. In both instances, the men felt angry, sad, disappointed and powerless."
Which means they agree with you morally about the issue. You don't need to lie to them to make the issue seem important. It is.
A UNC version of "They can't do that to our pledges. Only we can do that to our pledges."
Posted by Jon Sanders at 09:46 AM
Mike Adams spoke last night at UNC-Chapel Hill on the ridiculous, self-defeating nature of campus speech codes, and earlier in the day a new group called "the Committee for a Queerer Carolina" demonstrated the ridiculous, self-defeating nature of a federal hate-speech investigation into Elyse Crystall's attack on her student for his "violent" "hate speech" that's a "perfect example" of what a "white, heterosexual, [C]hristian male" would say.
Chase Foster, one of the CQC said, "We think it's absolutely ridiculous that referring to a white heterosexual male is considered discrimination." While I disagree with Foster's white-washing of Crystall's comments, I certainly agree that they should not be actionable by the feds. Especially since the chancellor, the head of the English Dept. and numerous other officials have made it crystal clear that she exhibited exceedingly poor judgment for a university instructor.
Sooner or later, the other shoe has to drop, and it did:
The committee argued that existing anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies based on race, gender and sexual orientation could be rendered meaningless as a result of the federal investigations.
So let me get this straight: Referring to someone by his race, gender, sexual orientation and creed is "not discrimination" if he is a "white, heterosexual, [C]hristian male," and investigating it for discrimination hurts the policies based on race, gender and sexual orientation by "rendering [them] meaningless."
Thank you, Committee for a Queerer Carolina, for proving Mike Adams right: Such codes "exist for one reason: to be applied in a discriminating fashion against conservative speech."
Nuclear Explosions of the Mind
Posted by Paul Chesser at 09:10 AM
Just what I thought: When trying to figure out the brains of Democrats, it's all in the amygdala.
Posted by John Hood at 08:50 AM
Today’s entry from the unfortunate-headline department comes from the Raleigh News & Observer:
“Death ruled out in killing.”
And when I wanna go home, I’m (not) goin’ mobile
Posted by John Hood at 08:19 AM
Given the attention paid lately to population shifts from North to South, decaying small towns, the supposed end to safe “lifetime employment” with big companies, and other perceptions of change in American living patterns, would you believe that people are less likely to move today than they were a generation ago?
That’s what the U.S. Census Bureau reported in a new study. The 14 percent of Americans who moved between 2002 and 2003 represents the lowest mobility rate in half a century. The decline over the years hasn’t been dramatic — rates were typically around 20 percent in the 1950s and 1960s, and then again in the mid-1980s — but popular misconception would have you believe that rootlessness has been increasing, not decreasing.
As usual, the federal statistics turn out to be complicated and the causes varied and speculative. Read this Christian Science Monitor report for more information. Among other findings, declining mobility may be a positive sign that regional disparities in income and opportunity are smoothing out across the country. Oh, wait, I thought there were “two Americas” . . .
<< Last Entry