Christmas Blues

I've never been to Japan but my sense about celebrating Christmas as a holiday in non-Christian countries is that of understated reluctance. These guys are complaining about Christmas as a 'Capitalist' entity that discriminates against single men, how odd. Wonder what they would think about Christmas in America? My favorite quote from the article:
"In this world, money is extracted from people in love, and happy people support capitalism," 
I'll drink to that!
here

The IL-Liberal Campus

The debate on using Native American mascots for schools heated up in the early 2000’s in Champagne, Illinois. The school used the mascot Chief Illiniwek in most of the licensed apparel and in just about everything associated with sports. It’s hard to remember exactly how or why the chief became such an offensive symbol of genocide in America, but the students at the University had brought it to this point. Many student groups wanted the University to abolish all references to the Indian, something about giving offence, and stop using the mascot in sports ceremonies. The details of the controversy are a little foggy to me and I could goggle some of the specifics for clarity, but the argument seemed to hinge solely on the fact that American Indian mascots were offensive to Indians because they represented a negative stereotype. I thought the argument was silly then as I do now; the controversy seemed completely artificial and invented to create a victimized group out of whole cloth. Many native groups were supportive of the University’s efforts to use the Illiniwek mascot as a tribute to the tribes that lived in the central Illinois region. Supporters of the Indian always maintained that the mascot was a tribute and quite the opposite of ridiculing the plains Indians, they were showing respect.

 

The chief was a symbol, nothing more. It made no difference whether it was a racist image or a proud artifact, Illinois students should have rejected the effort to take out their mascot and change so much of the history of the school. College is the type of liberal center for debate that suggests all parties have a voice, no matter how ridiculous or divisive their motives. The price of not standing up to silly attacks on tradition when they occur is losing every attack that comes along afterward. Princeton students have convinced the academic higher ups to debate Woodrow Wilson’s legacy at the university here. This will no doubt include removing his name from countless buildings, scholarships and most historical artifacts associated with the Progressive Wilson. He held some terribly racist views even by the standards of his day but he is part of the history of America, good and bad.

 

Control is the real prize in cultural sensitivity battles and anyone who acquiesces does free speech and courage a real disservice. For every battle lost to sensitivity flag wavers another one is around the corner and it will cost something dearer and closer to home the next time. The college campus landscape has frequently been the ideological war zone for issue of the day whether foreign wars or sexual liberation. Much of what is taught and learned in college will play out in the professional world years after graduates have entered the marketplace. A big aspect of the tech boom in San Francisco that began with the sixties college graduates was due to a real understanding of an open market place and a hopeful optimism about the future. Their parents lived through a major depression and fought in a world war, they did not share the same hopeful energy about wealth and riches. Instilling a sense of gratitude about what freedom really costs to a generation used to getting everything for free is a tall order.

The generation currently stuffing their heads with cultural relativism and transgender theory classes are the next group to innovate and drive the economic engine of capitalism forward. They believe ‘safe spaces’ and ‘micro-aggressions' actually exist in the world outside of textbooks and late night study sessions. Or, if they are offended by some colleagues’ language or behavior toward them, they can escape to a room and imagine it away. Debate and free expression are disappearing on the very campuses where liberal ideas have always been welcomed and encouraged. Don’t take my word for it, listen to the professors who are beginning to come forward and lament the days when ideas were actually debated. Kids now want to have their debates sanitized lest the issues offend. This focus on hearing only what pleases the listener gives way to a generation of leaders that follow the voice of deception. It starts with mascot and ‘offensive’ symbols of racism, gender bias, male chauvinism and other ‘sins’ that traditional America is constantly criticized for. The academy should push back against silly demands from leftist student groups used to forcing every issue with marches and boycotts. Once faculties begin insisting on an educational focus in curriculum and say no to these kids and their demands, it will begin a chain reaction in other institutions. Colleges are as prone to the herd mentality as businesses. Are the teachers and faculty up to it?  

Shared Intelligence

I can think of one good reason for compartmentalizing intelligence, Edward Snowden. Just one security breach and another analyst or case officer could run off with intelligence from multiple countries. Former CIA chief James Woolsey put it like this, Snowden's leak "...turned loose, for example some substantial material about the Mexican intelligence service and law enforcement working together against human trafficking."here Woolsey made the comments in response to questions about Snowden's culpability on the Paris slaughter. The connection isn't really clear between Mexican intelligence and terrorists and Woolsey doesn't give the interviewer anything more concrete, probably to avoid opening the lid even further on how clandestine operations unfold. The larger point here is that when large data pools of intelligence are shared large data pools of intelligence are stolen. Be careful who has access.

Paris Massacre: Danger of Open Borders and Runaway Immigration

Paris was attacked by the usual Islamic monsters that cause so much of the terrorism in the Western world these days. I wish I could act surprised when discussing the event with others but the truth is I expected something like this to happen. The satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was shot up less than a year ago in Paris by some radicalized Muslims offended over the cartoon depictions of Muhammad the publication is known for drawing. Once again the city has taken another beating by monsters out to terrorize free democratic people with liberal notions about religion, citizenship, law and all the ingredients that make up Western civilization. I was about to leave work when a salesman at the store told me gunman were shooting up a soccer stadium in Paris. The truth was far worse. I believe six separate attacks occurred over a three hour span: a soccer stadium suicide bomber, a concert hall shooter, various restaurant shooters and suicide bombers all created a stressful and chaotic night across a beautiful city. I turned on the car radio and listened to the reports about the ‘hostage’ situation at the stadium which apparently turned into a shooting gallery for the terrorists when the police went after them. It sounded like they turned their guns on the hostages and killed as many as they could before being killed themselves. I haven’t read the official stuff yet but much of what comes out during these live events is incorrect and needs to be amended later.

image

 I had the same kind of sinking feeling about the loss of life I experienced during the 9/11 terror attacks. The sinking feeling quickly turned to anger now as it did then because of the sheer cowardly way in which soft targets get blown up and shot just because it’s easy to do. The next thought I had was how the refugee crisis in Europe has made it undoubtedly harder to police the same way and expect the same results. Most of the immigrants being let into Europe are refugees from Syria escaping a more than 4 year old civil war. A real humanitarian crisis has loomed large without clear signals from the European Union on what to do with starving and displaced people on their collective borders. Angela Merkel told some 800,000 they were welcome in Germany, much to the praise of the Western press and the dismay of German nationals. The Economist magazine called Merkel the “indispensable European” and lauded her with taking bold steps to ease the transition of migrants, if not solve the problem of re-settlement. I read the piece and thought to myself, they are going to regret giving her this much credit for creating a problem that leads to increased crime and terrorism. It isn’t fair to blame Merkel for the refugee problem nor is it fair to say she had something to do with the bloodshed in Paris. She did make a bad situation worse by increasing the number of people to police and cells that intelligence agencies have to monitor. This was predictable. I believe it will lead to her political end and possibly usher in a rise in far right wing populism that often follows mass immigration. No law enforcement organization in the world can keep tabs on that many new faces. 

image

The fear is that not all the refugees seeking asylum are actually ‘refugees’ and are instead migrants from all over the middle east and terrorists who have trained in ISIS camps. A fear that has gotten more real after the slaughter in Paris; not all the details have emerged yet about exactly who is responsible and how they coordinated separate attacks around the same time. Much of the investigation needs to be done on the who, what, and why of the massacre but the scale and severity suggest it involved a large organization possibly Islamic State. The immigrant groups are primarily Muslims which don’t assimilate as well into a historically Christian society as Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists. Problems arise in democratic societies among all groups from time to time whether religious or territorial; New York City after the first wave of Irish immigrants was a cluster of such warring groups. There is something fundamentally resistant to liberal democracy about Islam though and despite so much evidence of this the West ignores it at their own peril. Muslims live and work in Europe, fewer in the US, and contribute taxes, vote in elections, buy and sell goods the same as any native citizen of a democratic country. Certainly most Muslims are interested in earning a living and raising families under the legal traditions Western countries believe in. Talk of Sharia law in modern cities like London and New York is disheartening and shows the limits of Western influence on many adherents of Islam. We in the West have come to think of immigration as something automatic and guaranteed to anyone seeking it. This is a mistake. Putting dramatic limitations on it for a time is a reasonable move for countries to make when faced with integrating current immigrants. Without severe restrictions the host countries lose the ability to employ and protect the citizens who depend on the services they pay for. Unfortunately for much of the EU, it will take a long time to integrate another 1 million people and will put a massive strain on law enforcement and welfare rolls. Hopefully Europe, and especially France and Germany, can figure this mess out before their way of life is gone.   

Judge fudge

A Canadian judge in hot water over comments in a sexual assault case is forced to give a wimpy apology. You know the kind, it's the I-promise-to-show-utmost-respect type groveling that seem to accompany any 'insensitive' snafu whether from athletes, movie stars or politicians. Judges can be unpleasant and rigid when applying the law but so too can scientists and surgeons be arrogant and dismissive when regarding their skills. We should regard them according to how they do their job. This judge is required to give a verdict by deciding whether or not a victim is telling the truth about being attacked. He used insensitive language that suggests he was skeptical of her claim.

In the 11-page complaint, Elaine Craig, Jocelyn Downie, Jennifer Koshan and Alice Woolley said that in the 2014 case, Camp asked the complainant, "Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?" and, "Why didn't you just sink your bottom down into the basin so he couldn't penetrate you?"

At first glance it sounds rude and dismissive but what is the judge doing ruling on the case if he isn’t allowed to ask these questions? In other words what is a judge’s role if not to question legitimacy of such a case? The letter of complaint fired off by an angry group of law professors at University of Calgary hinges on Judge Camp’s alleged “… ability to respect the equality and dignity of all persons appearing before him.”(11-page complain )It could be that this woman was raped but the judge ruled against her claim, hence the need to drag the man through sensitivity training.  A couple problems with the claim: first the defendant had a sexual history that the judge took into consideration. The letter doesn’t specify what history was presented but makes it clear they find it unfair to consider previous history in deciding the case. What sense does this make in adjudicating the law when other evidence isn’t present? Don’t these types of cases frequently hinge on individual character or is the Canadian legal system radically different from that of the U.S.?

Secondly she was drinking, not just drinking but drunk. The signers of the complaint even mention this in the draft but are worried about the Judge’s lack of seriousness over the prevalence of alcohol. Judge Camp jokes that the girl confuses Absinthe with abstinence. Finally, the girl in question (I am reluctant to call her a victim) asked the man who ‘raped’ her if he had a condom further making this case into a difficult ‘he said/ she said’ scenario. Asking the rapist if he had a condom throws considerable skepticism over the claim of rape itself. Especially when combined with the other factors.  Imagine the difficulty for future cases if judges ruled on what ‘victims’ said and not how they lived or what evidence or lack of evidence was involved. The significance of the letter is to smear a judge who holds a high federal court position. The attack is light on facts and thick on innuendo; it draws heavily on notions of modern thinking on sexual assault and rape, basically that women aren’t responsible for their behavior and anyone who screams “rape” is telling the truth, damn the evidence.

Judge Camp could have chosen his words more carefully but it is hard to believe what could have satisfied the overly sensitive parties. This case was overturned by an appeals court anyway raising the question why they would pursue the attack on a judge who lost out in the end? Nothing is worse than the sin of sexism and old fashioned ideas about legal provability, at least to some. If his legal briefs and opinions can't be taken apart with intellectual rigor call him a old school chauvinist and work to get him dismissed. Too bad it works as well as it does.

Do as I say

Most university students can tell you that academia has a problem with conservative researchers in social psychology. Despite countless studies showing how hiring diverse groups of thinkers leads to more quality research, hiring trends in academia still favor white liberal researchers. I always thought it would be funny to preface every major science paper from major universities with the adjectives "the mostly white liberal authors" somewhere in the abstract, the way news organizations describe tea party rallies. Mentioning the race and politically affiliation of citizens involved has a way of discrediting the whole effort in a backhanded sort of way. It is nice to see a New York Times Op-Ed contributor link recognizing the problem involved with long term academic papers coming out of groups that act and think alike. It is an honest assessment of why it needs to change if not how. The private sector could certainly be accused of this as well; how much diversity of ideas are there among day traders or cattle ranchers? The problem is most Americans are well aware of how 'un-equal' and 'un-diverse' our society is, it might be all we know. Almost every day brings a news story regarding another industry caught red-handed mistreating an economic, religious or ethnic minority. How do we know so much about American injustice? Academia told us so.

Libertarians and Drugs

I heard a conversation recently between two self-professed libertarians who were discussing drugs and society. Both believed that all drugs should be legal to undercut the brutal trade that allows gangs to run poor neighborhoods like an empire. Through ruthless gun battles over territory and commerce, these urban soldiers bring violence, death and mayhem to cities and suburban areas due to the illegality of drugs. The thinking among libertarians (not all of them) goes something like this: by treating drugs like any other product or service the trafficking becomes legal and puts gang members used to operating in the black market out of business. Questions remain though as to why they would be out of business rather than just making a cheaper illegal drug? I have strong objections to legalizing something that causes so much misery and destruction in lives and puts a strain on communities around the country through the cost of drug rehab programs, shelters for homeless addicts and wastes overall human potential. I used to think I was a libertarian; I would call myself that if you asked me but when the drug question is brought up I object. There is a real lack of concern for human lives at the core of some libertarian ideas, it pains me to say. Liberty is fundamental for citizens in free societies but many bad actors use 'liberty' as a licence to spread addiction and dependence. I haven't found a good argument for allowing a drug culture to take root where none currently exists. Over the next couple of weeks I'll post counterpoints (from my view) to some of the main theories that support legalizing drugs in America.