Archive for the 'Academia' Category

July 24th 2010
To be poor and white in America

Posted under Academia

To be poor and white in America basically means you’ll probably stay poor and white. I say probably because there’s always the occasional go-getter or two, but when a recent study showed that elite academia has no interest in having poor or middle to low middle class whites attend their colleges and universities, even such go-getters are steered to the local state school or community colleges. Or join they join the military because they find no other reasonable chance for advancement without putting their lives at risk or come back from Iraq with a limb shot off  just to pay for college. It sounds like career tracking to me.

Elite schools can congratulate themselves thinking they’ve recreated study bodies that reflect a post-racial, managerial based society. But also may very well have created large pockets of resentment in the rural ghettos of our nation. In past they may not have been a huge problem because a white person could work at a  factory or own a farm and make a decent living without having to go to Harvard. Such options hardly exist anymore. He or she would have to take on mountains of debt and have own 2,000 head of livestock to make any kind of living on the land. What factories their are may very well employ illegal immigrants working willing to have their hands sliced off for $1.25 an hour just so they can experience the joys of indoor plumbing. Its hard to see what job skills community colleges are supposed to teach since glass towers are rarely found outside big cities that thousands of poor whites flee to every year looking for work.

Some enlightened college administrator may look at this study and ask themselves  “Do we really want to create more Tim McVeighs”? The “fire next time” for whites may very well come with demobilized vets from “Global War on Terror” finding themselves working McJobs after leading whole squads, companies and platoons in Iraq. Given that they may be no majority race by 2042, the call for white quotas may become stronger and stronger. Sarah Palin may very well be to underclass whites was Jesse Jackson was to underclass blacks. The question is for conservatives, are these the paths we want to follow down? Because if they are, then years of rehtoric about meritocracy, affirmative action and identity politics along with snide remarks about elitism at Harvard might as well be chucked out the window right now.

This brings up an interesting point in a recent article Patrick Deenan just wrote. We can point out the Ivy League’s bigotry against poor whites as we should. But is encouraging the young and the ambitious to join the “creative class” in a blue state when they graduate really what we want to encourage?

Members of the meritocracy are well aware of whom they have left behind, and rather than assuming the personal obligation of old to those less fortunate, they elect instead to pay an impersonal middleman—government—to deal with the aftereffects of what Wendell Berry has called the “strip-mining” of talent from every town and hamlet in the world. At the same time, they demand that everyone else pay up as well—what would have been personal forms of responsibility have instead been spread to the entire population, including those they purport to succor. As Christopher Lasch wrote, “obligation, like everything else, has been depersonalized; exercised through the agency of the state, the burden of supporting it falls not on the professional and managerial class but, disproportionately, on the lower-middle and working class.”

Continue Reading »

5 Comments »

July 20th 2010
The JournoList Scandal

Posted under Academia & Media & Political Correctness

The unfolding JournoList scandal has already claimed one victim, Dave Weigel, but it may be about to claim some more. The contents of some other JournoList conversations have been exposed and show coordinated attempts by liberal “journalists” to suppress news detrimental to Obama and vilify his conservative critics. This is big and could get much bigger.

See the DailyCaller.

See BigJournalism.

HT: Errol Phillips (no relation)

2 Comments »

June 7th 2010
The virtue of pragmatism? Winning.

Posted under Election 2010

There’s been been a lot of discussion about Rand Paul’s pragmatism, in regards to what he really believes and what he’ll say out on the campaign trail. But in trying to answer Red’s question below, I think one can come up with a  simple defense for Paul and its called winning.

Power in any legitimate political system comes down to its success at polls. Fighting the good fight or fighting for lost causes is fine for one or two campaigns. Not a series of them.

It wasn’t just Roy Moore who lost last week or that fellow running for State Agriculture Commissioner with the blunt campaign ad. Another raw, unvarnished, tell-it-like -it is candidate, the antiwar activist Adam Kokesh only gained 29 percent of the vote running for the House of Representatives in New Mexico.

What this says is that anger alone or stark political positions that run against the grain of a particular district or state can only go so far. The majority of voters, even in the more narrow electorate of a major party primary are not ideologues and generally don’t vote this way. And they usually take account of the office the person is running for and weight it accordingly. I seen so many times the “most conservative” candidate lose in a GOP primary for reasons that have nothing to do with ideology. (Many Alabama GOP voters may very well think Moore is better suited for an office like Supreme Court judge than governor. It could be as simple as that.) Kokesh, by the same token, was probably seen as too young and radical by the older folk who probably make up the bulk of the GOP primary electorate in his district.

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

May 21st 2010
Retro-active voting in the U.S. Senate

Posted under Election 2010

Since it is now considered fair game to ask candidates for the U.S. Senate like Rand Paul what their stances were on Senate legislation taken back when they were all of two years old, how many other such votes previous legislation can we ask  of candidates running today where they stand?

Do they support the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1932?

Or the Volstead Act of 1918?

Or how about the Mann Act of 1909? Or Davis-Bacon 1931?

What’s your stand on declaring war on Germany in 1917 or the the League of Nations back in 1919?

Are you for Webster or for Haynes?

Do you support the impeachment of Andrew Johnson?

Feel free to add your own to the list of absurdities that the nation’s wretched political press feel necessary to bring up in interviews either as gotcha questions or to stoke controversy and ratings. But remember too the debased quality of political discussion. For when the nation faces the crises of war, debt, unemployment and environmental catastrophe, its inability to deal with such questions arises from its inability to discuss the issues at hand in favor of trivial inanities.

6 Comments »

May 19th 2010
Primary Colors

Posted under Election 2010

I had written about the Club for Growth in my book Beating the Powers that Be as a wave of the future, an independent political group raising money and using the party primary process to influence a major party (mostly the Republicans). Well according to the Washington Post the party has taken notice and doesn’t like it.

But there’s not much they can do about it short of a frontal assault most GOP pols are too chicken to make. And if Club provides the kind of money that takes down a Sen. Bob Bennett, the Tea Partiers provide the muscle on the ground, as they showed in Utah and Kentucky.

But the GOP has no one to blame but themselves. For years they’ve operated like an exclusive club for insiders, politicians and consultants. And yet under GOP rule from 2001-2008 , the country went to hell and a lot of Republicans didn’t like it, not to mention independent voters and GOP leaners. But when they wanted to change things, they were thwarted, cheated and spied upon by the party establishment. So of course this pent up energy had to go somewhere. The money went to the Club for Growth and the activism went to the Tea Parties. If their works helps to make the Republicans a more inclusive party instead of a top-down corporation, then they will have accomplished a lot.

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

May 10th 2010
Bacevich on Populism at World Affairs Journal

Posted under Academia & Conservatism & Interventionism & Political Correctness & Political Philosophy

I read a very interesting book review today in World Affairs Journal.* I’m not a subscriber, but I happened to see a copy at our local Barnes & Noble. Thankfully the review is available online.

Andrew Bacevich is reviewing Eric Miller’s new biography of Christopher Lasch. The review itself is helpful and informative. I came away thinking Christopher Lasch is someone whose ideas I should get to know better. But the first eight paragraphs that serve as intro to the review are masterful.

Every time I read Bacevich I come away thinking he is one of the few public intellectuals who gets it, and gets us. Not that there aren’t others who get it and get us, they just generally aren’t allowed into the rarefied category of public intellectual. I don’t know how he gets away with it. I don’t know if Bacevich is an ideological (for lack of a better word. No Kirk lectures needed.) paleoconservative, but it is easy to detect a broadly conservative disposition, and I detect a certain Catholicness. So why the liberals give him a platform is puzzling. Since he is most often critical of Republican foreign policy and is also critical of the reduction of conservatism to a defense of capitalism, maybe they haven’t quite picked up on the fact that he isn’t one of them. But he isn’t the type of conservative who criticizes other conservatives (Frum, Brooks) who liberals love to promote either. Their critique of conservatism is from the center. Bacevich’s critique, as best as I can tell, is from a more authentic right.

Anyway, read the review. Bacevich makes a point that I have been makingfor years. American politics is dominated by a very tightly defined center. All the fretting and hand-wringuing about the extremes dragging their respective parties to the fringe is all about maintaining the status quo and getting all those uppity middle Americans with their silly ideas to shut up and go away. Best to leave that governing stuff to the big boys. I have never seen this dynamic expressed better than Bacevich does here.

*I am not very familiar with Foreign Affairs Journal. It promotes itself as a journal that argues the “big ideas behind U.S. foreign policy” and give air to divergent opinions. Since foreign policy on both “sides” is dominated by the shared assumptions of internationalism and interventionism, this is probably a good thing and is perhaps the reason they give Bacevich a platform. But the fact that they also give Jamie Kirchick headline billing makes me wonder just how credible they are. Kirchick is a go to PC enforcer which is one of the most powerful weapons the Establishment has for keeping intellectual dissent in check.

1 Comment »

May 10th 2010
Whiny Baby Fauxcon David Brooks Crying Over Bennett Defeat

Posted under Election 2010 & TEA Parties

Ha ha again. The New York Time’s kept “conservative,” David Brooks, is whining about Sen. Bod Bennett’s (R-UT) defeat by conservative elements in the Utah GOP.

Anything that makes David Brooks fret and wring his hands is pretty much a good thing. This is news to no one who regularly reads this blog,  but Brooks is not now and never has been a conservative. He is that particularly annoying specimen that is disproportionately represented among the pundit class, an ideological moderate. He supports moderation for moderation’s sake. He sees moderation as inherently thoughtful and reasonable and morally right, and sees “extremes” as inherently mindless, unreasonable and morally suspect. So he ends up labeled a conservative by the liberal media because he isn’t a raging leftist.

5 Comments »

May 9th 2010
Utah Senator Bob Bennett Goes Down at GOP Convention

Posted under Election 2010 & TEA Parties

Ha ha. Bennett got the boot because he voted for TARP and supported an individual mandate. He possibly would not have lost a state wide primary, but he did lose at a state convention full of angry activists.

Bennett may run as a write-in candidate, but the GOP nominee is a virtual shoo-in in Utah.

2 Comments »

April 28th 2010
Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio Bash New Arizona Immigration Law

Posted under Election 2010 & Immigration & Political Correctness & Republican Party

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have both come out against Arizona’s new immigration law. I mentioned this in the post below but felt it was an important enough revelation to warrant its own post.

Now that Bob Smith has dropped out and it looks like Crist is going to run as an independent, I believe Rubio will be unopposed in the GOP primary. So his stand is unlikely to hurt him politically, but I hope some bloom is now off that rose. Conservatives have been gaga over Rubio because he represented a “conservative” alternative to RINO Crist, but those of us on the authentic right have always perceived Rubio’s movement/neocon sensibilities.

3 Comments »

April 28th 2010
Bob Smith Drops Out of Florida Senate Race

Posted under Election 2010 & Republican Party

I don’t know how I missed this, but I did. This statement is dated one month ago. I was looking for Smith’s website to tout him after I read that “conservative” candidate Marco Rubio has come out against Arizona’s new immigration law. This is too bad. Smith is far from perfect on the issues. He is a big spender on defense and seems to feels it is important enough to make number one on his list, but he is better than Rubio. And Rubio is definitely better than Crist, but he leans neoconish.

Thankfully conservative Floridians will have an authentic conservative to vote for in the general election, Prof. Marshall DeRosa. Dr. DeRosa’s conservative credentials are impeccable.

3 Comments »

April 26th 2010
Don’t you cancel this meeting, I am paying for this university!

Posted under Academia

The University of Wisconsin is a public institution which has received both my donations in the past and my tax dollars in the present. It also receives plenty of federal money. Because of this, one would think that the First Amendment would be upheld in such a place.

Apparently not because the they symposium I was supposed to attend was reportedly cancelled over the weekend because the meeting’s sponsors couldn’t guarantee nor pay for security for Cindy Sheehan.

“A distinguished group of panelists from across the American political spectrum will gather to discuss electoral reform, the peace movement, and the growing dissatisfaction with both Republicans and Democrats. Panelists include Theresa Amato, Angela Keaton, Ben Manski, Sean Scallon, Cindy Sheehan, and Christina Tobin. The event will be moderated by Steve Burns, Program Director of Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice. The event will be held on Monday, April 26 at 7:00 p.m. in the Memorial Union at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

In a last minute twist, Union Building Event Management Director Roger Vogts canceled the event organizer’s booking of the facility, citing “security concerns” that would accompany antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan’s visit. Free and Equal has attempted to contact university security officials, but Vogts stated that he could not contact security over the weekend.

In addition, event organizers were told on Friday they must pay a sizable fee for security, even though Sheehan never requested security. In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (505 U.S. 123, 1992), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”

Because the Union’s Central Reservations presides over a viewpoint-neutral limited public forum at the Union and other facilities, the Union is bound by the same constitutional demands as the local government in Forsyth County. It is unconstitutional for any viewpoint-neutral limited public forum to deny any organization free speech rights on the grounds they are unable to provide for extra security costs related to the exercise of that free speech.

To add to the intrigue, these concerns were not expressed when Norman Finkelstein spoke at University of Wisconsin at Madison on April 13, a man known for his criticism of Israel and barred from visiting the country until 2018 because the country considers him a “security threat.” Not to mention, Cindy Sheehan has spoken in Madison several times in the past without incident.

In spite of Vogts attempts to cancel the event, the organizing committee and panelists have decided the event will still take place at the Union. If university officials do not permit panelists and guests to congregate at the room originally booked, the event will take place on the front steps of the Union or in the lobby of the Union.

At this time, event organizers are still undecided on filing a lawsuit against the Union on grounds of a violation of their First Amendment rights.

When one considers the kinds of controversial people and groups (including George Wallace,  the Weathermen and a Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon) who have spoken at meetings, mass or otherwise, at the University of Wisconsin over the years, particularly at the Memorial Union, the idea that our little group somehow merits cancellation because of “security concerns”, is both hilarious and tragic at the same time.  Hopefully this will be resolved by tomorrow morning but one has the feeling that there’s something else going on behind the scenes that triggered this mess. I do not know what is going to happen, nor do I desire or wish to be a part of any confrontation, but I am also not going to back down either. In words of Ronald Reagan, I am paying for this university and I will be damned if I can’t speak my mind on it.

Gee, I didn’t realize a Left-Right meeting would be so controversial as to be considered dangerous.

Here’s the Wisconsin State Journal story on this.

Ronald Reagan \”I am paying for this microphone Mr. Green!\”

2 Comments »

April 21st 2010
CHT’s own to participate in symposium

Posted under Academia & Uncategorized

From http://www.freeandequal.org.

They wanted a conservative on the panel with all the leftists and libertarians so I’m happy to oblige.

CHICAGO, Ill., April 20, 2010 – Next week, a distinguished group of panelists from across the American political spectrum will gather to discuss electoral reform, the peace movement, and the growing dissatisfaction with both Republicans and Democrats. Panelists include Theresa Amato, Angela Keaton, Ben Manski, Sean Scallon, Cindy Sheehan, and Christina Tobin. The event will be moderated by Steve Burns, Program Director of Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice. The event will be held on Monday, April 26 at 7:00 p.m in the Memorial Union at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

America’s two-party system dominates elections to the point where they act as one party. Both major parties support the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while opposition to war and foreign intervention unite people across the political spectrum. The panel will examine how those opposed to war and military intervention can hear from and vote for candidates who share their views in the face of America’s restrictive ballot access laws.

Beginning with a fictional “Mimosa Party” to unite antiwar voters, the panelists will address the dangers of the Top Two Primary initiative on the ballot in California on June 8, 2010 and other ballot access restrictions imposed by the states. Without choices on the ballot in the general election, anti-war candidates will continue to be at a severe disadvantage when challenging pro-war incumbents.

Continue Reading »

4 Comments »

April 20th 2010
John Hostettler money blitz April 22

Posted under Election 2010

Former Congressman John Hostettler is running for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate in Indiana.

On April 22 there will be a one-day money blitz for the Hostettler for Senate campaign.

Please donate whatever you can, large or small, to his campaign that day, and spread the word to anyone you know who might want to help.

The campaign website will have a donation ticker of some kind up that day that will chart our progress.

Donate here:
http://www.johnhostettler.com

Remember, a Hostettler win will be a major political event, an explosion if you will within the GOP and the Tea Party movement.  But he can only do so if you donate. So let’s light the fuse and help John out.

No Comments »

April 20th 2010
Shocker: RINO Rudy Endorses RINO Trey Greyson Against Rand Paul

Posted under Election 2010 & Interventionism & NeoCons & Ron Paul & Rudy Giuliani

Rand Paul has Establishment shill Trey Greyson on the run, and the neocons are in panic mode. They have dug up Rudy’s political corpse and drug him to Kentucky to endorse his fellow RINO.

3 Comments »

April 14th 2010
Ray McBerry Launches New Campaign Website

Posted under Election 2010

Georgia Gubernatorial candidate Ray McBerry is launching his new website today. Click the link, and take a look. The site looks good. For those unfamiliar with Ray, he is running a bold States’ Rights campaign that authentic conservatives can get behind without reservations.

3 Comments »

March 24th 2010
Ann Coulter Appearance at Canadian University Shouted Down by Thugs

Posted under Academia & Immigration & Media & Political Correctness & Western Civilization

Ann Coulter is a mixed bag. She is great on immigration, and one of the few “mainstream” conservatives who has dared to raise the demographic issue. She has played nice with Ron Paul. But she is disasterous on the War and foreign intervention. But we can all decry this? Yesterday her speech at a Canadian University had to be cancelled due to thuggish protestors. This follows on the heels of her being sent a threatening letter by a University administrator “reminding” her that “free speech” in Canada does not mean the same thing it does in America.

No Comments »

March 2nd 2010
545 People Responsible for All of America’s Woes

Posted under Election 2010 & Politics

545 People Responsible for All of America’s Woes

A classic by Charley Reese written in 1985:

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 235 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

Continued at Lew Rockwell.

5 Comments »

February 22nd 2010
Did CPAC toe the neocon line on immigration?

Posted under Conservatism & Election 2010 & Immigration

From Roy Beck:

Most of the spotlighted conservative leaders at the giant CPAC convention this weekend showed that they are far more interested in the feelings of Republican Party major donors than in offering help for 25 million Americans who can’t find a full-time job.

Americans might have hoped that finally at this meeting there would be a sign of true leadership in stopping the massive importation of new foreign workers during a jobs depression. But on that topic, hope was as scarce as at the Obama White House.

But reports from those at the convention (I wasn’t there) indicated that the thousands of (mostly young) conservative attendees seemed to have a much better grasp of what the country needs on immigration.  They exploded into a standing ovation when a freshman congressman [Jason Chaffetz - R-Utah] on Saturday finally broke the taboo and stated emphatically:

“We need to lock down the border and enforce visas, reject amnesty and enforce our current laws, get rid of our rewards and incentives to be here illegally, mandate E-Verify . . . .”

Tom Tancredo witnessed the same:

The best example of how CPAC 2010 has failed the conservative movement is CPAC’s attempt to redefine (sabotage would be a more accurate term) the potent issues of illegal immigration and border security. Whereas grass-roots conservatives and millions of 912 patriots – along with 80 percent of the American people – understand the need for border security as a precondition for immigration reform, CPAC board member Grover Norquist is busy launching a new project in support of the Obama administration’s plan to grant another amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens. Neither border control nor immigration enforcement was included as a topic for any of the CPAC general sessions.

It is exceedingly odd that at the very moment everyone else is declaring the Democrats’ amnesty plan dead in the water, CPAC leader Grover Norquist and a handful of Republican lobbyists are conspiring to resuscitate it. It’s as though the pilots of an airplane headed to Houston decided instead to take the aircraft to Havana. But instead of a hijacking, conservatism’s Beltway Politburo calls it a strategic partnership with Latino activists.

What all this tells us is that it is not only the Republican Party that is suffering an identity crisis. So is conservatism.

In reality, the Republicans are just slitting their own throats. For example, without some sort of immigration moratorium, the GOP will not even hold Texas much longer. There is an odd disconnect among Republicans – even among the more libertarian Ron Paul supporters.  If Texas  turns into Mexico, it’s highly unlikely the new “Texans” would vote for a candidate like Ron Paul or anyone else wanting to cut back entitlements.

1 Comment »

February 1st 2010
Sarah Palin is Endorsing Rand Paul!

Posted under Conservatism & Election 2010 & Interventionism & Ron Paul & Sarah Palin

Believe it or not, it’s true.

Did Palin’s neocon advisers have any input on this? What are their thoughts? Inquiring minds want to know.

And why is Rand Paul able to attract support from movement cons, while his dad evoked hysteria in some movement con circles? I have a few ideas on why this might be, but I would like to hear some other people’s thoughts on this.

Hat Tip: American Spectator

2 Comments »

January 31st 2010
On Marco Rubio and Immigration

Posted under Election 2010 & Immigration

I keep receiving emails from various conservative email lists advertising that Marco Rubio is a “real conservative” – versus Charlie Crist, “a liberal in disguise.” (If you haven’t been following, Rubio is a white Cuban-American vying with Charlie Crist in the Florida Republican primary for Mel Martinez’s U.S. Senate seat.) What never is discussed in these emails, however, is Rubio’s ambiguous record on immigration.

While it is true that both Martinez and Crist have supported mass amnesty and Rubio has stated he would have opposed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, Rubio otherwise seems to be intentionally vague on the issue of immigration.

Continue Reading »

7 Comments »

Next »