Posts tagged ‘college’
Actually, I am back, but here is me with two of my college roommates carrying .... something or other in a Thai wedding ceremony in Roi Et.
Some of you may be familiar with the groom, my friend Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute. The wedding was amazing and I will try to post some more pictures later.
Thailand was wonderful, and if there is a country that has friendlier people, I have never been to it. I will post some thoughts on Thailand later, but a few top of head items:
- Business models can be really, really different in a country with lower-cost labor. There were dudes in my hotel in Bangkok whose sole job seemed to be to time out my walk toward the elevator and hit the up button at the perfect moment.
- One sidebar to this is that in restaurants and bars, they have waiters who simply hover around constantly. They keep the alcohol bottles on a nearby table and essentially every time you take a sip, they fill your beer or scotch back up to the top. It is like drinking from a glass with a transporter beam in the bottom keeping it full. This makes it virtually impossible to regulate one's drinking.
- The whole country is like a gentrifying neighborhood in the US. It is totally normal to see a teeth-achingly modern building right next to a total hovel.
How did Disney buy Star Wars for only $4 billion? I first saw this question asked by Kevin Drum, though I can't find the link (and I am not going to feel guilty about it after Mother Jones banned me for some still-opaque reason). But Disney is going to release a new movie every year, and if it is anything like the Marvel franchise, they are going to milk it for a lot of money. Plus TV tie-ins. Plus merchandising. Plus they are rebuilding much of their Hollywood Studios park at DisneyWorld in a Star Wars theme.
The answer is that this is the kind of deal that makes trading in a free market a win-win rather than zero-sum. Lucas, I think, was played out and had no ability, or no desire, to do what it would take to make the franchise worth $4 billion. On the flip side Disney is freaking good a milking a franchise for all its worth (there is none better at this) and so $4 billion is starting to appear cheap from their point of view.
By the way, Disney is going to need the profits from Star Wars to fill in the hole ESPN is about to create. A huge percentage of the rents in the cable business have historically flowed to ESPN, which is able to command per-subscriber fees from cable companies that dwarf any other network. Times are a-changin' though, as pressure increases from consumers to unbundle. If cable companies won't unbundle, then consumers will do it themselves, cutting the cable and creating their own bundles from streaming offerings.
ESPN is already seeing falling subscriber numbers, and everyone thinks this is just going to accelerate. ESPN is in a particularly bad position when revenues fall, because most of its costs are locked up under long-term contracts for the acquisition of sports broadcasting rights. It can't easily cut costs to keep up with falling revenues. It is like a bank that has lent long and borrowed short, and suddenly starts seeing depositors leave. And this is even before discussing competition, which has exploded -- every major pro sports league has its own network, major college athletic conferences have their own network, and competitors such as Fox and NBC seem to keep adding more channels.
Arnold Kling has a good question in this post on secular stagnation. For most questions of the sort "would you rather the 1985 version of X for the 1985 (nominal) price or the 2015 version at the 2015 price, I would choose the latter. TV's? Cars? Phones? Computers? All way better for the price today. This of course implies that for many of these items, the inflation rate is really negative if we could adequately take into account quality and technology changes. Services are a different story. For health care, I would take the 2015 version and price. I would have to think about my answer for a while in air travel (I think folks overly romanticize their memory of air travel -- I was travelling PeopleExpress to Newark in the early 80's and that really, really sucked. My seat and meal are worse nowadays but I am more likely to be on time).
So Kling then asks about college education. These are convenient dates for me since I graduated in 1984. So would I rather Princeton in 1984 at about $10,000 or Princeton today at $60,000. I guess education-wise, the liberal arts course catalog at Princeton in 1984 was more closely matched to my interests, and I don't get any sense the faculty today is better or worse in either period but it likely was more politically diverse in 1984. So academically, I would easily give the nod to 1984. For the ancillary stuff, though, the change in quality has been substantial. The dorms, the dining options, the residential college system, the student center -- all the non-academic stuff is way better today. However, all that stuff is a lot of what is driving up the nominal price -- is it worth it? Yes, I suppose so if someone else is paying, lol. Probably not if I am paying my own way through.
A smart reader of mine pointed to this post and observed that given recent college events, we will likely see some changes. In that post I had pointed to something written by Peter Thiel:
Peter Thiel describes higher education as a "giant selection mechanism" and estimates that only 10% of the value of a college degree comes from actual learning, and 50% of the value comes from selection (getting into a selective university) and 40% comes from signalling (graduating from a selective college becomes known to employers). If employers could use intelligence tests instead of college degrees as measures of aptitude, it might be a lot more efficient and more cost-effective than the current practice of using very expensive four-year college degrees that add very little in terms of educational value (at least according to Thiel).
What does being a Yale grad signal after the last few weeks? What does Yale appear to be selecting for?
I further observed:
There is some rationality in this approach [to hiring mainly from the Ivies] – it is not all mindless snobbism. Take Princeton. It screens something like 25,000 already exceptional applicants down to just 1500, and then further carefully monitors their performance through intensive contact over a four year period. This is WAY more work and resources than a private firm could ever apply to the hiring process. In effect, by limiting their hiring to just a few top schools, they are outsourcing a lot of their performance evaluation work to those schools.
All this pre-supposed that colleges were looking for the same things that corporations were looking for -- bright, hard-working, clear-thinking, rational, easily educable people. But what if that is not what the Ivy League is selecting for any more? Do I really want to hire thin-skinned authoritarians who are unable to reasonably handle disagreement and will shut down the work of their peers over the smallest grievance? I had already quit the Princeton high school interviewing team because I no longer wanted to be part of a process that I thought was hosing hard-working Asian students. Now that I see who is being admitted in their stead, I am even more reluctant to be part of the admissions process.
According to my son, who is a senior at Amherst (one of the recent sites where the SJW Olympics have been held), more and more firms are doing different sorts of testing. Consultants all do case interviews now, which is a form of testing, and at least once he has been in investment banking interviews where he had to sit down and take an Excel skills test.
Update: Just saw this from Stephen Moore
Can you imagine the tyranny you would bring upon yourself by actually hiring one of these self-righteous complainers. Within a month they’d be slapping you with a lawsuit for not having a transgender bathroom. And you’ll be thinking: Right, but did you actually finish that assignment I gave you? Employers tell me despondently that the millennials are by far the highest maintenance generation they’ve ever seen. One recruiter recently told me: “They need their hands held, they demand affirmation, they are forever whining about their feelings. We really don’t have time to deal with their petty grievances.”
So if Yale and Amherst are institutionally racist despite giving African-Americans (on average) a 100+ point break on SAT requirements for entry, why aren't Asian Americans exploding given they start in a 100+ point hole? And can anyone imagine a college president turning around from her trip to London (as did Biddy Martin of Amherst) to talk to a group of aggrieved Asian students? I would contend that Asian Americans get stereotyped and discriminated against in far more meaningful ways on major college campuses than do Blacks and Hispanics.
Bonus: watch Asian student get crushed by "tolerant" and "diversity-minded" protesters at Claremont McKenna.
Using "diversity" to justify totalitarianism, and "tolerance" to justify speech restrictions.
First they came for the college presidents, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a college president
I have seen Conservatives arguing that we should just sit back and laugh at what is going on at college campuses, as Progressive college faculty reap what they have sown. I disagree.
For years college presidents cut a Faustian bargain with their football programs. The University would shield athletes from having to take any actual classes and shower the program with money meant for academics in return for the football program raising the visibility and prestige of the university and at least nominally pretending that academics come first. For years Presidents consoled themselves that they still held the whip hand in the relationship, even when it was increasingly clear they did not (e.g. at Penn State). This week, it was proved for all the world who is in charge. University Presidents can keep their jobs only so long as the football players are kept happy.
I know that GOP partisans were mad about the questions asked last night. And I think they were right to be -- the questions looked a lot more like Democratic oppo research gotcha questions than issues Republican voters necessarily cared about in the election.
However, I think it is wrong to criticize Republican party leadership for the debate program. While it would be nice if some of the questions came from the Right, this is exactly the kind of testing their candidates will get in the general election. Wouldn't the Republicans like to know if their candidate can't handle the Leftish media headwind or if some gotcha question really turns out to be a solid hit to the vital organs -- before they are stuck with him or her?
This issue is related to one I have thought about for a while -- what I call the only silver lining from the current Progressive domination of college campuses. It may be an uncomfortable environment for libertarians, but they are going to come out of college (as I did) having endured 4 years of 20 on 1 political arguments. While progressives will only have experience chatting with other progressives in a warm fuzzy welcoming micro-aggression-free echo chamber. Which one will be better prepared do defend their ideas in the real world?
John Scalzi tries to explain privilege to non-SJW-types by saying that being a white male is like playing life on "easy" difficulty.
I'll grant I benefited from a lot of things growing up others may not have had. I had parents that set high standards, taught me a work ethic, taught me the value of education, had money, and helped send me to Ivy League schools (though the performance there, I would argue, was all my own).
Well, for those of you concerned about living down a similar life of privilege, I have a solution for you: start a business. Doing so instantly converted me into a hated abused underclass. Every government agency I work with treats me with a presumption of guilt -- when I get called by the California Department of Labor, I am suddenly the young black man in St. Louis called out on the street by an angry and unaccountable cop**. Every movie and TV show and media outlet portrays me as a villain. Every failing in the economy is somehow my fault. When politicians make a proposal, it almost always depends on extracting something by force from me -- more wages for certain employees, more health care premiums, more hours of paperwork to comply with arcane laws, and always more taxes.
Postscript: I will add an alternative for younger readers -- there is also a way to play college on a higher difficulty: Try to be a vocal male libertarian there. Write editorials for the paper that never get published. Sit through hours of mindless sensitivity training explaining all the speech limitations you must live with on campus. Learn how you can be charged with rape if your sex partner regrets the sex months later. Wonder every time you honestly answer a question in class from a libertarian point of view if you are killing any chance of getting a good grade in that course. Live every moment in a stew of intellectual opinion meant mainly to strip you of your individual liberties, while the self-same authoritarians weep and cry that your observation that minimum wage laws hurt low-skilled workers somehow is an aggression against them.
** OK, this is an exaggeration. I won't likely get shot. I don't want to understate how badly abused a lot of blacks and Hispanics are by the justice system. I would much rather be in front of the DOL than be a Mexican ziptied by Sheriff Joe. But it does give one the same feeling of helplessness, of inherent unfairness, of the unreasoning presumption of guilt and built-in bias.
My guess is that there are no new cocktails under the sun, but I have not found anything similar out there so here is my current favorite homegrown concoction. Call it a Coyote Cocktail if it has not been named yet. I suppose it is sort of kind of like a Sidecar but I actually started from an Old Fashioned to get here:
- 2 parts Bourbon (I think a slightly sweeter one like Makers Mark works well)
- 1 part Cointreau
- 1 part fresh grapefruit juice (we have a tree so this is easy)
- a couple dashes of orange bitters
stir over ice.
A lot of restaurants in my area are serving slightly spicy tequila drinks, making Palomas or Spicy Margaritas with pepper-infused tequlia. We have home-infused a bottle of tequila with peppers and really like it. Our first try was a disaster -- we put 2 or 3 small dry peppers in bottle of tequila and let it sit for 5 days. Mistake! That is way too long. A day is all that is needed for a good infusion and a nice level of spice. We held onto the five-day flamethrower tequila. It is fun to serve as a shot to friends who think they are manly for pounding Jagermeister. Really gets their attention.
As an awful aside, apparently my son and his friends at college drink some concoction made of Jagermeister and Red Bull. I am told this is a standard at clubs nowadays. gahk. Possibly even worse than the Schmidt Beer I drank occasionally at college when we were short on cash.
The AZ Republic has some of the first information I have ever seen on the nature of Phoenix light rail ridership. The first part confirms what I have always said, that light rail's primary appeal is to middle and upper class whites who don't want to ride on the bus with the plebes
Light rail has changed the demographics of overall transit users since the system opened in 2008, according to Valley Metro.
Passengers report higher incomes than bus riders, with more than a quarter living in households making more than $50,000 a year. Many riders have cars they could use.
The 20-mile system running through Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa recorded more than than 14 million boardings last year. Still, census data estimate less than one-third of 1 percent of Phoenix commuters — or about 2,000 people — use rail as their main transportation to work.
.0033% huh? If we built similar facilities to serve everyone, it would only cost us about $420 billion at the rate of $1.4 billion per third of a percent.
But I thought this next bit was the most startling. I always had a sneaking suspicion this was true but never have seen it in print before:
While the much larger bus system reaches most corners of the Valley, light rail connects specific destinations along a single line. Nearly half of light-rail riders are enrolled in college.
I must have missed this in the original sales pitch for the light rail line: "Let's pay $1.4 billion so ASU students can get to more distant bars." Note that by these numbers, students likely outnumber commuters 10:1. Doesn't bode well for light rail extensions that don't plow right through the middle of the most populous college campus in the country.
Postscript: They don't break out people riding to get to sporting events downtown, but sporting events make up most of the largest traffic days on the system. From my personal acquaintances, many people use light rail as a substitute for expensive downtown parking at sporting events, parking (often semi-illegally) near light rail stops and taking the train the rest of the way in. On the whole, its not very compelling as a taxpayer to be helping to subsidize someone else's parking. And from a municipal fiscal standpoint, it means that light rail fares may be cannibalizing (on a much greater ratio than 1:1 given the price differential) parking fees at municipal parking lots.
I thought this was pretty clever, and probably took some guts as this person will likely get a lot of criticism on campus. Princeton student Tal Fortgang writes "38 Ways College Students Enjoy ‘Left-Wing Privilege’ on Campus." A small taste:
1. I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my political persuasion most of the time.
2. I can spend my entire college career taking only classes with professors who think exactly as I do.
3. I can take classes and earn degrees in departments that are designed to line up exactly with my worldview.
4. I can be sure that an overwhelming majority of the material I am assigned to read for class will confirm what I already believe.
5. My professors will assume that I already think just like them, and use examples and anecdotes that testify to our philosophical uniformity.
6. I can almost always be sure that my professor will present or corroborate my side of a debate.
7. I will likely never have to make the choice between writing what I believe to be true and writing what I think will get a good grade.
In the same vein:
Law professors Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin Murphy are trying to update the criminal code when it comes to sex offenses, believing current definitions of rape and sexual assault are antiquated. The focus of their draft is on what constitutes consent. It adopts the "yes means yes," or "affirmative consent" model that was passed in California last year.
The California law applies only to college campuses, however. Schulhofer and Murphy aim to take that definition of consent — which says that before every escalation of a sexual encounter, clear and convincing consent must be given — to the state or federal level. No one actually has sex this way, requesting permission and having it granted perhaps a dozen times in a single encounter.
But the theory that millions of Americans are having sex wrongly has gained currency among campus activists. This new attempt to alter the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, a highly influential document that has been adopted in whole or in part by many states' legislatures, is part of a push to bring authoritarianism into the bedroom.
I often argue that our political parties are not just internally inconsistent (ie they simultaneously hold positions whose logic essentially contradict themselves) but they are inconsistent across time. This is a great example of the latter.
Arizona has one of the worst asset forfeiture laws in the country, essentially allowing law enforcement to help themselves to any money or real property that takes their fancy, and then spend it on anything they like. For example, one AZ sheriff is spending the
asset forfeiture stolen money** on buffing up his image by providing scholarships, even though such scholarships sure seem to be specifically prohibited as a use for the money. You can think of this as pure PR - give 1% of the stolen money to some worthy cause so no one will question what you do with the other 99%, or more importantly question why they hell you had the right to take it without due process in the first place.
The Cochise County Sheriff's Office is providing nine high school students with college scholarships financed by money and assets seized from people suspected of illegal activity.
The $9,000 for scholarships is paid from the county's anti-racketeering revolving fund. State law specifies that cash in this account is to be used for things like gang and substance-abuse prevention programs and law enforcement equipment.
So, how do the scholarships fit the bill?
Though federal law appears to prohibit such a use of the money, Cochise County says the spending is permissible because it plays a role in substance-abuse prevention....
[The IJ's Paul] Avelar agreed.
The categories that specify how the money should be spent are "incredibly broad," allowing for a gamut of expenditures, he said.
"It's very loosey-goosey on what they spend it on," Avelar said. "They have the ability spend it on a lot of things that we might not think are wise expenditures of public money."
But McIntyre said that it's essential that counties retain broad spending power over this money, because "local elected officials are in a much better position to determine what priorities need to be addressed than people outside of the county."
"And additionally, the reality is that if the local voting populous doesn't agree with the use of those funds or the priorities that have been set by these decision makers, they have the ultimate remedy to vote us out," McIntyre said.
The last is a total joke. First, most sheriff's offices refuse to provide any comprehensive reporting on their seizure and spending activities, so without transparency there can be no accountability. And second, this is a classic redistribution scheme that always seems to get votes in a democracy. Law enforcement steals this money from 1% of the citizens, and spends it in a way that seems to benefit most of the other 99%. It is exactly the kind of corrupt policy that democracy consistently proves itself inadequate to prevent -- only a strict rule of law based on individual rights can stop this sort of abuse.
** While the forfeitures are legal under the law, that does not make them right. The law is frequently used by one group to essentially steal from another. Allowing police to take money at gunpoint from innocent (by any legal definition, since most have not been convicted of a crime) citizens is stealing whether it is enabled by the law or not.
Things I Would Never Have Believed When I Was Young -- College Students Taking Offense Like Southern Baptists
I grew up in the Deep South (in Houston -- for outsiders, Texas acts like the South when one is east of I-35 and then is more like the West). Though my immediate family was fairly open-minded, I was surround by a scolding Southern Baptist culture that seemed deeply offended by everything -- dancing, drugs, drinking, youth behavior, movies, TV, games -- you name it. I remember visiting aunts and uncles and cousins who were in a perpetual state of being offended. And it carried over into the whole political culture of the place -- it seemed there was always some debate about book or textbook passage that needed to be banned to save the delicate eyes and impressionable brains of the children.
Going to college in the Ivy League was a breath of fresh air. I never cottoned much to the authoritarian command and control favored by many at college, but I loved the liberal atmosphere of tolerance for most any speech or behavior.
Little would I have believed it, but college students today now sound exactly like my Southern Baptist aunt. They are humorless and scolding and offended by virtually everything. Many of the same pieces of literature those good Texas Baptists were trying to censor from school curricula in my day because they conflicted with religious doctrine are now being censored by good campus Progressives because they might be triggering. What a bizarre turn of events.
Ian McEwan had a nice line in his graduation speech at Dickinson: "“being offended is not to be confused with a state of grace — it’s the occasional price we all pay for living in an open society.”
In 1984 I graduated from college, ending the period of my life with the most intimate and sustained contact with hard-core progressives (less intimate contact continues to this day, mainly trying to save my business from the laws they pass).
If you had asked me to predict where progressives would be in 30 years, one thing I would never have guessed is that progressives would be in the vanguard of trying to re-establish anti-blasphemy laws in this country.
Also, more good thoughts on this same phenomenon here.
Saying that such a dialogue was essential to the college’s academic mission, Trescott University president Kevin Abrams confirmed Monday that the school encourages a lively exchange of one idea. “As an institution of higher learning, we recognize that it’s inevitable that certain contentious topics will come up from time to time, and when they do, we want to create an atmosphere where both students and faculty feel comfortable voicing a single homogeneous opinion,” said Abrams, adding that no matter the subject, anyone on campus is always welcome to add their support to the accepted consensus.
Universities are, if anything, institutions based on ideas and thought. So it has always been amazing to me that university diversity programs focus not on having a diversity of ideas, but on have a diversity of skin pigment and reproductive plumbing. In fact, if anything, most universities seem to be aspiring towards creating an intellectual monoculture.
In the late 1970's, I guess it was OK to mock Islam because Gary Trudeau sure did it a lot in his Doonebury comic. I remember one panel where the Iranian Chief Justice was in the states for his college reunion, telling his old school mates he stayed in such great shape by "flogging" rather than jogging.
Today, though, the Left seems to feel that Islam is off-limits and even needs their protection. It's OK to mock Indiana for not forcing every photographer to work gay weddings but God forbid anyone mock countries that kill gays just for being gay. In Trudeau we have an icon of the 1960's radicals advocating for limits on free speech and for blasphemy laws. Too bizarre for words. Eugene Volokh has a good commentary on Trudeau's remarks.
Look, sometimes commentators like myself adopt a sort of feaux confusion on the actions of folks we disagree with. But I am being honest here -- I really, really don't understand this.
I will say that I think this position tends to support a pet theory of mine. Remember that I start with a belief that American Republicans and Democrats are not internally consistent on their politics, and not even consistent over time (e.g. Republicans opposed wars of choices in Kosovo under Clinton, supported them under Bush in Iraq, and then opposed them again under Obama in Libya).
So here is my theory to explain many party political positions: Consider an issue where one party is really passionate about something. The other party might tend to initially agree. But over time there is going to be pressure for the other party to take the opposite stand, whether it is consistent with some sort of party ideological framework or not. After 9/11, the Republicans staked out a position that they thought that Islam as practiced in several countries was evil and dangerous and in some cases needed to be subdued by force of arms. In my framework, this pushed Democrats into becoming defenders of modern Islam, even at the same time that domestic politics was pushing them to be critical of Christian religion as it affected social policy (i.e. abortion and later gay marriage). Apparently, the more obvious position of "yeah, we agree much of the Islamic world is illiberal and violent, but we don't think we can or should fix it by arms" is too subtle a position to win elections. I fear we have gotten to a point where if either party is for something, they have to be in favor of mandating it, and if they are against something, they have to be in favor of using the full force of government to purge it from this Earth. And the other party will default to the opposite position.
The counter-veiling argument to this is two words: "drug war". This seems to be a bipartisan disaster that is generally supported by both parties. So my framework needs some work.
Well, it is time for many of our seasonal operations to open over the next few weeks so I have been running in circles on business issues. Also, I must confess that blogging is becoming a sort of Groundhog Day (the movie) experience, with the same arguments circling over and over. How many more times can I write, say, a long article about how minimum wage increases are a terrible anti-poverty program only to get one line emails asking me why I hate poor people. So blogging will be light as I do real world work and try to recharge.
I will leave you with one note of optimism, from Mark Perry. I went to college in the nadir (1980) of the American beer industry, where a small oligopoly of mediocre beer producers was protected by government legislation. It was a classic example of how regulation drives monopoly, consolidation, and loss of choice. With deregulation, the American beer industry has exploded.
As an aside, my current go-to beer is actually Brazilian, Xingu Black
The Supremes are going to discuss whether displaying a confederate battle flag on your custom license plate is protected by free speech.
In 1980 when I went up north to school I had a Confederate battle flag on my wall. I keep calling it the battle flag because in fact the flag you are thinking about (the one on the Dukes of Hazard's car) is not actually the flag of the Confederate nation. Most folks could not describe the original Confederate flag under torture (here it is).
So the flag you are thinking about, and the Supremes are considering, was actually based on the battle flags of certain state militias, like that of Virginia and Tennessee. It was also used by the Confederate Navy, and was incorporated into a redesign of the official Confederate flag late in the war.
Anyway, there were a couple of reasons a young Texan might put up this flag in his northern dorm room. First, it is awesome looking. There are a lot of bad flags in the world, but this is a great-looking flag. Second, at the time it represented the southern pride of a lot of us who found ourselves displaced and living in that odd northeastern college culture. It never represented (at least at the time) anything racist for me. For southerners (many of us raised, without knowing it, on the Lost Cause school of Civil War historiography) it represented pride and pluck and scrappy determination.
Anyway, I don't remember getting any pushback on the flag at the time. Over the years, though, I came to recognize that the flag was seen by many as a symbol of racism. Part of that was my increasing awareness but a large part was shifts in society and its perceptions -- remember the Dukes of Hazard was a real, popular network show that could likely never get made today. I suppose I could have retained the flag as a symbol of what I thought it was a symbol for, and just ignored other peoples' opinion. But at some point, I realized that other peoples' good opinion of me had value and that I needed to acknowledge how they saw the flag and put it away in a box.
Which brings me back to license plates. If a state is going to create a license plate program where people can make statements with their license plates, then people should be able to make the statement they want to make. I know there are folks in the south who honestly still cling to the symbolism I used to attach to the Confederate battle flag. But let's leave those folks aside. Let's assume for a moment that everyone who wants to display this symbol on their car is a racist. Shouldn't we be thrilled if they want to do so? Here would be a program where racists would voluntarily self-identify to all as a racist (they would even pay extra to do so!) What would be a greater public service?
I make this same argument when people want to ban speakers from campus. If people are willing to come forward with evil thoughts and intentions and announce them publicly, why wouldn't we let them? It's is fine to want to eliminate evil from the Earth, but
shilling banning hateful speech doesn't do this -- it only drives evil underground.
Postscript: I actually started thinking about this driving down I-40 from Knoxville to Nashville yesterday. In a bend in the road, on a hill, there is a large home. Their land goes right out to the bend in the highway, and on that bend they have put up a huge flag pole with a big Confederate battle flag. You can see it from miles in each direction. I didn't get a picture but there are plenty on the web. From searching for it, there are apparently similar installations on private land in other states. As I drove, having nothing else to do, I thought a lot about what message they were trying to send. Was it just southern pride? Were they really racists? If they weren't racists, did they know that many would think them as such? And if so, did they even care -- was this in fact just a giant FU?
Update: Fixed the typo in the last line. Did I mean chilling? Not even sure. Banning is what I meant.
Via Reason, a college rugby team has been banned because, gasp, they sang boorish songs when drunk:
The University of Mary Washington permanently cancelled its student rugby team after evidence surfaced that team members had engaged in sexist chanting at an off-campus house party. All members of the team were also required to attend sexual assault training.
But while UMW's rugby team has 46 players, only 8 of them were even in attendance at the party—meaning that not only did a public university punish a few students for engaging in inappropriate (though constitutionally-protected) speech, it also punished other students who had nothing to do with said (again, constitutionally-protected!) speech.
The microaggression unfolded last November at a house party near the Fredericksburg, Virginia, campus, according to Jezebel's Erin Gloria Ryan. Some students, likely drunk, sang a demeaning song about raping corpses and "wiggling it" inside whores—inappropriate stuff, to be sure, though not really targeted at a specific entity in a threatening way. The chant apparently has its origins in rowdy "pub" songs. It's a curious tradition, though not one intended to inspire actual malice, it seems.
I played rugby for several years (for Harvard Business School, of all places) and never encountered a rugby club that did not have a repertoire of raunchy pub songs. It was a tradition, which I presume was copied from the mother country, that teams would share in singing of these songs over many drinks after a match. While often crude and offensive, they were known to all to be so. I can't remember anyone being somehow confused between what was in those songs and what was a correct way to comport oneself in society. We sang crude songs for a few hours, and then went back to crafting strategies for water meter manufacturers.
Leaving aside the first amendment issues and whether there is really any harmful behavior here, think for a moment about the nature of crime and punishment here. College rugby teams have comported themselves as such for literally scores of years without any blowback except for occasional disdain from the blue bloods (the inciting of which is probably half the reason for the exercise in the first place). No laws or written rules were broken and the team was comporting themselves in a way that had been at least implicitly tolerated for generations. Then all of a sudden the team is disbanded. No advance warning, no discussion in advance that such behavior would now be treated in the future as illegal.
Well, that is kind of over-dramatic. I will certainly continue to run sometimes. I really enjoy running in cities where I travel as much as an exploration tool as for exercise. But my knees are shot and I barely got through the half-marathon last weekend in 3 hours. We had a great time though and Disney does a great job running these races. And just about everyone wears costumes, which is fun. It was worth the pain to do this event one last time with my daughter before she goes off to college. Plus I now have another really awesome princess medal.
I am off for Disney World to run in the Princess Half-Marathon this weekend. My knees feel like I have four flat tires and have been driving on the rims for 20 miles, but I am running this last time with my daughter.
We started running this race together a number of years ago and the first time we ran was something of a breakthrough for my daughter -- the experience dedicating herself to a goal and the confidence she gained from achieving it led to many knock-on benefits, so much so that it became the core of her college essay.
That essay began with the story of she and I making our first tutu together. At the time, I did not even know what tulle was, but we watched a YouTube video about how to make a tutu without sewing and we eventually got it done. She ran the whole race, as she has ever since, with a tutu and a tiara on. (By the way, I am always amazed at the niches in the Internet that I never knew existed. This is the video we watched to make the tutu -- it has 2.4 million views! We basically followed this process except we used a piece of underwear elastic for the waist band rather than ribbon). My job is to cut the tulle into strips -- we make them twice as long as she wants the skirt, and then my daughter ties them to a piece of elastic in the middle, so two strands hang down.
The challenge has increasingly become to use different colors than any past tutu. The last one looked more like a skirt. This one she wanted to be shorter and puffier, more like a ballet tutu. It is hard to capture it well in a picture to get the detail but this is the result:
Not to worry, your humble correspondent will be in costume too. I have some great Darth Vader running gear I will be wearing. I wore a rebel pilot outfit last time. Disney really hit on something with these runs -- they have 8-10 different ones now. The Princess half-marathon is still the most popular and sells out in about 45 minutes. It was as hard to get a spot in it as it is to get Comicon tickets. But given the popularity, there are whole web sites specializing in themed and costumed running gear. I love capitalism.
PS -- I am still amazed she takes on all this extra weight and drag for fashion. When I have to run this far, I am tempted to cut off the ends of my shoelaces to save weight.
PPS-- Here was the first one, at the finish line (a little worse for wear)
The Left has absolutely bent over backwards to make sure we understand that Islamic terrorists are not representative of the Muslim religion or Islam in general. Further, they seem really quick to excuse or at least ignore a lot of really awful illiberal behavior by Islamic nations, including systematic abuse and near-enslavement of women, execution of gays, harassment of any non-Muslims, or even of Muslims from competing sects, etc. We need to be tolerant, dontcha know.
So why is it that all this absolute cascade of bad behavior by various Muslims is not representative of true Islam but a tiny tiny few American males who are violent sex offenders are somehow totally representative of the entire gender, such that all men have to constantly humble ourselves, avoid speaking certain facts, apologize and bear guilt, go to college re-education programs, etc?