Guilty As Sin

In The Flat Hat today, it seems that a mere apparent cover-up of a small amount of meaningless graft by the former SA President can be solved by a (thus far non-forthcoming) apology. I of course refer to the scandal now embroiling 404 Jamestown Road involving SA VP Zach Pilchen's THEFT (since he made no intention of paying it back unless he got caught) of $140 of the PEOPLE'S MONEY. (Aside: ALL GOVERNMENT FUNDS ARE THE PEOPLE'S MONEY, whether they were collected as tax (mandatory student fees) or independently raised. The people (students) are the government (SA). Thus any holdings of the government are holdings of the people. End aside) No, in the eyes of the sages at the allegedly non-political FH, mere "reflection" on his fitness will suffice. Wrong answer. The Japanese have a ritual in which disgraced public figures come before the press, deliver a public apology, bow, and resign in shame. This seems appropriate for Mr. Pilchen, who never had confusion with the debit card before April, but then mysteriously managed to give himself at least seven illicit liquidity advances between April and God-knows-when. And then not tell anyone about it. And apparently "misplace" the receipts. Of course, TFH's editors are far more ethically concerned than Pilchen himself, who has (thus far) neither made restitution (source: TFH) nor apologized, preferring to "gauge student response" before coming clean. Shame on him. Shame on us for electing him and Hopkins (who may be innocent of any wrongdoing, BTW) with a 50 per cent margin. But we can't possibly be faulted, since no hardworking Obama supporter could possibly engage in graft that would have made Spiro Agnew (Nixon's VP for the historically illiterate) sure he had a new protege.

FP/YC Ruling:
Straight Red, Life ban.


UPDATE: He resigned effective 1730 9/02. Source: VIO

If I could reply to Obama's text,,,

Biden? ROFLMAO! Thanks. Really.

In Re: "Diversity"

We thought the (morbidly obese) ghost of Gene Nichol and his libelous resignation email were buried. As the DOG Street Journal (am I paying WAY too much attention to these guys? Slow [WM] news summer...) continues to teach us, neither is at rest. In their latest "Tribe Vibe," the scions at DSJ turned their attention to "diversity" [note: "Diversity" is set in quotes since I refer not to real diversity of thought, outlook, and values, but to "diversity" of skin color, sex, or choice of sex partner]. Rather than repeat and critique the author point by point, I will attempt to present a centre-right view on the failures of "diversity" engineering, and a sketch of a collegiate society with actual diversity.
"Diversity" engineering's logical conclusion was displayed for all at the University of Delaware last fall. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Academia (FIRE) exposed a residence life orientation program that condemned all whites as racist (ignoring THE MERE POSSIBILITY of other races being racist), berated heterosexuals, and interrogated freshmen concerning their personal habits. When "diversity" must be achieved at the expense of free thought, what has society gained? A tapestry of totalitarians instead of an all-Aryan staffel? The author of the DSJ piece notes, "People seem so often to painstakingly edit their thoughts to produce overly P.C. responses, leaving only wisps of speakers’ true intentions and eliminating any actual frankness from the discourse," citing Nichol's Parting Libel as proof. Why might this be so? Is it not because those with dissenting views (on anything) sit among a 70 percent plurality (referring to Hopkins' election number)? Seventy percent is a greater percentage of support than Slobodan Milosevic, Robert Mugabe, and Franjo Tudjman claimed in their rigged elections. We're not quite at Saddam numbers yet, but who honestly believes that when "diversity" means nothing more than a rainbow of people saying the same thing, the silent pressure to conform renders thought police unnecessary?
"But wait!" says the liberal sycophant. "We hosted the anti-diversity speaker last year-we had dialogue and we [left-liberals] won." That wasn't dialogue either. That was an attempt by a (singular) (woefully misguided) conservative to commit ideological "shock-and-awe," and the plan failed. Instead of shocking the liberals into abandoning their long-held position, the tactic emboldened those who believe that conservatives are evil racists bent on a Restoration of Bull Connor and Orval Falbus (both Democrat governors of Southern states in the '60s). Bringing a Bosnian Serb (to those who know the Balkans, "Bosnian Serb" and "nationalist" are a redundancy when used in that order) to discuss race relations is like bringing the High Inquisitor of Spain (from 1500) to discuss interrogation techniques. This is not how to have a productive conversation.
But is it productive to have the Junior Senator from Illinois' (/Second Coming of Christ's/Twelfth
Imam's/Bodhisatva's/etc) version of the "national conversation on race" at our College? No, but that is what we now have. And I daresay even the DSJ author knows in his gut that that "conversation" isn't right somehow. This would explain his regret of "overly P.C. responses." What exactly that phrase means to him, I do not know. As for what it means to me, that is clear. It means not criticizing certain persons for their CONDUCT because of the fear of being called a racist/xenophobe/misogynist/fascist. It means that if you're not a "victim group," shut the fuck up and let us (diversity educators) do the talking. It means that you best parrot the party line lest you face the "bias response team." If you think that this is fearmongering, I would suggest you Google "University of Delaware residence life controversy" (third link is from FIRE) and "Dartmouth Professor Sues Students" to illustrate two examples of what can happen if free expression is not protected and peer pressure is used to compel obedience.
So where ought we go? How do we achieve diversity rather than "diversity?" We must protect the freedom of expression for all first. If officialdom can compel obedience to a party line, they do not need the seventy willing percent to enforce compliance (although they help). Second, each must be diplomatic in respect to alternative views. This doesn't mean that you accept or agree with the view-it means that no epithets ("hyper-conservative," perhaps, Mr. Nelson? Or maybe "hysterical xenophobe," FH?) are tossed and the matter can be put behind friends when the time comes (its hard, but it does happen-I speak from experience).
But what of interracial relations in this calm and civilized new world? We will learn them in the best of bad ways, by fucking up and learning from it. But the fuckups will be free to be corrected against any individual, not only "whites" [sidebar: "White," "Black," "Asian-Pacific Islander," etc. are absolutely arbitrary demarcations of difference. In early (pre 1900) US history, it used to be that one was classified by his nation of ancestry: Anglo, Irish, German, Italian, etc. Then Jim Crow-era "colored" and "white" replaced those, and the current racial system replaced that in the 1960s. One hopes one day "race" will go the way of slavery, with the recognition that although we have heritage (ALL OF US, not just some races/cultural groups) we are all firstly, secondly, and thirdly, Americans. end sidebar]. We will live together and get along, as most hoped that we would long ago, since no "race" owes "debt" to another and each individual must carry his weight. The free market ought to force this (if it were permitted) by bringing "the races" together in common cause, in which open racism would cause certain failure. In this regard, I would argue that I have learned more about getting along with people of different races from working in fast food than from the Office of Multicultural Affairs. If only that sort of experience were allowed. Let me now celebrate finishing this long post with a cup of tea (an Asian cultivation blended by Britons) while listening to rock and roll (derived from an African musical tradition through jazz by Americans and Britons) while reading the world news (from everywhere). You dont think that free trade will help any, no?

After the Brandy

http://dogstreetjournal.com/story/4165

Dear me. It's hard to find exactly where to start with this article. The DSJ (who reads that? just curious...) have been running a series of (truly asinine) "Tribe Vibe" pieces for consumption by freshmen. So, after talking about such harmless things as the (grossly overstated) academic mentality of WM students and a-capella groups, the sages at the DSJ decided, "Hey! You know what would be a great idea? Talk about religion!" The writer (predictably) concentrated on the "diversity" of religious expression and how much WM needs a "dialogue" on religious affairs. She, in so doing, says the following:

• Nichol tried to talk about religion, and the conversation exploded in our faces.

• Now, the few who still care are left speculating about the long-term impact of the Wren cross issue, be it actually religious or merely political.

Oh my. Gene Nichol and the Wren Cross, diluted for the unwashed newcomers. And placed in a discussion about campus religious expression to boot! But let us examine the central claim, which is (loosely) that Nichol sought "dialogue" about the place of religion at WM. The fact that the central piece of evidence is the Committee on Religion in a Public University (hereforward CRPU) suggests that this is misleading if not false. Nichol arbitrarily decided to remove the cross. The consummate Democrat used the undemocratic power of fiat rule to assert his own view of the Establishment Clause on an all-too-willing campus populace. Had he convened CRPU beforehand, he would have come across much more favorably to those who disagreed with the decision. The result might have been tolerable to most (including the alumni who bankroll many major capital expenditures) without cutting the wounds the initial removal opened. If anything, Nichol taught us how NOT to talk about religion. He taught us NOT to act hastily without considering alternative views and attempting to reach a livable solution.

But instead of concerning herself solely with honoring the man of one mind and enumerating the various religious communities in the Williamsburg area, the author has chosen to lecture the "us" (i.e. not her) on the need for "dialogue" as if it will "bring us together." Religion is a touchy subject, like politics. There is a reason the proverb my mother taught me long ago was phrased "don't talk about politics OR RELIGION until after the brandy" (the implication being that the next morning no one would remember the hurt feelings of the night before). It isn't that Hindus, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, and Jews cannot be friends. It isn't that each cannot practice his own faith with his fellow believers (he should). What is is that any matter of religion will arouse passions, and any addressing of religious matters or policy must be undertaken with THE GREATEST POSSIBLE DELICACY. It is NOT true, as the DSJ author posits, that "If anyone in the world should be able to discuss religion, it should be us." We are college students. We don't know everything. We sure as hell don't know how to deal with different religious groups in a way that does not seem to favor one or another (such an arrangement is probably nonexistent). Silent aggreements of tuus cuique (to each his own) are certainly better than a forced "dialogue" that would likely consist of the same banal ecumenism that has afflicted the Roman Church since Vatican II, with "diversity seminars" and ecumenical celebrations at the major festivals (Eid, Easter, Passover, and the like). Does this really "Bridge the Gap Between Us"? No. What the community must do, if it must do anything, is commit itself to Free Expression of faith (or lack thereof), each according to the dictates of his own conscience. I think we do that pretty well already. So let's save the "dialogue" for Last Call.

The Freedom Agenda

The Republican Party is doomed. John McCain isn't, but the Republican Party is doomed. It has no unifying philosophy, no will to fight for anything (with the glaring exception of continued military presence in Iraq), and no intellectual strength to convince the public that it is right. The principal cause of the party's electoral success in the last few election cycles (2006 naturally excepted) will shortly become an Achilles' heel. That principal cause was pandering at all levels of the party to socially conservative Evangelical Christians. Pandering to this interest group has created the not unjustified belief that the Democratic Party is the party of individual liberty. To conservatives, this is obviously false, but to the uninitiated, who is more obviously the defender of liberty, the party of free choice in the bedroom or the party of anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments? The party of rights of the accused or the party of "Chuck Norris Facts?" This conundrum demands that the Republicans redefine themselves not as carbon-copies of the Democrats but as unqualified defenders of freedom.



The following issues could define a "Freedom Agenda:"

1. Freedom to Earn: This plank is classical 1898 Republicanism: Lower taxes. All taxes. Not just income taxes.


2. Freedom to Worship (or not): Keep government out of matters of metaphysics. Let people, not judges, decide whether or not "In God we Trust" and "under God" are acceptable to 21st-century sensibilities. Accept their judgements.


3. Freedom to Broadcast: The FCC is nothing more than legalized censorship. Get rid of it. Tell the Parents Television Council to go to Hell along with the Fairness Doctrine. End the "public airwaves" nonsense.


4. Freedom to Surf (the Web): Keep internet commerce free of taxes. Legalize internet gaming.


5. Freedom to Trade: Enact free trade with all allies, such as Colombia. Educate the American people on the benefits of trade.


6. Freedom to Drill: Drill for oil in ANWR and the outer continental shelf. Educate the American people on new technologies that reduce risk to ecosystems and the benefits of increased domestic oil supplies.


7. Freedom to Drive: End CAFE standards. Let the free market determine the primacy of fuel economy in American automobiles. Raise speed limits where prudent.


8. Freedom to Eat: Fried food is banned at the Democrat National Convention (I shit you not). Barack Obama says we can't eat as much as we please. Let the people make their own lifestyle choices. Let them also accept the consequences.
9. Freedom to Smoke: Let the people who choose to smoke tobacco smoke. Call for national dialogue on the legal status of marijuana.
10. Freedom to Drink: End further restriction on the alcohol industry. Reconsider legal age 21.
11. Freedom to Choose: Appoint federal judges who will return abortion law to the legislatures of the states. Accept the judgements of each individual state with respect to itself.
12. Freedom Abroad: Foster, by use of hard (military) and soft (nonmilitary) power, growth of democratic states and institutions across the world.

In the coming months I will elaborate on these as I see fit.

Not a Catastrophe

So Matt Beato has now lost the race for City Council. I will now determine what this means, what this doesn't mean, what I would like to have, and what I don't know.

What This Means

• The Three-Person Rule will remain unresolved: Councilman Freiling, who supports reform of the rule, won re-election by wide margins. However, former mayor Granger lost narrowly to highly anti-reform candidate Judy Knudson. This means that the rule will remain in limbo for the next couple of years at least, as the council will be divided among pro-reform and anti-reform elements who will not view the rule as central to their governance.
• City noise regulations will favor non-students: The turnout by non-students was high enough to counter any student bloc vote, and thus rulings will still be made in favor of the more numerous non-students.
• Limousines and identity politics are not the best response to perceived marginalization in city politics: Forgetting the sheer waste of student funds that providing stretch limousines was (student activities vans do the same job for much less), it is now clear that an identity-based campaign for a council seat is insufficient. Regardless of the number of students registered, the citizens of Williamsburg will have a plurality of votes. Thus, putting forward a student candidate heavily dependent on the fickle student turnout profile (see limousines) is not going to be a winning formula unless the candidate is capable of appealing to citizen voters on the issues on which they move their votes: property taxes and schools. Perhaps Sievers was more able to do this in 2006 when he ran, or he may have had a larger proportion of anti-incumbent voters than Beato in this cycle. This election shows that the 157-vote defeat in an election without student votes that Sievers sustained was a fluke, as Beato lost by a larger margin in an election with more favorable demographics.

What This Doesn't Mean:

• The City Council can ignore student concerns: They can't for the same reason they couldn't before the election: We can vote still. Depending on the turnout model one uses, anywhere from 30-60 percent of registered student voters turned out. For young voters in any non-presidential election, these figures are actually rather high! As student political thinking matures (go figure first go-round we'd screw it up), if these turnouts remain the same students will be able to carry the balance in some races. What this election shows is that students cannot elect a candidate. Students can and ought to, however, enter coalitions with candidates friendly to their interests. This can get student opinion on Council, as was the case with Freiling.

What I'd Like to Have:

• An exit poll! It would make all this speculating a whole lot more certain. As it stands, nobody really knows anything, not even how many students voted. After-the-fact surveys, especially those conducted by the annoying folks at Rock the Vote (STOP TEXTING ME GODDAMNIT), will surely be subject to social desirability bias, distorting crucial findings which would affect future student political action strategies.
• Specifically, information on under-voting: Compared to the 2006 City Council elections, there were 1907 "whole ballots" (total votes/seats available) in the '08 race versus 1748 "whole ballots" in '06. Did students go to the polls for Beato alone, or only two candidates? Surely some did, but how many? For whom did they vote? Could this practice have gifted Knudson a seat? Wanna-be Michael Barones need to know!

What I Don't Know

• What the loss does to the Flat Hat: The paper had been a big booster of the Beato candidacy and likely will blame low student turnout (which I do not believe was the case) for the defeat. Will this affect readership?
• What the deal with the limos was: When I take up my position with the Informer in the fall, I intend to rip Valerie Hopkins et al. a new one for spending my money on limousines to get out the vote for Beato. That is, of course, for another day.
• What Beato does now: Other than sitting on the Soil and Water Conservation board (it's easy to win when no one runs!), it is unclear what Beato will do in wake of the defeat, as he had previously resigned his position as SA Senate Chairman. I do not know if he holds a Senate seat still.

Coming Soon to an Ivory Tower Near You!

It seems that Mr. Jefferson's alma mater is not the only elite university with a vacant leadership post. In response to their presidential search (no doubt less acrimonious than ours), Dartmouth freshman Jordan Osserman had this to say: "Straight white men need not apply." If you want to torture yourself with the full identity-politics manifesto, here it is.
http://thedartmouth.com/2008/04/30/opinion/osserman/

A few observations. First, I believe it goes without saying that if anyone had written "Lesbian Chicano transgendered need not apply" the writer would be marksteyned (see post from 4/29). That is, he would be, if he were allowed to keep his life. It seems that all sexual orientations, races, and gender identies are equal, but some are more equal than others. Second, this is coming to William and Mary. All is quiet on the presidential selection front now, but as the deadline on Reveley's caretaker period approaches, surely we will see "enlightened" calls for certain people to take over at the Brafferton. The oddsmakers (me) have it at 5/1 that similar sentiments to Mr. Osserman's will be published by someone, perhaps in the DOG Street Journal (does anybody actually read that?).
Third and most importantly, let me call Mr. Osserman's sentiments what they are: absolutely fucking racist. It is patently shocking that so-called liberals, in the name of "progress," insist on clinging (if I may coin a phrase) to the same racial caste system used by Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis. If we are ever to move beyond "race" into true "multiculturalism" (for lack of a better word) it's about damn time we realize that culture doesn't fit into neat racial or ethnic categories. Why is it that two first-generation Americans, one Czech and one French, one whose parents fled Communism or Nazism and one whose parents freely emigrated, are classified as "Caucasian" with your humble correspondent, an at-least-fifth generation American whose ties to the "old country" are purely artificial? Why is it that a first-generation American whose parents immigrated from China classified as "Asian" with a third-generation American whose ancestors came from Japan before 1941? I could do this calculus for every "racial" group, but that would be excessive; the absurdity is demonstrated. Likewise, it is absurd to assume that only an "oppressed minority" can end "oppression." I cannot speak for Dartmouth. Perhaps they burn crosses and huddle in white sheets in the Ivy League. But from what I've seen at W&M, the "races" get along much better than anybody gives them credit for. Don't be the fool who cries "opression" every day of the week. You might look absurd, to say nothing of the fact that no one will listen when you're really being opressed.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0