Maggie's Farm

This is what has been going on: Orwell, Huxley and the Emerging Totalitarianism:

 Several aspects of modern life seem to have been very accurately predicted by both Orwell and Huxley. Orwell’s idea of “New Speak,” for example, the deliberate remoulding and distortion of the English language by Big Brother, has been rightly compared to the politically correct manipulation of language that has become all too familiar in western societies over the past twenty to thirty years. The political purpose of “New Speak” is to control the thinking of the populace – not too different in aim from the new terms and words coined by political correctness. Huxley does not go into the language issue in the same way as Orwell, though we note too that in the Brave New World certain “offensive” words – such as “cross” – have been eliminated from public use. Thus for example Charing Cross Station in London has been renamed “Charing T Station” – after Henry Ford’s Model T automobile.

Heather takes the University of California to task: Multiculti U. - The budget-strapped University of California squanders millions on mindless diversity programs.

On reading the article, one might be left with the impression that California higher ed is afflicted with a crisis-sized epidemic of destructive racism and sexism. I would doubt that. From what I have seen and read, the U of C is mainly afflicted with a crisis of poorly-educated and ignorant kids whose four years of Fun 'n Indoctrination is largely thanks to the abused California taxpayer.

Related, UC System Leaders Dismiss Massive Claims of Liberal Bias

How a Jewish, Brit, Guardianista, recovered from the leftist mind-trap she grew up with.

"I had been brought up to believe the Left stood for altruism rather than selfishness, community rather than individualism, self- discipline rather than the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest.

Instead, society was worshipping at the shrine of the self, and this was causing a rising tide of juvenile distress, crime, emotional disturbance, educational and relationship failure.

The fact that I continued to write along these lines regardless of all the abuse hurled to shut me up seemed to drive the Left nuts.

Yes, they espoused a doctrine of being tolerant and non-judgmental, but  not when it came to me. I was branded a ‘moraliser’, which appeared to be a term of abuse.

Most of the time, those hurling insults provided no contrary evidence or even arguments, just blanket denials and gratuitous abuse..."

She imagined she was on the side of the angels until she began thinking for herself. It's a good story, along the lines of David Horowitz' excellent Radical Son and David Gelernter's Drawing Life. If a person's view of the world does not change between age 20 and age 50, they haven't been thinking or challenging their assumptions very much.

Most of us here have changed our views on things many times. It's called growth, accumulation of information, experience, and, one hopes, wisdom.

The Road to Totalitarianism is Paved with Good Intentions.

"Good," of course, excludes freedom considerations from the equation. I'm with Coyote: Individual freedom is the greatest social good.

You have to have a few grey hairs to remember the Free Speech Movement of 1964. Maybe it's time for another one.

From one of our Maggie's heroes, Bruce Thornton: 

...dangerously, schools of education impose “political litmus tests” on those who want to become public teachers. They vet students’ “dispositions,” especially their commitment to the left-wing notion of “social justice.” One of the most prestigious education schools in the country, Columbia University’s Teachers College, tells its students that teaching is a “political act.” Aspiring teachers are expected to be “participants in a larger struggle for social justice” and “to change the system and make schools and societies more equitable.” 

Lukianoff points out the problem with such politicized pedagogy: “Vague, subjective, and politicized evaluation standards are dangerous. They invite administrators and faculty members to substitute their own opinions and political beliefs for fair, professional criteria to evaluate students’ demonstrated skills as members of a profession.” Competence, then, takes a backseat to political correctness, a problem rife in K-12 teaching credential programs, where knowledge of subject matter is less important than political ideology.

A Lefty wonders why. He thinks it's mostly self-selection.

I think a more interesting question is why so many of the successful people in business are Obama people. Over half of the very wealthy people I know are ardent Democrats, and are people who understand how the real world works. Of course, I do inhabit New England where blue is the cultural color of choice.

It's from Peter Hitchens: How I am partly to blame for Mass Immigration.

Our friend AVI put up a comment here yesterday to the effect that Leftist forces are far more interested in undermining Western culture than they give a damn about the pawns they use.

How Napoleon Chagnon Became Our Most Controversial Anthropologist.

Apparently Chagnon's field research did not support Marxist interpretations of stone-age tribal behavior, so he was attacked and smeared. Is there a Marxist interpretation for academia's tribal warfare against Chagnon?

Of course, Edward O. Wilson got some of the same treatment, but not quite as diabolical, for his work on sociobiology. There are lots of Thought Police in academia.

Northwestern Creates Mandatory Diversity Program.

I find myself wondering how the college students of today can be so full of hate and intolerance that they require mandatory regrooving. Perhaps there is only so much sanctimonious bs one can absorb without vomiting or laughing.

This reminds me of a local town employee who got in a little trouble with his free speech at work and was sent to mandatory diversity training. He told me afterwards "I went to their classes, but it didn't take."

By recreational drugs, I mean everything from pot to crystal meth and heroin.

They are all readily available on most streets in the US (but at far-above free market prices despite being free of sales taxes) and are widely popular. I find it difficult, from a libertarian point of view, to make a continuing argument for our Federal ongoing, attempted but failed prohibition. If some people want to live in a haze for a few hours - or all the time, why not (as long as I do not have to support them)?

In a free country, having things be legal does not mean that you condone them morally, spiritually, or in any other way. Adultery is not illegal, and neither is devil-worship nor alcohol abuse. Recreational drugs used to be legal in the US, and I doubt there were more social problems with them back then. Maybe less, because when they were not illegal they were cheap. Are any of our readers old enough to remember when there was cocaine in Coke?

Funnily enough, now a Large Coke without coke is illegal in New York. Crazy world in which it is easier to buy cocaine in front of the minimart than it is to buy a Big Gulp inside.

What's your opinion?

Just don't make the argument that "It's bad for people." That will not fly, because driving is dangerous too. So is mountain-climbing.

Please review the debate in comments before commenting. Pretty good debate.

Mead's post quotes this:

Half of those surveyed…said they had trouble finding recent graduates qualified to fill positions at their company or organization. Nearly a third gave colleges just fair to poor marks for producing successful employees. And they dinged bachelor’s-degree holders for lacking basic workplace proficiencies like adaptability, communication skills, and the ability to solve complex problems.

Related, What College Graduates Lack - Americans have lost their competitive edge. Can college restore it?

As I have said here many times, a Liberal Arts education is not job training. It's designed to be about life-enrichment and about molding civilized and thoughtful citizens with deeper understanding of the world and of their own civilization than secondary schools can offer.

If people want job credentials, I'd advise majoring in Medieval History, Classics, or Renaissance Literature, and minoring in Accounting, Engineering, hard sciences, or Econ (or the other way around) - combining the life-enhancement with the utilitarian.

The kids should consider this: anything that can be learned just as well at The Great Courses/Teaching Company should not be studied at great expense in college. With all the alternative ways of learning higher ed material nowadays, spending big bucks for it makes no sense. And if you need a class and exams to provide the discipline, then one should work on one's discipline.

You can obtain a top-notch Liberal Arts education with them, with as much breadth or depth as you desire. I eagerly await the day that the company will offer their courses for college credit.

In arguments about government intervention and control, it is usual for the Leftists and statists to produce straw men with whom to debate. There is a lot of space between government intrusion and life in the jungle. Lots of space. None of us Libertarian/Conservatives want no elected government, but we do want to be left alone. We have morals and we have brains. I always thought that a function of government was to provide the basic conditions (eg protection from foreign invasions, etc) so that we can go it alone in life. Americans are not raised to be Euroweenies, but we gather plenty of resources to help us get along in life, and give us avenues in which to do good deeds, which have nothing to do with government: friends, family, neighborhoods, churches, organizations, business affiliations, etc. All the things which so impressed de Toqueville about the American spirit.

From The "acting alone" fallacy:

The private sector isn't just a bunch of people "acting alone." As Matt Welch pointed out in his critique of the speech, making and selling an object as basic as a pencil is such a complex endeavor that it takes lots of different specialists. No one person has the knowledge to accomplish that seemingly simple task; that's how decentralized knowledge is in society. And with a truly complex product, like a computer or movie, the need for people to work together is even greater still. The private sector isn't fundamentally about everyone being secluded and isolated from each other; it typically involves many people working together. Government regulation often rules out the options people would otherwise want to pursue that would let them work together more. The idea that you're "alone" unless you're being directed by the government strikes me as dehumanizing and almost abusive. So I resist this scare tactic of presenting the government as the alternative to being "alone."

Ed Glaeser has a fine essay up, The GOP and the City - Conservative policies have greatly benefited urbanites. Why won’t Republicans seek their votes?

I doubt that even Rudy Giuliani, to whom a generation of New Yorkers owe gratitude, could have won NYC in a national election. As Glaeser notes,

The Republicans’ abandonment of the city is good neither for their party nor for urban America. The GOP clearly needs a heftier percentage of the urban vote, but winning it by means of fiscal pandering or redistribution isn’t the way to go—partly because such a strategy would cost rural and suburban votes and partly because it would be wrong. A better approach is to offer the good ideas that cities desperately need. Republicans have plenty.

Why is that, when Republicans have demonstrated effective answers to urban issues in the cities in which they have had influence while most deep blue cities are either dying or drowning in red ink?

Judge Napolitano begins:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty.

His focus on natural rights is the main issue. In my big-picture view, American citizens do not have delimited rights, but government does have delimited powers over the citizen. Neither the "common good" nor the "greater good," however construed, are citizens of the US.

In non-American history, the masses and peasants were forbidden ownership of arms (back when the penetrating weapon of choice was the sword). America was, and remains, different, revolutionary.

Governments are always uncomfortable with an armed populace. Canada, which just gave up on its program of national firearm registration, should not have been surprised to discover that a giant and costly registry of honest gun owners was of no use at all.

Powerline: On Guns, Like Other Issues, Liberals Are Out of Ammo

Q&O: Should we ban “assault” hammers?

And what about high-capacity Nail Guns? Nail guns are dangerous and scary.

Asness:

The only way to finance a big European-style state is to have it paid for by massive taxation of everyone, mostly the middle class. Right now, we are avoiding honest debate on this fact.

There will be large tax increases on the middle class. There is no getting around it, if people want so many government benefits. Those Obamacare taxes are just the beginning. With that will come ever-slowing growth of jobs and income.

The downward creep of regular tax increases has already begin (h/t Insty): The Stealth Tax Hike -- Why the New $450,000 Income Threshold Is a Political Fiction.

I remain confused about why Europe seems like a good role model for a vigorous economy with opportunity for all.

Now Democrats Aim for a Trillion in New Taxes.  It's never enough.

The Mrs. recently reported a conversation she had had with a tennis friend who had a rotator cuff repair, and had prematurely discontinued her physical therapy because the insurance coverage cut off after the predetermined number of sessions for that surgery.

This friend of hers drives a new Mercedes every year, owns three houses in various vacation spots, and spends three months/year traveling around the world. However, the notion of actually paying (pocket change) for her own physical well-being eluded her imagination. And her shoulder still hurts.

People have been well-trained to expect to get what they need "for free." And somehow have been trained to imagine that, if insurance doesn't cover it, it must not matter very much. A childlike, entitlement culture.

Who wants a statistician for a doctor?

As I have mentioned before, I have inexpensive major medical insurance with a $10,000 two-year deductible for my family. (Some other Maggie's folks have similar.) After that, it's unlimited. If anybody (God forbid) gets very ill or injured, I will keep my humble abode.

When I see a doctor, I enjoy the look of surprise on the faces of the office staff when I pull out my checkbook. I like to pay doctors. What better use of money is there (other than buying cigars)?

A word to the wise: If you tell them you are paying out of pocket, most docs will give you a discount because it's no staff time, it's instant payment, and because it just seems right to pay for a service - same as an electrician or plumber or lawyer.

If you are on Medicare or Medicaid, or if some insurance pays your bills, what do you do personally for your doctor to let him or her know that you appreciate their care for you?

PS: My Internist tells me that a couple of wines and two or three cigars daily is just about right for a guy like me. Like most Americans of my middle age, I take Lipitor and BP meds, and I always take care to use extra salt. The occasional Viagra? I'm not saying. He is a good, sane, practical doc who individualizes things, and thinks it's narcissistic for people to obsess about their health. "Get the most out of life, while you have it" is his motto. "You can't save life for later because 'later' is just a theory."

We frequently point out, here at Maggie's, the similarities between modern Progressivism/Leftism and Feudalism. Of course, Hayek nailed this years ago.

Lifson says it better than I can. He begins:

The changes wrought on the American political economy by progressives have taken us in the unmistakable direction of feudalism. The morphological resemblance between the progressive version of America and the historic feudal regimes of Western Europe and Japan is obvious if one takes a few moments to consider the changes in the proper context.