21:21 is reassuring:
21 Whoever pursues righteousness and love
finds life, prosperity and honor.
One can always hope, I suppose.
■ It's rough out there at California's College of the Canyons, as described by the College
Fix: Prof hands out white
privilege checklist, then warns students who stereotype will be
An anthropology professor at a community college in California has
instructed her students that stereotyping someone in class is a
punishable offense — on the same day that she handed out a four-page
white privilege checklist listing common generalizations about white
The instructor is Amanda Zunner-Keating. A quote from her syllabus:
Any student who disrespects their instructor, disrespects their
classmates, or purports identity-based stereotypes will be
considered an interruption and will be a) be barred from
participating in class, b) lose all participation points for the
day, and c) referred to the Dean of Students.
I have no words. Oh, wait, I do: don't take anthropology from Amanda
Zunner-Keating. She is in the business of indoctrination, not
■ At Reason, Robby Soave (re)discovers that "advocates" are
extremely willing to jettison due process if it gives them the
results they want. Lawyer:
In Campus Rape Disputes, the Accused Should Not Be Presumed
The mask slips once again.
Laura Dunn, a lawyer and prominent advocate for sexual assault
victims, admitted that Title IX—the federal statute behind the
Education Department's efforts to compel universities to adjudicate
sexual assault—does not require investigators to presume that
accused students are innocent.
Yes, Soave notes, Dunn finds that to be a feature, not a bug.
■ Also at Reason, Ed Krayewski has some fun with Hillary's
frustration with Bernie, as revealed in her election memoir. Hillary:
I Lost Because Bernie Promised Everyone a Pony.
In her forthcoming book about the 2016 election, What
Happened, Hillary Clinton complains that her chief opponent
in the primaries, Bernie Sanders, consistently undercut her by
one-upping her "bold" and "ambitious" proposals without explaining
how his policies would work.
In other words, Sanders did to Clinton what Democrats have done to
their critics for years: Frame any worry about the costs and
unintended consequences of a program as
a lack of concern for the problem the program is supposed to
address. After years of cultivating economic illiteracy, the party
reaped the results.
As Krayewski points out, we're at the point where both
parties promote "economic illiteracy", because promoting cost-free
"solutions" for what ails the nation gets more votes than sobering
Bonus, from Josh Barro at (ad-block hostile) Business Insider:
Clinton complained about Bernie Sanders by relating him to 'There's
Something About Mary,' a film she did not understand.
■ Patterico is impressed by recent journalism: THE
UNDRAINED SWAMP: Lobbyists Line Donald Trump’s Pockets by Buying
Memberships at His Clubs.
USA Today has the results of a remarkable investigation out
today, showing how lobbyists buy pricey memberships to Trump’s golf
clubs — an arrangement that puts money in his pocket. Not his
campaign’s coffers. His own pocket.
Patterico invokes a reverse-whataboutism here, and he's absolutely
right to do so: "Anyone who complained about Hillary Clinton’s
corruption should be beside themselves over this."
■ The Google LFOD Alert rang for an LTE in our local paper from
Portsmouth's Dick Rozek: My
brother, Joe, had the right ideas. That's his dead
brother Joe. But before he died:
In a text discussion a few days before his passing (yes, he was very
much into computers, cell phones, apps, and more) Joe noted, “tragic
to see what is going on in dad’s birthplace (Syria)...maybe someday
I’ll read or hear a rational explanation of the evil impulses that
seem to overwhelm the inherent goodness with which Man is created.
Still waiting.” That begged the issue of what’s happening in America
and especially in southern New Hampshire, the “Live Free or
What's happening is: immigration officials suddenly enforcing the
law against people who would prefer to continue to ignore it.
Dick uses LFOD to imply "don't deport illegal immigrants".
■ Another LFOD appearance, this time at Cato, from Ilya
Shapiro and David MacDonald: Stop
Forcing Wedding Vendors—or Anyone Else—to Create Expressive Art for
You. It's an argument we've seen before, citing an LFOD-related
Supreme Court decision, and it's worth repeating:
Although making cakes may not initially appear to be speech to some,
it is a form of artistic expression and therefore constitutionally
protected. There are numerous culinary schools throughout the world
that teach students how to express themselves through their work;
couples routinely spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars for
the perfect cake designed specifically for them. Indeed, the Supreme
Court has long recognized that the First Amendment protects artistic
as well as verbal expression, and that protection should likewise
extend to this sort of baking—even if it’s not ideological and even
if done to make money. The Court declared nearly 75 years ago that
“[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,
it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be
orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of
opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith
therein.” W.Va. Board of Education v.
Barnette (1943). And the Court ruled in Wooley v.
Maynard—the 1977 “Live Free or Die” license-plate case out of
New Hampshire—that forcing people to speak is just as
unconstitutional as preventing or censoring speech. The First
Amendment “includes both the right to speak freely and the right to
refrain from speaking at all” and the Supreme Court has never held
that the compelled-speech doctrine is only applicable when an
individual is forced to serve as a courier for the message of
another (as in Wooley). Instead, the justices have
said repeatedly that what the First Amendment protects is a “freedom
of the individual mind,” which the government violates whenever it
tells a person what she must or must not say. Forcing a baker to
create a unique piece of art violates that freedom of mind.
I understand that it will puzzle Progressives to consider that the First
Amendment might be used to defend behavior that will make them
■ Writing at "Manchester Ink Link", Nancy West finds New Hampshire
to be A
state of contradictions, especially if you are mentally ill.
New Hampshire fights like mad to hold onto its first-in-the-nation
presidential primary and the right to ride a motorcycle
Only children are required to wear seatbelts in the Live Free or
state. New Hampshire values individual rights, and the 424 lawmakers who
are paid only $100 a year in the fourth-largest legislature in the world
guarantee them time and time again.
But it’s a very different story when it comes to the rights of
mentally ill people, especially those in crisis.
Ah. Well, not simply those "in crisis". Nancy finally gets to her
Unlike all other states, mentally ill people in New Hampshire who
have been civilly committed to the state psychiatric hospital can be
transferred to the State Prison for Men’s Secure Psychiatric Unit
just a few miles away in Concord, even if they haven’t been charged
with or convicted of a crime. They need only be deemed a danger to
themselves or others to be transferred.
Nancy makes an arguable case that New Hampshire is a poor place to
be violently crazy.
■ On a lighter note, Mental Floss has a short video with irritating music, but
the title is: Things
You Didn't Know Came From New Hampshire. And I didn't know some
of them! Check it out.