Pages

Jump to bottom

35 comments

1 freetoken  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 2:40:14am

Linky no worky.

However, commenting on what was copied, I'll point out that as wasteful as the new position may be, it's still just a teeny portion of the real problem, which is escalating over-all costs and increased California population (though increasing much more slowly than in the past.)

2 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 2:59:39am

re: #1 freetoken

Link fixed.

As you note,

I'll point out that as wasteful as the new position may be, it's still just a teeny portion of the real problem, which is escalating over-all costs and increased California population (though increasing much more slowly than in the past.)

I'd have to agree, of course.

What is important I believe, is the attitude that somehow the party will never end.

Right or left, Californians are just getting hammered- and given the size of the powerhouse California economy- and brain trust- there are ripples.

I don't know how California will dealwith her problems but Sacramento needs some kind of overhaul.

3 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:02:12am

Yeah, totally, this one woman's salary is the problem. Great reporting there.

Sheesh.

4 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:05:40am

re: #3 Obdicut

Oh yeah, that was the point of the whole article.
/

5 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:18:40am

re: #4 researchok

Oh yeah, that was the point of the whole article.
/

It kind of was.

Their rubber-stamp approval of UCSD’s senseless new appointment, with its scandalously sky-high salary, shreds whatever remaining budgetary credibility they may have had…

Yeah. This one hire shreds it. Oh, and great, I see the article is from City Journal, the place funded by Scaife and that promotes the Bell Curve author. Awesome.

6 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:26:55am

re: #5 Obdicut

Right

So you don't like the source. Do you have any evidence Scaife influences the editorial process?

That invalidates everything Heather McDonald might write and everything that comes from City Journal.

Right.

What do you think of CATO?

7 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:28:21am

Oh, and here's a hint the article may have been about more than one hire:

The title:

Diversity Forever: The University of California Backs a Tax Hike to Support Its Ever-Expanding Bureaucracy

8 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:34:04am

re: #6 researchok

Right

So you don't like the source. Do you have any evidence Scaife influences the editorial process?

Nope. Just that he funds it and that they promote terrible, racist authors.

That invalidates everything Heather McDonald might write and everything that comes from City Journal.

Nope. It just brings it into question, especially when there's a spittle-flecked rant about the 'diversity industry' and how it's destroying everything.

Oh, and here's a hint the article may have been about more than one hire:

The title:

Diversity Forever: The University of California Backs a Tax Hike to Support Its Ever-Expanding Bureaucracy

Yet weirdly, there are no actual figures in the article about total spending on 'diversity' or even a comparison of spending on bureaucracy vs. professorships and the like. Just repeated assertions that they're obsessed with diversity and that the bureaucracy is expanding.

9 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:38:45am

Oh wow, looks like the author, Heather MacDonald, is also a nutbar on immigration.

She thinks the Obama administration has a policy of 'de-facto amnesty'. I don't think she actually understand what amnesty means. And she likes the idea of a border fence. I love the border-fencers; they're the epitome of ideology over practical reality.

10 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:43:48am

Oh man, she's like a canard and chestnut unloading machine! Here she is declaring that she can tell these women weren't raped, because they admitted to having sex with their attacker again and what woman who was raped would do that?

[Link: articles.latimes.com...]

Bet she doesn't believe in spousal rape, either.

That's a really interesting article, because it's impossible to tell whether she's being stupid or malicious: she keeps harping on the fact that many of the women who'd been raped didn't think they'd been raped to say "See, they haven't really been raped!", and that many women didn't think attempted rape was serious enough to report.

Does it just not occur to her that, thanks to our culture, lots of women do in fact get raped but blame themselves or feel that they can't report it or think that it's normal human sexuality? Apparently the thought doesn't even float across her mind.

11 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:44:37am

re: #8 Obdicut

So in other words, you have no substantive critique of the article- only the source.

Fair enough.

When I look at some of the stuff put out by The Nation, for example, or American Prospect, I look carefully at what they have to say.

That said, I have never dismissed those publications because of their politics- in fact I will post articles I think have merit even if I disagree with them.

My criticism of your remarks is based on on your dismissal of the material simply because of the source or a narrow reading of the content.

You are one of the more insightful people on here.

You don't need to rely on the progressive dog and pony show

12 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:46:39am

re: #10 Obdicut

Where exactly does she say she doesn't believe in spousal rape?

13 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:46:47am

re: #11 researchok

So in other words, you have no substantive critique of the article- only the source.
show

APparently you've decided not reading my posts is okay.

Here is my critique of the article: In talking about an ever-expanding bureaucracy, absolutely no facts or figures are provided to back up this claim. One hire is held out for ridicule, based on the fact that it's associated with 'diversity' and the author claims from her own authority that it is useless and will serve no function. The entire article is an argument from personal authority and anecdote, with no actual argumentative structure.

You don't need to rely on the progressive dog and pony show

Good thing I don't. Try addressing my actual critiques of her article, or, if you like, my actual critiques of her article on campus rape.

14 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:47:33am

And CATO?

Where do you stand on CATO?

15 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:48:32am

re: #12 researchok

Where exactly does she say she doesn't believe in spousal rape?

Nowhere. That's why I said that I bet she doesn't believe in it, because apparently the idea of a woman having sex with her rapist is just inconceivable to her.

Here is the sentence:

Further, 42% of the study's supposed victims said they had had intercourse again with their alleged assailants -- though it is highly unlikely that a raped woman would have sex again with the fiend who attacked her.

In fact, it's very common for raped women to have sex again with their rapists. A lot of coercive rape occurs inside a culture that endorses it. Heather MacDonald apparently has very little understanding of the way that rape functions in human sexuality, but that's sure not going to stop her going on about it.

16 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:49:31am

re: #13 Obdicut

Good thing I don't. Try addressing my actual critiques of her article, or, if you like, my actual critiques of her article on campus rape.

She questions the numbers.

Why is that unacceptable?

If she is wrong, she is wrong.

If she is right, wouldn't you want that corrected?

17 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:50:29am

re: #14 researchok

And CATO?

Where do you stand on CATO?

Mostly assholes. Really, really terrible on AGW, really bad on labor rights.

18 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:50:48am

re: #15 Obdicut

Right.

So you are positing an opinion. nothing more.

19 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:50:55am

re: #16 researchok

She questions the numbers.

Where does she question the numbers?

Why is that unacceptable?

If she is wrong, she is wrong.

If she is right, wouldn't you want that corrected?

Right about what?

20 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:53:52am

re: #18 researchok

Right.

So you are positing an opinion. nothing more.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that this foolish woman doesn't know the very basic fact that many women who have been raped have sex with their rapist again. Spousal rape is one of the most common forms of this.

What aren't you getting about this?

21 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:54:00am

re: #17 Obdicut

Pity Ezra Klein doesn't agree with you.

On CATO

I am not exactly a libertarian. I’m a technocrat. I believe in the government’s ability, and occasionally its responsibility, to help solve problems that the market can’t or won’t resolve on its own. I find much of Cato’s hard-line libertarianism -- to the point of purging Will Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey, libertarians who explored making common cause with liberals on select issues -- naive, callous and occasionally absurd. And yet, it’s among a handful of think tanks whose work I regularly read and trust

That’s because Cato is, well, “the foremost advocate for small-government principles in American life.” It advocates those principles when Democrats are in power, and when Republicans are in power. When I read Cato’s take on a policy question, I can trust that it is informed by more than partisan convenience. The same can’t be said for other think tanks in town.

But what does he know?

And no City Journal is not a think tank.

22 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:54:44am

re: #20 Obdicut

She is questioning the numbers.

23 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:56:53am

re: #22 researchok

She is questioning the numbers.

Okay. Do you understand that she made the assertion that it is highly unlikely that a woman would have sex with her rapist again?

And do you understand that it is in fact common for women to have sex with their rapists again, especially in the context of spousal rape and date rape?

24 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 3:59:30am

re: #21 researchok

Oh, CATO are honest assholes, I'll give them that. Well, half-honest; their shit on AGW has been really awful and outright duplicitous. The rest of their stuff I think is principled ideology, but unfortunately it's the principles of libertarian ideology which don't exactly work well with the real world and, if applied, are assholic.

25 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 4:01:09am

re: #23 Obdicut

The numbers- that is all she talking about.

She was not talking about spousal rape or date rape, she was talking about campus rape.

You are asserting she does not believe in spousal or date rape without any evidence she hold s that opinion.

Inasmuch as she never talks about spousal rape or date rape it is also possible she is talking about non spousal or non date rape.

Just saying.

26 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 4:02:04am

re: #24 Obdicut

Right.

There are no opinions that can differ from yours and be credible.

Right

27 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 4:07:42am

I can think of some things people get very wrong- but that doesn't negate all their views, all the time.

Anyway, I'm out of here, real world calls.

Please. have at it.

28 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 4:08:27am

re: #25 researchok

She was not talking about spousal rape or date rape, she was talking about campus rape.

Um, you do know that most rape on campus is date rape, right?

You are asserting she does not believe in spousal or date rape without any evidence she hold s that opinion.

Actually, what I'm arguing is that her stupid assertion that it's very unlikely for a woman to have sex with their rapists makes me think that she doesn't believe in spousal or date rape, because those are two of the most frequent times when a woman will have sex with her rapist again.

It is true that she could just be wildly ignorant on the topic.

29 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 4:10:06am

re: #26 researchok

Right.

There are no opinions that can differ from yours and be credible.

Right

Yeah, that's a logical outcome of what I've said.

I don't get it, man, first you accuse me of attacking the source, then, when I'm actually making criticism of the arguments, you fall back on this bullshit claim that I'm saying I'm the only right person in the world. I don't get why you think this is an effective way to argue.

Yeah, I think City Journal sucks a source. But I also laid out my objections to this woman's argument(s), and then all you did was pivot with the stupid "That's, like, just your opinion, man."

30 Romantic Heretic  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 5:19:44am
I am not exactly a libertarian. I’m a technocrat.

As my favourite authour notes, the roots of this word have become inverted. The original meaning was 'One whose power comes from his skill.' The meaning in today's world is 'one skilled with power.'

No morals, no goal, no direction. Just power.

And I'll point out yet again that 'libertarianism' is a marketing ploy and a debate tactic.

31 wrenchwench  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 8:48:09am

re: #27 researchok

I can think of some things people get very wrong- but that doesn't negate all their views, all the time.

Anyway, I'm out of here, real world calls.

Please. have at it.

Heather MacDonald is vile. You didn't care for my pushback on VDH, I don't think you'll like what I would have to say about his co-author, Ms. MacDonald.

In a world of non-stop information flow, it is essential to consider the source.

32 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 10:31:36am

re: #31 wrenchwench


As I noted early on in the thread you referred to, I'm no fan of VDH. I do find his positions on many things, problematic. That said, he is hardly an outsider or a marginal academic.

The same applies for MacDonald. She may have ideas people disagree with but her influence is hardly that of an extremist.

See her bio. CATO or the Manhattan Institute may not be your cup of tea, but they are hardly extremist organizations.

They may not be your cup of tea but they are a very legitimate group of academics, analysts and commentators.

In the real world they are certainly mainstream.

33 wrenchwench  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 11:23:16am

re: #32 researchok

As I noted early on in the thread you referred to, I'm no fan of VDH. I do find his positions on many things, problematic. That said, he is hardly an outsider or a marginal academic.

The same applies for MacDonald. She may have ideas people disagree with but her influence is hardly that of an extremist.

See her bio. CATO or the Manhattan Institute may not be your cup of tea, but they are hardly extremist organizations.

They may not be your cup of tea but they are a very legitimate group of academics, analysts and commentators.

In the real world they are certainly mainstream.

I didn't say anything about CATO or the Manhattan Institute. I said Heather MacDonald is vile. Her bio confirms that, as do her writings. And lately, lots of vile people are mainstream. All the more reason to criticize them, and people who accept them as sources.

34 researchok  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 11:30:32am

re: #33 wrenchwench

How does her bio make her vile?

And if she were so vile, why would MI have her on board?

As for people who source them- like me- I hope I am only worthy of criticism.

I'd like to be able to work up to vile
/

You laughed.

35 wrenchwench  Sat, Sep 22, 2012 11:45:23am

re: #34 researchok

How does her bio make her vile?

And if she were so vile, why would MI have her on board?

As for people who source them- like me- I hope I am only worthy of criticism.

I'd like to be able to work up to vile
/

You laughed.

From your Wiki link:

Victimization. She criticized the notion of treating boys as a new victim group, and criticized universities for seeking to hire "diversity consultants" to "help boys succeed".[11]

Philanthropic institutions. Mac Donald blamed philanthropic institutions such as the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation for advocating for a right of welfare and because of this advocacy, "generations have grown up fatherless and dependent", she wrote in her collection of essays, The Burden of Bad Ideas.[12] She wrote that the right principle to guide philanthropy was doing what you love.[13]

Immigration policy. Mac Donald criticized American immigration policy as "importing another underclass", referring to Hispanics, which has the "potential to expand indefinitely".[14] Mac Donald's views that Hispanics have tremendous fertility were criticized as being "hostile" and trying to tap into a "deep-seated fear" of minorities by conservatives, according to one writer in the Huffington Post.[15]
[...]


Urban panhandlers. Mac Donald criticized pan handlers in San Francisco as "aggressive young vagrants" with an "oversized sense of entitlement" who have grown more "territorial and violent".[17] She praised a proposed ordinance called "sit-lie" which would ban persons from sitting or lying on city sidewalks from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m.[17]

[...]


Racism. Mac Donald argued that the high rates of African-American young males in America's jails was not a result of a racist policy by police and that "study after study has shown that the criminal justice system responds to the crime and the criminal history of the offender, not to his race".[20] She criticized the thinking of African-American Jeremiah Wright for making racist statements when Wright said that "blacks have inherently different learning styles".[5] Wright was a pastor at the church where presidential candidate Barack Obama attended, and Obama's connections to Wright became controversial during the campaign for the presidency in 2008. She sided with police when the New York City department was accused of racism in a lawsuit and wrote a book exploring the issue of racism in the police force.[21]

[...]


Torture. Mac Donald argued in 2006, in The Torture Debate, that the Abu Ghraib fallout was overblown and that opponents of President Bush used it to construct an exaggerated "master narrative" and asserted that the torture at Abu Ghraib was "torture lite" compared with more brutal atrocities such as those of Pol Pot.[25] She defended rough coercive interrogation techniques as necessary in some circumstances.[25]

Welfare. Mac Donald criticized welfare programs as metamorphosizing into a "dysfunction enabler", as writer Robin Finn described Mac Donald's views in 2000.[1] Mac Donald's position that food stamps were a form of "unhealthy dependence" was criticized by several writers to the op-ed column in the New York Times.[26][27]

[...]

She has some positions I don't find vile, like favoring secularism, and saying attacks on Obama have been over the top, but I'm pretty certain she's a racist, and that qualifies as 'vile' in my estimation.

And yes, I was criticizing you for using dubious sources. Please don't work your way up to 'vile.' I'm not laughing.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 364 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1