We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, September 12. 2015
Image via Theo
Long Island Estate Fit for a Czar Lists for $100 Million
How have we gotten to a place where that is a headline?
University of California considering recognizing a “right” to be “free from … expressions of intolerance”
Cool. A right to be free from free speech and opinions.
California Will Give Free High School Diplomas To Kids Who Flunked Out
Legal gambling and government greed
America’s longest-standing case of ‘legal plunder’ and ‘crony capitalism’ – the sugar racket
"It's microaggressions all the way down."
The Rise of Victimhood Culture - A recent scholarly paper on “microaggressions” uses them to chart the ascendance of a new moral code in American life.
Portrait of a Fanatic: A top physicist’s embarrassing tirade
Remembering 9/11: The Wolf In 'Patriot Act' Sheep's Clothing
Justice Dept says Clinton could erase emails if she liked
Dear Donald Trump, Respect Matters
The Clinton campaign puts the ‘moron’ into oxymoron
Marines Wrestle Over Gender
WHEN WILL WE GET BACK TO NORMAL?
A former French minister stirred up controversy Friday after saying Germany “took our Jews and gave us Arabs”
Racism via Powerline toons:
Tracked: Sep 13, 09:52
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Bird Dog: A right to be free from free speech and opinions.
A slippery slope argument can be made, but do you think that a group that goes around campus wearing white hoods, calling African Americans the n-word, should be without sanction? Are you saying the university can't set any standards of behavior?
The university of California expresses intolerance of "expressions of intolerance".
It's a public university, not private. They can set moral and academic standards, not political standards.
Switzerland: 1 in 2 citizens has guns
Switzerland has licensing and registration requirements for handguns, and restricts carrying guns for personal security.
bd: It's a public university, not private. They can set moral and academic standards, not political standards.
The KKK is a political organization. So you're saying they can go around campus wearing hoods yelling the n-word at African Americans?
"Portrait of a Fanatic: A top physicist’s embarrassing tirade"
Krauss mistakes scientism - the belief in science - for science itself.
An all too common conceit among the Bunsen-burner set.
Black Labs matter, All Labs matter
Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!
The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.
"Black labs matter, All Labs matter"
Got one of each, and used to have a Chocolate too.
Zach, years ago the ACLU won the right for Nazis to parade and yell in Skokie, a suburb of Chicago with a majority of Jewish residents. Why is the KKK different?
jma: years ago the ACLU won the right for Nazis to parade and yell in Skokie, a suburb of Chicago with a majority of Jewish residents. Why is the KKK different?
So you think that gangs of white students roaming campus wearing hoods and calling African-Americans the n-word should be allowable behavior?
The KKK has the right to march (within certain legal parameters), however, other students have the right to an environment conducive to learning. Those rights have to be balanced.
"A former French minister stirred up controversy Friday after saying Germany 'took our Jews and gave us Arabs'..."
Someone is being a tad disingenuous.
The Nazis didn't just "take" the Jews of France; the Vichy government itself cheerfully expedited their delivery to the Germans. An enduring shame from its collaborationist days that France still has to cope with.
There have been "French Arabs" for quite a long time. France once ruled North Africa from Morocco to Tunisia as if it were a département. North African troops were an integral part of the French Army and served with considerable distinction (there is no shortage of Muslim graves in French war cemeteries).
France's "Arab" population is completely of its own making and is in fact composed of two groups. The older group is long-established, well integrated and thoroughly républicain in its values.
But there is a newer group of immigrants far less integrated into French society and quite militantly Islamist. These are the Muslims of places like the Paris banlieue of Clichy-sous-Bois.
Imagine that you are a struggling middle class worker tryng to keep a roof over your head paying property taxes, income taxes and sales taxes. Imagine that the taxes you pay both hidden and open take more han half of your income and your school sytem absorbs half of the outrageously high property taxes you pay. Imagine that for reasons you cannot understand and no one can explain the black kids going to the expensive schools you pay for choose to not only not study and pay attention but are disruptive to the point that other students have trouble learning in class. Imagine that these same black kids start fights hit teachers and in general icrease the costs and decrease the amount of learning taking place. Than imagine that when these black children drop out of school without a decent education they pump out children and get on welfare taking even more of your taxe money. Imagine that this minority commits a majority of crimes including murders. Than imagine that they form a militant group that advocates killing police (which your taxes pay for) and making false claims about the police and demanding even more special treatment that YOU will have to pay for. Imagine that you are fed up with these whining losers who constantly blame all their problems on their race and never take any responsibility for their actions or the results. Imagine that in response to their racist saying "black lives matter" you respond with a clean and legitimate version of it "all lives matter" and our media and political leaders show their true colors (no pun intended) and call you names for saying it. Imagine that we are all pretty pissed at this privilaged group of people who seem unable to succeed in the greatest country on earth and instead demand more privilage and more free stuff that you must pay for. Now imagine this is me telling you to STFU.
I wish I could vote your comment. Hands clapping from working taxpayers.
The KKK has the right to march (within certain legal parameters), however, other students have the right to an environment conducive to learning completely ignore them. Those rights have to be balanced are mutually exclusive, and can be exercised without the imposition of outside authority.
FTFY. You're version requires the god Zork or someone to arbitrate. The correct version is self governing, which in the U.S. we traditionally aspire to without the unsolicited help of authoritarians, do-gooders and the like.
in nonpublic forums like public schools the government can limit speech content but not speech viewpoint.
time, place and manner guidelines for restrictions on speech have been around a long time. this isn't rocket science. all it takes is about five minutes of research (hint: read Grayned v. City of Rockford) and you'll have at least a grip on the issue. (hint: hearkening back to some imaginary golden age in the past won't work, mainly, because its your personal vision of how things ought to be).
BillH - How can you be so blind?
Zachriel is trying to educate you. If the University of California does no have the power to shut down student or faculty speech immediately for set vague, ill-defined standards, do you know what might happen?
We'll have gangs, Bill. GANGS.
And not just any 'ol gangs. White gangs. Gangs of white students! They could blind us all with the reflection of the brilliant California sun off their pale skin! And then if we dare to raise our voices in protest, they'll correct our grammar. Because they're students, BillH! GANGS OF WHITE STUDENTS!
Sure, there are aren't any hooded gangs on campus now. Nor, one suspects, have there ever been. But there might, someday, be such gangs. Only Zachriel understands how important it is that all students and faculty surrender their human rights to the administration right now, lest someday Gangs of White Students might appear!
sounds like an excuse. excuses are for libtards.
life isn't fair. it will never be fair no matter how much you complain on the internet or how much you "imagine". you can have all the back patting, hugs and upvotes you want and it means as little as the "black lives matter" talking heads.
get over it.
listen to the man, or you'll be shot trying to escape.
L. Beau Macaroni: If the University of California does no have the power to shut down student or faculty speech immediately for set vague, ill-defined standards, do you know what might happen?
Attacking the standards as vague or ill-defined is reasonable. Claiming there should be no standards is not.
L. Beau Macaroni: Sure, there are aren't any hooded gangs on campus now. Nor, one suspects, have there ever been.
You seem somewhat unfamiliar with U.S. history.
Sweetpea: Imagine that you are a struggling middle class worker tryng to keep a roof over your head paying property taxes, income taxes and sales taxes.
Now imagine you are a struggling black middle class worker trying to keep a roof over your head paying taxes and you or your kid get stopped by the police, again.
Anyone who equates Louisiana of 1960 with California of 2015 seems unfamiliar with both places.
You seem to have forgot your own claim.
L. Beau Macaroni: Sure, there are aren't any hooded gangs on campus now. Nor, one suspects, have there ever been.
Not only have been, but within living memory.
The story at the link was talking about the University of California. The proposed policy under discussion would be effective only within those schools under the authority of the Regents of the University of California.
I am still unaware of any "gangs of white students roaming campus wearing hoods" at any campus in the UC system.
Please someone clarify for me, sure, it's fine of Clinton deleted personal emails...I guess...but she still had classified information (unmarked) on her server/in emails. Right?
So even if the Justice Dept. has gotten rid of the idea of 'deleting' emails as a crime...she still is looking mighty guilty of mishandling classified information and unauthorized retention of it, etc.
Right? That part has not been eliminated. And if she is found to have deleted non-personal emails off of her server...if the FBI can find evidence of that...she would be facing criminal charges.
I would say the nub of the problem lies in proving how the emails got on her system and what she knew about that process. That could actually be quite tricky.
It would first have to be clearly demonstrated that the content of these emails did indeed originate as classified material that was "air-gapped" from a secure system (i.e., downloaded to a memory device and loaded to another PC), stripped of security classification markings and caveats and then sent onward to Clinton.
Then you'd have to prove Hillary had "ordered" it done (she herself would not be doing the downloading, air-gapping and classification stripping of course).
Otherwise, it's not her fault if "someone else" sends emails to her private server that contain unmarked but classified material.
Is this pretty dodgy as a defence?
Well, as Bill would say, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is".
L. Beau Macaroni: The story at the link was talking about the University of California.[/i]
Yes. Are you suggesting there is no history of ethnic tensions in California?
You have continued to avoid the point. Are you saying there can be no standards, or only that the proposed standards are ill-considered?
JJM: I would say the nub of the problem lies in proving how the emails got on her system and what she knew about that process.
The actual problem is that email is inherently insecure.
Classified information is only supposed to be found on secure intranets. However, people discuss issues over emails, and sometimes those discussions involve information that may be classified, even if it has been openly reported in the press.
The U.S. government classifies far more than it should, and that can actually make real secrets less secure because great efforts are expended safeguarding that information. For instance, the CIA's involvement in the 1953 Iranian coup was classified until 2013, even though every Iranian schoolkid knows the story.
"The actual problem is that email is inherently insecure."
Which is why you don't put classified information in an email on the Internet.
"Classified information is only supposed to be found on secure intranets."
Which is why its appearance on an insecure Internet-connected server means someone has had to deliberately air-gap it from a secure system.
"The U.S. government classifies far more than it should..."
Nice try, but no cigar.
The opinion that the US government classifies far too much information might be an argument for reviewing and modifying security classification procedures but it is not an argument for ignoring them.
JJM: Which is why you don't put classified information in an email on the Internet.
Which includes .gov email addresses.
JJM: The opinion that the US government classifies far too much information might be an argument for reviewing and modifying security classification procedures but it is not an argument for ignoring them.
It means that some information that is considered classified can be found in the newspapers. This creates a situation where people who are having discussions have trouble distinguishing between common knowledge, such as that the U.S. is using drones in Pakistan (top secret!), what really needs to be kept secret.
Zachriel: Are you suggesting there is no history of ethnic tensions in California?
Way to move those goalposts, my friend.
It's the same place it's always been. Are you saying there can be no standards, or only that the proposed standards are ill-considered?