Archive for February, 2009
On General Principle…
Wednesday, February 11th, 2009… I am suspicious of any piece of legislation or government policy with the word “Fairness” in it. You should be too.
The Anti-Intellectual Intellectual
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009Economics students spend their time trying to defy the laws of economics. History majors ignore history. English majors attempt to project their fictionalized fantasies onto the real world. Others proudly profess their ignorance in between their Ancient Agrarian Pottery and Organic Feminism classes. And they all smile and nod as our government and our culture foolishly repeat the same mistakes that we made thirty years ago. As our president flails in Washington, desperately trying to convince the country that we’re on the brink of the apocalypse so that we might nod politely as he and other liberals force their socialist agenda down our throats, our best and brightest are taking less and less interest in events, content that merely by electing the Chicago Superman, we’ve already solved all of our major problems, and that any remaining details can be ignored for now. They are willfully checking out of the system, lowering their guard, and in many cases, welcoming the newly-revealed but long-gestating wave of socialism that is washing over our nation, in defiance of everything that history has taught us.
Many of them are simply missing out on one or two important details. For example, they cannot see that the events that supposedly necessitate greater government regulation are in fact the result of previous federal intervention. For evidence, look no further than the Community Reinvestment Act, a federal program designed to create “affordable housing” for all, it inadvertently spawned a situation in which private business had to respond to excessive regulations by issuing unsafe loans and severely inflating the value of the housing market. When that bubble burst and the market collapsed last year, near-unanimous blame fell on the market, with few noting that the market’s actions were only in response to unwise regulation. Or take for instance the state of the American auto industry, where United Auto Works Union members demand more than $60 more an hour than non-union members working in foreign-owned automobile manufacturing plants around the country. Legislation designed to protect the unions have kept them in power for decades, but to hear liberals tell it, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the CEOs who “just should have done their jobs better.” But the actions of these CEOs were determined largely by the restrictions placed upon them by the politically-backed unions, against whom they just couldn’t fight. Having to cut corners elsewhere, they found themselves trapped inside business that couldn’t sustain themselves.
Most liberals, I like to think, simply make the mistake of not seeing that sort of causality. But there are clearly still those who have deluded themselves into thinking that despite the repeated failure of their philosophy throughout American history to make the positive mark they’ve intended, all they really need to do is care a little bit more. These are the folks who think that all of the world’s problems can be solved with a chat and a hug, who rush to accept blame for things in which they have no stake or responsibility, who embrace so-called “progressive” politics not because they make logical sense, but because they just feel so right.
From a society that has wanted for nothing for the last fifty years, that has been relatively economically and socially stable for an extended period, have sprung generations of people who quite simply do not understand the sources of prosperity, the necessity of individuality and entrepreneurship, and the simple concepts of right and wrong. They have trapped themselves and this country in a never-ending cycle of self-flagellation, desperately seeking to make amends for uncommitted sins. They have condemned and taken steps to destroy the very foundations of the society that made them possible by attacking capitalism, democracy, individualism, and the concept of natural rights.
It was not by the sweat of the common man that this country was made; it was by the vision of the exceptional individual. But don’t tell this to the anti-intellectual intellectual that has come to dominate our society, because no matter how true it might be, it doesn’t fit with the prevailing dogma that the innovators that have driven our society upward were and are at best lucky fools and at worst the vilest humans to ever walk the face of the earth. The man who designed the steam engine has been ignored in favor of the men who laid the railroad track. In this society of ours, which once claimed to value its minds, the brain has been pushed aside, to be replaced with the all-feeling, all-loving heart of soft liberalism, where exceptionalism is declared unfair and mediocrity is praised as virtue.
As a result, young affluent people who were raised wanting nothing and being given everything, who were taught how to read poetry and analyze literature and study multicultural history but not to think, who were never made to understand the nature of individual responsibility or the way the world actually works, have rallied to the flag of liberalism, not because of what they know, but because of what they feel. And now, as we find ourselves faced with a crisis of liberals’ making that liberals insist on resolving using the very methods that brought us here in the first place, all of the intelligent people are incapable of asking, “Why?” because they’ve been taught to listen to their hearts. Until we break ourselves from this cycle and start thinking logically about the problems we face, until we learn that we cannot expect to prosper without knowing from where prosperity comes, we cannot hope to resolve the issues we face.
It is time for us to realize that sound action derived from sound thought is the only way to succeed.
Al Sharpton to Visit Middlebury This Wednesday, Controversey Notably Absent
Monday, February 9th, 2009This Wednesday, Middlebury College is rolling out the red carpet to welcome noted agitator Al Sharpton to our lovely campus. Sharpton will be making a speech at Mead Chapel that evening, presumably on something designed to generate controversey. While I can’t help but be a little excited to be within one square mile of the man who once said “White folks was in caves while we was building empires … We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it,” I can’t help but wonder what the college is trying to accomplish by inviting him to address its students. Additionally, I’m a little disturbed (but not at all surprised) that the sort of protestors that greeted Chief Justice John Roberts two years ago are nowhere to be found.
Al Sharpton has made a career out of being divisive. His very presence at Middlebury spits in the face of the College’s stated mission to promote diversity and tolerance. Are we to understand, then, that a man who responded to the accidental death of a black child in a car wreck by inciting anti-Semetic riots (stating, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house”) is an authority on tolerance? Is this the message Middlebury College wishes to send?
Or perhaps the College wishes to impress upon its students that it’s okay to not pay taxes, as long as you don’t want to. After all, that’s the attitude Sharpton has taken. In May 2008, the Associated Press reported that Sharpton owed more than $1 million in unpaid federal and state taxes. Sharpton swiftly responded by logically declaring the investigation to be a racist conspiracy by the federal government to undermine him. I suppose that it’s entirely possible that Middlebury just wants him to share with us the wisdom he gleaned from the experience. If so, I expect the speech to be short.
There is a school of thought that states that any publicity is good publicity. That is a school of thought usually held by idiots looking to elevate their own profile. Having Sharpton at Middlebury will bring no prestige, merely attention. He will not bring anything positive or productive to this institution. Rather, his very presence will degrade it.
And yet the administration and (more importantly) the students seem okay with it. Why? Is it simple ignorance of this man’s record? Or is it an endorsement of his radicalism that drives this acceptance? I don’t know. I honestly hope it is the former, but I have a sneaking suspicion that more than a few Middlebury students are genuinely thrilled that he’s coming. It’s a shame.
Middlebury is preparing to open its arms and embrace a race-baiting, anti-Semetic, tax-cheating hate-monger who has made a living out of dividing people. His presence is an insult to everything Middlebury stands for, and it saddens me that no one dares speak out against it.