Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina is No Hockey Mom With Lipstick

She's an anti-Hillary with brains

|

Carly Fiornia, the former Hewlett Packard CEO, has barely thrown her hat in the ring and movement feminists are

Carly Fiorina
TechShowNetwork / Source / CC BY-NC-ND

already wrinkling their nose at her. They are dismissing her as just another Sarah Palin who'd be bad for women.

But that is a big mistake, I note in my column at The Week. Fiorina is no hockey-mom-with-lipstick lightweight. She is an intelligent, savvy and strong woman who is great on the stump. If her trailing poll numbers ever pick up (she polls dead last in the Republican field, in the RCP average) she will invite scrutiny, especially of her years at Hewlett Packard, which might turn up a less than stellar record given the ignominious way in which she was booted out (with a $20 million severance package).

But when it comes to women's issues, she speaks to women's concerns in a way that real women might find much more authentic than the leaden pieties of feminist darling, Hillary Clinton.

"Fiorina is using Clinton's dogmatic progressivism to set up a contrast with her positions that seem to strive for a higher left-right synthesis."

Go here to view the column.

NEXT: Clapper Didn't Lie About Metadata Collection, Guys! He Just Totally Forgot!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. She … is great on the stump

    That’s my kind of woman. Sign me up.

    her trailing poll

    Eh … never mind.

  2. none of her qualifications or perceived qualifications matter to feminists. Fiorina is not even a liberal, let alone a progressive; therefore, they cannot support her, even though she upholds what feminism is supposed to embody far, far more than Hillary.

    1. Suckling at the government teat and surrendering freedom for protection?

    2. Well, she’s successful, but not in academia, so that’s definitely a no-go for progtards.

      Where’s that retarded chick who said she was gonna vote with her vagina? I wonder if she’ll explain her whole comparative-vagina philosophy to the world. You know, why she identifies more strongly with Hillary’s snatch than Fiorina’s. Not sure I’d admit that in public, though.

      Fuckity fuck. I am so goddam sick of progs. They are a disease. A slobbering, retarded disease.

      1. No true woman would be republican.

  3. Fiorina is no hockey-mom-with-lipstick lightweight.

    Of course, neither is Sarah Palin.

    Passing along this kind of sneering, classist JournoList smear is not something that a libertarian publication should be doing.

    Yeah, Sarah didn’t graduate from the Right School, she doesn’t hang out with the self-appointed Elites, she lived in a small town and raised a family. Obviously, anyone with this background is lightweight.

    Ask a proggy why Sarah Palin is a lightweight, and odds are what they’ll tell is a lie (“I can see Russia from my house” would be my guess for the first thing out of their mouths).

    1. Of course, neither is Sarah Palin.

      But the difference is that Palin attempted to profit from an appeal to a “jus’ plain folks” image.

      Live by the pickup, die by the pickup.

      1. Any politician, Dem or Rep, who can plausibly present a just folks image – and many politicians who cannot credibly do so – take on an aw shucks demeanor. Some of them even use words like “folks” to show how they bond with the people.

        1. Look, Palin isn’t my favorite politician – a low bar to clear, and she doesn’t clear it – but she sure as heck has the right enemies, and I’d vote for her against any give Democrat other than Grover Cleveland.

          1. any *given* Democrat

            1. No, I think you had it right with “give Democrat”.

          2. I refer to first-term Cleveland, not to the inferior sequel.

            1. Youd vote for Sarah Palin over, say, Ron Wyden? Good for you, I guess? No one can question your commitment to Team Red. Im not a fan of the Blues and I rarely vote, but if for some reason I was compelled I would vote for any cosponsor of the NSA defunding bill or federal pot decriminilization bills with a D next to their name before I would even consider Palin.

              I think bridge to nowhere before I think view of Russia with Palin. She is no friend to intellectually honest proponents of small government.

              1. This is a foolish comment.
                Libertarians are not team red or blue. We operate in the middle. You show your prejudices by accusing others of theirs.

                In the bean time, I believe the NSA serves a valuable function when they respect citizen’s rights. I also believe drug prohibition to be just as, if not more destructive, destructive as the alcohol prohibition.

                My chief reason for proclaiming you foolish is that you claim to rarely vote. I don’t care if you think you’re throwing your vote away, it costs you nothing to vote and by not doing so you are giving your voice away.

                1. *mean time. Though bean time sounds delicious.

        2. The thing is, politicians have to overcome the (perfectly justified) suspicion of the voters that they are just ambitious egomaniacs who hold the public in contempt. Thus, lots of pols (including Palin) try to get over that natural suspicion by talking about their families, their humble roots, anything to indicate they’re regular folks and not sociopathic political apparatchiks salivating at the prospect of wielding power.

      2. Palin pretty much was plain folks. Nothing fancy in her background. Yeah, she profited after the failed VP run. And?

        1. That she check out of politics and cashed in on her fame while she could is seen as some grate moral failing by proglodytes, apparently including Heroic Mulatto.

          But why?
          What normal person would persevere through the abuse that she and her family were subjected to, in order to cling to power.

          And why is such power lust seen as anything but reprehensible?

          1. I’m pretty sure that HM didn’t mean profit, as in money, rather as in win political office.

      3. But the difference is that Palin attempted to profit from an appeal to a “jus’ plain folks” image.

        So what?

        Is it better to profit by selling favors to despots like every prog’s favorite woman?

      4. Why isn’t Hilary held to this same standard?

        It is not hard to find video’s of her imitating some hill billy accent.

      5. But the difference is that Palin attempted to profit from an appeal to a “jus’ plain folks” image.

        This is true. She should have known better. If there’s one thing the progressosphere hates, it’s jus’ plain folks.

      6. Personally, I think Palin was the first Conservative woman over the top and charging the Pogressive positions. She caught the first “A non-progressive woman! How dare she!”. Each Conservative/Libertarian woman after her will catch just a little less flak, as they grow resigned to the idea.

        Compare the reaction to Barry Goldwater and then Ronald Reagan. The proggies loathed Reagan, don’t mistake me, but their attacks didn’t have the devastating punch they mustered against Goldwater.

    2. Sarah Palin aggressively sought out the support of the book-larnin-is-fer-fags bloc. Don’t shed any tears for her when she gets called names.

      1. Seriously?

        At the risk of being accused of white-knighting, what did she do to merit that accusation?

        1. The endless forced ‘aw shucks’ commoner bullshit. The cartoonish patriotism, the boilerplate and lack of substance.

          1. Which politician are you referring to? There are *lots* of pols whose behavior meets your description.

            1. And Palin is among the worst of them.

              Her “lipstick on a bulldog” shtick, her bizarre inability to speak a sentence without coming off like a hick demagogue, etc.

              I have never listened to a speech from Palin that didn’t make her sound like a moron and the only reason she gets support from the right is because it’s those damn libruls doing the criticizing.

              1. “the only reason she gets support from the right is because it’s those damn libruls doing the criticizing”

                That’s an important factor.

                If the progs feel threatened by her, then maybe, just maybe, she has something useful to contribute.

                Like I say, the aw-shucks, just-folks stuff is very common among politicians. Just because Palin is able to carry it off better than Obama (with his literal use of “folks”), Biden (“put y’all in chains”), Hillary (wife of Mr. Bill “cornpone” Clinton), doesn’t make Palin *worse* than all the others, just more skilled.

        2. It always seemed to me that both her critics & supporters were projecting on her a lot more than they do onto most pols?& people project an awful lot onto pols generally. I never found her that great, nor that bad.

          Can we stop judging pols by the ideal we have in mind? An absolute scale makes no sense when comparing human being to human being broadly, nor within a given field, nor among the reasonable choices presented. When I coach children in football, of course to them I criticize them vs. the ideal I have in mind. But when I’m judging them in the division they play in, I consider comparatively. We draft our teams, and we can’t cut players. We’re going to draft somebody, actually a bunch of kids. NFL prospects are not in our draft, although every once in a while they make it to the pros when they grow up. Politicians are already grown up, so we should judge them comparatively. We can keep in mind the ideal, but since nobody’s going to approach that too closely, it makes sense to rank the choices against each other.

      2. Don’t shed any tears for her when she gets called names.

        Depends on whether the names apply, and whether they are applied to her only under a double standard.

      3. Sarah Palin aggressively sought out the support of the book-larnin-is-fer-fags bloc.

        I’d like some detail on this.

        If it was more along the lines of “University education these days seems mostly a matter of proggy propaganda”, then I’d say her critique has merit.

        1. University education these days seems mostly a matter of proggy propaganda

          Are you fucking kidding me? Have you ever been to a university?

          1. and they lean so far left they are in danger of toppling over. Someone stole the real Warty’s handle, didn’t they?

          2. No, he’s right. Anything that can be politicized has been politicized; in many fields (particularly within social sciences and the liberal arts) one is better off reading literature within the field over receiving an indoctrination from a university on the given topic.

            STEM fields like math and engineering are insulated from this by virtue of being extraordinarily difficult to politicize.

            1. Certain departments are entirely politicized, but they’re easy to avoid, everyone knows they’re jokes, and only losers go into them. The worthwhile studies aren’t too terribly politicized because they can’t be, like you said, and even in things like history, you can only be indoctrinated if you wanted to be in the first place.

              So no, universities aren’t leftist enclaves that us real Americans need to hop in our pickup trucks and take back our country from. And humoring the yokels who want to do that is contemptible as well as a little dangerous.

              1. They are debt enabling enclaves that us real Americans need to hop in our pickup tracks and take back our country from.

                Of course, the problem didnt start at the Universities, but in DC.

              2. History, anthropology, and literature are solidly politicized and I wouldn’t call those subjects jokes.

                1. Yeah, but how many people need a degree in any of them?

              3. universities aren’t leftist enclaves that us real Americans need to hop in our pickup trucks and take back our country from

                More of a Jeep guy, myself.

                Besides that, sounds like a plan — universities are always going to be dangerous as idea-leaders and trend-setters because they have no accountability for the ideas that they produce and tend to enable the most radical and unworkable variants of such. Leftist ideas are just the vehicle of convenience; take a broader historical perspective and it reveals that nationalism and any number of awful idea movements on the right had their worst moments when universities were busying themselves in promoting them.

                I’d like to see a world where universities are as unimportant in the formation of idea-memes as your average K-Mart.

                1. A few yrs. ago I was in a small group of people I was invited to for a present’n someone with a couple of good things (with environmental advantages) wanted to attract venture capital for. One of the people in the audience sounded like an unreconstructed Nazi?the real thing, from Germany. He’d been an engr. at Peenemunde. He raved about the things that were being presented, saying, “Now it is the Greens’ turn. First they must take over the universities. They will need weapons. These are valuable weapons.” There was no munitions aspect to the things, he meant “weapons” metaphorically, but I had to struggle to keep from both cracking up & recoiling in horror at this guy who was just itching to get on some radical bandwagon.

              4. Congratulations, this is the dumbest fucking thing anyone has ever written here.

              5. So no, universities aren’t leftist enclaves that us real Americans need to hop in our pickup trucks and take back our country from.

                Increasingly, they are leftist enclaves, because the administration has been completely captured by proggies and push proggy policies just as hard as they can.

                Sure, some fields are more immune to this than others, and some schools are not as proggified as others, but as a generalization, I think saying that universities are just about the leftiest enclaves to be found anywhere in America is accurate.

                Tut, tut, Warty. I had no idea you were so in line with the proggy elites and eager to defend their bastions against the unwashed masses in their pickup trucks.

                1. Tut, tut, Warty. I had no idea you were so in line with the proggy elites and eager to defend their bastions against the unwashed masses in their pickup trucks.

                  If I don’t hate the right way, I must be a SJW, right? This is stupid.

                  And no, universities are absolutely not the wastelands of progressive groupthink that TEAM RED KULTUR WAR mouthbreathers want them to be. That’s a retarded and self-defeating way to think, and if the idea of liberty becomes wedded to this kind of asinine and vaguely sinister anti-intellectualism, it’s doomed.

                  1. That’s a retarded and self-defeating way to think, and if the idea of liberty becomes wedded to this kind of asinine and vaguely sinister anti-intellectualism, it’s doomed.

                    I think you’re making a mistake assuming that opposition to the way universities are run and the left-wing group think of many departments amounts to ‘anti-intellectualism.’

                    My problem with many modern universities is that the universities themselves are often run by anti-intellectuals who are openly hostile to ideas that originate outside the hive.

                    I think you’re downplaying how common this sort of thing is. There are entire departments that fall victim to it and even though the type of people who believe this nonsense are in the minority (since most of the people are there to get a degree while simultaneously drinking and getting laid) they wield outsized power relative to their proportion within the student body and the faculty.

                    I think the people saying ‘HURR DURR, YOU MUST HATE US GOOD OL’ BOYS’ are being idiots, but it’s equally ludicrous to claim that concerns about modern universities are evidence of ‘anti-intellectualism.’

                    1. Concerns are fine. And of course there’s a ton of crappy thinking at universities, there always has been. And obviously university administrations have gotten fat on that sweet federal money. My problem is with the Hit and Runpublicans’ tendency to wallow in beliefs about coordinated conspiracies against their way of life.

                    2. Fair enough, but is not anti-intellectualism to question how universities are run or if we even need them anymore and can use different organizations instead.

                    3. It’s not a conspiracy against their way of life since there’s no cabal making these decisions, but universities are very hostile to certain ideas, particularly ideas that originate from Republicans or libertarians or even just become associated with them.

                      A study by a Dutch social scientist working at the University of Toronto (and therefore hardly a good ol’ boy Republican weaving conspiracy theories) found outright anti-conservative biases among university staffs and hiring officials.

                      Sample:

                      One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”

                      More than a third of the respondents said they would discriminate against the conservative candidate. One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”

                      This is not a minor issue and, incidentally, it’s evidence of the universities’ anti-intellectual bias not my own.

                    4. My friend worked at a University as a TA and according to him there was NO QUESTION the majority of faculties – and this is Montreal – were hostile to conservative and even libertarian ideas.

                    5. Who says it’s consciously coordinated? Memes and fashions often spread in asymmetrical ways — Bubba the Redneck’s Sporting Emporium doesn’t get the same vote in what’s fashionable as Louis Vuitton, and political thought and philosophy in modern Western-style democracies gives much more weight to what comes out of universities than almost anywhere else in society. There are many reasons for this, but suffice it to say the piss-poor selection process for an idea’s popularity within academia is reason enough for this outsized influence to be scaled back appropriately — especially within politics and anything having to do with ethics.

                    6. Burn ’em to the fucking ground.

                  2. Lubos Motl was a Czech physicist who leaned right and was pushed out of Harvard for notvtowingvthd feminist line. It most certainly seems to effect departments of all types. At the least, bad think can cost someone their job so it stifles dissent.

                  3. And no, universities are absolutely not the wastelands of progressive groupthink that TEAM RED KULTUR WAR mouthbreathers want them to be.

                    The assistant secretary to the associate vice dean of diversity won’t disagree- because you called the “right people” mouthbreathers…

              6. Some departments are politicized. Like climate science, Warty. Yes, universities are increasingly dangerous trend-setters and bastions of SJW conformity. You’re kind of dense if you can’t see that dynamic or you are totally unaware of what happens at university.

                We need 1) fewer people going to University and 2) to make University as we know it obsolete. There’s no reason it has to be this way.

              7. Certain departments are entirely politicized, but they’re easy to avoid, everyone knows they’re jokes, and only losers go into them.

                Only if you consider pretty much the whole of the humanities a joke.

          3. Yeah, have you?

            1. “Hey Vasquez, you ever been mistaken for a man?”

              “No. Have you?”

              BOOM HEADSHOT

          4. Jaysus, warty, don’t you read any of the proggies-running-colleges stuff on this here very online publication?

        2. BTW, still waiting for the detail on this:

          Sarah Palin aggressively sought out the support of the book-larnin-is-fer-fags bloc.

          1. She criticized the bird cage shit catcher known as the New York Times which we all know is the pinnacle of book-lernin news

      4. I don’t shed any tears for her because she seems to hold her own and some of the vitriol I’ve heard is useful for what it tells me about the person speaking. I don’t mean your garden variety insults so much as people talking about murdering/raping her. The most amazing part is that I’ve heard it in real life situations. Wishing someone dead is not too uncommon when people can hide behind their internet handle, but you don’t often hear people say it to your face.

    3. Yeah what really bothered us about Palin was not her policy positions, which seemed no different from that of most republicans. She is part of the class of regular Americans we fear and resent, the “cossaks from the country.” This Fiorina character seems like a solid member of the elite goy class we are much more comfortable around.

      1. Are you for real?

        1. IJ got tossed several weeks ago and had a bunch of posts ‘disappeared’. I’m guessing it’s one of the few asses who have managed to find the ban-hammer at H&R.
          How long it’ll last this time is anyone’s guess.

        2. It’s American. He’s been popping up under a lot of different names to troll about Jews and say racist shit.

          1. This looks like a job for the Underzog!

    4. Of course, neither is Sarah Palin.

      Yes she is. Sarah Palin’s only talent is getting media attention. She’s even destroyed her credibility with most conservatives a few months ago after giving a terrible speech. She’s stupid.

      In the Washington Examiner, Byron York treated those who missed the address to a brutal dissection. First, he recorded, Palin subjected the crowd to an “extended stream-of-consciousness complaint about media coverage of her decision to run in a half-marathon race in Storm Lake, Iowa.” and so on.

      Consider, if you will, what happens to a person who suggests that Sarah Palin is anything other than saintly. Right off the bat, they are accused of disliking America or Alaska or conservatives or mothers or the working class ? or even women in general ? and then they are informed that their “hatred” is showing. Next, their motives are questioned and their supposedly secret “agenda” is exposed for the world to see, for no right-thinking person could dislike Palin on the merits, natch. “I hope you enjoy your elite cocktail parties,” the apologists will say, and then they will huffily tell you that they “hope signaling that you are ‘one of them’ was worth it.”

      Ah CW Cooke has met John I see.

      1. Sarah Palin’s only talent is getting media attention.

        And I’m perfectly fine calling her a lightweight on that basis. As long as you tag every politician whose sole talent is getting media attention a lightweight as well. It seems I never see any number of other politicians with no discernible abilities beyond camera-whoring called a lightweight by the same people who call Sarah Palin a lightweight.

        That’s what grinds my gears about the ubiquitous Palin-hate. She is no more, and probably a lot less, deserving of the hate than any number of others who don’t seem to catch any of it.

        So the hate isn’t for being a camera-whore. It must be for something else.

        1. Okay.

        2. So the hate isn’t for being a camera-whore. It must be for something else.

          It’s for making terrible use of the camera attention after she gets it.

          No one would dispute that Chuck Schumer is a camera whore, but he is also very, very good at playing to the camera once it’s on him. While it’s a little easier due to the media’s leftist bias, that’s not all of it, since there are plenty of leftists who are horrible on camera (Biden, Reid, and even Obama quite often).

          1. there are plenty of leftists who are horrible on camera (Biden, Reid, and even Obama quite often).

            Yet they are not tagged as being lightweights by folks who call Palin a lightweight.

            It must be something else.

            1. Some people are doing it entirely out of partisanship (and, yes, out of desire to keep up the idea that the GOP is anti-woman).

              But she IS a lightweight. That some people are saying so for the wrong reasons does not change that fact.

              1. Go back and read the article above.

                The complaint is the left MSM uses one standard for Palin and another for left-wing “light weights”.

                Shikha Dalmia is doing the exact same shit as the left MSM. Why the fuck is she using the same hypocritical standards as the left at Reason?

                1. Dalmia is doing no such thing.

                  1. “Dalmia is doing no such thing.”

                    Oh really?

                    “Fiorina is no hockey-mom-with-lipstick lightweight.”

                    1. And, as far as I can tell, Fiorina did a hell of lot worse job as CEO of HP than Palin did as Gov. of Alaska.

    5. RC — Sarah Palin just doesn’t sound very bright when she speaks, that’s all. She wasn’t ready for prime time when McCain stupidly chose her as his VP candidate. Quitting the governor’s job didn’t help her image any either.

      1. And why doesn’t she sound very bright? Is it something that she said that was so stupid? Or, more likely, the fact that she has a “stupid-sounding” accent?

  4. is it sexist to base your vote on a candidates’ gender?

    1. I would tend to think so…

  5. Fiorina doesn’t have Clinton’s name recognition. Or war chest. She is barely showing up in the polls. But the freshness of her approach and her personal authenticity might well change the conversation about women’s issues in this country. Feminists who try and dismiss her as anti-woman may get hoisted by their own petard.

    I’ve been hearing this kind of thing for years, every time some woman or minority candidate runs, and they are usually soon forgotten. That’s what’s going to happen with this Fiorina character, who has no appeal to either plutocrats or regular conservatives. We control the conversation and we’re not planning to change it.

    1. I’ve been hearing this kind of thing for years, every time some woman or minority candidate runs, and they are usually soon forgotten.

      Yeah, I’ve totally forgotten how a minority candidate, Obama, beat a female candidate, Clinton, then later beat a member of a religious minority, Romney.

      1. I believe he’s talking about racial minority/women candidates in the GOP.

        1. I believe he’s an anti-semitic racist who is purposefully writing in an over the top Jew stereotype filled with claims that ‘We control the conversation and we’re not planning to change it.’ Therefore, trying to figure out what he’s talking about isn’t really relevant.

  6. “The taboo on abortion in many societies stems from a need to control female sexuality. But in America, it’s also grounded in a religious “sanctity of life” ethos.”

    Is Ms. Dalmia aware that, as acknowledged by the choicers themselves, the American Medical Association promoted prolife laws for secular reasons in the 19th century? (the choicers simply contend that the AMA’s secular reasons were like totally sexist). Just because religious people defend laws adopted at the insistence of secularists doesn’t mean you can claim the laws originated from eeeevul religious impulses.

    1. this sort of thinking presumes that no women are pro-life. Unless they’re seeking to control the sexuality of the sisterhood. As best I can tell, the junior anti-sex league lives on the left.

      1. Lots of women want to control the sexuality of other women, just as men do, and usually for the same reason.

    2. For that matter, permissiveness on abortion is hardly incompatible with controlling female sexuality — as a survey of the pre-Christian Mediterranean would reveal.

      1. Now, now, TIT, you’re not supposed to notice inconvenient facts, you’re supposed to *feel.*

    3. At the same time, you can’t point to the AMA’s ‘secular’ reasoning and say that, de-facto, its not got a religious basing.

      Plenty of people try to hide their religious bias under a cover of secularity by grabbing onto marginal ‘facts’ that support their preferred policies, all the way to outright lying.

      That’s not even a religious thing, really – pretty much any advocacy organization will do this to support whatever their desired policy outcome is. essentially, almost everyone has a desired outcome and looks around for facts that will support that outcome. Abortion, circumcision, drugs, global warming, minimum wage, public schooling, etc.

      1. Of course it had a religious basis — a complete listing of movements in this country with a religious (indeed, Christian) basis would be exhausting to compile, but would include at a minimum pacifism, humanitarianism, ecumenicalism, liberalism, prison and criminal justice reform, most any egalitarian movement you’d like to think of, and of course libertarianism itself.

        There is nothing that is purely “secular”, and those items considered most secular are quite often those which do the greatest effort to sneak in various bits of the Christian ethos under the camel’s tent, along with what philosophical flotsam the supposed secularist managed to pick up.

        “Common sense” and “universal human values” in American culture are more often than not words of convenience for a bastardized variant of what some illiterate Jewish prophet said some 2000 years ago.

        There are a few things that are pagan or Epicurean or Stoic or one of a variety of different non-Christian philosophies, but the idea of a purely “secular” referent against which all things can be measured is complete fantasy and should be rejected as such.

        1. Exactly – generally speaking, it’s the secularists who try to cover up the religious origins of their views rather than vice versa.

          That’s why I speculate that the secularists may be engaging in projection in saying that religious people are covering up their true views.

        2. “Of course it had a religious basis — a complete listing of movements in this country with a religious (indeed, Christian) basis would be exhausting to compile, but would include at a minimum pacifism, humanitarianism, ecumenicalism, liberalism, prison and criminal justice reform, most any egalitarian movement you’d like to think of, and of course libertarianism itself.”

          Might as well add secularism and atheism itself to that list…if we are going to be perfectly honest.

          1. True.

      2. “Plenty of people try to hide their religious bias under a cover of secularity by grabbing onto marginal ‘facts’ that support their preferred policies, all the way to outright lying.”

        In the 19th century, *and even today,* there were lots of people who were proud to avow their religious views and to argue explicitly for the incorporation of those religious views in public policy.

        From Justice David Brewer declaring on behalf of the Supreme Court that the USA was a Christian nation

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..ted_States

        to Teddy Roosevelt’s “muscular Christianity,” there were plenty of people who weren’t ashamed to link religion to public policy.

        And today, from Rand Paul warning the Values Voter summit of a “worldwide war on Christianity,”

        http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..ama-media/

        1. to Obama saying “I think some of the things I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/t…..interview/

          mainstream modern figures are willing to say for public consumption (sincerely or not) that they are influenced by religion.

          The idea of people being ashamed of their religious opinions and trying to hide them may be projection on the part of secularists who know that it would be unpopular for them to outright admit they aren’t religious, so they conceal it, and they assume that religious people do it, too.

          1. So? Dalmia tried to introduce religion into a discussion of a secular subject, and I’m rebuking her for it.

          2. At a time when there was no shame in openly avowing religious views, the AMA invoked largely secular criteria to oppose abortion.

            This blows proggy minds, so they try to recover by saying that the AMA was basically trying to cover up some kind of religious motivation.

            As if concealing one’s religious views was a political career-ender in the 19th century – or even today.

            Pure projections – atheists know that being honest about their views will harm them, so they cloak themselves in religious rhetoric, and they simply assume their religious opponents do the same thing in reverse.

            1. Pure projections – atheists know that being honest about their views will harm them

              BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA yes that’s why we’re growing in number.

              1. How many honest atheists are in politics?

              2. You’re growing in number because at most stages of life, atheism is a lot easier than theism.

                1. It’s young people who are coming to Atheism.

                  How many honest atheists are in politics?

                  Soon, many.

            2. Now, there *is* a secular tradition in American politics.

              For example, when at the urging of Sen. Stephen Douglas, Congress allowed slavery to spread into the Kansas and Nebraska territories, many Northern Protestant clergy signed a petition objecting to this “in the name of God, and in His presence.”

              Douglas said that it was wrong to introduce religion into politics, and because of the separation of church and state, Congress should not consider the antislavery views of the religiously-inspired Protestant ministers.

              1. Just for the record, Dalmia attributed prolife laws which were secular in origin to insidious religious influences.

                I showed how Dalmia was wrong.

                Now, I wait with interest for all the people who say I introduced religion in to a virginal thread which had previously been free from the subject.

              2. Christ you are a disingenuous twat.

                1. I’m sitting here being insulted by the infanticide guy?

                  https://reason.com/blog/2015/01…..nt_5040059

      3. True, but it could equally well be couched in the opposite direction. People make religions as vessels for their thinking. If God told them the opposite of what they thought, they’d get themselves another God.

    4. The taboo on abortion in many societies stems from a need to control female sexuality.

      An assertion of this scope requires a lot of evidence, which seems sadly lacking. I can think of a lot of non-patriarchal reasons to ban abortions, especially in societies that don’t have much in the way of modern medical technology.

      Abortions can be quite dangerous to the breeder, for example, when the level of medical care generally is at the “back-alley” stage. The kind of dangerous procedure that might be outlawed just on that basis.

      Or, it could be that abortions are taboo in many societies for the stated reason – a fetus beyond a certain stage (classically, “quickening”) is regarded as a person who should not be snuffed out because they are an embarrassment or inconvenience. Typically, I don’t discard plausible reasons without, well, a plausible reason to do so.

    5. The women’s suffrage and women’s rights movement in the late 19th century into the 20th was also quite vocally anti-abortion. Probably because abortion was not so much an exercise of a woman’s right to choose, as an exercise of a husband’s or father’s right to force his daughter or wife into an abortion. Of course nowadays it’s quite common in the case of teenage pregnancies for the siring teen’s family to bribe the pregnant teen to have one.

      Also I’d think banning contraception would be far more effective at controlling female sexuality, yet very few pro-lifers want to do that.

  7. Most women lean feminist

    According to surveys, less than 1 in 4 women consider themselves feminist.

    Women’s skills are diminished, styles second-guessed, and accomplishments devalued.

    Something that never happens to men in the workplace, I’m sure. Accomplishment-stealing and glory-hounding is a phenomena that uniquely afflicts only women.

    1. According to surveys, less than 1 in 4 women consider themselves feminist.

      And this includes people who refer to themselves as feminists but reject virtually everything the modern crazy feminists believe in, such as Christina Hoff Sommers.

      If you’re talking about actual left-wing feminists, they’re a small fringe that just happens to be very loud.

      1. “If you’re talking about actual left-wing feminists, they’re a small fringe that just happens to be very loud.”

        It is my guess that greater then 50% of which are men.

    2. Immaculate — If “less than 1 in 4 women consider themselves feminist,” then why hasn’t the GOP won the female vote since 1988?

      Women might not consider themselves feminist but they sure in the hell don’t want men telling them what they can or cannot have growing in their bodies. Therefore they vote democrat.

      1. If “less than 1 in 4 women consider themselves feminist,” then why hasn’t the GOP won the female vote since 1988?

        And the Democrats haven’t gotten the male vote since 1976. They must be the anti-male party.

  8. I glanced over the piece.

    the term “Vice-President” did not appear, sadly.

    CF is not “running against hillary”. CF isn’t even remotely facing the chance of the GOP nom.

    At best, she’s running as a potential GOP VP option farther down the road. And I think in this regard, she’s not even as useful as someone like, say, Kelly Ayotte… who brings a successful political track record, FP credibility, and ticks off a variety of boxes for GOP-acceptability that Shikha doesn’t even bother to consider in her analysis of CF’s ‘appeal to women’. (i.e. known positions opposing Gun Control, climate change legislation, TARP bailouts, etc)

    the idea that a female candidate should first be ‘the right kind of feminist’ before they’re actually considered as ‘someone qualified for high office’ strikes me as a little silly. Patriarchy made me think that, probably.

  9. So David Cameron got a majority. I am pleased that Labour got shot down especially that asshole Millibad, but Cameron is terrible. He is going to force through a bill that makes Britain a surveillance state. I wanted him to get a very large minority and have to rely on small rightist parties like UKIP or that North Ireland party thing. At least he’s going to allow fracking, which makes Britain good for something. It’ll be a totalitarian shithole anyway at least now it produces gas and oil, which could mean very bad times for Russia.

    1. Interesting example of the failure of first-past-the-post voting systems: SNP won 9% of the seats despite winning only 4.5% of the vote, and UKIP won less than 1% of the seats despite winning 13% of the vote.

      Incidentally, 13% is 0.43x the vote-share of Labour (the main opposition party), and .36x the vote-share of the Tories (the majority party). Not bad for a libertarian-type new party, and much better than I expected in the UK.

      1. Not bad for a libertarian-type new party

        Wait, you’re talking about the UKIP? Seriously?

      2. UKIP isn’t libertarian.

        1. It’s as close as it gets for a UK party.

          Arguably the Liberal Party in the 80s was better, but you take what you can get.

          1. It’s not close at all though, certainly not close enough to call them “libertarian-type.”

        2. The EU is anti-libertarian….so there is that.

        3. I do wish there was a UK party that wanted to legalize guns and pot…it would be epic reading the likes of the Guardian or the BBC covering such party.

      3. “UKIP won less than 1% of the seats despite winning 13% of the vote.”

        This complaint is BS. They represent regions (districts) just like in the US with the House of Reps.

        It is like saying “libertarians got 2% of the vote why don’t we have 8 reps in congress?”

        1. It is like saying “libertarians got 2% of the vote why don’t we have 8 reps in congress?”

          Which is a valid complaint, as far as it goes. IMO the US is too big an area to reasonably run something that’s not FPTP, but at the state level proportional representation or something of that sort would be the way to go.

          1. Proportional representation would mean that rural areas would have effectively no representation (except in states that are entirely rural). Elections would be entirely fought out in a couple of urban media markets.

            In parliamentary systems (and in our own HoR and most state legislatures) it doesn’t matter whether you have 49% or 1% of the legislature as long as another party is in the majority, so I don’t see what benefit proportional representation would have.

            1. “Elections would be entirely fought out in a couple of urban media markets.”

              ^this

            2. That assumes that the polity is one large district. Most PR systems dived the country into a bunch of multi-member districts (Finland for example) or combine PR with single-seat constituencies (Germany).

          2. “but at the state level proportional representation or something of that sort would be the way to go.”

            Nah. Just get the FEDs to stop doing like 80% of what it does and let the states run themselves. Can you name one state with a problem that would solved with a “state level proportional representation” system?

      4. They would have gotten even more votes in a proportional system due to the lack of strategic voting. Just look at the 2014 EU election:

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_ election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Results

        With that semi-proportional system both labor and the “consefvatives” combined got under 50% of the vote, and UKIP finished

        Thank God for the FPTP system!

        1. FPTP has problems but proportional representation won’t solve them. Something like instant runoff voting would be a better solution. Of course it’s probably a pipe dream since that would be going for the jugular of the major parties.

          1. Just an FYI: Pretty sure “International Jew” is a troll. Could be Tulpa, could be Mary, could be just a random person having a laugh.

          2. IR would be great.

      5. UKIP is not libertarian.

  10. This unceasing focus on gender issues is making me want to stop reading about politics altogether. It will probably only get worse as election season gets closer. The implication seems to be that sexism needs to be our #1 national priority, as if everything else is just peachy and we’re ironing out the kinks. It makes me angry.

    1. Not that I ever think it should be a national priority

    2. We don’t have enough problems for people to focus on actual issues so they have to freak out about bullshit. This is the entire reason that there are people actually worried about microaggressions – when you have no actual problems in your life, there’s a certain sort of broken human being who needs the conflict so they just invent conflicts of their own.

    3. It only has to be our #1 priority once every four years for the Dems to maintain a lock on the most powerful branch of govt.

      The Dems only need 28 electoral college votes outside of deep blue states (HI, WA, OR, CA, MD, DE, NJ, PA, NY, CT, RI, VT, ME, MI, IL, WI, MN) to win. The GOP needs 95 votes outside of deep red states. You see where this is going.

  11. They are dismissing her as just another Sarah Palin who’d be bad for women.

    There were only two things wrong with Sarah Palin.

    First, she was a republican.

    Second, she realized that Obama was a huckstering pseudo-intellectual, when the media hive had just fallen in love with him.

    Change those to facts and she would have been portrayed as the modern embodiment of feminism instead of some dumb hick.

    1. There’s also the fact that she’s stupid.

      1. You’re just saying that because you’re socially signaling for all the progressives on H&R. /John

      2. Funny,the dumb person was governor of a state and a candidate for vice president and is now rich while the smart person writes anonymous comments on a blog.

        1. Funny,the dumb person was governor of a state and a candidate for vice president and is now rich while the smart person writes anonymous comments on a blog.

          Funny, you think the act of getting people to vote for you is evidence of intelligence. By your logic, everyone who’s run the city of Detroit was super smart since they got elected.

          Hell, Detroit’s population was actually higher than Alaska’s until the 2010 census, so the mayor of that city was responsible for a larger bureaucracy and more people than Sarah Palin was. Some of them also got super rich during their tenures as mayor.

          Do you see why this argument is stupid yet?

          1. If it’s so easy for the dummies to get people to vote for them, why don’t you intelligent folks get elected and inaugurate Libertopia?

            1. If its so dumb to post anonymous blog comments why dont you piss off?

              1. I didn’t say it was dumb, I just said that those of us who do that are in no position to call someone dumb who was a state governor, vp candidate, and got rich.

                1. Yes we are.

      3. When have the proglodytes in the media criticized one of their own for stupidity?

        1. What does this matter? Whether or not progressives are hypocrites on the subject is totally irrelevant. They can be right about Sarah Palin while being hypocrites through their refusal to call out, say, Nancy Pelosi for being equally stupid.

          1. It matters because the Palin hate was driven by her opposition to Obama and affiliation with the republican party and not any deficiencies in here innate intelligence.

            She was made into a national laughingstock because she was seen as a threat to the lightbringer in 2008.

            Libertarians piling on, in an attempt to fit in with the prog collective, is just fucking pathetic.

      4. “There’s also the fact that she’s stupid.”

        Hilary is just as stupid…ditto Obama.

        That doesn’t seem to be a problem for them.

        1. Not mattering.

          1. In the context of Hilary and the election…

            It is the only that matters.

            Hilary is stupid, she is not a republican and she did not openly criticize Obama for being a huckstering pseudo-intellectual, yet she was praised as she was put into the position of Secretary of State.

  12. Carly Fiorina is No Hockey Mom With Lipstick
    She’s an anti-Hillary with brains
    Shikha Dalmia|May 9, 2015 11:55 am

    Carly Fiorina Is Not the Anti-Hillary
    Fiorina may thrill fans of “private enterprise,” but beware.
    Sheldon Richman | May 7, 2015

    Looks like we have a catfight on our hands.

    1. Me-ow.

    2. My money is on Shikha…she has the reach over Sheldon plus she is skinny which makes me think she is a scrapper.

  13. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
    http://www.work-cash.com

  14. I feel l have a duty to post at least one truly awful piece of derp each day. Behold:

    Though I hate to admit it, I was once that well-meaning White teacher ? the one that comes from a wealthy family, chooses to teach in a “poor, urban school,” the one who wrote in my cover letter that I wanted to be the “engaging teacher” with a “racial justice pedagogy” who could help his Black students “overcome their tough life circumstances.”

    It then gets much worse. Here is the summary:

    1. more money schools
    2. more non-white teachers, because black students learn better from black teachers (?!)
    3. standardized tests are unfair
    4. anything that goes wrong is the result of racism
    5. ignore Asian success

    bonus: the title lists 5 suggestions, but the author refers to 6. I guess this dunce was a math teacher.

    http://everydayfeminism.com/20…..ement-gap/

    1. I thought it was just a buzzword, but it turns out racial justice pedagogy is a real thing

      A white first-year student comes into the
      Multicultural Resource Center with a paper
      arguing that bilingual education should be
      outlawed in schools. He argues that bilingual
      education encourages Mexican immigrants not to
      learn English, and then they drop out of school
      and end up committing crimes. As he reads his
      paper aloud to a white tutor (who is the only
      writing center tutor at this location), other
      students walk in and out of the space, many of
      whom are bilingual Latino/a students. The tutor
      struggles with how to call the writer’s assumptions
      into question without getting so angry that the
      student feels attacked; she feels her heart rate rise
      at arguments she considers racist. After the
      session, she wants to debrief with so

      Be careful. This is weapons grade derp.

      1. The tutor
        struggles with how to call the writer’s assumptions
        into question without getting so angry that the
        student feels attacked; she feels her heart rate rise
        at arguments she considers racist.

        That may be a good indication to the tutor that she should not seek out an intellectual career.

    2. the title lists 5 suggestions, but the author refers to 6. I guess this dunce was a math teacher.

      This reminds me of the British prog who was whining about giving the Tories the ‘reigns’ of British government yesterday.

    3. Also, they don’t just say ‘ignore Asian success’ they say that Asian success proves white supremacy.

      Further, Asian success in the US education system is regularly used to “disprove” the idea that our schools are built upon White supremacy, but to understand Asian success in US schools is to understand the history of White supremacy that undergirds the Asian success story in the United States.

      After all, the number one predictor of educational success in the US is parental education, and since the Chinese Exclusion Act, the US has let in relatively few Asian immigrants without advanced degrees.

      Sure, if you ignore the Hmong, the Vietnamese, and all of the Asians who came in prior to the Chinese Exclusion act. There are literally millions of Asians in the United States today who are descended from Chinese railway workers and poor Japanese people who moved here in the early 1900s. How does this account for the success of their descendants?

      Also, Hispanics have moved here too recently for their educational stats to matter. Of course people who were raised by parents who moved here 20 years ago after getting a non-existent education from Mexico aren’t going to do great in school. The question is how their grandkids will do, and it’s impossible to know that without looking into the future.

      1. I also like that the idiot compares one black district that doesn’t spend much per pupil to one white district that spends tons per pupil and concludes based on two data points that the primary problem is lack of funding in poor communities. Which of course ignores that the highest spending district in America is mostly black Newark and the lowest spending district is the 93% white West Ada School District in Idaho. If you look at the chart on that site, they list the top 5 spending districts and they’re Newark, Buffalo, NY, Camden, NJ, the District of Columbia, and East Orange, New Jersey. Four of the bottom 5 spending school districts are in lily-white Idaho.

        He also complains that the predominantly black district he worked in ‘only’ spent about $9000 per student, but that’s actually almost exactly the national average of $9,562. Oops.

    4. “more non-white teachers, because black students learn better from black teachers”

      That’s what he tells himself. It’s not that he sucks at teaching, it’s just that the black kids couldn’t understand him through his white privilege.

      1. My students in Tanzania did well when I taught them. Oddly, when I brought that up at job interview for a teaching job in a poor DC neighborhood, they didn’t seem to care. They were mostly curious as to how I would rationalize my students’ inevitable failure.

        And all those kids of various races I tutored in Chicago seem learn well from me. Their parents paid me well.

        1. “They were mostly curious as to how I would rationalize my students’ inevitable failure.”

          That’s depressing.

          Btw, I stupidly clicked on a link to another article on that site, it includes the worst infographic I’ve ever seen.

          http://everydayfeminism.com/20…..jectified/

          1. I stupidly clicked on a link to another article on that site, it includes the worst infographic I’ve ever seen.

            The derp from that site is pretty advanced. I advise working your way up to it slowly by watching short videos from Sam Seder or Thom Hartmann.

          2. This is everyday feminism. It’s not the worst infographic on their site.

            The worst infographic on their site is this one explaining why it’s totally okay for them to just invent their own definition of racism because of prescriptivist grammar, a term they don’t actually seem to understand.

            Incidentally, the thing reads like a retarded feminist version of John Galt’s speech from Atlas Shrugged, since it goes on FOREVER.

            1. Oops! There I go with my ‘white privilege’ and ‘dictionary definition’ of prescriptivist grammar! If that’s not what prescriptivist grammar means *to them* then who am I to tell them they’re wrong?

            2. So when they use words, they mean whatever they want them to mean. I believe that view was pioneered by the great philosopher known as Humpty Dumpty.

          3. So it doesn’t matter who *you* are, or what *you* do or feel, all that matters is the power dynamic. Because individuals are meaningless. Got it.

  15. HAI GUYZ WHATS GOIN ON

    Oh, I see we are in a retarded Palin-fest. Carry on. It’s good to know that one unimportant woman can represent so much to so many people.

    1. She is pretty good looking.

    2. Real feminist live off of sugar daddy government.

  16. I have been watching Team Red’s South Carolina circle jerk. The entrance music for Donald Trump was the “y’all ready for this” song. It made me think of the turd sandwich South Park episode.

    Trump came up with the incredibly brilliant idea of tariffs on foreign cars, because cheap cars are bad for America or something.

    Also saw this hilarious election ad parody on Stossel:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz_V4lRdtjo

    Gil Fulbright for Senate!

    1. Chicken tax for everyone!

  17. I wanted to be the “engaging teacher” with a “racial justice pedagogy” who could help his Black students “overcome their tough life circumstances.”

    “Take up the White Man’s burden.”

    Go down into the ghetto and rescue some poor stray niggers. They’re just like the gaunt sad dogs on those teevee commercials. Bathe them, de-louse them, save them from themselves.

  18. “especially of her years at Hewlett Packard, which might turn up a less than stellar record given the ignominious way in which she was booted out (with a $20 million severance package).”

    Will the claim “But she is rich” really be a credible argument for the left this time around?

    It worked on Romney but Romney was not running against Multimillionaire Hilary.

    Also wouldn’t this happen during the primary? Why would Republican primary voters give a shit about a $20 million severance package when they didn’t care at all about how rich Romney was?

  19. Asian success proves white supremacy.

    I blame the Bering land bridge.

  20. I do predict that if Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson do not get the nomination (and they probably won’t) one of them will get the VP tap.

    1. Would any of them, with the exception of Bush, not be happy with the VP tap?

    2. See my comment above

      i think VP is the only reason she’s actually running for – but that she probably wont get it.

      carson, you’re nuts.

      Kelly Ayotte is often mentioned as a potential female VP candidate who has a lot of the right credentials and is an appealing person

      Depending on who gets the nom, the VP will be to ‘fill in the blanks’ and provide some appeal that the main candidate lacks. ‘female’ isn’t the only think people will necessarily be looking for.

    3. Also, both the big lebowski and ‘check your head’ are among the best works of each. ur trippin.

      1. Ghost Dog i will concede may be over-rated (down by law my fave jarmusch); but regardless, all jarmusch films are good for what they’re ‘not’, which is ‘hollywood’.

      2. Not compared to Raising Arizona and Millers Crossing

        and not compared to Paul’s Boutique

        1. quibbling

          on the former, i think you’re wrong – BL is easily one of their best and stands alongside them. (*particularly in how it works as a parody of classic Chandler-esque “LA Noir” like The Big Sleep)

          re: the beasties – meh, i think you’re wrong, but its a matter of taste. Either way, PB and CYH are their best work and the rest is pretty disposable. I’m not the biggest fan, but both of those records are imo equally amazing.

          i think if anything CYH deserves credit for being *more* groundbreaking than Paul’s Boutique, which some people wrongly credit as being ‘influential’ in how it made sampled music popular. (they didn’t even produce PB themselves, as the dust brothers had already crafted most of those tunes before they ever met); by contrast, CYH sounded nothing like anything else on the market, and actually defined their own kind of music, as opposed to just “rap for white people”

          1. *particularly in how it works as a parody of classic Chandler-esque “LA Noir” like The Big Sleep

            Both RA and MC are also parodies of Noir (almost all coen brothers movies are) and as someone who had no idea what noir was let alone seen any of the golden age noir films of years past prior to seeing anyone these movies RA and MC both are simply better movies.

            The dialogue is better the motivations of the characters are clear the plot is driven by things that happen and the choices the characters make. BL just seems like a bunch of shit thrown at the screen if you do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of Noir.

            1. Why is Julian Moore’s character in the movie?

              Why is john turturro’s character in the movie?

              Why is the cowboy in the movie?

              Are they flavor? Why not just give the characters in the story and have things to do with that plot have flavor?

              One character actually dies…played by Steve Buscemi. Why the hell do i not give a shit that he is dead when the main character obviously does? Why do I know Moore’s character is trying to get pregnant instead knowing about Buscemi’s character?

              1. “Why is the cowboy in the movie?”

                This is actually the only one of those questions that made me go….

                ….hmmm. you have a point.

                The rest are like stock-characters from a Chandler story. The Self-Important Good Daughter who hates Daddy’s 2nd wife… the creepy spanish pedophile… the innocent bystander who gets killed…. the multiplicity of intersecting plotlines not all of which are resolved….

            2. “BL just seems like a bunch of shit thrown at the screen if you do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of Noir.”

              Read some chandler and you’ll quickly get the joke. Characters pop in and out so often you lose track of WTF the plot even is. It was a stylistic feature of those stories.

              I’m really not sure what your problem is with “A-” pieces of work. Both the Beasties and the Cohens have made some “C+” material; you seem frustrated that there is some mild difference between these people’s ‘Most Popular’ works, and the ‘Critical Favorites’.

              More common is people bitching about the ending of No Country For Old Men.

          2. 13. The Big Nothing: In some ways, the most important noir element of The Big Lebowski isn’t a specific reference or homage, it’s the utter meaninglessness at the bottom of everything that happens in the course of the film. The hardboiled detective tends to go about his labors like Sisyphus rolling his rock up the hill only to see it roll back down again. By the time Lebowski has run its course, much has happened but none of it seems to really meaning anything. Donnie is dead and Dude and Walter go bowling. The meaning of nothingness is, really, the central theme of most Coen Brothers films?whether played for dark laughs in Burn After Reading or played deadly serious in No Country For Old Men. You can see it in their first film, the neo-noir Blood Simple, and you can see it beneath the surface of their biggest commercial hit True Grit. Maybe the reason that The Big Lebowski is such a cult sensation is that it was able to capture this incredibly bleak idea in a way that’s goofy and light and funny as hell.

            Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.

            1. “The meaning of nothingness is, really, the central theme of most Coen Brothers films”

              Raising Arizona has a lot of heart.

              1. yeah, well, that’s just like your opinion, man

  21. Warty is correct. Remember, when you read these articles about “ZOMG look what some lefty has done at a university!” it’s news because…it’s not common. Otherwise it wouldn’t be news.

    I have a history degree. I’m outing myself as a non-STEM person, and therefore, according to most of the commentariat here, I am automatically some kind of blithering idiot leftist on welfare.

    Aside from unemployment when I was laid off, I have never taken any form of welfare (though I do drive on gov’t roads…). And I only had one class, a History of Latin America course, that I thought, “You know what? This is full of leftist bullshit.” The rest of them had a thin veneer of mainstream dem thought, perhaps, but that was it.

    You’re all in a panic over nothing. Universities are not a leftist conspiracy to destroy our viral red-blooded American yoot. Calm the fuck down.

    1. *virile, not viral

    2. YOU HEAR THAT BOYS??? GOJIRA READS BOOKS OR SOMETHIN! KILL THE FAGGOT!

      1. You’re really riding this strawman hard.

    3. “hen you read these articles about “ZOMG look what some lefty has done at a university!” it’s news because…it’s not common”

      Its enormously common. If you read The College Fix & FIRE blogs you would see how the whole groundswell of SJW horseshit is like a plague.

      and its getting worse = its being increasingly mandated by the feds via their crackdown on ‘insufficient title IX enforcement, etc’.

      unlike the 1990s PC-trend in academia, this time it seems to be mostly driven by students encouraging their already deeply-‘tarded academic staff to recreate Progtopia-on-earth on campus

      George Will has written a few pieces about it over the last 3 years, and he’s generally spot on in every case. this one was a good example =

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

      i think that piece in the NYT deriding the ‘safe spaces’ bs was also surprisingly good. Even in liberal/left circles people think this shit has gone too far.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03……html?_r=0

      I’m also a lib-arts grad (tho its not what i ended up working in really); not sure why that’s even relevant. I do agree the STEM people here toot their own horns constantly but that was true even when i was in college. Its something like Interservice-Rivalry i think. Who cares.

      1. the STEM people here toot their own horns constantly but that was true even when i was in college. Its something like Interservice-Rivalry i think.

        Oh my god is it ever tedious, and I have an embarrassing number of STEM degrees. “You have an art history degree? You must hate America!”

        1. I’ve never even heard this sentiment expressed here. Another strawman.

          1. That exact phrase may not have been used, but there’s an enormous undercurrent of disdain for liberal arts majors. Look in any college debt threads, and you’ll see how we’re (lib arts majors) are accused of being the entire thing wrong with college, driving up the cost and then auto-getting on welfare with our terrible worthless degrees, while the heroic STEM heroes man their Watch on the Rhine against the leftist hoards.

            1. If i learned anything in undergraduate school, it was

              – drinking
              – pussy
              – networking

              i did some reading between and among the above.

              People who talk about “undergraduate majors” as though they are significant of anything are painfully boring. most people still can’t write coherent English after 4 years of undergraduate school.

              1. Undergrad shouldn’t actually be for teaching you how to write well. That’s the job of middle school teachers. At most college professors should be refining your ability to analyze, your rhetoric and style, not teaching you how to write.

                That people are coming out of undergrad writing poorly is indicative of shitty K-12 education more than anything else.

                1. It’s pretty clearly also an indication that shiitty writing doesn’t hold one back from getting a liberal arts degree. Which is ironic if you think about it.

                  1. the shitty writers i was thinking of* were people with a wide variety of degrees (STEM, Economics/Finance, libarts)

                    (*i worked for a fairly high-growth company for ~8 years and over a period had to interview / hire about ~50 recent grads)

                    whether this is the fault of primary school, as jesse suggests, or the fact that colleges actually undo whatever skills the students may have already had, i don’t know. I just know that most candidates lacked the ability to write quickly, clearly, with specificity. For the record, many of the STEM people were generally terrible writers, but didn’t care; many of the libarts grads insisted that they were brilliant and i failed to appreciate their gifts.

                    My impression over the years was that undergraduate educations are all equally worthless, and what you look for in people to hire is a good attitude, work ethic, hunger for experience.

      2. “I do agree the STEM people here toot their own horns constantly but that was true even when i was in college.”
        Well, to be fair, STEM degrees are, like, actually useful. I may say this as a STEM grad student, but I was a liberal arts undergrad. I can’t think of anything I learned in undergrad humanities classes that I couldn’t have learned in a library. That and the fact that the average humanities teacher knew less about their subject than me, or any moderately well-read student. At least in STEM classes I can expect to be taught by someone smarter than me.

        1. The point of a degree is not to be useful, in however you are defining that term.

          The point of a degree is to fulfill the perceived need of the person seeking it.

          My definition of useful might be, “I know a lot more now than I did then.” You may have a different one, and that’s fine.

          1. I would argue that it has to be directly materially useful to society to justify taxpayer funding. Frankly, liberal arts degrees should be a lot more expensive than STEM ones; the former should be things rich or middle class kids study because they can afford do; poorer students should major in more economically marketable subjects. That’s how the bourgeoisie overtook the aristocracy in the first place: focusing on efficiency while the nobles frittered their time away painting pretty pictures. Now, I love a good painting, but I don’t think we should be subsidizing teaching a person to be only capable of doing a job that will only exist due to yet more public subsidization.

          2. Also, in my experience, the leftist streak in academia is in fact quite pronounced. In my undergrad I had several lecturers who would teach, as course material, out right, that Republicans were evil and Democrats were good. One even had a slide show showing pictures of homeless people while saying ‘the Republicans did this,’ or of the ‘diversity’ of the democrats compared to the all white male Republicans. The books on the reading lists were almost invariably written by left leaning writers, and viewpoints counter to these were usually only even mentioned to be mocked.

            Professors would often make jokes about how stupid ‘those right-wingers’ are on any politicized issue they’d bring up, effectively chilling any tendency to dissent in the class. The ethos, even among most of the students in humanities classes, was ‘we all here are smart, enlightened progressives’ and they didn’t like being made aware that one of ‘us’ was in fact not so ‘progressive.’

            The only to way to avoid it was to avoid politics altogether, and that gets harder and harder to do when everything is political; hell, there was someone at my university who tried to contend that Beethoven’s 9th symphony was about rape. I think that taught me (not just because I like Beethoven) that no domain is truly safe from perversion by abject stupidity.

    4. it’s not common. Otherwise it wouldn’t be news.

      Correction: it’s not common outside of university. Fact is, inside, it’s accepted and the norm.

    5. It is not an issue of conspiracy but of what ideas gain prominence in academia — and generally the popularity of an idea in academia has little to do with how well it works or describes reality.

      Try taking a history course on the Great Depression, labor movements, the Industrial Revolution, or anything that is close to being topical or relevant to contemporary politics. Dollars to donuts, you’ll get the standard leftist cant on all of these and on at least one of them, you’ll get leftists revisionist nonsense that is even to the left of most faculty. Granted, you will generally get intelligent versions of what leftists say elsewhere (Eric Hobsbawm instead of, say, Ed Milliband), but it is still fundamentally the same sort of politics.

      The fact of the matter, Gojira, is that your views are tolerated in academia in the same way (and for roughly the same reasons) that someone wearing a tacky Hawaiian shirt at a fashion show would be: with contempt and as a marker of lower status, which may be overcome through personal charm or some variety of counterbalancing traits.

  22. Remember, when you read these articles about “ZOMG look what some lefty has done at a university!” it’s news because…it’s not common.

    Its news because when its shockingly stupid and/or somebody makes a stink. I apply the cockroach theory: for every one you hear about, there’s dozens you don’t.

    Its a big industry, so there’s going to be variations and exceptions, but I think its a pretty decent generalization to say that universities have become petri dishes of leftoid proggy social experimentation. Until recently, it was probably pretty easy to avoid the administration’s lefty proggy horseshit (although they’ve gotten a lot more aggressive recently, what with “rape culture” and unfreedom of speech on campus).

    And, unfortunately, they are putting nominal adults in circulation who have marinated in and to one degree or another bought into this crap. Kind like how some tumors metastasize by shedding cancer cells that take root elsewhere. Its starting to leak into the mainstream, IOW.

    Pretending its not is just, well, pretending.

    1. You vastly overestimate both how much of this crap there is and how much the students buy into it. Even at someplace like Berkeley it’s easy to avoid and there’s a large population of students, probably a majority, that wants nothing to do with any kind of stupid activism.

      1. I went to UW-Madison. You should have seen that place during Walker’s war with the unions.

        I don’t know where you went to school (and don’t much care) but I think you’re underestimating how common this is in specific universities. Even worse, it’s more common among the more elite universities – you see this shit more often at Harvard than LSU. People who have marinated in this ludicrous belief system are therefore sliding effortlessly into positions of power in the media and academia so this issue is going to get much worse when these people themselves are in charge.

        1. Heck, I saw it in med school almost 40 yrs. ago?not the entire school, but any rotations that you took thru Cook County Hosp., at least. I think that contributed to my being booted.

      2. So what if the majority want nothing to do with it? That doesn’t stop them. You are totally wantonly blind.

        1. Because if the majority want nothing to do with it, then it disproves the theory that this is some tsunami of hyper-leftism about to overwhelm the country.

          It’s just some maniacs spouting off, like maniacs have always done, and with no more lasting impression than any of the other maniacs ever had.

          1. Exactly my point. You’re all right, Gojira, even if you went to a state school like a chump.

            1. HA HA JJ WENT TO A POOR PERSON SCHOOL

              I find the impulse to go right to conspiracies as the explanation for, well, anything, to be very stupid. If you actually believe in anything other than the smallest, simplest conspiracy, you either want to believe, or have a very bad understanding of how well (meaning: badly) humans cooperate or keep that cooperation hidden.

              It’s just another form of collectivizing your enemy: they’re the shadowy cabal that you can’t see but just know is there.

          2. Because if the majority want nothing to do with it, then it disproves the theory that this is some tsunami of hyper-leftism about to overwhelm the country.

            You’re wrong for a simple reason – it’s a minority with outsize political influence within academia, the media, and politics.

            If you’re an organized and motivated minority obsessed with something, you have the capacity to fuck with the lives of the majority because they are not organized to resist you. People get their lives destroyed by leftist lynch mobs, particularly when they’re wrongly accused of rape, and I think it’s scant comfort to say ‘well, the majority of people didn’t harass me’ when that majority didn’t bother coming to your defense either.

            1. I think you need to learn to distinguish between people being kicked out of college on false rape allegations, which is a heinous thing that we should all vigorously oppose, and evidence that this is some culture-destroying End Times sign and a herald of the fall of America. One thing is not evidence of the other. This bullshit went down in the 60s, and was pushed back when people got sick of it. That doesn’t excuse what happens to the victims now, but the hysteria around it is akin to the refrain that every election is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIVES!

              1. It’s also akin, JJ, to “every single person who lives in [insert perceived super-liberal city here] deserves everything that a minority in their area voted for because reasons”.

                People like to hate. Just give them a reason. Please. They’re begging you to.

                1. Fuck you, Mr. Seattle. YOUR people are the cause of all this, you goddamned leftist. You voluntarily send your tax dollars to your local municipality, which has an out loud and proud SOCIALIST on it’s governing council. You are actively contributing to socialism.

                  You are morally obligated to only live in the most libertarian place you can find.

                  1. When you point me to Fantasyland, JJ, I’ll be happy to move there. Do you have GPS coordinates?

                    Oh…WA has no income tax so SUCK IT. Seattle gets its money by sales taxing the fuck out of me. Especially on hard liquor. I don’t even want to tell you how absurdly high that tax is.

                    1. Texas also has no sales tax, and votes Republican, which is slightly less bad than your fucking open communists.

                      You are morally obligated to move to Texas. Or are you a hypocrite?

                    2. Fuck that shit, Montana has no sales tax. And mountains. And bison.

                    3. Ew, you want to live around Indians? And Riven? You disgust me.

                    4. I’m not allowed in TX, JJ. Because of that thing with your mom. Remember? After all, you were there.

                  2. Dude if you are going to blame Epi for random shit at least blame him for something big…like how Hotline Miami 2 sucked balls.

                    Thanks a lot Epi…even the sound track wasn’t as good as the first one.

              2. It’s a herald of the sick state of universities, not of the end of the world. And you sure as fuck know that if this shit were going down in the military or in police departments, it would be taken as evidence of the horribleness of either institution — especially when the upper crust of either institution is supportive of this shit and other even worse things.

                It amazes me that this is even being disputed.

                1. The cops have a much more immediate and often fatal influence on people’s lives than random lefty college students, which have always, and will always, exist.

                  1. “The cops have a much more immediate and often fatal influence on people’s lives than random lefty college students, which have always, and will always, exist.”
                    But in the long run, it is the former who have far more influence on people’s lives. After all the current president was once some random lefty college student.

                    1. SO WAS HITLER!!!

                    2. You know who else was Hitler?

              3. So the Yes Means Yes laws and campus regulations coming out aren’t real? The attacks on presumption of innocence of accused rapists by Australian and New Zealand governments isn’t real? Are the campus ‘free speech zones’ another thing that’s not real?

                Fact is, universities are chock a bloc with proggies, and they use this position of power to influence culture and politics whenever possible, even in STEM fields. In undergraduate I had some shitty prof whine to the class about Crickton’s book on climate change and how Carter was the last president to give a shit about climate policy. It’s a place with a paying captive audience of stupid young people who want to fit in and socially signal how cool they are. College leftism isn’t the sign of the end times, it’s a proximate cause.

                1. Kindly point out where anyone claimed these things are “not real”. And here you were accusing Warty of engaging strawmen.

                  What I am saying, is that while the exact name the bullshit goes under at this moment in time may be different, it’s no different in substance from all the other generic leftist bullshit that has gone on in universities since forever, and is not worth getting into an especial huff about.

                  1. What I am saying, is that while the exact name the bullshit goes under at this moment in time may be different, it’s no different in substance from all the other generic leftist bullshit that has gone on in universities since forever, and is not worth getting into an especial huff about.

                    And over the entire time the left has been doing this ‘generic leftist bullshit’ in our universities, the country has moved in a steadily more statist direction.

                    Telling me ‘don’t worry, this is the exact same bullshit that’s been ruining the intellectual class in this country for the last 50 years’ is hardly going to make me change my position.

                    1. Why have a heart attack about it right now? Why not 15 years ago?

                      That’s the point I’m trying to get across. There is nothing about the last 18 months that explains everybody suddenly getting the vapors about all this, when it’s been going on all along.

                    2. I also don’t believe that there is, or indeed even can be, a direct relationship established between what they teach in universities and what policies the masses vote for. I believe, again without evidence since I don’t know most of you, that many here are subscribing to a false belief in how easily people are brainwashed, and how long people maintain that brainwashing.

                      Lots of folks were worried about “de-nazification” after WWII. Turns out decades of propaganda didn’t really impact the way people saw the world en mass, and most were able to shrug off those beliefs within a few years. I don’t think that people being exposed to this stuff for a few years necessarily warps them forever and makes them into good little marxist foot soldiers. If it did, there would never be any widespread dissent in any dictatorial regimes, ever.

                    3. I also don’t believe that there is, or indeed even can be, a direct relationship established between what they teach in universities and what policies the masses vote for.

                      Then you don’t understand how the intellectual classes work or what influence they have. Granted, no one totally understands it but institutions can set the trend and universities do.

                      Your ‘nazi’ example is breath-taking. No the propaganda didn’t change most people BUT THE FUCKING NAZIS STILL TOOK POWER.

                      You are also wrong about things being the same. It was bad before but as George Will discusses above it has intensified and change from a faculty-lead process to a student-lead one. You are getting pissy at us for not whistling past the graveyard. I hate yokeltarian reactionaries too but that’s a small problem compared to the one you are telling us not to worry about.

                    4. That was not my experience in HS or college. Even in the 90’s I was taught the constitution was just something rich white racists wrote, FDR saved the world with the new deal, and the main driver for success of a country is whether the leader believes in helping the poor or is just one of those evil trickle down people. Those became my default beliefs up until my 30’s.

                      It wasn’t until I sought out information and became more politically informed that I changed some beliefs. To get other perspectives people must seek out other points of view outside of school, and primacy makes it difficult to change still. My daughter has come home from the fourth grade to lecture me about global warming, and been taught that to even describe someone using skin color is racist. And that’s in a pretty right wing community in Texas. But the teachers still lean very left. Since I don’t talk politics with my kids their views are being shaped by those so rabid they inject politics into everything.

                      Universities have entire departments dedicated to leftist thought like gender and race studies. There is no equivalence on the right. It seems obvious to me that colleges have a leftist bent and this can not only influence beliefs, but hinder the ability to even have the relevant facts that shape political beliefs. Obviously not everyone is influenced but certainly many are.

                    5. “Why have a heart attack about it right now? Why not 15 years ago?”

                      You can’t be fucking serious. The Closing of the American Mind was written in 1987 and dealt with similar arguments. People have been bitching about leftist indoctrination on campuses since the 1960’s. People are still complaining about it because it’s still a problem.

                      I also love how the goal posts have moved. This discussion started by saying ‘oh, it doesn’t matter at all because this isn’t even a problem!’ to ‘well, yeah, this is obviously a problem, but it’s been a problem since the ’60s, so why are you complaining about it now?’

                    6. This is partly in response to Cyto up there, but also to you: I never claimed it wasn’t a problem. That’s something you guys keep making up. I said it wasn’t nearly a problem on the level that would justify all the bloviating and hyperventilating I see on here.

                      You do understand the distinction between those two, yes?

                      Besides, all this acts like radical leftist shit never happened absent universities. “If only those damn French peasants hadn’t been so over-educated, they’d have never given in to the Terror!”

                      “Those damned over-educated dirt-farming Okies, giving FDR all that power!”

                      “Curse those Russian peasants and their humanities degrees! That led to their support for communism!”

                      Ditto the chinks.

                      I could go on.

                      Universities don’t cause radical leftism. Grasping, envious human nature causes radical leftism.

                    7. I’m calling bullshit on your claim that you never said it was a problem. You and Warty both attempted to make it seem as if any criticism of this aspect of modern universities was evidence of inveterate anti-intellectualism or conspiracy theorizing. Example:

                      “You’re all in a panic over nothing. Universities are not a leftist conspiracy to destroy our viral red-blooded American yoot. Calm the fuck down.”‘

                      Of course, the idea of it being a ‘conspiracy’ was never actually broached since the problem can exist without any sort of conspiracy, but this sort of snide waving off of your opponents’ arguments sure does make it seem that you’re claiming their worries are entirely illegitimate.

                      If that’s not what you were saying, then great, we agree, but don’t pretend as if we came to the conclusion that that was your position based on nothing.

                      As for your point about other groups being responsible for leftism in the past, that’s of no relevance when our current complaints are with the universities. If someone were bitching about Bolshevik Russians in 1918 their complaints would be entirely legitimate given that we know how that ended. The fact that other groups have been responsible for statist advancements at other times doesn’t make it wrong to criticize universities for the role they play today.

                    8. “Of course, the idea of it being a ‘conspiracy’ was never actually broached since the problem can exist without any sort of conspiracy”

                      Yeah, really. It might have something to do with the fact that, in a college setting, no one expects your ideas to have any practical application, much less be tested in the cold light of reality. You’re just bound to find more progressives in a situation like that. Just like you’re going to find unemployed hipsters if you go to a non-chain coffee shop in the middle of the day/week when everyone else is at work. It’s not a hipster conspiracy.

                    9. Besides, all this acts like radical leftist shit never happened absent universities.

                      Lenin and Mao were student Radicals. FDR went to Harvard and Columbia Law School. Robespierre went to an elite school. Not exactly disproving a good rebuttal.

                      And weren’t University students and professors big fans of the Nazis?

                    10. *Not really the best rebuttal.*

                    11. Also doesn’t libertarianism, and any radical attack on the status quo (in particular anti-elitism), inherently result in attacks on intellectuals and the education system?

                    12. And by “attacks” I’m not implying that they are inherently physical ones.

                    13. Also didn’t the Cultural Revolution start at the universities?

                    14. Forget it Winston, it’s Cosmo-town.

                    15. People have been criticizing it for longer than 15 years Gojira. Alan Bloom was criticizing it in the early 90s (in his ‘The Closing of the American Mind’).

                      The point worth noting is that it is getting continuously worse. Professors get away with more and more, and students who openly lean right undoubtedly face more ostracization than they did a couple decades ago. Now you have professors and students making petitions to remove any student officer who, say, supports freedom of association. Most students may indifferent in the sense that they are more interested in booze and ramen noodles than politics, but when politics comes into things, yeah, the bias is definitely not negligible, and it is stifling. I speak from experience. I left the humanities despite being a straight A student for reasons other than just career issues.

                      Bias leads to hiring bias which begets even worse bias. The political environment of universities is a positive feedback loop.

                    16. There is nothing about the last 18 months that explains everybody suddenly getting the vapors about all this, when it’s been going on all along.”

                      The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder
                      will foam up about their waists
                      and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”…

                      and I’ll look down and whisper “GamerGate.”

                    17. It’s audacious that the argument has gone from “the hicks don’t now what they’re talking about when it comes to leftist bias, they just hate books” to “universities have always been centers of leftist bullshit”…. and we’re still supposed to somehow guard ourselves against saying completely true things about universities, because somehow, somewhere a hick might get the impression that someone out there agrees with him intelligently on that narrow issue.

                    18. Kindly point out where I said hicks just hate books.

                      Warty was phrasing it that way to be inflammatory, because he perceives, I think correctly, that because academia is dominated by leftists, those who dislike leftists develop a knee-jerk anti-intellectualism.

                      Being folksy doesn’t make you more genuine or legitimate. I don’t want Old Uncle Zeb to treat my cancer with his backwoods herbs, I want a fucking doctor from an elite school to do it.

                      That doesn’t mean the doctor from the elite school should run everything or get to tell everybody what to do, which the left would seem to want. But equally it doesn’t mean that somebody being a bumpkin automatically makes them a better choice, which is what many on the right seem to think.

                    19. You’re dealing with multiple different arguments simultaneously, most of which have nothing to do with one another.

                      1. No one has said doctors shouldn’t go to college and we should get treated by folk medicine. In fact, doctors are part of the STEM fields that you said H&R privileges above all else, so clearly no one here is arguing against medical education.

                      2. Medical school is not the place where this is an issue. I don’t think anyone is complaining about leftist indoctrination at Johns Hopkins med school.

                      3. Warty was not phrasing it in an inflammatory manner to make some more subtle point, Warty was claiming that the problem of leftists running our universities does not exist. Now your side has pretty much abandoned that argument because it’s an untenable one, and have simply moved the goalposts as fast as possible.

                      4. I don’t give a shit about the right’s bumpkin fetishism, the question is about left-wing ownership of certain departments in American colleges, that issue is what we were discussing, and I don’t know why you’re now behaving as if the primary issue of discussion is actual right-wing anti-intellectualism, which I find as repugnant as you do.

                    20. I’m tired of the conversation, and am fully expecting someone to then chime in and claim they “won” an argument on the internet because I went to do something else and they got the last word.

                      So somebody feel free.

                    21. Whatever, Poindexter.

                    22. Okay. We win; you and Warty lose.

                    23. “4. I don’t give a shit about the right’s bumpkin fetishism, the question is about left-wing ownership of certain departments in American colleges, that issue is what we were discussing, and I don’t know why you’re now behaving as if the primary issue of discussion is actual right-wing anti-intellectualism, which I find as repugnant as you do.”
                      Positive feedback loop, that’s my explanation. Left gains edge in universities, Right grows increasingly afraid of universities, which allows Left to gain even more prominence, which makes Right even more wary of universities, and so on ad infinitum.

                    24. I saw it in medical school, 40 yrs. ago.

  23. All this “OMG teh Collidges!” inspired me to have a look at the course descriptions in the econ dept of my alma mater. All very innocuous and generic, aside from a smattering of ominous references to “sustainability”. However, I suspect most of us who regularly contribute here would be whipsawed between horror and hysterical laughter if we sat in on one of those classes.
    I assume the narrative put forth in The Economics of Higher Education, taught by the president of the school, would be nothing short of farcically wrong in virtually every detail. Could you be expelled for laughing your ass off during her lectures? I would need to know in advance.
    What does that mean? I don’t know. I’m damn glad I don’t have kids, though.

  24. I shudder to think of the pernicious twaddle on offer in The Economics of Labor.

  25. Lorenzo St. DuBois?

  26. Yukon: a new Alberta?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/busines…..-1.3057441

    http://www.canadianmanufacturi…..ng-147116/

    1. So will Elizabeth Hanson become Premier soon?

  27. The alien being known in your human language as “Prince” to perform tomorrow in Baltimore, bringing justice, harmony, peace, and bisexual men with frilly shirts.

    Writes special tune, “Baltimore“, for the occasion.

    [noted = the concert is NOT free. It will raise proceeds to be donated to ‘youth charities’ in the area]

    the tune itself a strange blend of limp pop, feelgood topical lyrics, and then a bizarre “no justice no peace” chant inserted before the last chorus, for what will likely be an extended breakdown-and-preach interlude during the live performance.

    as a fan of prince (and how can you not be?), i find it yuckier than I expected. It wouldn’t be half bad tune if it stripped the social-justice out of it, but only barely.

    1. My cousin who now lives in Ch’go (orig from Kazoo) is the biggest Prince fan in the universe. He basically dressed as Prince for our wedding. It was….awesome….

      Prince – still the best Super Bowl halftime show I’ve seen.

      1. yes, that’s like ‘tallest midget’, but Prince did indeed put on a great Halftime show.

        (normally i couldn’t sit through one- so if i actually watched it, it must have been incredible)

        He showed up briefly at a Maceo Parker concert i went to in prospect park in 2006 – he played 1 song, cured a few lepers, blessed the crowd, and floated away back to his mountain temple.

        1. “yes, that’s like ‘tallest midget’,,,”

          That is descriptive of Prince as well.

    2. You Know Who Else wrote a song about a Baltimore riot?

  28. Huh, “Fuck Off Slaver” and Fuck You Cut Spending” are not exactly very intellectual slogans. And those two, along with the ridicule of TOP MEN are inherently attacks on the Western Intellectual Class.

    1. They are equally applicable to the masses. They do have an intellectual elegance about them, like a theory that can be generalized to all domains.

      – Fuck Off Slaver = Perhaps the most beautiful statement of all. Can be said to your neighbor.

      – Fuck You Cut Spending = Problems with the economy can be boiled down to this axiomatic statement

      – Top Men syndrome = Equally applicable description anywhere. Again, very generalizable.

  29. The taboo on abortion in many societies stems from a need to control female sexuality. But in America, it’s also grounded in a religious “sanctity of life” ethos

    Couldn’t be those opposed to abortion (note, I’m moderately pro-choice) think the fetus is a person, could it? Dalmia is increasingly sounding like a social justice cadre who doesn’t mind free markets.

    1. Apparently the idea that humans have a right to life is an ethos purely informed by religion.

      1. Or that a human fetus is not some other species until magic and government bestow upon them the title of homo sapiens.

  30. She is an intelligent, savvy and strong woman who is great on the stump.

    Like Hillary Clinton, self-promotion is Carly’s only skill. Just ask anyone who worked at HP.

    -jcr

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.