The Resurrection of Dead Air

At left: Our most recent Shout-out Saturday demonstration in front of Lindsey Graham's office, February 15, 2020. (I'm in front wearing the pink hat, holding the "SHUT DOWN TRUMP" sign.)




~~~




I thought about renaming my blog "thoughts on populism" or something, but that's so pretentious.

Because I hate academia and want them to stay away, and that would certainly work.

But no, sticking to my values. This is it.

I will not 'rewrite' myself; I will not engage in Stalinist rewrites of history to make it look like I've always been right. I haven't been, as this blog shows. At some point, I will also be 'wrong' again, since to err is human. But I have never deleted a post from this blog, not once, not ever. (On my tumblr, I think I deleted maybe 3 posts, all by request.) Overall, the dangerous and Orwellian idea that we have always been at war with Eastasia, has entered our discourse and twisted things in fascist, cruel, sick ways. People who 5 yrs ago hated the queers are now the champions of the downtrodden. When you go back and try to find the insults, the jokes (from leftists and liberals!) about Lindsey Graham being "light in the loafers"--well, those have been dropped down the infamous memory hole. We're all gay now.

Rather than try to explain themselves to us: well, when I was a homophobe/Christian/supporter of segregation, I believed such-and-so and I learned otherwise because...? Let's discuss, share histories, explain the process we want to share with others. BUT NO, this discussion is now thoroughly impossible, since everybody has always been on "the right side of history" and always thought exactly the way they do right now. Nobody on the Left will currently fess up to ever having any other view than the 'correct' one.
So only bad people, the unenlightened and unwoke, have EVER had the 'wrong' opinion.

And as we see, these are college kids speaking that strange, bizarre, elitist, limited postmodernese, and if you don't speak it, they will even tell you that you have never been a real leftist. Kids from private schools who learned about Social Justice a week ago, will inform old ladies who got hit in the head by right-wing lunatics and STILL protest every single week (none of them do), that if you aren't fluent in Judith-Butlerese, you can not possibly be a leftist, so of course, they do not even have to listen to you.

Thus, unlike boomers and Gen X, they are not learning from actual veterans in the movement.

This might be why there are so few (if any) ongoing protests, NO coherent position statements, NO journalistic-coverage of economic terrorism in the heartland, NO attempts at mass-organizing in unorganized neighborhoods, NO radical cells ... and why Donald Trump will handily be re-elected.

~~~

As many of you know, I was a Yippie. I am old. Look us up. We were batshit crazy and proud of it.

I regret a lot of it now, and yet, who would I be without that experience? I could not analyze and understand the current political situation at all, and I would be as frustrated as so many others are.
As it is, I was raised to closely examine anyone making lots of noise and why they were making it.
I was taught by my mentors to not only examine what they claimed they believed, but who they ARE.

And interestingly, this is integral to postmodernism. So I get it.

The postmodern Left claims words change meanings, literally shape-shifting and turning into something different, depending on who says them.

The best recent (rather shocking) example is a fawning, positive interview of Andrea Long Chu in The New Republic, a trans women declaring "We're all female now" (this came as a bit of a shock to the men I know) and what "woman" means:

I recently met with her in Washington Square Park to chat about her first book Females, which springs from an unsurprisingly audacious conceit: “Femaleness is not an anatomical or genetic characteristic of an organism, but rather a universal existential condition.” For Chu, “femaleness” is the urge to be a vessel for another’s desire. Gender in this conception is defined not only by the self, but also by the other—it is the expression of what someone else wants.

Chu is a trans woman of color, which in Leftist Postmodville, puts her way up on top of the oppression-food chain, so she can say this extremely-sexist, porn-derived drivel with total impunity.

But I ask you:
If the dreaded basement-dwelling, white 'incel' young hetero male, OR a right-wing Christian, dared to propagate this nonsense, defining women in that fashion????

What would be the reaction?

Convulsions from the #metoo crowd, calling for their execution.

So, we learn from this episode: all words are not equal.

Some people are permitted to say (apparently with a straight face) the meaning of womanhood is to be a porn-character. (In fact, the Chu interview seemed like a direct-rewrite of some parts of The Story of O.)

They aren't only ALLOWED, they are REWARDED for their misogyny with book deals and interviews and excellent health insurance and Ph.Ds.

Other unfortunate people, who don't live in Brooklyn and hang out with important editors, who may be foolish enough to think they have the right to say that same exact shit, would lose their jobs and be run out of town on the proverbial rail.

Yes, that's where we're at now.

Orwell, call your office: Some people are indeed more equal than others.

~~~

In 2018, The New York Times even hired a person (and then proudly refused to fire them) named Sarah Jeong, who had a sordid social-media history of hundreds of hateful tweets. Many of these authoritatively asserted there is no such thing as "white culture".

Talk about hating hillbillies, this snooty Harvard grad raised it to a whole nother level.

If you've ever wondered why the NYT deliberately refuses to cover bluegrass or country music (etc), we finally got an answer. We don't even exist, and they are perfectly fine with hiring people who proudly tweet this.

After all, she accurately speaks for and represents the bourgeois-class consensus on this. This has ALWAYS been the view of the NYT, so why not hire someone who comes right out and says so?

But do they realize, in proudly keeping Jeong on staff, they confirmed the anti-worker/anti-hillbilly bias of the Times, that we have been accusing them of for decades and decades???
(I guess there is not a single hillbilly or country-music fan on the staff of the NYT who might have ventured a daring, um, what did you say? They would have been fired outright if they had.)

Jeong was instead rewarded with an encouraging, loving, supportive statement from the Times. Roughly, you could translate it as: GOOD WORK INSULTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE, SARAH! YOU'RE IN!

However it IS notable that the Trumpsters talked up Sarah Jeong as 'typical' of the Times, for 2 solid months.

And the NYT didn't mind a bit; they seemed to revel in it. My whole point.

These people went to Harvard and Yale and they will be just fine. They can withstand Trump; they live in liberal states that took the Medicaid Expansion. They ain't worried. They don't have any militias nearby. They don't protest, so nobody will ever throw rocks at them.

To them, Trump is a remote academic theoretical exercise. Or some exotic animal in a zoo? Whatever he is, rest assured, they have never spoken to an actual Trump supporter and wouldn't know how.

~~~

The Yippies taught me to look at the class and actual history of the people who show up on the Left, not just their words.

Who are their parents? How were they raised? What neighborhood did they grow up in and who did they largely associate with, growing up?

Is there any indication they are who they claim they are?

Did they go to private schools, thus getting into the best colleges, writing dissertations and getting book deals, while living in the most expensive city in the USA? Chu does, unabashedly admits it too... and in my day, it meant OF COURSE this person could not be a leftist. There is absolutely nothing in their life to suggest that they are.

Just like those very-capable infiltrators during the COINTELPRO era, they said they were radicals but they were there to take us down.

THESE PEOPLE ARE TOO.

LOOK AT THE CLASS OF PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT.

These people are members of the class that keep the rest of us down, perhaps not the 1%, but definitely the 9.9% that calls the shots in this country. (linked article is notably titled "The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy")

These people's parents get tax breaks under Trump, which is why they taught their kids to hate working class people when we try to question them.

They do not answer to US (the masses or the workers), as Karl Marx (as well as Trotsky, Gramsci, Luxemburg, Marcuse, Du Bois, Fanon, et. al.) instructed them. They are answerable to no one directly. They answer to "critical theory" and Judith Butler instead. They pointedly do not care about the working class and even enjoy directly insulting us, Jeong-style. Their health insurance is great. In fact, Chu wrote an entire article in the New York Times (!!) about how her new vagina would not make her happy, but she needed it anyway. (!!)

I am dead serious: bragging about wasting six-figure-health-insurance-costs on an apparently-empty surgical gesture. Lots more surgery to come as well, also mentioned in the article.

I wonder what the poor trans women of color who aren't writing dissertations and can't afford endless surgeries and Brooklyn co-ops, think of all this?

Well, true to form, Chu didn't ask any and obviously doesn't care.

~~~

And now we come to the re-election of Trump, which seems imminent. The working class has been exiled from the Left and not permitted to participate, since we don't know the highfalutin theory-language. So, the working classes go to wherever they/we are welcome.

If the Left is too good (or stupid, or pure, or whatever) to explain their incoherent, incomprehensible
horse-shit, then the Right will be happy to step in... and they have. Nature abhors a vacuum.

The Left will then respond with "If they talk to the Right, it proves they were right-wing all along!"--and since (unlike me) they have conveniently flushed their old blogs and embarrassing tumblr accounts down the toilet, there is no proof they haven't always thought the right thoughts. They are ideologically pure as the driven snow. They don't associate with the other side, they might get infected.

So the tribalist-polarization continues, which of course (as Gramsci explained about cultural-hegemony, which the kids haven't read, since they are busy with Judith Butler and similar meaningless gender horse-shit) always helps the party currently in power.

And that's YOU kids isn't it?

Andrea Long Chu's academic paper (!) titled "Did sissy porn made me trans?"(pdf) is much more important (and lets not forget prurient and sexy) than going to the heartland to research boring wonky health insurance and farm subsidies.

These opinions are obviously directed to the people getting the tax breaks, the people who can already afford all kinds of exotic surgeries.

We can imagine what its like when some poor guy whose company is closing, losing his 401K and health insurance and insulin, has kids (and maybe even grandkids) to support... reads about the exotic New Yorkers in cafes, writing dissertations and books about porn fantasies and getting paid for it (jackpot job of the world, he's thinking), reading for the first time about facial-feminization surgery, something so elite he has never even heard of it.

Then he is told that he is in fact oppressing poor Andrea (the one who actually gets paid to write about porn!) since he is a poor hetero white guy in West Virginia who can't even afford new boots or dentures.

Yes, this is where we are.

~~~

And so... our poor uneducated white guy finally figures out that Andrea, Sarah and all their friends will go insane if Trump is re-elected and he decides, hmm... I definitely need to vote for this guy, since they hate him so much. I mean, that means he must be RIGHT, isn't he?

Because these spoiled brats suck the big one.

I mean, certainly you DO understand the temptation?

I sure do, and I have been a Red since 1972.


~~~

But Trump is as Ivy-League as the rest of them. He has no intention of actually shutting them up (which is what our poor West Virginian is hoping for), since they are handily winning elections for him. He AMPLIFIES the rich-kid voices, just to antagonize the West Virginians. He has assigned loyal sonny-boy Don Jr the ongoing task of making fun of them, thus Junior Don produced a book (or rather, somebody did) and called it "Triggered"--a whole book making fun of the ridiculous excesses of the suburban hothouse-orchids of the Left.

Trump loves them.

They are like an enormous FREE pro-Trump campaign; the Left now a huge din of class-hatred and snobbery based on despising the people who don't use the right words/pronouns/etc, who do not subscribe to the Creed, who dare to question orthodoxy.

As they are alienating the vast working class, one by one, Trump and minions are there to say, See? Is the Left your friend? They hate you.

Since 2017, I have been protesting against Trump once a week (and for the past few months, twice a week) in the reddest, most conservative county in the USA.... and this is what the people actually say to me.

Dear Modern Left, and what do you say to them in return?

Since they ask you these things as regularly as they ask me, what is YOUR reply, since they often leave ME (48-yr veteran of the Left) speechless. I mean, you talk to them as often as I do, right? Since you claim to CARE so much? Please share your experiences organizing these folks.

(Hahaha, am I funny or what?)


~~~

TL; DR --

Modern rich-kid "Wokestasi" Left is actually a tool of the Right.

The actual working class, whom the Left was invented to defend and protect, is now totally marginalized and unprotected, as arrogant kids with Ph.Ds take over and decide everything. (In that sense, same as it ever was.)

Whenever they say "critical theory"--scream and scream again.

The modern "Left" represents the rich, which is why we no longer recognize it. And the rich want Trump, so the modern Left works hard to re-elect Trump.

Once you see it this way, you can't unsee it.

How tumblr brought us Trump

My 5 years on tumblr was so bad, I can only compare it to a marriage or neighborhood you just keep waiting to get better. And it doesn't. And genuine panic finally sets in.

But, everybody said this was the good neighborhood! Everybody SAID this guy was an okay fella! WTF is going on??? (((panic)))

I'd quote some stuff, but that would mean going back over there and actually reading, and I can no longer bear to do that.

Suffice to say, the tumblr brats have explained the entire election to me. It is no longer a puzzle.

~*~

The man of the hour, Toronto-professor-in-exile Jordan Peterson, would say the SJWs ("social justice warriors") are totally running the joint, and he is indeed correct about that. But as I shall prove, these SJWs are actually anti-social justice elitists, which is why they failed so spectacularly in 2016, and how we ended up with the opposite party in charge.

This is the direct result of their true class agenda at work.

Peterson's error is in taking these people at face value, just like a Protestant would: they say they believe in social justice, so they do.

NOOOOO, professor Peterson, they don't. What you are seeing is affectation, fashion, mere posturing. They would not know "social justice" if it ran over them in a jeep.

Its exactly like Christianity in the American 1950s: good people are Christian--and I am good--so I must be a Christian. Period. So everybody was a Christian and if you said you were not, you must be a criminal or a communist. Not a lot of self-reflection involved.

This is the thought process.

~*~

WHAT IS TO BE DONE

The tumblr ppl are not concerned with the actual vocation of social justice and Lenin's famous question, What is to be done? They aren't in it for that. When I repeatedly tried to asked them brainstorming questions about what we might do, it was seen as picking a fight.

How does asking for opinions = picking a fight? Took me a long time to figure out.

If you are lazy and ineffectual, every question about actual ACTION (root word of activist) sounds like a reproach instead of a question; an entreaty for you to get off your ass. They have no intention of getting off their asses, so any discussion I attempted about that, got me labeled a troublemaker who picks fights. An instigator. Really.

"Social justice" is about their own wonderfulness and their own egos. Social justice is the new, fun theater to act out the drama of their suburban, highly-educated, carefully-curated "identities" (which change on a dime every few months, humorously enough). They are pointedly not about doing anything to actually help anyone else ... since by now its plainly obvious they are hurting and not helping.

~*~

Tumblr Social Justice = berating old hillbilly grannies from the "trailer park", frequently, loudly and often

(After all, who did you think the real enemy WAS?)

The so-called social justice environment on tumblr is the most hostile online environment I have EVER been in; even worse than arguing with white supremacists and nazis. They are far more insulting than MRAs and religious fundamentalists have ever been to me. (they also can't argue as well as any of these people, disturbingly enough)

This is what 46 years of activism and being a feminist pioneer gets you on tumblr: They are filled with utter contempt for all old people and tell us we "shouldn't be on tumblr" (!) as if they own it. I assume I was regularly called trailer trash since I was foolish enough to talk about my impoverished childhood. Big, big mistake.

I would warn others who were raised in poor environments to NEVER EVER discuss that on tumblr. They are fiercely classist--possibly the most fiercely and proudly classist group online anywhere--and openly despise poor people. They will NEVER let you forget this for a minute. If you ever try to discuss books or ideas after admitting you were poor, its "thats pretty good for the trailer park!" or "I didn't know hillbillies read books!" and other such viciousness.

Oddly, this is behavior the Republicans/right-wing have become too sensitive and aware to freely exhibit. They want white working class votes and sympathies. Meanwhile, crossover reality-TV star/pornographer Zinnia Jones (her online insanity even got her a job on the TLC network!) enthusiastically preaches the new social-justice gospel to her thousands of adoring fans: "Fuck the white working class!" and they all swoon collectively like teenyboppers.

You see, because they are "social justice" they can be as elitist as they wanna be, and those comments somehow don't mean the same thing as if they were political policy. They don't think there is any connection between their contempt for poor old working class trailer-trash white women and taking away their/our Social Security... and if there is, they don't care. They proudly believe that old, poor (etc) people are a blight, just like Forbes magazine, National Review and the Republicans have taught them.

But here is the crucial difference between them and Republicans:

They are doing all of this in the name of social justice, so its okay.

Remember that one? Mass genocide for the cause of social justice is acceptable.

And where have we heard that before?

*Yes I suppose I should enter a caution or "trigger warning" (spits for emphasis) about the satirical use of the n-word in the DK song linked above ... I once interviewed East Bay Ray about that whole business a long time ago, but I digress.

~*~

Similarly, because they are "feminists", they can call me "ugly old hag" and it "isn't sexist".

In case you didn't know, nasty sexism in the name of getting rid of sexism is okay too. (Where is our modern equivalent of Clara Zetkin, pictured at left, to argue this case when we need her?)

Interestingly, they don't see overt ageism as "ableist" at all (meaning they are wholly-unfamiliar with disability rights-theory), even though they obsess over "ableism" fairly constantly and a huge number claim to be autistic and have a variety of mental illnesses, far out of proportion to what the numbers could logically be. They talk about disabilities like status symbols, which means they are mostly invented.

I wish I was making all of this up. But I assure you, it is far worse than you can imagine.

I wish this was not "leftist" kids I am talking about--but every single example I am giving you here is from someone who calls themselves social justice and progressive. Every single example I am giving here are behaviors from people who claim to be on the Left, who tell people like me to go back to the trailer park. "Go back to redneck-land, grandma."... and then they are back politically-policing the language of others in 5 minutes or less. Really.

~*~

In summation -- tl; dr

They don't believe a single word they say.

There is no social justice on tumblr, since there are no social justice activists.

Question: Is this deliberate deception and subterfuge (right wing hijinx), or are they also deceiving themselves?

How can one claim to believe in equality, equity, ending oppression and all the rest of it and then gleefully tell people to go back to the trailer park, in the next breath?

It is astounding to me because I have never encountered such a thing before.

Probably because a real-life leftist collective would run such a person out on a rail immediately and/or call them a cop... while this is standard behavior over on lefty-tumblr.

THIS. IS. STANDARD.

~*~

Professor Peterson--one reason they hate you is that you are from Alberta and talk like Gary Cooper. You are a farmer, dude, go back where you came from. Intellectuals do not come from OUR class of people, only THEIR class of people. Of course they will help the government shout you down--they don't even believe people like you and me should be allowed to speak in the first place.

I know this for certain, since "social justice" kids have been telling me this for 5 years. My 46 years of activism means absolutely nothing to them, and they have told me that too.

I believe them.

Go back to your sacred Orwell, professor, specifically one Mr Emmanuel Goldstein, who knew what was up:

THEY intend to be the elites.

And they are telling us exactly what their regime will be like.


~*~

"Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder

I was run off tumblr by the new elites, college-educated, pampered children still compulsively playing with toys ("electronic devices") into adulthood. Their knowledge of human nature, history and themselves, could fit into a thimble. Working class/minority teens in my neighborhood are light years more savvy than these kids--which is why I was initially confused by them, since their levels of education are staggering. Very smart kids who know everything but... with absolutely no life experience; a languid lifestyle not permitted to poor and working class kids forced to get jobs when still in middle school. Brilliantly-shaped minds with nowhere to land, reminding me of that old expression, all dressed up with no place to go.

Because they are so highly educated, I can't quite believe they don't know what they are doing.

After all, I told them, Peterson tells them, everybody who is sane tells them, but ... the viciousness just intensifies. It is therefore deliberate.

This dizzying-juxtaposition of traditional right wing class-hatred with all the trendy leftist PC-speak, is very disorienting, which I think is the major reason they do it.

They say they are our enemies, and we should believe them.

~*~

Bread and Circuses

It seems that 'personal problems' like fat and depression are sacrosanct to them, but not actual top-down oppression like economic status. This is an excellent way to keep them occupied (along with the omnipresent devices), and I have to give it to the capitalists--they have certainly neutralized any would-be young insurgents. Its like they all have huge electronic pacifiers in their mouths.

If the tumblr leftist language/assertions are actually fashion statements (like where to vacation or what new restaurant the foodies have discovered), it means they have little to do with reality. Ephemeral, they will pass, as fashion does.

This means these kids will eventually move on to the next vacation-destination and the next restaurant as this social justice fad wanes; they will get married and move to a different all-white suburb than the one they were raised in, and live exactly (with the same biases and prejudices) as their parents. In short, there is no there there.

But first, they have wrecked the discourse and elected Trump, and I am not about to let them off the hook for that. And you shouldn't either.

They have made a dangerous fascist cartoon of the Left that nobody in their right mind would elect or vote for... in fact, I find that *I* am also terrified of their new Gulag-Left and I have been around doing this since 1972... but I want nothing to do with their Stalinist viciousness.

Of course, the rest of the electorate feels exactly the same.

~*~

Jordan Peterson has recently become a shepherd for one faction of disgruntled young folks who are tired of this poisonous PC bullshit. Who will herd the others?

Rather, who HAS herded them already?

I originally believed (when I reluctantly climbed onto the tumblr-train in 2013, after the folding of Occupy) the tumblr bloggers were basically just like working class kids (my own, or those I have worked with). This proved not to be the case in "political" tumblr circles, but is probably true in the fandom-circles. I quickly realized who I was dealing with from their casual references to pricey vacation spots, schools, neighborhoods, clothing and the like. They constantly drop insider-lingo like "post-structuralism" (almost everything is, it seems) and other bourgeois pretentious BS. If you don't know this stuff, they will actually say you are not a leftist and could never have been; you can't be a leftist if you don't know Derrida, Foucault, Judith Butler and similar postmodern thinkers who have nothing to do with Marx and Trotsky and class war.

So, here is what I learned from tumblr: You can't be a leftist now if you are too poor to have had a good education and can't quote Foucault.

Since this IS what a leftist is, I can't possibly be one, so all my questions about these things can be ignored since I am a stalker and troll. Etc.

~*~

Left: Jonathan Haidt, who has successfully convinced me that this is a new religion we are dealing with, which accounts for their entire take-no-prisoners/Crusades psychology. If you disagree with their view of themselves, whatever it is, this is not mere disagreement but "invalidating their existence"! (Never mind your existence, yours doesn't count.)


Jonathan Haidt's videos talk about how these kids likely come from older parents, successful educated professionals who waited for the 'right time' to have children, and then only had 1 or 2. They have been fussed at, prodded and poked their whole lives. Their annoying helicopter-parents have overprotected and spoiled them, which is why they are now afraid to leave the basement or bedroom and spend their entire days in an angry, repressed fury, patrolling the web for latent political incorrectness and landing on the unsuspecting in a manner not unlike Al-Qaeda. This is a very twisted version of a stunted-childhood, sitting in borderline-sociopathic fury, easily-controlled by the governments and elites... all while thinking they are revolutionary as all hell.

By contrast, I remember worrying I was never radical enough, never doing enough, something I still worry about, and the activists around me constantly worry about. This is the proletarian sensibility vs the elite sensibility, that theorists like Frantz Fanon and Antonio Gramsci (not Judith Butler) wrote about.

It is as if they are deliberately trying to make the mistakes of the past. Possibly since they don't even know what happened the last time their sorry attempts at human-perfection failed. (go back to the song right above the Pol Pot photo)

~*~

WHAT IS TO BE UNDONE

This state of affairs, a "Left wing" that is actively and unapologetically doing the work of the Right, is the most tragic thing I have ever witnessed.

I have repeatedly tried to stir the would-be leftist mob on tumblr to do something, anything.

Their deposits of viciousness and cruelty are bottomless, and wouldn't it be nice to point it at the opposition instead of each other?

I have asked approximately 1000 times: When is the last time you said ______ (insert vicious, ageist, sexist, anti-poor trailer park insult of the day) to a right winger or Trump-supporter on tumblr? (And there ARE plenty, many are there precisely to aggravate/bait the legendary tumblr-SJWs.) I ask, do you say these things to MRAs and racists? (Aside: I've noticed lots of antisemites on tumblr, far more than simple racists.) Why not? I have never been answered.

The reason of course is that its no fun to shame racists for racism or right wingers for being right wing--they are proud of it. Where's the fun in that?

This phenomenon proves their behaviors and attacks are NOT about politics, but about their own narcissistic nastiness.

~*~

I am reminded that tumblr is a self-selected group, which of course goes without saying. So is Reddit, and the joke is that tumblr is composed of 12-year-old communists, while Reddit is all 20-year-old nazis. I went to tumblr in hope that I could connect my generation of activists to the younger one... then I finally realized that absolutely none of these people are activists.

Actual activists are respectful of older activists and hope to learn from them, as I always was, and as the young activists I know IRL are.

What is especially alarming is the fact that the social justice warriors are now defending patriarchal, racist, imperialist (etc etc etc) governments. You think I jest. Nope. I couldn't believe it myself... and when I fully digested this fact I started hyperventilating.

Opiate of the Masses

Bill C-16 in Canada is a civil-rights law proclaiming that all "pronouns" must be respected and used on demand--even the goofy ones like Xir and Xee, as well as a plethora of confusing and nonsensical words that can easily sew confusion/be taken as insulting in non-English-speaking neighborhoods (once again illustrating that these SJWs don't actually care about non-whites).

Thus, this is the law in Canada, which Peterson said he would not recognize. And the SJWs came after him for daring to dissent.

Thus, when the kids demonstrated against Peterson, in favor of the law... they were (shivers) demonstrating IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT.

IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT. Again I repeat: demonstrating IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT. Silencing a professor who is criticizing government, and demonstrating IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT.

You know, those meanie imperialist governments? With armies and stuff? The ones who occupied Native lands and arrest people of color and so on and so forth? The Boogeyman?

Demonstrating IN FAVOR of their government against Peterson.

They think they are radical, but they are demonstrating in favor of the status quo, against one who is criticizing it. (!!)

Once I realized this--I was literally terrified and I realized Trump would win.

Keep in mind: the class of kids on tumblr is from the class that will benefit under Trump--and this is why they will not heed warnings or join with older activists to get rid of him: secretly, mommy and daddy like him and are getting capital gains tax cuts. That benefits them--and perhaps their motives are actually that base and transparent.

When I did health care posts (hundreds, at one point, in a blind panic, feverishly trying to save lives), not a single one of the 965 people who were then following me, reblogged those. Health care is boring unless you can talk about how ableism hurts depressed people, and then its all about Rxs. I never saw any posts about the battle for Obamacare, unless from mainstream orgs like Politico or AlterNet, etc.

This tell us the tumblrites already have their insurance, so fuck the poor.

And I started noticing the agenda. The tumblr agenda is basically pro-Trump.

~*~

If the circular firing squad ever breaks up, they could make a difference. But as long as the Left attacks the Left, as tumblr's entire purpose appears to be, it is a pro-Trump social media platform, which is why I will not return.

It is not enough to keep Trump in office; the tumblrites intend to destroy the Left in the process.

The Left, they have decided, is all shit (as are those of us who have kept it going all this time, needless to say) which is why they attack other leftists and deliberately inhibit all conversation about leftist strategies.

After all, they already have excellent health care and education. What they really need is a capital gains tax cut.

Jonathan Chait is right, sorry

Jonathan Chait's much-discussed New York magazine piece titled Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say created such a spectacle throughout the lefty-internet last month, I momentarily believed there might be a real live discussion about it. SALON appeared to be collectively in shock, and printed Chait-hate pieces every hour for awhile, it seemed. There was a lively hashtag-debate that said it all: #Chaitgate. There are still periodic Two-Minute Hates being blasted at Chait for daring to express this opinion; it was a scandal.

Yes, a SCANDAL.

Free speech, free inquiry, demanding the Left explain the disgusting, ineffectual witch-hunting and open provocateur behavior of the past few years... is now regarded as a SCANDAL. Sit down and suck it up, obedient left-leaning androids, or go join the Right. (And you know, I think lots of disgruntled free-speech-purists indeed might choose to do that, but now I am getting ahead of myself.)

Most of the response to Chait was the same response I got when I mentioned Engels in an old Tumblr discussion: White hetero privileged guy! Bleat, bleat, bleat, WHITE HETERO PRIVILEGED GUY!

That's the response.

That's their WHOLE REPLY. That's IT.

None of these self-appointed "social justice activists" [1] (aka SJWs) actually explain WHY or HOW Chait's piece radiates or replicates whiteness or maleness, as (for example) James Baldwin or Kate Millett did in their social criticism. That requires actually engaging with the text. To some of the SJWs, the words of certain genders or races are automatically inferior and do not even rate direct replies. (And what does THAT remind me of? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.) In a recent discussion, I deliberately centered old people in my responses [2] and asked what SJWs thought when a certain historic event occurred (I was fully aware most hadn't even been born yet) and they instantly became furious. Thus, we see, some groups are worthy of being "centered"--and some are clearly not. [3]

In other words, if I just mindlessly bleated "you're young! you're young!" to END a discussion, in this same fashion? I'd be laughed at. It doesn't work for everybody, only for those with properly-trendy identities. (PS: Many young Jews are learning that in social justice circles, they do not have a trendy identity, as Christians also do not.)

From Chait's piece:

After political correctness burst onto the academic scene in the late ’80s and early ’90s, it went into a long remission. Now it has returned. Some of its expressions have a familiar tint, like the protesting of even mildly controversial speakers on college campuses. You may remember when 6,000 people at the University of California–Berkeley signed a petition last year to stop a commencement address by Bill Maher, who has criticized Islam (along with nearly all the other major world religions). Or when protesters at Smith College demanded the cancellation of a commencement address by Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, blaming the organization for “imperialist and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide.” Also last year, Rutgers protesters scared away Condoleezza Rice; others at Brandeis blocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a women’s-rights champion who is also a staunch critic of Islam; and those at Haverford successfully protested ­former Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who was disqualified by an episode in which the school’s police used force against Occupy protesters.

At a growing number of campuses, professors now attach “trigger warnings” to texts that may upset students, and there is a campaign to eradicate “microaggressions,” or small social slights that might cause searing trauma. These newly fashionable terms merely repackage a central tenet of the first p.c. movement: that people should be expected to treat even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as full-scale offenses. Stanford recently canceled a performance of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson after protests by Native American students. UCLA students staged a sit-in to protest microaggressions such as when a professor corrected a student’s decision to spell the word indigenous with an uppercase I — one example of many “perceived grammatical choices that in actuality reflect ideologies.” A theater group at Mount Holyoke College recently announced it would no longer put on The Vagina Monologues in part because the material excludes women without vaginas. These sorts of episodes now hardly even qualify as exceptional.

Trigger warnings aren’t much help in actually overcoming trauma — an analysis by the Institute of Medicine has found that the best approach is controlled exposure to it, and experts say avoidance can reinforce suffering. Indeed, one professor at a prestigious university told me that, just in the last few years, she has noticed a dramatic upsurge in her students’ sensitivity toward even the mildest social or ideological slights; she and her fellow faculty members are terrified of facing accusations of triggering trauma — or, more consequentially, violating her school’s new sexual-harassment policy — merely by carrying out the traditional academic work of intellectual exploration. “This is an environment of fear, believe it or not,” she told me by way of explaining her request for anonymity. It reminds her of the previous outbreak of political correctness — “Every other day I say to my friends, ‘How did we get back to 1991?’ ”

But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

It also makes money. Every media company knows that stories about race and gender bias draw huge audiences, making identity politics a reliable profit center in a media industry beset by insecurity. A year ago, for instance, a photographer compiled images of Fordham students displaying signs recounting “an instance of racial microaggression they have faced.” The stories ranged from uncomfortable (“No, where are you really from?”) to relatively innocuous (“ ‘Can you read this?’ He showed me a Japanese character on his phone”). BuzzFeed published part of her project, and it has since received more than 2 million views. This is not an anomaly.

In a short period of time, the p.c. movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.

For sure, let's not forget the wages of sin: blogswarms, mass defriendings, social isolation, flaming, the spreading of inaccurate rumors, doxxing, streams of sicko emails, etc etc. This shit has real-life consequences. (I once got this treatment over ONE QUESTION--not even a statement!-- in a post.) It is disgusting, evil, bullying behavior, and there is NO DEFENSE from anyone who imagines themselves about social justice. Social justice is not about threatening to torture people, in case you didn't know.

Chait continues:

Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically creates this feeling of isolation. [Hanna Rosin commented] “You do immediately get the sense that it’s one against millions, even though it’s not.” Subjects of these massed attacks often describe an impulse to withdraw.

Political correctness is a term whose meaning has been gradually diluted since it became a flashpoint 25 years ago. People use the phrase to describe politeness (perhaps to excess), or evasion of hard truths, or (as a term of abuse by conservatives) liberalism in general. The confusion has made it more attractive to liberals, who share the goal of combating race and gender bias.

But political correctness is not a rigorous commitment to social equality so much as a system of left-wing ideological repression. Not only is it not a form of liberalism; it is antithetical to liberalism. Indeed, its most frequent victims turn out to be liberals themselves.

And this is a major reason why its wrong--this demand for perfection is never directed at the enemy. It is always directed at other leftists and allies.

In this way, it is counter-productive and makes the Right stronger. As Chait says,

Under p.c. culture, the same idea can be expressed identically by two people but received differently depending on the race and sex of the individuals doing the expressing. This has led to elaborate norms and terminology within certain communities on the left. For instance, “mansplaining,” a concept popularized in 2008 by Rebecca Solnit, who described the tendency of men to patronizingly hold forth to women on subjects the woman knows better — in Solnit’s case, the man in question mansplained her own book to her. The fast popularization of the term speaks to how exasperating the phenomenon can be, and mansplaining has, at times, proved useful in identifying discrimination embedded in everyday rudeness. But it has now grown into an all-purpose term of abuse that can be used to discredit any argument by any man. (MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry once disdainfully called White House press secretary Jay Carney’s defense of the relative pay of men and women in the administration “man­splaining,” even though the question he responded to was posed by a male.) Mansplaining has since given rise to “whitesplaining” and “straightsplaining.” The phrase “solidarity is for white women,” used in a popular hashtag, broadly signifies any criticism of white feminists by nonwhite ones.

If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. (Here one might find oneself accused of man/white/straightsplaining.) It is likewise taboo to request that the accusation be rendered in a less hostile manner. This is called “tone policing.” If you are accused of bias, or “called out,” reflection and apology are the only acceptable response — to dispute a call-out only makes it worse. There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous. A white person or a man can achieve the status of “ally,” however, if he follows the rules of p.c. dialogue. A community, virtual or real, that adheres to the rules is deemed “safe.” The extensive terminology plays a crucial role, locking in shared ideological assumptions that make meaningful disagreement impossible.

Read the comments, boys and girls. There is NO argument about the accuracy of ANY of these outrageous stories of censorship.... just a torrent of self-satisfied white guys streaming forward to brag that they can "handle it" and aren't "threatened" the way Chait is. There is absolutely NO discussion about whether this mode of "take no prisoners" discourse is decent or self-destructive behavior for the Left to engage in, just that THEY are cool about it all. Chait's piece provided the perfect opportunity for a veritable TORRENT of strutting, unbridled narcissism from the "social justice activists" -- as they all congratulated each other for not being like him and not agreeing with him... or if they did agree with him, they tried to make it sound like they didn't.

I have been so upset by the invasion of the Left by these fascist wannabes, that I have lost considerable sleep over it. I have considered not bothering at all, leaving the net entirely to the bullies. Only my sheer stubbornness keeps me coming back.

And I know I am not the only one. Chait reports--

“It seems to me now that the public face of social liberalism has ceased to seem positive, joyful, human, and freeing,” confessed the progressive writer Freddie deBoer. “There are so many ways to step on a land mine now, so many terms that have become forbidden, so many attitudes that will get you cast out if you even appear to hold them. I’m far from alone in feeling that it’s typically not worth it to engage, given the risks.” [Michelle] Goldberg wrote recently about people “who feel emotionally savaged by their involvement in [online feminism] — not because of sexist trolls, but because of the slashing righteousness of other feminists.”

And is that what we want the Left to be? The land of the Thought Police?

How on earth can we arrive at solutions if we are not allowed to discuss anything?

~*~

As one on liberal talk radio in the most conservative county in the USA, I can't use esoteric internet political in-group terminology and expect the local Baptists to understand me. Further, as an older person, I frequently use unfashionable or antiquated words. This crime alone, in the current hyped-up politically-correct climate, is enough to get a well-meaning but unsuspecting newcomer savaged [4], as I have witnessed numerous times. Once the social justice police have applied the Mark of Cain, it means anything the stigmatized say (or any political event we report on) is either attacked relentlessly or totally ignored. Remember the early internet, where people argued for days at a time? Where minds were actually CHANGED? (and mine was one, so I know) Well, that's all over now. Many once-lively, fun places are now just battlegrounds where no ideas or nuance can be seriously developed or mulled over [5]. For example, the once-exciting FEMINISTE blog is now mostly a place for trans women to police cis women for various ideological crimes; a blog that once might have hundreds of comments per thread, now routinely gets 3-10 per thread, if that. Reddit calls the political correctness situation "Metareddit Cancer" (since it has spread to the moderators). And as Chait reminds us, this phenomenon now extends to powerful news organizations; The New York Times and CNN both censored the Charlie Hebdo cover with the drawing of Mohammed, showing themselves to be craven cowards, and giving the terrorists exactly the censorship they demanded. (No negotiation with terrorists, huh? Major news organizations excepted!)

I have become so upset with the Left in this regard, I could barely summon up the strength to blog... I've simply entered my snarky comebacks on Tumblr, enjoyed the cute animals photos (the main reason Tumblr exists) and grumbled. It is Chait and his guts that made me decide to speak up here, now that the smoke has cleared.

He's right. The Left is becoming a cartoon of itself.

And another thing... a message I got from a sister Tumblrite, after another of the fabled arguments in which I was told how dumb I am, how wrong, how bad, please go away. Remember how I once said Women's Movement pioneers are mostly shit on, while Civil Rights pioneers are lauded and praised as precious? (And I wonder what that's like?)

I really don't understand so much about this epidemic of self-righteousness and narcissism (which is what I think characterizes so much of the most extreme PC babbling), and began chatting with another feminist who had some amazing insights (and shall hereby remain anonymous).

She certainly inspired some deep thinking here at DEAD AIR:

The social justice sector may skew younger, because the ethos of instant moral certitude and endless identity-gazing would appeal to adolescents, the profusion of stupid neologisms less offensive to eyes and ears that haven’t known much discourse. It helps my sanity to bear in mind that a lot of these people are 9th and 10th graders who’ve never had a moment of real-world political activity (or offline interaction with the identity communities they claim to represent, for that matter) in their lives. What’s more, many of them probably never will. Because it is a subjective enterprise conducted primarily by those who are privileged to endlessly indulge their subjectivity.

For many reasons, “social justice” cannot be equated with what we would have once called the radical left. I’ve been thinking about your comments on sabotage and agents provocateurs. Sadly, I think very few of them are being paid or otherwise extrinsically motivated. I think most of it is organic and sincere, which is worse.

For the past week or so I’ve been coming across posts warning white people away from police brutality protests because “it’s not about you,” accompanied by extensive instructions for all the self-examination white people should do it rather than join the movement. What a brilliant trick that would be from a deliberate saboteur! But horribly enough it’s absolutely sincere - SJWs who don’t understand that it’s not “about” any of the protestors; who honestly mistake mass protest for an arena for the elaboration and display of identities. Which again, suggests less than robust experience with actual protests.

The emphasis on subjectivity and invisible ideological purity is, I’m sure you realize, the reason they attack people who are “on the same side” - if your subjectivity isn’t PERFECT, you aren’t actually on the same side. They are for the most part just too dumb (or less uncharitably, too naive) to comprehend the opportunity that the endless goalpost-moving and ratcheting up of standards creates for those who are up to no good.

And here is where I remind everyone that there are still wars going on. Obama is seeking further war authorization as we speak. Here is your golden opportunity to GET OFF YOUR DERRIERE and start a real live anti-war movement, instead of a pretend-movement on Tumblr.

Let me know when you are ready for real politics. As long as this extended silliness continues, I will treat it as the mindless din that it is.

I have serious work to do.


~*~



[1] I put quotes around the term since this is what they call themselves, even though as I have pointed out before, the vast majority have actually done NO activism at all. (Asking for a resume is a good way to shut them up and call out the hypocrisy.) "SJW" is nothing more than a label and requires no one do anything risky in real life, otherwise we wouldn't have 2-3 wars going on at once, apparently without missing a beat or noticing this imperialism enough to even remark about it on their extra-special SJW sites... let alone actually attempt to, you know, STOP THE WARS.

[2] Social justice activists habitually claim they are "centering" this or that oppressed group and therefore do not have to argue with any political criticism on the opposite side of the divide. So, I decided to use this tactic myself as an old person, and re-center baby-boomer experience.

And I guess you know how well THAT went over.

[3] I was told that I am too old to be on Tumblr, and that it is automatically "suspect" (!) when any older person is there. Also: "ageism is not a thing"--yes, I swear, these two statements came from the SAME PERSON. But in short, treating old people like shit is still fine, same as it ever was. Somehow, age has not entered that sacrosanct category of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and all the other social justice status-labels.

[4] It has been deemed "racist" to use the word "savage"--even as a verb. I tell them: stop doing it, I'll stop using the word. What other words do you prefer? Barbarism? Bullying?

I am committed to bringing back the word McCARTHYISM.

[5] When I asked some critical questions of anti-sex-work feminists, it was assumed (with a nasty, snarky vibe) that I must think sex work is fabulous and great. Um, no, I don't, I just think sex workers need basic protections from arrests and harassment. It was then decided that I must believe women are "empowered" by sex work (language I don't even use!) ... In short, SJWs assume everyone is sharply PRO or CON (meaning: their very limited version of PRO and CON positions, usually a rehash of what they've seen on CNN or something)...they never see political positions as evolving, undecided, nuanced, changing, learning... which is where the vast majority of people live out their political realities on a day-to-day basis.

The SJWs live on Planet Certainty, and most people don't. Further, most people aren't sure they want to live there.

And on that note, let me clarify: JUST BECAUSE I AGREE WITH JONATHAN CHAIT ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, does not mean I agree with everything he says about everything. It seems obvious and ridiculous to have to say such a thing, but in the climate we are describing, it is required. If you like a blog post, its obvious you must love the author and love everything they say (see above)-- so you are accountable for something they wrote in 2006 too.

Senate candidate Thomas Ravenel drops baby into pool

DEAD AIR officially confirms that this IS the baby that was dropped in the pool. (from Thomas Ravenel's senate commercial)










South Carolina residents, you've been looking at that baby long enough, yes? I even got a complaint on my last blog post, remarking about the ubiquitous, never-ending, look-at-my-cute-baby!-i-might-be-on-Bravo-but-I'm-heterosexual! ad campaign, featuring infamous Reality TV star, Independent senatorial candidate, former SC Treasurer and celebrated convicted cokehead Thomas Ravenel and his adorable little offspring. He assures us, he cares so much about the little darling, you should definitely elect him. After all, he comes from a rich family with a fancy-ass bridge named after them and he's on TV!

These annoying, cloying commercials have been non-stop, the little Ravenel darling foisted on us morning, noon and night.

And then, he... well, he dropped the baby in the pool. Something about a stylist. And then... well, he has since broken up with his long-suffering babymama, Kathryn Dennis, 29 years his junior. People are shocked, shocked I tell you. (okay, not really)

~*~

During our trip to Isle of Palms and Sullivan's Island, Mr Daisy and I decided to drop in for a bite at the aptly-named Page's Okra Grill in Mount Pleasant, for some delicious fried okra and other southern goodies. And at the next table, I heard some old fellas with deep low-country accents, chortling in a decidedly Democratic fashion, about Rav-inn-nell and what he had done last Frad-dee (low-country version of Friday), whilst passing around their iphones for emphasis. Chortle, chortle, snort, and one fella collapsed in a true belly-laugh. I was dying to know, and nearly interrupted their lunch to ask what Rav-inn-nell had done THIS time.

Luckily, I didn't have to wait long... it was all over the low-country, from Democrat to Democrat and from iphone to iphone.

Ravenel's baby, the dearly beloved infant in the commercial, fell into the pool. With Ravenel, apparently. (Everybody keeps adding, the one in the commercial!)

You know, some convicted cokeheads might actually get arrested for blundering into the pool with a seven-month-old, but then, most cokeheads do not come from one of the most powerful Republican families in the state.

From Charleston City Paper:

A woman told Charleston police that Thomas Ravenel, a U.S. Senate candidate and star of the reality show Southern Charm, assaulted her last Friday night at his Charlotte Street home. According to the Charleston Police Department, an investigation into the incident is ongoing and Ravenel has not been arrested.

The alleged victim, Lauren Moser, told police that she is a friend of Kathryn Dennis, Ravenel's girlfriend and mother of Ravenel's child, and is also Dennis' stylist. Moser says she was invited to Ravenel and Dennis' residence at 29 1/2 Charlotte St. on the evening of Oct. 17 "but was concerned about going because she had had previous run-ins with the offender [whose] behavior is unpredictable especially when under the influence," according to a police incident report.

Moser says she arrived at the house at about 11 p.m. and relieved the nanny since Ravenel and Dennis had not yet arrived home. She told police that "everything was fine for a while" after the couple arrived home until later in the night when she was sitting outside the residence talking with Dennis. At that point, Moser told police that Ravenel "stormed out of the house with the 7-month-old juvenile and yelled to Kathryn that she needed to take care of the sleeping child," according to the report.

Then, as Ravenel was walking toward Moser and Dennis, he reportedly slipped and fell into the pool with the baby. Ravenel reportedly pulled the baby out of the pool and handed her to Dennis. At this point, Moser says she pulled out her cell phone and started recording the incident "because she felt that more was about to transpire," according to the report.

The report continues:

The victim stated that as she was walking behind the offender into the house he swung the door hard (as to close it) when he cleared [the] doorway and it bounced off of the victim's knee. The victim stated that when the offender saw that the door did not close he turned and swung the door again and this time the door struck the victim on the inside of the right arm due to the fact that her hand was raised because she was videoing the episode. The victim stated that the door hit her so hard it caused her to topple backwards down three steps and into some bushes.

Moser told police that Ravenel then went to the second floor of the house, and she went into the living room to sit down and "gather her thoughts and to make sure that the baby and Kathryn were fine before she left," according to the report. Then Ravenel reportedly returned to the living room naked and screamed, "Bitch, get your stuff and get out" while bringing Moser's belongings to her. Moser says she gathered her belongings and left.

Moser did not report the incident until Monday night at about 8 p.m. She says she waited to file the report because she "wanted to think about the incident and to wait until her emotions died down." She told police she was in pain the next day but did not have any broken bones. Police observed bruising on the inside of her right arm.

Ravenel did not immediately return a request for comment at his office. The police report indicates that Moser shot video of the incident, but a Charleston Police Department spokesman says police do not have a copy of the video.

They don't??!? Nah, go on.

That same memory hole that allowed Ravenel to abuse coke for years, see it? The rich, as we see, can do whatever the hell they want.

The update on this story, from Thomas Ravenel himself:

UPDATE, 5 p.m.: Thomas Ravenel released the following statement in response to the allegations:

I learned through a news report that the Charleston Police Department is investigating this incident, and I am totally confident that once the investigation is completed, the truth will come out and any allegations against me will be found to be without merit. I look forward to meeting with any member of law enforcement if they believe it will be helpful to their investigation.

Reached by phone, Ravenel also said he would not participate in filming any further episodes of Southern Charm until after the Nov. 4 election.

And so, there it is.

Some fun mental exercises: imagine if this was you or me. Now, change the race of the perp, and the neighborhood. I can imagine somebody actually getting shot over this, if they were the wrong color. Imagine if this was a black hip-hop star or NFL player. Mix and match, play the privilege game. Always remember: THIS IS AN ALREADY-CONVICTED COKEFIEND, not someone without a police record. He was arrested only a year ago for drunken driving, as well. (guilty)

Some people, with a record like that, would have their babies taken AWAY from them for this behavior. Not Ravenel. Never Ravenel.

It just makes for good TV.

Being rich means never having to say you're sorry.

~*~

We will be discussing Ravenel and other stuff tonight on Occupy the Microphone, WOLI radio, 910AM and 105.7FM on your upstate radio dial. Join us at 8pm and weigh in! You can listen live here.

Is college worth it?

One of those subjects that interests me a great deal, is whether a college degree is "necessary" or not. Lately, as the price of (even a mediocre) education skyrockets, the question is a getting a new and respectful hearing. Megan McArdle's in-depth Newsweek article on the topic, has prompted extensive discussion.

I am one who has often had my jobs supplanted by college grads. Frequently, these kids couldn't even decently proofread their own ad copy. I have trained college grad after college grad, many as dumb as dirt. It seems they are getting dumber, too... I think this is probably because the actual value of a degree is less than it used to be. I have trained numerous college grads who barely made it through (sometimes taking much longer than four years to do so), but by God, they had that almighty sacred CREDENTIAL that meant they should make more than I do; never mind that they couldn't even answer a customer's simple questions. (One college grad argued with me that there was no such thing as vitamin B-5. Really.) The dimwitted arrogance of "I have a degree and you don't; so I know everything and you know nothing," is worthy of a whole separate post. I collect such stories. Another big problem with college degrees is that the holder of said degree seems to believe that IQ points were magically bestowed when the degree was conferred... which is more proof of stupidity.

I am also one who has lied on occasion (especially in the pre-digital era) and claimed a college degree I don't have. It never seemed to make any real difference in anything an employer expected me to do. Such unnecessary college degrees (say, among video store clerks) are simply about gate-keeping; making sure that People Like Us are the only people in the break-room. The fact that I was easily able to pass as People Like Them, would suggest that it's the (apparent) fact of the degree, nothing tangible that is learned in the actual process of obtaining one.

From McArdle's piece:

Unsurprisingly those 18-year-olds often don’t look quite so hard at the education they’re getting. In Academically Adrift, their recent study of undergraduate learning, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa find that at least a third of students gain no measurable skills during their four years in college. For the remainder who do, the gains are usually minimal. For many students, college is less about providing an education than a credential—a certificate testifying that they are smart enough to get into college, conformist enough to go, and compliant enough to stay there for four years.

When I was a senior, one of my professors asked wonderingly, “Why is it that you guys spend so much time trying to get as little as possible for your money?” The answer, [writer/economist Bryan] Caplan says, is that they’re mostly there for a credential, not learning. “Why does cheating work?” he points out. If you were really just in college to learn skills, it would be totally counterproductive. “If you don’t learn the material, then you will have less human capital and the market will punish you—there’s no reason for us to do it.” But since they think the credential matters more than the education, they look for ways to get the credential as painlessly as possible.

True. Learning itself often seems to be beside the point.

I have lost count of the number of times I have been reading some 'complicated' (but not really), obscure or arcane book (i.e. Jean Paul Sartre) and have been asked by the resident college grad in my office (accompanied by furrowed brow): "Are you reading that for a class?" The idea that one actually reads something "difficult" for oneself, for pleasure, is utterly foreign to them. Sometimes, when I reply "no"--the puzzlement is evident, and they continue, dumbfounded: "Then why are you reading it?" I hardly know what to say. (Tellingly, it is usually the 'uneducated' redneck in the office who giggles, at this point.) They usually punctuate these questions with, "All of that is behind me now! Whew!" or some other amazing comment, expressing relief that they will never have to READ A REAL BOOK again. (Wow, wasn't that shit HARD?) Some have proudly bragged to me they got through their entire college years without actually finishing a single one. I have never doubted it.

Nonetheless, I was surprised to read on Brad DeLong's blog (check the comments), that questioning the nature of COLLEGE UBER ALLES is now regarded as a conservative viewpoint. As Tim Gunn would say, this worries me. Back in the 60s/70s, liberals and radicals made this argument first, offering the common-sense observation that working and living in the real world--as well as a variety of interesting 'learning experiences' (this era marked the birth of that now-common expression)--also conferred 'an education.' I wasn't aware that questioning authority is now up to the right wing. (And how depressing is that?) Are liberals-on-the-coasts THAT out of touch with the situation on-the-ground? Do they interact with college grads from schools that never expected them to do math without calculators, or spell without spellcheck? I don't think they have.

More proof of the disconnect between elite liberals and the great working-class unwashed... and that makes me uneasy.

~*~

Further, there is the increasing importance of teacher evaluations, and whether they are a good or bad thing for education. What does it mean that students now determine whether a teacher stays employed? Is this an education worth paying big bucks for, one that has been "voted on"?

In the New York Times, former Duke professor Stuart Rojstaczer writes:

Student evaluations are a poor indicator of professor performance. The good news is that college students often reward instructors who teach well. The bad news is that students often conflate good instruction with pleasant ambience and low expectations. As a result they also reward instructors who grade easily, require little work, are glib and chatty, wear nice clothes, and are physically attractive. It’s generally impossible to separate all these factors in an evaluation. Plus, students will penalize demanding professors or professors who have given them a bad grade, regardless of the quality of instruction that a professor provides. In the end, deans and tenure committees are using bad data to evaluate professor performance, while professors feel pressure to grade easier and reduce workloads to receive higher evaluations.

In the mid-90s, I had a short-term temp-job processing teacher evaluations for a technical college. I fed the evaluations with the penciled-in answer-dots into a "reader" (which often spit them right back out at me... just like when you stick your dollar in the vending machine and it spits it back for having a crease in it) ... and then made pie charts on a Model-T-Ford-like-Mac, breaking down the teacher-ratings from the students: Excellent, Good, Fair, Below Average, Sucks. Then I deciphered the written gibberish from the students ("I like Mrs X, she is hot!", "Mrs X needs to stop talking about her cat all the time, some of us HATE CATS!" etc etc) and typed it up separately. Then I stapled the pie charts to the comments. (Yes, it was Model-T level stuff, indeed, but I remember thinking how high-tech the pie charts were!)

And do I need to tell you, how many times the teachers came sneaking in, asking WHO I was working on? ("Have you reached the computer/engineering/CAD department yet?") If I answered that I was working on their department, their eyes would go boinnnngggg (like a Tex Avery cartoon) and they would frenetically rifle through the papers (that I had carefully separated into piles, of course, causing me hours of extra work) looking for their own students' names and replies. My skinny, ADHD-supervisor would attempt to circumvent this extracurricular activity, keeping the door open from her adjacent office (where she liked to listen to Aerosmith) and bust them when they did this... scurrying in and shooing them away like kindergartners, reminding them of rules, rules, rules: YOU ARE BREAKING THEM. They didn't care. They did it virtually every day I had the job. (Some departments, I could see, were far more nervous than others; the nursing department was impervious and never showed up a single time.) The rifling of my careful piles of papers continued, and since my supervisor could SEE that this was not MY fault, I often got paid overtime.

I finally got the message, loud and clear, that their jobs were at stake. One teacher started groaning as he looked at his pie chart, his mortgage payment obviously hanging in the balance. One of them asked me if there was any way to fudge the replies, which I pretended I hadn't heard, just as skinny-supervisor bounded through the door and banished him from the room.

I remember a short, stolen conversation with one such crestfallen teacher, as I whispered (Aerosmith momentarily drowning us out) that his pie chart looked okay to me. He whispered back, shaking his head, that OKAY/FAIR was not good enough, you had to have blah-de-blah percent of GOODS... FAIR does not cut it. (I remember being surprised, since I am the product of a lifetime of FAIR public school teachers, and I still know every single one of my state capitals.)

What does this mean, that the opinions of students now dictate whether college instructors get to keep their jobs? (Even in a field like AUTOMOBILE ENGINE MECHANICS?!?)

Might this lead to getting softer and softer on the students?

And take note, this was at the dawn of the online era. "Rate My Professors" and other such sites that rate instructors publicly (and anonymously) had not even been invented yet.

~*~

In today's economy, we now have the sordid spectacle of employers demanding that bartenders and appliance-salesman have college degrees. As a result, we have a class of people who used to self-select out of college and go to work in factories, choosing to trudge through the torture of college, simply to avoid becoming unemployable. Since there are no longer any factory jobs in the USA, such a person is now at loose ends, and preyed upon by all the fake colleges promising a college credential during TV commercials. (Since these particular working-class folks haven't already been hanging out with the college-set, as I have, they are not quite aware that all college degrees are not equal, and some are barely regarded as real degrees at all.)

College is a racket, straight up. The costs are rising, and increasingly staggering. People graduate and can't find work. Worse, due to the magical degree in their hands, they think a job is promised to them. Thus, when they do get work, they expect it to be a certain KIND of work--the exalted occupations promised on the glowing TV commercials. When expected to mop floors with the rest of us, they are unexpectedly indignant: I didn't spend four years in college for this! they fume. As a matter of fact, you did. You did it to get hired, and now you are hired... now, mop.

I know, you didn't read Twelfth Night and go into six-figure debt to push a mop, and do you now see how ridiculous that was?

Mitt Romney's class contempt exposed

Romney's speech to private donors hits the airwaves and gives us all a fit of the giggles.

Others are simply slack-jawed at the Republican presidential candidate's total and unbridled contempt for ordinary Americans. Here is the video of the speech, leaked by Mother Jones magazine. (Full transcript here.)

The money quote:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

But rest assured, the entire speech is well worth reading. His astounding class-based contempt and overall Richie-Rich comic-book cluelessness is evident throughout.

For instance, I consider this quote almost as incredible as the predictable "forget the 47%" jibber-jabber currently crashing the airwaves and nightly news shows:

[There is] the percent that's, "Oh, you were born with a silver spoon," you know, "You never had to earn anything," and so forth. And, and frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you could have, which is to get born in America. I'll tell ya, there is—95 percent of life is set up for you if you're born in this country. And I remember going to—sorry just to bore you with stories—but I was, when I was back in my private equity days, we went to China to buy a factory there, employed about 20,000 people, and they were almost all young women between the ages of about 18 and 22 or 23. They were saving for potentially becoming married, and they worked in these huge factories, they made various small appliances, and as we were walking through this facility, seeing them work, the number of hours they worked per day, the pittance they earned, living in dormitories with little bathrooms at the end with maybe ten rooms. And the rooms, they had 12 girls per room, three bunk beds on top of each other. You've seen them.
...

And around this factory was a fence, a huge fence with barbed wire, and guard towers. And we said, "Gosh, I can't believe that you, you know, you keep these girls in." They said, "No, no, no—this is to keep other people from coming in. Because people want so badly to come work in this factory that we have to keep them out, or they'll just come in here and start working and try and get compensated. So, we—this is to keep people out."

Well, gosh... sure it was.

Is this man for real?

~*~

The media reactions have been as explosive and amazing as Romney's idiocy.

AlterNet's 10 Desperate and Depressed Conservative Reactions to Romney's 47 Percent Moment (Fun subtitle: Some are standing by Romney; the semi-smart ones are running away like he's carrying Ebola) includes some quotable goodies:

The reality, of course, is that Romney cherry-picked one tax – federal income taxes – which happens to be one of our more progressive taxes. It accounts for 42 percent of federal revenues. A more regressive tax, paid by almost every working person -- but not the super-rich who live off of their investments -- is the payroll tax, which accounts for 40 percent of the government's take. And, of course, the idea that the 47 percent of households that don't pay federal income taxes are Democrats is just silly – they're heavily concentrated in red states and a fifth of that group are elderly, a demographic that tends to skew Republican.

Great talking points; highly recommended for those of us who insist on foolishly arguing with Romneyoids on various blogs and forums.

Romney's '47%' presents challenge for Republican candidates (Los Angeles Times)

Mitt Romney’s ‘47 Percent’ Remarks Have Everything To Do With Race (Colorlines)

By way of Boing Boing, here's the 'story of the story'... how the speech-video eventually surfaced online: The Long Strange Leak Of Mitt Romney's 47% Video (BuzzFeed)

And E.J. Dionne asks the pertinent question, Does Mitt Romney's '47 percent' comment show he hates America?:

What kind of nation are we if nearly half of us are lazy, self-indulgent moochers who will never be persuaded to mend our ways? "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," Romney said, thus writing off a huge share of our citizenry.

From his perch high atop the class structure, Romney offered an analysis of political motivations that even Marxists would regard as excessively materialistic. He speaks as if hardworking parents who seek government help to provide health care for their kids are irresponsible, that students who get government aid to attend community colleges are not trying to "care for their lives." Has he never spoken with busboys and waitresses, hospital workers and janitors who make too little to pay income taxes but work their hearts out to "take personal responsibility"?

Of course he hasn't. I think that is fairly obvious.

Stay tuned, sports fans.