1 To be crystal clear about the student walk-outs:
a) The only reason schools are tolerating them is because a majority of teachers and administrators share the anti-gun agenda the protests represent. Ethics Foul. Educators’ political views should be irrelevant to how they do their job, which is to educate students, not encourage them to skip class.
b) The students who walk out should be disciplined, and the reason they walked out should be neither a mitigation nor an enhancer. If they want to engage in civil disobedience, fine: its a grand old tradition, for causes noble and dumb alike.
c) The news media hyping the protests is unconscionable, and just another example of journalists taking sides rather than reporting.
d) Anyone who says in public that they are “proud” of these children should be fitted with a dunce cap and have it super-glued to their heads. Proud of what? That they have allowed themselves to be used as puppets, pawns and human shields by cynical politicians and activists? That they have failed to make a single valid or persuasive argument in over a month, while polluting the discussion with statistical falsehoods, blame-shifting, name-calling and demonization? That they are reveling in and parading their lack of intellectual honesty and critical thinking skills?
e) The walk-outs and protests are not merely sort of like, but exactly the same, as the “screaming at the sky” demonstrations. Those was embarrassing, and so are the wlak-outs. In particular, educators should be embarrassed. This is the level of critical thinking they are training our young to master.
f) This idiotic sign, on display in my area yesterday, nicely sums up the level of seriousness, common sense and acumen the anti-gun students have displayed so far:
2. I’m going to try to make this the last time I pay any attention to what Hillary Clinton says. I really am. During that infamous interview the India Today Conclave over the weekend, the one where she again implied that anyone who voted for President Trump was a bigot or a moron, Clinton made another statement that raised metaphorical eyebrows She was asked why she thought most white women voted for Trump, and said,
“[Democrats] do not do well with white men, and we don’t do well with married, white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”
This is an anti-feminist comment. If a man said that women tend to vote as their husbands tell them to, that man would be condemned as a sexist. If Donald Trump said it, it would be roundly mocked as demonstrating an early 2oth Century mindset, regarding women as compliant patsies. It is also 100% garbage. Women got the vote by defying their husbands. What Hillary was really saying is that conservative women are weak-minded toadies, while enlightened, pro-feminist women can think for themselves. (This view does not take into consideration, for some reason, the fact that much of Hillary’s campaign consisted of trying to create gender peer pressure to “Vote for the Vagina,” or in the alternative to be, as Madeline Allbright warned, consigned to Hell. )
There are facts to consider here, not that Hillary’s post-election excuse tour acknowledges such things. (She lost because she was a horrible, horrible candidate, couldn’t stop lying, and should never have been nominated in the first place.) One fact is that people go into the voting booth alone. Another is that married couples often adopt each other’s political views, and the influence goes both ways: this is pure cognitive dissonance. The scale…here it is again!
…exercises its own influence. If you love your spouse—this may be a phenomenon with which Hillary has no experience, to be fair—he or she is at the top of the scale, and his or her political views become more attractive as a result.
Naturally, Hillary has knee-jerk defenders who will try to justify any nonsense she says, so the Washington Post’s Eugene Scott tries to ride to her rescue this time, saying that “Clinton may not be wrong”:
There are studies that show that how white women vote, especially those who are married, is highly influenced by the politics of their husbands.
Oregon State University assistant professor Kelsy Kretschmer co-wrote a study examining women’s voting patterns. “We know white men are more conservative, so when you’re married to a white man you get a lot more pressure to vote consistent with that ideology,” she told the Guardian last year.
In the study published in Political Research Quarterly, Kretschmer and her co-authors wrote:
“Women consistently earn less money and hold less power, which fosters women’s economic dependency on men. Thus, it is within married women’s interests to support policies and politicians who protect their husbands and improve their status.”
This and other studies also show that other factors influence why white women vote for conservative politicians. White women are much more likely to be married than women of other demographic groups. And married women are more likely to support traditional values, both culturally and economically.
I give this four Regan Heads…
…as pure, shameless spin. Of course white women tend to vote for candidates that have policies they feel will benefit their spouses, and their family. That’s not what Hillary said. Hillary said that women vote Republican because their husband pressure them to do so. There is no evidence of that at all, in the study, or in anecdotal evidence.
3. Here’s one more sporting event ethical people shouldn’t support. The NCAA tournament is another mass cultural American event in which everyone turns off their ethics alarms. College basketball is demonstrably corrupt. A federal investigation is underway to determine who is cheating, and the prime candidates are also the most likely colleges to make the Final Four. The tournament is a bonanza for professional gamblers. It makes millions for the big time sports programs of colleges who pay their coaches more than any ten professors, and who know that many of their basketball and football stars will not only never graduate, but leave the university unable to read above a 7th grade level.
Cheering these games is cheering fraud, exploitation, under-the-table bribes and pay-offs, and the failure of the American education system. Let the games begin!
The NCAA itself is a venal, phony administrative body. The organization made $1.06 billion in revenue and $105 million in profit in its 2017 fiscal year, according to its financial statement. Television rights accounted for more than $800 million of that: yes, the networks and cable are all part of the ethics train wreck. The NCAA worked around the clock to “clear” players in record time when the pay-to-play investigation indicated that stars from Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky and Michigan State received financial and other benefits from alumni and corporations that probably violated the NCAA rules.
This is more ethics pollution in U.S. culture. We should not be encouraging it.
Facts (#3): New York Times