Josef Stalin died sixty years ago.
But too many (any is too many) still mourn his passing.
As Andrew asks, what would be the reaction if people were so publicly lamenting the death of Hitler? The odious double standard, particularly on campus, remains.
[Late afternoon update]
How fitting, even poetic, that Hugo Chavez has assumed room temperature on this date. March 5th is now a double date to celebrate.
This.
Let them live here, let them work here, let them have drivers’ licenses, but if they want citizenship, they have to go to the back of the line. And that means no welfare either.
Of course, the Dems hate it, because it doesn’t give them all the new welfare-state oriented voters they want and need.
[Update a while later]
What this comes down to is two fundamentally different views: citizenship as a right, versus a privilege to be earned. Heinlein had it right.
Is it warping our kids?
It’s not necessary to plot progressive indoctrination with other true believers; they already know what to think and what to do, and from whom to take their cues. At the moment, that would be Mr. Obama and other members of his administration on the permanent campaign trail. This time, they are specifically campaigning against the Second Amendment.
As powerful as political motivation might be, the faddish nature of education is equally compelling. For some time, “zero tolerance” policies of one kind or another have enjoyed substantial popularity.
The zero tolerance policy most familiar to the public is the “gun free” school zone, which for some produces feelings of safety. Unfortunately, like all zero tolerance polices, this is a complete failure, actually encouraging attacks rather than enhancing safety. Those who need to “feel safe” cannot admit this obvious reality lest their belief system come crashing down, so they redouble their efforts, striking out at even imaginary threats and guns.
Understanding this sort of thinking, it is easy to realize that such people think nothing of applying a zero tolerance policy prohibiting actual firearms to not only toys bearing a slight resemblance to firearms, but to depictions of firearms and even imaginary weapons. Thus have elementary-aged children been punished for pointing fingers at each other and fighting imaginary heroic battles for mankind. Thus is childhood warped and wrenched from children.
Some of these bizarre incidents are the direct result of human confusion or incompetence. School systems have multiple levels of management that theoretically can avoid abuses in student discipline. Take the case of the five year-old girl who dared think of blowing bubbles on her friend and herself. Even if her teacher could not tell the difference between a Hello Kitty bubble gun — a toy the girl left at home — and a real weapon, and even if she could not tell the difference between five year olds playing and a threat of serious bodily harm or death, what’s the principal’s excuse? What’s the excuse of the assistant superintendent and the superintendent and the members of the school board?
They’re morons, who rely on feelings instead of thought?
More and more, it appears that sending your kid to a public school is malparenting, particularly if it’s a boy.
Also, as a commenter over there points out, these people can’t be said to be college educated. They’re merely college degreed.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Oh, good lord:
If your children express that they are troubled by today’s incident, please talk with them and help them share their feelings. Our school counselor is available to meet with any students who have the need to do so next week. In general, please remind them of the importance of making good choices.
These people shouldn’t be allowed within a hundred yards of a child.
[Update a few minutes later]
Officials said that even though it was not a real security situation, everybody in the school system did what they should in light of the reported threat, The Times reported.
Yes, apparently, if “doing what they should” means being moronic and hysterical.
Has it broken?
I’d like to think so, but he’s too ideologically driven to have much hope.
Roger Handberg says it’s time for space advocates to move beyond the old false paradigm.
It’s all about 2014:
For perhaps the first time in the history of the United States, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people. Obama could have spent the last 16 months preparing to mitigate sequestration’s impact on the American people, as any responsible manager would have. Instead, he has done the opposite, explicitly ordering government agencies not to prepare for the worst. And he has refused all Republican efforts to pass legislation that would minimize the sequester’s pain.
To repeat what Rush Limbaugh said four years ago, I hope he fails.
To me, this is one of the most frightening things about the growth of Leviathan:
Statutory law in America has expanded to the point that government’s primary activity is no longer to protect, preserve and defend our lives, liberty and property, but rather to stalk and entrap normal American citizens doing everyday things.
After identifying three federal offenses in the U.S. Constitution — treason, piracy and counterfeiting — the federal government left most matters of law enforcement to the states. By the time President Obama took office in 2009, however, there were more than 4,500 federal criminal statutes on the books.
“Too many people in Washington seem to think that the more laws Congress enacts, the better the job performance of the policymakers,” Lynch notes. “That’s twisted.”
It is. It’s like the attitude at the State Department that their job is to get treaties ratified, good, bad or ugly.
We need quality laws, not quantities of terrible ones that criminalize us all.
Jon Goff says that it could cost thousands of lives:
Just shaving 36 hours off of the availability date of commercial crew could potentially save more lives than would be lost in the worst case Commercial Crew crash. Even if expediting the process, dropping many of the NASA Human Rating requirements, dropping some of the abort tests, and sticking with Space Act Agreements instead of FAR Contracts really meant a massive decrease in actual safety (I don’t think it would) to say a 5% chance of losing a crew on a given flight, over the course of the ISS’s life you would have saved hundreds of times more US lives by taking that course than you would potentially risk in astronaut lives.
I’ll have to incorporate this thought into the book. I made the point, but not quantitatively, just that our approach is an indicator of how unimportant ISS research is, despite NASA lip service.
This is the problem that Bastiat described. Loss of crew is very publicly visible, while the people who die are anonymous and unknown to all except those closest to them, and their deaths aren’t understood to be a result of flawed government policy. This is the same problem that the FDA has, so it ends up inhibiting innovation, destroying jobs and killing people lest it be blamed for letting people die through underregulation.
If there were any lingering doubts that the man is an irredeemable moron, they were put to rest this morning on ABC.
Some thoughts from Jeremy Boreing, on the anniversary of Andrew Breitbart’s death. Hard to believe it’s been a year.
[Update late evening]
Iowahawk remembers Andrew as well:
Despite the differences in our extroversion (the mere idea of appearing on camera sends me diving under the furniture) I considered him a kindred spirit – another guy who loved his wife and kids, happy despite being sick of the bullshit. Although I can’t claim to have known him as well as others here at Breitbart, I cherished him a friend whose passing is still personally painful.
With all the tributes and venom being churned out today it’s obvious he still looms large in the political conversation, and it’s hard to think of another figure in media or activism who would be a trending topic a year after their death. I think the reason why is that he represented a new kind of cultural/social conservative. Maybe not in the conventional sense (it’s still fun to freak my liberal friends by noting Andrew’s status as a pro-gay marriage, pro-pot decriminalization Jewish activist for women and minorities who loved of 80s New Wave), but on the value of honesty. I’ve heard him referred to as a “reactionary.” I suppose he as a reactionary – in the literal sense – against an increasingly contrived, vapid, narrative-driven news culture, one that attacks and marginalizes any non-conforming message. He studied the bullies’ playbook, called them out, and bloodied their noses. Hard as it may be for these bloody-nosed bullies to believe, it had nothing to do with their ‘liberal’ politics. If there was a parallel universe with a dominant right wing media culture as dishonest and conformist and thuggish as the left wing one here, Andrew would’ve been more than happy to rocket there and punch them in the mouth, too. If that’s what a reactionary is, then sign me up for the t-shirt.
Me too.