Month: June 2021

References:        Oppressive Language List | Holding Ourselves Accountable | Prevention, Advocacy & Resource Center | Brandeis University: Rule of thumb – Wikipedia; The phrase ‘Rule of thumb’ – where does it come from? (phrases.org.uk); Rule Of Thumb | Definition of Rule Of Thumb by Merriam-Webster

                Brandeis University apparently funds something called The Prevention, Advocacy & Resource Center, known as “PARC.”  This student-run group is “a confidential, student-centered resource serving members of the Brandeis community who have been impacted by violence and those who want to contribute to the anti-violence movement.”  Part of that “contribution” (if you can call it that) is the creation of an “Oppressive Language List.”  We’re sure you can imagine how goofy that is, and you’re right!  We note here that tuition at Brandeis right now is $59,408/year, and with room, board and fees the yearly minimum total is at least $76,456.  That’s $305,824 for a four-year degree.  One would think that at those prices, they’d at least have students that can do some fundamental research, but that apparently is not the case.

                As just one foolish and poorly researched example, these PARC people allege that the phrase “rule of thumb” is “oppressive” because “This expression allegedly comes from an old British law allowing men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.” 

                First, to make such determinations about what language is and is not “oppressive,” based on some phrase “allegedly” coming from an old British law plainly indicates that someone didn’t bother do his or her homework and that a lot of laziness is behind this silly “oppressive” list.  Get your facts right.  Second, in fact that reason is completely false and no such British law ever existed.  If PARC thinks it did, let’s see it.  One would think a college student ought to learn pretty quickly, if they didn’t learn it by the time they were five years old, that a “belief” or something “alleged” isn’t a “fact” and thus should not be relied on until verified.

                According to Wikipedia and multiple other legitimate reference sources, the phrase actually (and sensibly) refers to

“an approximate method for doing something, based on practical experience rather than theory.  This usage of the phrase can be traced back to the seventeenth century and has been associated with various trades where quantities were measured by comparison to the width or length of a thumb.  A modern folk etymology holds that the phrase is derived from the maximum width of a stick allowed for wife-beating under English common law, but no such law ever existed. This belief may have originated in a rumored statement by eighteenth-century judge Sir Francis Buller that a man may beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb. The rumor produced numerous jokes and satirical cartoons at Buller’s expense, but there is no record that he made such a statement.”

                Elsewhere, examples of “violent language” include “killing it” and “taking a shot at” because of their “needless[] . . . imagery of hurting someone or something.”  Amusingly, the phrase “trigger warning” is similarly viewed as “oppressive” because it “has connections to guns for many people.”  Well, many stupid people perhaps.  We’d love to see their backup research for that one.  Likely it was nothing more rigorous than one or two dippy undergrads saying “hey, anything with the word ‘trigger’ in it ought to be banned as oppressive.”  Taking this dippy view to its logical conclusion, Roy Rogers’ horse, Trigger, and any reference to him, should be similarly banned and the horse’s stuffed remains destroyed.  Trigger – Biography – IMDb.  Again, someone should have done some basic research here.  In our view, dumbing down language to the level of a stupid Brandeis undergrad is a disservice to the rest of us.

                In the gender area, naturally “he” and “she” are verboten, along with “you guys,”, “Ladies and Gentlemen,” “freshman,” “policeman, Congressman, etc.”  Interestingly, in the race area they assert that the phrase “African-American” should not be used because not all blacks are from Africa.  Duh.  Similarly, “people of color” is “oppressive” because you should use BIPOC (black, indigenous people of color), though the reasoning isn’t entirely clear.  “Ableist” oppressive language also gets taken to the cleaners (geez, we hope that expression isn’t oppressive to dry cleaners!).  This includes “crazy,” “insane,” “wild” and “lame” when describing something.  “Ableist language can contribute to stigmas about and trivializes the experiences of people living mental health conditions.”  Included in this category is the phrase “walk-in.”  You have to say “drop-in.”  So no more “walk-in” vaccine shots – you have to drop-in.  Presumably “walk-out” is similarly forbidden though not listed, so you have to say “drop-out,” even though it makes no sense in most instances.  Do you “drop out” the door?

                Finally, we come to “saying what you mean.”  In this category we have phrases such as “Everything going on right now” – the suggested alternatives are – get this – “Police brutality, protests, BLM, COVID-19, etc. ”  “Victim” and “survivor” are similarly “oppressive” because “[t]hese labels can make a person feel reduced to an experience.  Person-first language is great here [such as ‘Person who has experienced . . . ‘], unless the person identifies with either word.  If they do, honor them by using that word!”  And a “homeless person” is really a “person experiencing housing insecurity.” 

                The list goes on and is similarly foolish throughout, but it’s certainly worth a skim for its sheer inanity.  This is what college students at a supposedly elite school, the so-called Jewish Harvard, spend their time and their parents’ tuition money on!  Oops, probably can’t call Brandeis the Jewish Harvard anymore.  Maybe PARC will see this post and add it to their list.

Reference:          Biden Says He Won’t Sign Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Without Reconciliation (theepochtimes.com); Biden extols bipartisan infrastructure deal as a good start – The Boston Globe; Infrastructure breakthrough marks victory for political center (msn.com)

                The unfortunate hilarity continues in Washington, D.C.  Today’s papers are full of screaming about how wonderful it is that President Biden was able to get alleged Senate bipartisan compromise on an “infrastructure” bill.  Biden even had a press conference to congratulate the participants and to toot his own horn for being able to develop a bipartisan proposal in the polarized Washington environment.

                But hold the presses!  As it turns out, Biden has no intention of signing this “bipartisan” bill UNLESS the rest of his $6 trillion proposals pass both the House and Senate and are presented to him to signature.  As reported by The Epoch Times and numerous other media outlets:

President Joe Biden on Thursday told reporters that he won’t be signing the bipartisan infrastructure deal if Congress does not also pass another measure—a budget resolution that Democrats call “human infrastructure” that they want to push through via reconciliation to bypass the Senate filibuster.

Biden told reporters at the White House that he would not sign the bipartisan deal if it was the “only one” that seeks his desk.

“I’m not just signing the bipartisan bill and forgetting about the rest that I proposed,” he later said, adding that the Democrat-pushed package that seeks to expand the nation’s social safety net is “equally important” to the bipartisan bill that deals with physical, more traditional infrastructure needs.

                In the meantime, Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Schumer also piped in:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who said at a press conference at the Capitol earlier on Thursday that she would not hold a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill “until the Senate passes the bipartisan bill and a reconciliation bill.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he supports Pelosi’s plan, calling it “a good way to ensure that both ends go forward.”

                And then Biden told reporters that “‘I’m going to work closely with Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer to make sure that both move through the legislative process promptly and in tandem. Let me emphasize that: and in tandem.’”

                So as it turns out, there is no “bipartisan” deal.  There isn’t even a deal! Biden won’t sign it standing alone.  Pelosi won’t even bring it up for a vote standing alone unless and until the Senate passes both the “bipartisan” bill, and the partisan one.  So what exactly does “bipartisan” mean after all these linguistic gymnastics? 

                Gosh, this all sounds so familiar to us:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Lewis Carroll (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934 Edition)(First published in 1872).

References:        A Step Toward Flood Insurance Fairness – WSJ

                People build houses on stilts right on the beach all along the East Coast.  People buy houses in river flood plains.  When those houses are destroyed or damaged by a flood, including flooding from a hurricane, people rebuild in the same place, some multiple times.  What’s the definition of insanity?  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. 

                People in these areas are entitled to flood insurance for which they do have to pay a modest premium, but which is otherwise subsidized by our federal government – that is, by you.  Last year, according to the agency that administers this insurance boondoggle, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (better known as “FEMA”) paid $1.2 billion in claims.  Now the agency wants to increase premiums, and some increases could be substantial.

                According to FEMA, “[t]he premium hikes are necessary because the flood program is insolvent. The program currently owes the Treasury more than $21 billion, racked up by an average of $3 billion a year in claims from 2009 to 2018. The average flood claim in 2018 was $42,580, backed by an average annual premium of $642.”  President Biden has “proposed $358 million in new subsidies for the flood program.”  And with the seas rising in coastal areas, this is going to get much, much worse.

                We say enough is enough.  If people are stupid enough to build in an area susceptible to flooding, it should be at their risk, not your financial risk.  Of course, they likely wouldn’t build (or rebuild, as the case may be) without the government subsidized insurance they can get relatively cheaply.  So let’s just eliminate that useless program, save the money, and thus encourage these often-rich idiots to build elsewhere.  Stop wasting our money to offset the stupidity of people who are stupid, yet still bright enough to know a government-sponsored scam of the taxpayers when they see one that can advantage them. 

References:        U.S. judge blocks $4 billion debt relief program for minority farmers (msn.com); American Action :: Reparations are racist; Let’s call reparations what they really are: Anti-white racism – The Strident Conservative ™; The reparations fraud by Thomas Sowell (townhall.com); Amherst creates fund to pay reparations to Black residents – The Boston Globe

                We hear all this talk of reparations for blacks, and apparently some governmental entities have embarked on some sorts of reparation adventures.  The reality, however, is that reparations – being government payments of some sort to blacks or to entities for the purpose of ameliorating allegedly historical “systemic” racism – is the very definition of racism itself.  They are taxpayer funded anti-white racist boondoggles for the supposed benefit of blacks with no connection to slavery at all paid for by mostly white people with no connection to slavery at all. 

                In addition to the many reasons why reparations are, at the least, unlawful and/or just a stupid idea, trillions of dollars have already been spent – often fruitlessly – by the guilted government to assuage black feelings.  As David Horowitz noted 20 years ago:

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, TRILLIONS of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) – all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances.

                As if that wasn’t enough, President Biden has embarked on a crusade to effectively mandate some further level of “reparations” through various means, including executive orders and the so-called American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”), which among other things provides debt relief to “socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers”.  That part of the ARPA has been enjoined by the courts because it is simply unconstitutional for the government to provide benefits to anyone simply because they are black.

                If a debt-relief program specifically targeted for minority farmers is unconstitutional under an “equal protection” theory, according to the courts, then so are virtually all forms of reparations that can be conceived.  There is no principled difference between the two.  So let’s just forget this foolish notion of reparations and focus on moving forward rather than obsessing about something that is just unrealistic as well as unlawful. 

Reference:       To boost access to vocational schools, Mass. drops requirement to consider grades, attendance, or discipline in admissions – The Boston Globe

            OK, so in an effort to increase access to vocational schools, the education department has declared that vocational schools do not have to consider grades, attendance, disciplinary history or guidance counselor reccommendations for determining entry into a vocational school.  Instead, they are supposed to develop what the state calls “data-informed admissions policies.”

            This is because, unsurprisingly, the woke police assert that “those four criteria tend to favor students already destined to go to college, while harming students of color, English language learners, and those with disabilities, depriving them of the opportunity to learn technical skills necessary in a rapidly evolving economy.”  Well, if the student is already “destined” to go to college, then they aren’t going to be applying to a vocational school anyway.  So this certainly seems like a phony BS justification. 

            The change is also “aimed at making the student populations of vocational schools more closely reflect the demographics of their local school districts.”  Put another way, if those demographics are that 50% of the district population is black, then by golly there’s been discrimination if the demographics at the local vocational school isn’t 50% black. 

            OK.  So if they don’t have to consider grades, or consider attendance, or consider disciplinary history, or consider guidance counselor recommendations, what exactly is left to consider?  How about aptitude?  Oops.  If that requires a test of some sort, then that’s certainly a non-starter since all tests are racially biased.  And if it requires some sort of subjective assessment, then that’s racist too since there aren’t any standards. 

            Well, the demographic statement above, we think, is the complete answer to what is there to consider, though no one will admit it.  There will be no “standards” other than maniacally sorting out applicants into black, white, ESL learners, disabled, hispanic, asian, etc., groups, and then making sure that successful applicants reflect the “demographics.” 

            So, for instance, you end up with 50 slots for blacks, 50 for whites, 50 for ESL, etc.  And then the only question is which 50 blacks get accepted if more than 50 apply, and so forth.  Sounds like legally forbidden quotas to us, but we’re white so obviously that’s just our white privilege speaking. 

Reference:       Democrats unite behind voting rights bill as it faces a Senate roadblock – The Boston Globe        

            While there is certainly much to detest about the Democrats’ pending voting “rights” bill, it is not without its [presumably] unintentional hilarity.  Even attempts by moderate Democrats like Manchin to suggest changes still result in some iodiocy.

            For example, even Manchin’s changes “would also expand early voting, make Election Day a federal holiday and make it easier to vote by mail.”

            OK, so “Juneteenth” is a brand-new federal holiday not even a week old.  And now they want to make Election Day a federal holiday.  There’s two more paid holidays for federal employees with the inevitable spillover into the private, state and municipal sectors, which amounts to the taxpayers footing the bill for even more paid time off.  Just see, for example, an article in today’s Boston Herald about how paid time off adds up.  Buyouts for Massachusetts State troopers confirm police shedding ranks (bostonherald.com).

            But the most comical aspect is advocating for Election Day as a federal holiday when the rest of the bill makes the actual day of the election almost completely irrelevant.  Expansion – and mandating – of mail voting and early voting certainly are going to at least tend to make for far fewer voters on the actual election day, so why the heck should that be a holiday?  Just another shining example of your elected representatives hard at work (well, what passes for work in Washington, which is really just partisan posturing) spending your money on useless foolishness rather than addressing the many actual meaningful and real issues confronting them. 

Reference:          Juneteenth should be a national holiday – The Boston Globe

                Naturally there is some call for so-called “Juneteenth” to be a national holiday, and naturally it comes from the Boston Globe and the usual suspects.  However, the blacks already got their holiday decades ago in Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.  If they get yet another one to quiet their incessant clamoring, we’re going to have an onslaught of muslims, jews, hispanics, latins, etc., etc., all lobbying for their own day, which is just going to further divide the nation and cement indentity politics into the national holiday scheme.  Bad enough we all have to put up with this crap in politics and social media, etc. , etc.  We don’t need anymore, thanks anyway. 

Reference:          DOL Issues Long-Awaited COVID-19 Safety Rule – Law360

A hot bulletin from Law360 issued this afternoon:

BREAKING: DOL Issues Long-Awaited COVID-19 Safety Rule

The Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] on Thursday issued a highly-anticipated emergency rule that sets workplace safety parameters for employers in the health care sector for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.  . . .

President Joe Biden, in one of his first executive orders upon taking office in January, ordered the Labor Department to consider issuing an emergency temporary standard for businesses to follow during the pandemic and, if the department deemed it necessary, to issue an ETS by March 15. But numerous delays ensued, with the DOL ultimately submitting the proposed ETS to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget for final approval in late April.

                We’re sure all of our health care friends are glad that now this pandemic is on the ropes, there is finally an emergency rule from OSHA in place to provide guidance for workplace safety.  There’s nothing like timely government action for an emergency.

Reference:          Research Journal Publishes Article Calling ‘Whiteness’ a ‘Parasitic-Like Condition’ (msn.com)

                Some of this nonsense just makes you want to cry and off yourself.  Just skim the excerpts from this article and ponder the future of civilization if coddled “academics” who have drunk the “diversity and inclusion” koolaid like this succeed in their effort to be influential:

The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association is raising eyebrows among readers for publishing an article that claimed “whiteness” is a “parasitic-like condition.”

“Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has — a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which ‘white’ people have a particular susceptibility,” said the article, was authored by Dr. Donald Moss. “The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world.”

The author, an instructor at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute and at the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis, added, “Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples.”

Reference: Many North American birds bear names with racist roots. That’s beginning to change (msn.com)

Check out the excerpts below:

Bird Names for Birds is a grassroots initiative aiming to change eponymous common names of birds, specifically in North America, arguing that many have been named after problematic people. . . .

Last year, supporters of bird name changes saw one victory when the American Ornithological Society renamed McCown’s longspur — after Confederate Gen. John Porter McCown — as the thick-billed longspur.

On Tuesday, there was another step forward. The AOS announced a new ad hoc committee that would make recommendations for guidelines on how to identify and change “harmful English bird names,” according to a statement by the organization. The committee is set to have specific recommendations by early 2022.

“We are excited to put this important task into the hands of our ad hoc committee, and look forward to receiving their recommendations on the process for reviewing and changing English bird names to ensure ornithology and birding are as inclusive as possible,” the AOS said in the statement.

Ultimately, Bird Names for Birds wants to make the system across the board more inclusive. While changing the name of McCown’s longspur to thick-billed longspur was great, it only represented the tip of the iceberg, Rutter said, noting that the AOS previously rejected the same proposal in 2018.

“Nothing about the process changed,” she said, adding that more can be done to amplify non-White birders’ perspectives. . . .