Reason's Robby Soave notes the irony:
ACLU Condemns DeVos's Title IX Reforms, Says These Due Process
Safeguards 'Inappropriately Favor the Accused'. (At least I
think it might be irony. People tell me I am weak on that concept.)
It's no surprise that victims' rights activists and their allies are furious about the Education Department's proposed changes to Title IX, the federal statute that deals with sex and gender discrimination on campus.
It is surprising, however, to see the American Civil Liberties Union joining in this chorus. The ACLU has long defended the rights of accused terrorists, criminals, neo-Nazis, and the Westboro Baptist Church. The group works tirelessly to protect due process, even for the least sympathetic among us.
It is darned odd that the ACLU seems to think that neo-Nazis have more due process rights than students accused of sexual misbehavior.
On a related matter, Stuart Reges, a computer science instructor at
University of Washington, puts (appropriately for a computer science
guy) a self-referential title on his Quillette article:
Is It Sexual Harassment to Discuss this Article?.
Jordan Peterson recently tweeted that, “The STEM fields are next on the SJW hitlist. Beware, engineers.” I’m convinced that Peterson is correct and I feel that my ongoing case has allowed me to see a likely avenue of attack from those who support the equity agenda. They will characterize any discussion of sex differences, no matter how calm and rational, as a form of gender harassment which in turn constitutes sexual harassment. In other words, if you dare to discuss the science of sex differences—even at a university—there’s a good chance that you’ll be accused of violating US law.
Dissenting from your employer's theology is a tough course to take, as ex-employees of Google, Facebook, etc. will attest. Reges is a brave guy.
Drew Cline of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy has a
Thanksgiving metaphor for the Democrats now in legislative/executive
council power in New Hampshire:
Eat the turkey, not the goose.
Concord is abuzz with speculation about the newly elected Democratic majority’s legislative agenda. It’s no mystery. At a panel sponsored by The DuPont Group and New England College on Friday, incoming Senate President Donna Soucy reminded the audience that Democrats campaigned on an agenda (called the Granite State Opportunity Plan), and they intend to govern by it.
The priorities outlined in the plan are clear: Higher state spending on health and social services, education and infrastructure; increased subsidies for favored energy producers; more regulations on businesses; and higher business taxes.
Fortunately Governor Sununu still has a working veto pen. That's not the strongest bulwark against turning New Hampshire into Maine, but it will have to do for a couple years.
At EconLog, Scott Sumner updates an old Goldwater quote:
in the defense of subsidized liberty is a (conservative) vice.
When it comes to health care…
Our current income tax system with deductions for health insurance (contributions are both payroll and income tax free) is actually equivalent to a system with higher taxes and explicit government subsidies to buy health insurance. Thus instead of spending 8% of GDP on public health care, we are likely spending more than 10% of GDP, when tax breaks are added in. The way this distorts our behavior is a huge problem.
When I talk to conservatives, I often feel like they are too inclined to defend our financial system and our health care system. They see the left criticize these two systems, and they rightly recoil from the socialist arguments used by the left. But just because the left is wrong in their proposed solutions, doesn’t mean that the left has not correctly identified some highly flawed policy regimes. Both regimes seem indefensible to me, not justifiable on either equity or efficiency grounds.
It's a huge task to legislatively move people off the status quo in any direction. That's why the Obamacare "If you like it, you can keep it" lie was invented.
We got the sad news yesterday that William Goldman had passed away.
At NR, Kyle Smith bids
Farewell to a Hollywood Master.
A frustrated musician-writer once wrote that the easiest thing in the world was to compose a passage of weird, moody background music, the kind of thing that could play against a scene of creepy suspense at the movies. The hardest thing, by contrast, is to do, even once, what Paul McCartney has done hundreds of times: compose a catchy tune or just a hook.
So it goes in the screen trade: Coming up with a line that catches hold on the imagination and enters the language is what every screenwriter hopes to do. One who mastered it above virtually all others was William Goldman, who died Thursday at 87.
“Follow the money.” “You crazy? The fall’ll probably kill you.” “Is that what you call giving cover?” “Who ARE those guys?” “Is it safe?” “My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.” “Inconceivable!” “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Even “follow the money” is Bill Goldman’s line, not WoodStein’s, and so is the most indelible line about Hollywood itself: “Nobody knows anything.”
I was a devoted fan of Goldman's novels, too. I dearly loved the book version of The Princess Bride. For a long time, I thought less of the movie version because it didn't follow the book more closely.
But Goldman knew what I didn't: you can't make a good movie that way.
A site calling itself besthealthdegrees.com has a neat, if morbid,
Your Chances of Dying.
It suffers somewhat from not reporting risks using the same uniform metrics. For that, see the Wikipedia article on micromorts.