Derailing Australia’s Campus Rape Panic - Quillette Use the criminal justice system to address crime, are they mad? The progressive left thinks so mainly because the criminal justice system has protections for the accused and what right-thinking witch hunts wants protections for the accused?!?!?!?! The backlash for the excesses of the progressive left will be epic.
Comments
The Flight 94 Election?
Perhaps a refresher course on what happens when one appeases fascism is in order. I thought WWII was a sufficient primer, but apparently not. The west appeased the fascists, including Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union in the 1930s. The results catastrophically resulted in the loss of 20,000,000 (that's twenty million) lives. Do we need another bite of that apple before we understand the consequences of appeasing fascism? Fascism is simply defined as a nationalist, totalitarian political movement in which “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Benito Mussolini. The nationalism is negotiable. The difference between International Socialism and Fascism is minor and relates mostly to the nationalism, and the fact that the fascists did not believe the state needed to own the four Ps: People, Product, Production means, Profits. They were right since there is no difference between ownership and total control in a totalitarian dictatorship. In the end, fascism and socialism are simply different variations on the theme of totalitarian socialism. Today's progressivism is little more than a less authoritarian variant of fascism/socialism. The totalitarianism will come in time, but in the Anglosphere, it is clear the political movement cannot let the totalitarianism out of the bag until after the people have been disarmed, and the democratic institutions eroded to the point of uselessness. At that point, the Dems will be able to shackle their serfs and move on to creating the new feudalism they desire. You think you will be one of the aristocrats, think again, serf. A vote against Trump to appease the violent, destructive progressive left will not result in a return to peace. Such a vote will result in a progressive drive to destroy its enemies, it will result in a violent disarming of Americans, and deep if not total elimination of natural, civil, and constitutional rights. It will be mirrored on what we are seeing in Virginia today, but it will be much more destructive of the other rights like free speech, religion, and association. If you want to know how the fascist will act, look to history which we have in spades in Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union, and Maoist China, among many others. If you appease the fascist, they will come. They will come for blood, yours, Mr. Kaus. Pelosi and company turned the ugly word "impeachment" into "politics as usual" in one vote!12/30/2019 Trump: SJWs always double down.
Impeachment used to mean something, now it does not. American politics just changed forever. Election predictions: Trump wins 2020 by at least 45 states to 5 but it could be even worse for the Democrats. We are looking at Mondale or McGovern loss levels. An ominous sign from Queens’ new DA
It will take only a few years to drop the city back into the mire which created the building crime spree that was the 1970s, and which lead to the incredibly destructive 1980s and, finally, to the deadly 1990s. The warning behind the surge in subway graffiti Sane New Yorkers will take this as a dystopian bellwether and move out. Good luck to those who stay, you're gonna need it. Sue Lyon, star of Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Lolita’ in 1962, dies at 73
Sorry, I let reality intrude, that was Lolita, not The Hollywood Story. Man Dies Of Old Age In Church Parking Lot After Waiting 60 Years For Wife To Finish Socializing ...and other tales from the church parking lot/crypt. Match the arrestee with their alleged crime
I think my best score ever was only two out of five. Grubhub Driver Attacked Burger King Workers
Three road rage incidents, which included violent battery, and the Burger King batteries, should be enough to get him a year in the county cooler. I'd give him six months in the cooler, and 1,000 hours of community service, to be completed within one year from the date of sentencing for each battery for a total of 5,000 hours of community service (painting over graffiti, washing graffiti off buildings, and other similar work) over the next five years. That should keep him occupied and off the streets, and he would be doing a good thing. I would also order that he pay for any damage to buildings or vehicles in the amount of 120% of actual damages. He will likely get a few days, a fine, and an order to repay damages, which he will ignore. If you want more crimes like this follow the latter plan, if you want less, follow the former. I wish this were as difficult as the courts make it seem, but it is not. We should discourage students from attending college, not make it free
"It’s a staple of the Democratic Party in 2019 that we need more college for everyone. Part of the liberal argument for “free” or subsidized college is that education makes us richer. Many Democrats now even extend this argument to say we as a society would be richer if we taxed ourselves to send everyone to college for free. This position depends upon the idea that college really does make people richer, a phenomenon that has, historically, largely proven true. But it appears that this is changing. The value of education is inherently subjective. Some might say four years swooning over French sonnets makes the individual richer in some intellectual sense, or that courses in puppetry or gender studies are somehow helping students grow as humans. This academic wishfulness, though, isn't sufficient justification for making taxpayers finance higher education. If Democrats intend to ask taxpayers to foot the bill, they need to prove that we are indeed made richer in real financial terms, demonstrable on paper, by expanding education. The usual proof is that we can see in real-world financial results the value added to an individual’s lifetime wealth due to a college degree. Essentially, we can observe that those with a college degree make more than nongraduates and acquire more wealth over their lifetime. In this, the degree is adding value and wealth to us all. Therefore, the argument goes, we can cough up more taxpayer cash for "free" tuition and still come out ahead. This logic completely fails if there is no such college premium. If the higher incomes don't appear, then the value isn't being added. This means the whole process isn't worth it. Unfortunately for Democrats, this seems to be the case. According to new research from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the college degree income premium has substantially declined, and for all non-white students, the college degree’s wealth premium is “statistically indistinguishable from zero.” The gains from a college degree haven’t totally evaporated, but they’re certainly shrinking and quite fast at that. Soon, the college premium might not even exist at all. Why is this all happening? Well, the St. Louis Fed is a little reticent to dive into this because it's the result they're reporting, not the cause. We get to have the fun of trying to work out why this is happening. One answer could be that the modern college experience doesn't teach students much of anything that’s actually useful. Perhaps the combination of excessive grievance studies such as critical race theory or revolutionary sexual politics and a lack of useful skills such as plumbing or car repair does, in fact, diminish the real-world value of degrees. The most likely answer, though, is that college is still of great use to some folks and does indeed add lifetime value for a certain portion of the student population. But it clearly produces a negative return for another portion of society, leading our average premium to spiral downwards so rapidly. The simple solution is that we need fewer students to attend university, not more. We ought to divide young people into groups, those who will likely benefit from a college degree and those who won't. We should encourage the first to attend but strongly deter the second group from enrolling in university. How? Well, start by making those going pay the full cost of their education. Classes such as accounting, engineering, medicine, and so, which do produce those higher incomes, will gain students. Classes that don't will lose enrollment, and hopefully, will ultimately be extinguished from campus. Still, if people want to waste their money on a degree in gender studies, go ahead. As a philosophical liberal, I do believe that people should get to spend their dime their way. But government resources should only encourage the first subgroup of prospective students to attend university and that will largely require focus on productive areas of study. The last thing we should do is embrace the Democratic proposal and make college “free,” aka taxpayer-funded, for all students and all majors. Rather, we want students to carry more of the cost of their studies precisely to get both fewer students and students in more productive fields, thus educating only those who will actually financially benefit from earning a degree. The current system is an utter waste of economic resources. Making it free for everyone to go to university will just spend more societal wealth spiraling down the waste pipe." As I have said for many years, the college wage premium is based on looking at the financial history of people who are now old, who attended college when it made academic and economic sense. People retiring now went to college when the course work was still rigorous, the courses made sense, and there was less fluff. They also paid far less in real after-inflation terms. We oldsters did well. But since then, things have collapsed. Universities are now cabals of highly paid, administrators who seem intent on inflating the administration, strangling the professoriate, and charging the students for the deed. They have also managed to sell the idea that 70% or more of the matriculating high school class needs to go to college creating a sinecure for themselves and debt slavery for the students whether they obtain a degree or not. But one cannot compare how we oldsters did back during the Jurassic and the current crop of students because too many of them are majoring in worthless degrees, and running up astronomical student debt. These students will have little if any college wage premium. |
AuthorMaddog Categories
All
|