Archive for 2018

WHEN THE RADICALS BECOME FANATICS: The Torment of Ajit Pai. At Commentary, Noah Rothman writes:

The so-called “Resistance” latched onto the net-neutrality issue early in the Trump presidency and went about expressing their opposition to the repeal of this regulation in the most contemptible fashion imaginable. HBO host John Oliver was among the first figures of mainstream cultural relevance to organize a campaign against this regulation, which he dubbed “Go FCC Yourself.” He encouraged his followers to bombard the FCC’s website with comments supporting the regulation, and that is precisely what they did. Those comments were peppered with claims that Pai was a pedophile, a “dirty, sneaky Indian” who should self-deport, and reminders that anonymous online hordes maintain the “power to murder Ajit Pai and his family.” Oliver was eventually compelled to release a video urging his followers to dial back the racism and death threats.

This episode would prove to be just the beginning of Pai’s ordeal. By May of last year, Pai’s tormentors began a campaign to ensure that the FCC chairman could enjoy no peace—not even in his own home. “Resistance” groups began distributing fliers and door hangers around Pai’s Arlington, Virginia neighborhood, featuring a black-and-white photo of Pai with his vital stats (height, weight, age, and professional background) and accusing him of selling the Internet out to corporations. “Have you seen this man?” the fliers read.

These demonstrators didn’t stop there. They began organizing “vigils” in Pai’s driveway—a tactic that net neutrality activists deployed in 2014 against then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler. They “come up to our front windows and take photographs of the inside of the house,” Pai told the Wall Street Journal. “My kids are 5 and 3. It’s not pleasant.”

In a related post at Taki’s, Christopher DeGroot explores “Giving Offense, or How to Overcome Mass-Media Morality,” beginning with a look at “Lewis Hamilton, the Formula One race-car driver and whipping boy for the identity-politics puritans. The man had put up a video on Instagram in which he mocks his nephew for getting a dress for Christmas. ‘Boys don’t wear princess dresses!’ he said. For this he was—inevitably—taken to task by people who presume they have the right to do so. As you would expect, Hamilton issued the obligatory public apology. Good news for the mob and his PR people. Bad news for everyone else, including the callow Hamilton himself.”

In a passage that dovetails well with Time-Warner-CNN-HBO spokesman John Oliver ginning up the mob to attack Ajit Pai, DeGroot responds:

Today, people act as if they have a “right” to revenge, even as they have a “right” never to be offended. Here, it would be impossible to underestimate the influence of mass media, a source of endless division, resentment, and wickedness. Mass media produces a debasement such as no one in the past ever could have imagined. It is an infinite impetus to destructive sentiments. Nor is the sort of mad reaction that we saw in the Hamilton scandal, and the concomitant will to punish, going to go away anytime soon. For it has become a norm, and therefore something that many do not even question as possibly wrong. There are many—single mothers in particular—who, though they teach their children nothing of traditional morality, will allow them to believe that reflexive herd castigation is “good conduct,” what “decent and tolerant” people do.

Since it increasingly is ”morality,” mass-media influence is a nightmare from which we need to wake up. To do so we must, in Dr. Johnson’s words, “clear the mind of cant.” Rejecting mass-media morality, and thus the evil ends for which it is the vehicle, we must go our own way, indifferent to what media-shaped cattle think of us. Most of all, children must be taught that mere hurt feelings are not a sign of rectitude. Parents should be candid with boys and girls that the media is insidious, trafficking in evil under the guise of righteousness. The young must learn to see it for what it is. If not, the world will be happy to dupe them and profit at their expense.

America’s future is already difficult enough. A culture that lacks emotional restraint, choosing instead to indulge every offended impulse, will be especially ill-suited for dealing with its many problems. Therefore, people—and especially men, the primary targets—need to learn how to respond to these facile charges of sexism, racism, homophobia, and all the progressive rest.

Read the whole thing.

(Found via Kathy Shaidle, who writes, “as I’ve been saying for years, what people really need is insensitivity training…”)

THE NEW YORK TIMES’ ART CRITICS SAY THAT THE MET SHOULD BE FREE FOR EVERYONE but some readers note the hypocrisy:

I notice that the front page of the Times issue in which this appears announces the the Times is increasing the price of the Monday-Saturday [edition] from $2.50 to $3.00. Interesting timing.

Plus:

Certainly, free access to great art is a wonderful idea. But good journalism is just as important to society. So why isn’t the New York Times given away for free at news stands? Why am I expected to pay for my subscription?

I say, free access to the New York Times is a basic human right! After all, if you can say “It’s art and it belongs to humanity and we are all entitled to view it without paying for the experience regardless of where we reside,” then how about the fact that the news the NYT reports is happening to all of humanity. Why, by charging for it, they’re stealing our common heritage!

SHOCKING NEWS: Mandatory diversity course not effective, prof discovers.

A professor at East Carolina University recently discovered that the diversity course she teaches isn’t actually “effective” in changing students’ racial or gender biases.

Dr. Michele Stacey, who teaches criminal justice at ECU, assessed the efficacy of the school’s diversity course by surveying 288 criminal justice students’ attitudes towards women and minorities both before and after taking the course, publishing her findings in the latest issue of the Journal of Criminal Justice Education. . . .

After assessing the bias of students before and after the course—using prompts such as “a woman should worry less about their rights and more about becoming good wives and mothers” and “if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites”—Stacey found that the course hadn’t altered students’ attitudes towards race or gender.

But you can’t judge something ineffective until you know what its purpose is, and the real purpose of these mandatory courses is to provide employment for a permanent cadre of lefty activists on campus.

Related: UVA students: Mandatory bias training pushes ‘liberal agenda.’

Plus: Diversity trainings are a sham, Harvard study claims.

HERE’S WHY THERE MAY BE NO MORE FREE PASSES FOR THE CLINTON FOUNDATION: Charles Ortel may know more about the Clinton Foundation than even anybody other than the tightest inner circle of what he calls “the biggest charitable fraud ever.” News of the renewed Justice Department review of the foundation may just be, he writes on LifeZette, the latest indication that the clock is ticking on Bill and Hillary’s favorite charity.

CHANGE: Automakers Turn to Subscribing to Lure Commitment-Phobic Customers. “As with leasing, one of the main attractions of subscribing to one of these services is that you don’t own the car and therefore don’t have to swallow the bitter pill of depreciation. But these subscription plans go further. Most cover registration fees, maintenance, and insurance, and some allow the customer (pardon us, “subscriber”) to switch vehicles on demand. Add to that the convenience of potentially having the vehicle delivered right to your doorstep, avoiding the hassle of negotiating with a salesperson, and possibly never having to step foot in a brick-and-mortar dealership again, and the prospect of subscribing to your next new car or truck—instead of buying or leasing it—sounds promising.”

SUSTAINABILITY: Global debt level hits $233 trillion record high in Q3 2017.

It was referring to total debt incurred by the household, government, financial and non-financial corporate sectors.

However, China which has accounted for the lion’s share of new debt in emerging markets, saw the pace of debt accumulation slow; debt rose by two percentage points last year to 294 percent of GDP, compared to an average annual increase of 17 percentage points in the 2012-2016 period.

The IIF warned however, of “heavy emerging market redemptions” noting that over $1.5 trillion of bonds and syndicated loans would be maturing through end-2018. China, Russia, Korea and Brazil had heavy dollar-debt repayment schedule this year, it added.

The good news is that “robust economic growth meant debt-to-GDP ratios were declining.” The bad news is that nearly everybody is sitting on mountains of debt which needs to be refinanced regularly — and rates are going up.