Funny money. Mr. Ramirez has little patience with delusional nonsense from either side:
Dartmouth lies. Specifically, in the first full sentence of their "Policy Statement" on Freedom of Expression and Dissent.
Freedom of expression and dissent is protected by Dartmouth regulations.
Continuing the thread from yesterday, Granite Grok Skip has posted three more items (maybe more by the time you read this):
- Dartmouth College Can't Get Its Facts Straight And Are About to Experience the Streisand Effect
- Dartmouth College Erases a Young Female Republican [part iii]
- Statement from Dartmouth College Republicans President Griffin Mackey
From that last post, a quote from Mackey's statement:
For Dartmouth to claim that they “protected” free speech is absurd. In reality, they allowed the Dartmouth Anarchists and other outside ANTIFA groups to make threats of violence and get exactly what they wanted. By forcing us to go virtual on such short notice (with only one laptop in the entire building to use), they seriously disrupted our event, embarrassed our organization, and created a roadmap for derailing our future activities. The Dartmouth administration capitulated to threats from domestic terrorists, and it is shameful.
Skip reproduces some, um, material from "Dartmouth Anarchists" and "Northeast Antifa", and it's as bad as you might imagine. Sample, in response to someone who took exception to threats of violence:
[I]f you think being racist, sexist, bootlicking, sacks of garbage is a valid "view" then absolutely. If you're smart enough to believe otherwise, this is just trash being dealt with.
Dehumanizing rhetoric is SOP for totalitarians.
Note: Other than the Boston Herald reproducing the NHJournal article we linked to yesterday, I can't find any coverage of this disgraceful incident in any mainstream media outlet at all.
ACLU now stands for "Americans Can't Look at Us". As noted by Ann Althouse, a quote from the ACLU's objection to legislative efforts to find out what's being taught in government schools: "Curriculum transparency bills are just thinly veiled attempts at chilling teachers and students from learning and talking about race and gender in schools.".
She's quoting from an article in Inquire by Zaid Jilani: The ACLU Suddenly Reverses Its Support For Transparency. Yes, the national ACLU is coming out against proposed state legislation that "would require more transparency in school curricula and materials."
Jilani notes that the legislation proposals target "taxpayer-backed government entities that we are compelled by law to send our kids to, with few alternatives". And the ACLU drops its usual skepticism toward government secrecy because…?
My guess is that it's not really a reversal, it's probably just ideology-driven hypocrisy. For example, Jilani notes that, back in 2018, the ACLU's Kentucky branch demanded that local schools in that state cough up "policies and curriculum for 'Bible Literacy' courses." To make sure nothing unconstitutional was going on.
Bottom paragraph in Jilani's article:
In arguing against transparency in the public school system, the ACLU is departing from its traditional mission. As has been written about elsewhere, the ACLU is increasingly becoming more of an activist progressive organization. Among activist progressives, sensitivities about race and gender have often brought them to take positions that are in tension with classical liberal values like freedom of speech, transparency, and equal treatment under the law. Those same sensitivities appear to be trouncing the ACLU’s longstanding principles in this case.
I encourage the ACLU to embrace its Terry McAuliffe-style arrogance (“I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach”) loudly and consistently.
When Uncle Stupid starts dropping cash from helicopters, there will be plenty of people out with buckets. Kyle Smith tells the latest story: Fraudsters cash in as Dems shovel out billions and billions in COVID relief
If a few billion dollars get carted off by bandits, or chewed into confetti by squirrels, or blown into the nearest river, after a brief chastened look, the Democrats always come back with: “Hey, we think we have a new solution: Spend more money again!” Their latest idea is to upchuck $1.9 trillion (not $2 trillion — they’re not crazy or anything) on yet another COVID relief package.
They’ve already appropriated some $6 trillion in fighting COVID, though. That’s more than we spent fighting WWII, which cost about $4.1 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars. Unlike in the ’40s, though, we’ve pretty clearly lost World War C. COVID has killed way more people than Hitler and Hirohito did, and unlike the Third Reich, it’s never going to go away. So while we’re getting used to the Forever Virus, we might as well pause for a sec and wonder: What the heck did all that spending buy us?
So far, $100 billion of it has been straight-up stolen, “resulting in the arrest of more than 100 suspects who span the spectrum from individuals to organized groups,” according to a CNBC report. Don’t worry, though, the feds are on the case, and so far they’ve recovered … $2.3 billion.
That $100 billion is an Official Government Estimate. Which means that's what they noticed after not looking particularly hard.
Blasphemy against the Gospel According to Roger Rabbit! Gary M. Galles has an anticlimactic denouement to a long-running mystery that was never very mysterious: What Killed the Red Cars Is Still Killing Transit.
In “Who killed L.A.’s streetcars? We all did,” (Los Angeles Times, 11/2/21) Patt Morrison rehearsed a famous question about an iconic Angelino transit institution stretching back more than a century—“Who killed the Red Cars?”
Amid lengthy movie and conspiracy theory references, the most important point for understanding modern as well as historical transit developments was that “The victim was already dying, losing passengers.” Morrison then cites Martha Bianco’s conclusion that the enemy was “the consumer.” However, she erroneously attributed that fact to “our besotted fondness for our cars.” In fact, our fondness for our cars is based on cold, hard facts that continue to make an overwhelming case for automobiles over mass transit, and show why all the attempts to rescue transit by making it “work better” for Angelinos are doomed.
Headline reference above explained here. It's still a fun movie.
Leaving the obvious for last. Matthew Continetti reveals one more thing Joe Biden doesn't know: Joe Biden Doesn’t Know What You’re Talking About
President Biden begins his second year in office with a 42 percent average job-approval rating. Republicans hold a one-point lead over Democrats in the congressional generic ballot (and the generic-ballot question often underestimates GOP support). The Gallup organization reports that in the final quarter of 2021 Republicans took a five-point lead in party identification for the first time since 1995. As of this writing, 28 House Democrats have announced their retirements, with more expected to follow. Biden’s agenda is stalled in Congress, the Supreme Court blocked his employer vaccine mandate, the coronavirus pandemic continues, and inflation is higher than at any point in the last 39 years. The country — not to mention the president — could use a reset.
We’re not getting one. Instead, on January 19, we got Biden’s combative, discursive, and delusional mess of a one-hour-and-51-minute press conference. Among the reasons the occasion was notable — and notorious — was that it forced the White House to clarify later Biden’s comments on not one but two issues: Biden’s ambiguity over America’s response if Russia launches a “minor incursion” into Ukraine, and Biden’s repeated assertion that the Senate’s failure to pass his election-takeover bills throws the legitimacy of the midterm elections into doubt. To watch Biden at the lectern was to experience shock and dismay interspersed with moments of alarm and dark humor. No wonder he hides from the media. It was the worst presidential press conference since Donald Trump stood next to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki in 2018.
Here's what's going to be amusing between now and November: how many Democrats in close local races will invite President Wheezy (or Vice President Cackles) to campaign for them?