He Was Seeing His Other, Secret Family
How To Prove Yourself Superior

Clowns Ousted, Conspiracies Invoked

The progressive San Francisco school-board president recalled by voters earlier this week claimed her ousting was a “consequence” of fighting for racial justice, and represents a victory for “white supremacists.”

Yes, those “white supremacists” for which San Francisco is famed - i.e., local parents, including hundreds of “non-citizen immigrants,” who happen to have skin of many different colours.

More than 70 percent of voters elected to recall [board president, Gabriela] López and two other progressive board members, Alison Collins and Faauuga Moliga. 

The trio’s history of mismanagement and self-indulgence is pretty much what you’d expect of leftist monomaniacs given power and a seemingly endless supply of other people’s money, with a budget deficit of $125 million, and two hours spent debating whether a gay white dad was sufficiently “diverse” to join a volunteer parent committee.

One of the ousted ladies, Ms Alison Collins, has of course been mentioned here before, when disdaining pupils of Chinese or Korean ancestry as “white” or white-adjacent, and therefore suspect, and when insisting that a parental preference for academic rigour is “racist,” and that the way to fight for “high-quality schools” is to abandon expectations of competence.

An educator, you see.

Comments

Rafi

two hours spent debating whether a gay white dad was sufficiently “diverse” to join a volunteer parent committee.

Victimhood poker can't be played quickly.

Jen

1. is incompetent.
2. is racist.
3. gets fired.
4. blames racism.

David

1. is incompetent.
2. is racist.
3. gets fired.
4. blames racism.

Ah, but admitting incompetence is tough if you’re a narcissistic mediocrity with obnoxious, rather primitive racial preoccupations, and accustomed to getting away with it. Indeed, being rewarded for those same obnoxious, rather primitive racial preoccupations.

J West

Consider, one doesn’t need to be smart, to succeed in America… just learn how to be victim … whine about it and voila … before you know it you have a government gig with zero responsibility, and very little pretend work to do.

This doesn’t work for whit people, so don’t bother.

TDK

two hours spent debating whether a gay white dad was sufficiently “diverse” to join a volunteer parent committee.

I always assumed it was a myth that theologians in Constantinople debated how many angels could dance on the head on a pin, while the Turks besieged the city. Future historians will likewise wonder about the our priestly caste's current preoccupations.

TDK

PS: another article discussing this here

WTP

This doesn’t work for whit people, so don’t bother.

Sure it does. Especially if you profess to be whining for the "benefit" of PoC's. Especially if you are a white woman. Especially of a certain age. Hell, they're the ones primarily responsible for weaponizing whining.

JuliaM

WTP: ’ Hell, they're the ones primarily responsible for weaponizing whining.’

While the supposed ‘oppressed minorities’ get on with their lives, too busy to worry about such nonsense.

David

another article discussing this here

Thanks. Link added to post.

Rigmarole

I'm sure many Asians would be surprised to learn that philosophies dating back thousands of years relating to merit, discipline, achievement and personal responsibility are the sole province of white western culture. Nothing exists outside this sphere...apparently.

pst314

I'm sure many Asians would be surprised to learn that philosophies dating back thousands of years relating to merit, discipline, achievement and personal responsibility are the sole province of white western culture.

They're honorary wypipo. Or should I say honkies? Polar bears to be hunted.

pst314

One of the recurring black complaints about Asian and Middle Eastern immigrants is that they don't "give back to the community". That is, they come to America with virtually nothing, work like Hell, and save every penny. Then they open little shops which they staff entirely with family members who work long hours while continuing to save every dollar they can to invest in the business and save for the future. The local black ghetto residents resent this, expecting to be given well-paying jobs, just because (as black people who don't *always* shoplift from those stores) they deserve such jobs. Their sense of entitlement deserves ridicule and contempt, but note also the things they seem to be unaware of: The family members working in those shops are, when you tally up the hours they work, and the resulting spending money they have, doing it for below minimum wage. And furthermore, this is how it has always been: If you look at the stories of immigrants from a century ago you will see that they too staffed their little shops solely with family labor. In the meantime, the local black ghetto residents continue to be uninterested in the habits of hard work and deferred gratification that enable the immigrants to succeed and move into the middle class.

Lancastrian Oik

Speaking of leftist monomaniacs, conspiratorial clowns, etc., Brendan O'Neill reviews Laurie Penny's latest offering.

pst314

Brendan O'Neill reviews Laurie Penny's latest offering.

The link is subtitled "All hail Laurie Penny, brave spokeswoman for the downtrodden bourgeoisie."

I tend to think of Laurie Penny as a member of the wealthy upper-class ruling class, not the bourgeoisie.

Lancastrian Oik

The link is subtitled "All hail Laurie Penny, brave spokeswoman for the downtrodden bourgeoisie."

I think that's intentional, and is another not-so-subtle dig. Penny isn't actually upper-class; that echelon of British society is pretty much occupied by the aristocracy and a scant few who are not themselves nobles (for example, the exceedingly wealthy Canadian dynasty the Westons, who live in England and are friendly with the royal family).

I'd say that Laurie is upper middle-class; her parents are/were lawyers (in England that could mean they were either members of the Bar, or practised as solicitors) and they must have been fairly wealthy because for all her pretensions and protestations to the contrary (lurking around Brighton seafront in a hoody, smoking "spliffs", etc.) she was privately educated and read for a degree at Oxford. She is therefore very much part of the British bourgeoisie.

Trying to explain how our class system works is nigh-on impossible; my suggestion would be to watch something like Dad's Army (particularly the interplay between Captain Mainwaring and Sgt. Wilson, the latter being the former's social superior), or Fawlty Towers, where Basil Fawlty's attitudes to others are class-driven and in his case mean either fawning or disdain and sneering.

Or you could use this as a sort of quick reference guide.

pawl

they open little shops which they staff entirely with family members who work long hours

My great great grandfather, a son of tenant farmers, opened a country store, juggled the money enough for his sons to become Dickensian articled clerks in higher-class establishments, and that generation juggled its own money enough to send some of their sons to college. Path to the middle class right there. If any of those generations had been competing with Asians, would they have nailed the landing to get their sons to the next social level? Maybe, given that they were hard men who lived in hard times, but would they have chosen to make the task even harder?

My generation of whites has trouble competing with Asians. We're the "privileged" inheritors of two centuries of progressive reform. We think that kids should have time to be out playing and not spend 20 hours a week in test prep. We believe in work life balance. When we see a family business where a loyal retainer or a poor relation is working undocumented hours, we consider it to be dysfunctional at best, and we have other names for it too.

To me it argues for letting each race run their own corner stores, according to their own tastes in work-life balance. Asians will probably have the longest opening hours, followed by whites, and followed by blacks - if you don't like it, take it up with your co-ethnics. Blacks in Africa or in pre-1965 Harlem can run corner stores. Importing Asians has damaged their self-reliance and cut off a path into the middle class that they especially need because they're not exactly diamond-in-the-rough academic stars.

On the other side, the children of Asian immigrant storekeepers have become a hostile, resentful overclass. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, the only entirely likeable character in the Simpsons, the character whose dignity and moral integrity are a constant reproof of useless heritage Americans, has been recast as a racist stereotype, his relatively low status in a service occupation regarded as being below the rightful place of his people.

pst314

Or you could use this as a sort of quick reference guide.

That is a classic. Haven't seen it in years. There is also this Year 2000 version of that sketch, which is pretty good.

randian

two hours spent debating whether a gay white dad was sufficiently “diverse” to join a volunteer parent committee

I suspect a man of any stripe would have difficulty being deemed "qualified" to join.

WTP

There is also this Year 2000 version of that sketch, which is pretty good.

Which of course lost me at the end. Also, you do get why the joke "I'm New Labor. So I don't believe in anything." is funny to that audience, yes?

pst314

Which of course lost me at the end.

And me, too. I've grown used to that.

Also, you do get why the joke "I'm New Labor. So I don't believe in anything." is funny to that audience, yes?

Yes. In fact I just ran across a dig at the Labour Party last night which encapsulates that:

"...a socialist party that has discarded the socialist agenda while acquiring no other to replace it..."
--Roger Scruton, "The Blair Legacy" (Salisbury Review, 1997) in Against the Tide

But I could quip that the true agenda of Labour--and of any socialist party--is not so much socialism itself as the acquisition of total power.

pst314

I am imagining the New York Times without its leftist staff.

Steve E

I am imagining the New York Times without its leftist staff.

I'm just not able to do that. This is the same paper that published Walter Duranty and defended him even when his lying propaganda was exposed.

Daniel Ream

I'm imagining a world where J.K. Rowling didn't plagiarize Jill Murphy and then try to curry favour with the alphabet mob by retroactively declaring Dumbledore gay.

Whenever this topic comes up no one ever mentions Nora Roberts, P.D. James, Ellis Peters, Lindsey Davis, Sara Peretsky or Sue Grafton.

Squires

Or Ursula K. Le Guin.

Uma Thurmond's Feet

Whenever this topic comes up no one ever mentions Nora Roberts, P.D. James, Ellis Peters, Lindsey Davis, Sara Peretsky or Sue Grafton.

Could you explain? The topic here are the attacks on Rowling, not them.

ccscientist

In one of Sowell's books, he points out that Algerian shop-keepers in central Africa work long hours etc and the locals call it unfair. Same with the Chinese in Malaysia. But to the US and UK woke, there is no history and there is no relevant experience from other cultures.

Daniel Ream

Could you explain? The topic here are the attacks on Rowling, not them.

Read the linked essay.

Let's move on to my third problem with the ad. Throughout modern history (and let's not even get into before that) female authors have struggled to be read. To have their voices and stories heard, they've had to publish anonymously or as men. Cutter Bell. George Eliot. Anon. Even now, female authors struggle with the "chick lit" label. (I'm not going to bring her into it, but HUGE respect to a certain Ms Keyes for showing the world that women can write hugely successful fiction that touches millions of people through pure talent.) But I digress. Joanna Rowling chose to be "JK" because everyone knew her books would sell better if people thought she was a man. And so it happened. But the more successful she's been, the more targeted the attacks on her as a woman have become.

Nora Roberts did in fact publish her crime fiction as "J.D. Robb" for precisely that reason, but everybody knows who she is now and no one cares. None of the other writers ever hid the fact that they were female while writing in a very male-dominated genre (hardboiled PI fiction) and they've all been massive successes (Sue Grafton has run out of letters in the alphabet to title her books with).

The goalpost shifting (Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters would be surprised at the notion that they'd struggled with being read - oh wait "chick lit" doesn't count apparently), the historical ignorance (everyone knew Mary Shelley and Baroness Orczy were women) and the baldfaced gaslighting - does Agatha Christie count as "chick lit" now? - all lead up to this gem:

But the more successful she's been, the more targeted the attacks on her as a woman have become

No, J.K. Rowling is being targeted because she demonstrated that she would bend the knee to the alphabet mob and corrupt her own work to please them. And once you've paid the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

pst314

In one of Sowell's books, he points out...

Probably Migrations and Cultures and a few others too.

pst314

No, J.K. Rowling is being targeted because she demonstrated that she would [not] bend the knee to the alphabet mob and corrupt her own work to please them.

Exactly. It's...strange that anyone would claim she is being targeted because she is a woman. Where were all those attacks before the trans wars erupted?

Darleen

Public schools have really become the enemies of parents.

CayleyGraph
I'm imagining a world where J.K. Rowling didn't plagiarize Jill Murphy and then try to curry favour with the alphabet mob by retroactively declaring Dumbledore gay.
Huh, I'd never heard of Jill Murphy.

And there you have it! A female author being unrecognized!

Darleen

strange that anyone would claim she is being targeted because she is a woman.

Well, there is a kernel of truth to that claim ... you don't see the level of insane outrage from FtM trans towards males like you do from MtF trans towards women.

WTP

OT-ish to the Canadian thing...Not sure how this feels in other Anglosphere countries but as an American, I find it absolutely surreal and borderline hilarious to hear cops talk tough-guy/fascist in a Canadian accent. This world cannot be real.

WTP

Meant to add...On top of that the fascist cops are arresting people but not really arresting them but kidnapping them but not really kidnapping them, just taking them down the road apiece and let free. It's like a simulation written by Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

ACTOldFart

Just as a bit of tiny minded lit hist nit-picking, Charlotte Bronte published under the name Currer Bell, not Cutter Bell

Darleen

just taking them down the road apiece and let free.

But if they have their names, none of them will have any access to their bank accounts or credit cards tomorrow.

David

J.K. Rowling is being targeted because she demonstrated that she would bend the knee to the alphabet mob and corrupt her own work to please them. And once you’ve paid the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

I’d have thought that Ms Rowling’s ongoing dramas would have served as a warning to other softish leftists of what happens when you give an inch to lefties less soft. Endorsing seemingly unconditional immigration into the neighbourhoods of people much poorer than herself hasn’t spared her from the bizarrely heated ire, which rumbles on year after year, and nor has retconning her own characters to fit their niche demands. She’s somehow become a central hate-figure in woke theology.

David

And regarding Harry Potter, I remembered this from an earlier thread:

One thing that irritated me slightly about the final film was the last-minute fudging of agency in the killing of Voldemort. I haven’t read the books and it’s possible I’ve missed something – I’m by no means steeped in the mythos – but in the film, the villain’s destruction looks a bit of a moral convenience, a technical rebound of sorts. In moral terms, it should, I think, be clearer that Harry, our hero, has to kill Voldemort. The dragon has to be slain. Rather than, as it appears, being spared that grim responsibility by a sub-clause of how wands supposedly work.

In effect, Voldemort inadvertently kills himself due to a wand-ownership technicality and a rebounding spell. (Even at the very end, with everything at stake, Harry is still using non-lethal magic, unlike his foes.) As a literary hubris-nemesis thing, it doesn’t quite work, and as a moral parable, it stumbles at the finishing line. It’s a kind of moral squeamishness. In the real world, you can’t rely on some convenience that spares you the responsibility of doing what needs to be done. I realise this may be asking a lot of a film series aimed chiefly at children and teenagers. But there are plenty of older children’s stories that don’t fudge the issue.

Again, if I’ve missed some detail that’s in the books, by all means correct me.

Stephanie Richer

If you look at the stories of immigrants from a century ago you will see that they too staffed their little shops solely with family labor. In the meantime, the local black ghetto residents continue to be uninterested in the habits of hard work and deferred gratification that enable the immigrants to succeed and move into the middle class.

Well, if the family structure is destroyed and you've got five kids with three baby daddies, it's difficult getting that family labor together.

Daniel Ream

She’s somehow become a central hate-figure in woke theology.

It's not that mysterious. It's the same kind of nerdrage we've had from Star Trek fans for ages (and now Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and, and, and...). You have a work of fantasy aimed at children that in many ways plays directly to the damaged and disaffected among them and presents them with a milieu much more appealing than the real world. As a work for children, moralities are simple and obvious, the problems and their solutions also simple and obvious, and the sharp edges are sanded off of everything. The milieu becomes an emotional safe space for them and as such, occupies a place of importance in their psyche all out of proportion to its real-world value. It becomes very personal and they begin developing a sense of ownership of the milieu, as if it belongs to them and not the original creator (or whatever soulless multinational currently holds the IP). The inevitable fanfic ensues, and said fanfic is always about the fan's own inner insecurities, torments, and power fantasies. Anything that then disrupts this emotional safe space is deeply threatening to the fan's emotional security, and nothing can disrupt it more than the original creator of the milieu, who has the absolute moral and legal authority to change it however they wish. Therefore, the original creator must march in ideological lockstep with the damaged, dysfunctional fan lest the fan suffer a catastrophic loss of emotional security.

Plus every IngSoc needs a Goldstein, so there's that.

Voldemort inadvertently kills himself due to a wand-ownership technicality and a rebounding spell. (Even at the very end, with everything at stake, Harry is still using non-lethal magic, unlike his foes.)

I stopped reading the books at #3, or possibly 4, and I've seen none of the movies, but this might be an artifact of the different notions of "children's entertainment" on either side of the pond. British children's fiction tends more towards the practical and grim; there's less sanding off of the rough edges for the tots. American children's media, OTOH, has been hidebound for decades by ridiculous rules about what you can and cannot depict. The villain being hoist by his own petard due to carelessness, hubris or just plain deus ex machina so as to avoid the hero having to actually inflict violence upon his person is a ridiculously common trope in American children's adventure fiction.

WTP

In the real world, you can’t rely on some convenience that spares you the responsibility of doing what needs to be done.

Yet that's essentially baked into the pie with fiction written by the kinds of people who worship fiction and especially the wine mom and similar types to whom most fiction is targeted. And most especially when the author is herself a woman. Throw on top of that the incredible increase disposable income pushing productive people, mostly men, the kind of people who traditionally take on the responsibility of doing what needs to be done into the margins of society such that the writers and consumers of fiction feed on the self justification and moral superiority of non-agency (better word?). The Eloi grossly outnumber the Morlocks. And the Morlocks aren't even getting the balancing pushback of a decent Eloi-roast.

Yes, I know HP books are for children, but you can't really believe that the world's children make these decisions for themselves. Women, teachers, moms, aunts are driving this. They for the most part are the ones making the financially discretionary decision. And effectively as well, children are themselves feminized in the sense of lacking effective agency in life. True they are on a transition to agency...well, hopefully...well mostly the boys anyway...hopefully.

I know I'm not presenting this point well enough to sell it but it would take months/years to flush all this out in a book or sociological study, neither of which efforts are really my forte. I'm already blowing through my personal 3-paragraph limit. So pick at my points if you wish but the underlying problem of the modern world IMNSHO is we have never in history had the ability to support soooo many people doing non-productive things yet been able to maintain the socioeconomic structures that create even more wealth. At some point, something has to give and the absurdities, especially those of the last two years, read to me as a huge tell.

WTP

Also what Daniel Ream just said. In spades. That itself could be a book. Or a course in sociology. Assuming we had anyone interested in sociology beside the sociopaths, that is.

David

The villain being hoist by his own petard… so as to avoid the hero having to actually inflict violence upon his person is a ridiculously common trope in American children’s adventure fiction.

It does get wearying, in terms of storytelling. It also seems to reinforce the conceit that you’ll never have to get your hands too dirty, or ever have to say no.

Something not dissimilar would happen regularly in Star Trek: The Next Generation - endless stories in which some convenient third alternative, some technological fix, would spare our merry, caring crew from hard decisions. Everyone could be happy, all conflict resolved. (The obvious exception being DS9’s In the Pale Moonlight, which stands out, and is widely acclaimed, precisely because it doesn’t rely on the customary fudging. Hands get dirty, and it’s a good job they did.)

Karl

From the Spectator article
...a resolution in ‘Support of Equitable Representation and Services for Two-Spirit Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Asexual (2SLGBTQIA+) Parents and Families

Truly, in this Brave New World, comedy is dead.

Richard Cranium

Ah, yes. Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Who the bleep would think it would be a good idea to have children on a warship? You might do that when you re-flag a merchant vessel to be in a militia or some such as an act of last resort. Even then, you'd really want the kids to be somewhere else so that the crew would pay attention to their duties.

Karl

children on a warship

What warship - The Enterprise??

Dialogue from "Yesterday's Enterprise":

Guinan:
Families. There should be children on this ship.

Capt. Picard:
What? Children on the Enterprise? Guinan, we're at war!

Guinan:
No we're not! At least we're not... supposed to be. This is not a ship of war. This is a ship of peace.

pst314

Who the bleep would think it would be a good idea to have children on a warship?

It made some sense in the 18th Century, when nautical skills were learned on the job, but not today. But almost certainly Wesley Crusher existed merely because the series creators wanted a character that the kids could "identify with".

rak

American children's media, OTOH, has been hidebound for decades by ridiculous rules about what you can and cannot depict.

The Disney film Old Yeller, where the boy shoots his own rabid dog, refusing the easier way of letting a grown-up do it, was made in 1957. I'm pretty sure that from the 80's onwards, it would have been a regulatory process where tears are shed for the humanely euthanized dog but nobody morally pulls the trigger.

Public schools have really become the enemies of parents.

No statement from the school or indeed from the girls.

The science camp made a bland statement of the logic, if people's belief in their stated principles is truly without reservation. Among Earthlings, custom and quaint notions of modesty demand that the dorm supervisor for young girls should be a woman, and preferably a happy normal young woman who can be a role model. SCIENCE and EQUITY tell us that an MtF qualifies on both counts. Hands up anyone who disagrees. Therefore it's both legal and proper.

endless stories in which some convenient third alternative, some technological fix, would spare our merry, caring crew from hard decisions

The parents feel obliged to emphasize that they don't think any law has been broken, that their interest is purely about dotting the i's on the release form. If only this had been included among the bullet points about pocket money and food allergies and insect repellent, says the interviewed parent, then I could have made an informed decision about whether to let my child share living arrangements with a pervert who's volunteered to share living arrangements with children. A transparent, informed process where nobody need be transparent or informative about their true reasons for taking their child out.

ccscientist

enemies of parents: wow. You can really see the victim hierarchy in action. Not dissent allowed. You can keep your bank account....for now.

pst314

In moral terms, it should, I think, be clearer that Harry, our hero, has to kill Voldemort. The dragon has to be slain...

--Which calls to mind an essay by G. K. Chesterton which is usually summarized as follows: "Fairytales don't teach children that monsters exist, they already know that monsters exist. Fairy tales teach children that monsters can be killed."

"...Harry is still using non-lethal magic, unlike his foes...as a moral parable, it stumbles at the finishing line. It’s a kind of moral squeamishness. In the real world, you can’t rely on some convenience that spares you the responsibility of doing what needs to be done."

Indeed. And one can see that squeamishness in real life when "progressive minded" people react in horror and outrage when a thug is killed by his victim--and with even greater outrage when anyone who points out the justice of that killing.

pst314

"It’s a kind of moral squeamishness. In the real world, you can’t rely on some convenience that spares you the responsibility of doing what needs to be done."

I recall encountering scenes in some of Terry Pratchett's novels which illustrated that failing. (Examples may come to mind later, although I don't want to distract the thread from the examples currently being discussed.)

Richard Cranium

In ST:TNG, there was a bloody kindergarten on the ship.

I know that powder monkeys were rather young, but you'd have to be big enough to carry a bag of gunpowder. I thought that version of Star Trek was a larger pile of shit than the original (which I enjoyed at the time, given that I was between 6 and 10 years old when it was broadcast)

The character Guinan was as stupid as her actor. The Enterprise carried enough firepower to annihilate planetary cities.

David

And one can see that squeamishness in real life when “progressive minded” people react in horror and outrage when a thug is killed by his victim--and with even greater outrage when anyone who points out the justice of that killing.

For instance.

David

If Mr Ford, star of the link above, doesn’t seem sufficiently juvenile, unrealistic, and emotionally arrested, see also this.

Karl

The Enterprise carried enough firepower to annihilate planetary cities.

Purely for defensive purposes I assure you. In case of unprovoked attack by some rogue "planetary city". Whatever that is.

The character Guinan was as stupid as her actor.

A very bold claim! Though it is odd how invested we have become in the intellectual capacity what are essentially talking clothes-horses. I blame the telly.

WTP

see also this.

Heh. Forgot about the exchange in the comments there with one Zenith Carb. Heated discussion until he just went away. Hope it was something I said.

pst314

Purely for defensive purposes I assure you.

Many of the assumptions pretenses upon which the series was based were, to put it kindly, silly.

pst314

"It’s a kind of moral squeamishness. In the real world, you can’t rely on some convenience that spares you the responsibility of doing what needs to be done."

Liberalism is childishness masquerading as wisdom.

Karl

A society without any form of money but a militaristic space organisation dedicated to peaceful exploration aboard ships with planet-busting weaponry, trans-light-speed engines, instantaneous matter transportation, unlimited energy sources, machines that could fabricate any physical artifact, medical processes that don't even break the skin...

Many of the pretenses upon which the series was based were, to put it kindly, silly.

Sir, I just don't know what you mean!

pst314

Sir, I just don't know what you mean!

😁

anon a mouse

"‘Support of Equitable Representation and Services for Two-Spirit Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Asexual (2SLGBTQIA+) Parents and Families"

Well, it appears to be a variety of English. It's undecipherable, tho...

Darleen

Many of the pretenses upon which the series was based were, to put it kindly, silly.

Well, TOS was sold as "Wagon Train to the stars" ... and I'm old enough to remember watching that western as a kid ... the show may have been uneven, but it wasn't as infected with the utopianism of TNG (which I quit watching early on).

Westerns did show the good guys killing the bad guys.

asiaseen

It’s a kind of moral squeamishness. In the real world, you can’t rely on some convenience that spares you the responsibility of doing what needs to be done.

I recall encountering scenes in some of Terry Pratchett's novels which illustrated that failing."

Susan Sto-Helit and The Poker come to mind as a good way of teaching chidren reality.

ccscientist

All the startrek shows were benevolent dictatorships. Everyone followed orders (except the captain, sometimes). Crew died and no one mourned. No money, no jobs ever shown outside of the military life. Replicators took care of drudgery. They never even showed a crew member cleaning the ship. The progressive's dream it appears.

Karl

Personally much of TNG's appeal was escaping the classic Westerns' banality of goodness. A fantasy techno-utopia allowed for more thoughtful solutions to society's problems than having Kirk punch out the evil lizard-man of the week, before bedding his surprisingly alluring lizard-woman.

Of course, maybe it was just such moral fuzziness which let in the wokesters and the consequent downfall of Western Civilization? Perhaps if my generation had been forced to endure more white-hats murdering black-hats in cold, but ethically justified, blood we would now be more firmly resisting demands to "punch a TERF".

Can't say that argument sounds persuasive.

anon a mouse

Star dreck on a Monday AM?
*sigh*
Oh look, Spaceballs!

Karl

I am imagining the New York Times without its leftist staff.

Bit late to this party, but if no-one else has posted it, there's fun to be had from Titania McGrath's take.

As a role model to impressionable girls across the globe, Rowling is doing untold damage to the feminist cause. So if she really wants to set an example to these young women, to promote the cause of female liberation and autonomy, she needs to start shutting up and doing what she’s told.

Darleen

classic Westerns' banality of goodness

I politely disagree ... oh, I know that westerns have been sneered as "white hat/black hat" cartoons, but many of the actual classic Westerns were a bit more nuanced? The Searchers comes to mind. And I had an occasion a couple of years ago to listen to many of the radio-edition episodes of Gunsmoke (with William Conrad as Marshal Dillion) and it was definitely NOT a banal-kid-friendly show.

WTP

classic Westerns were a bit more nuanced

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance anyone? Anyone?

Uma Thurmond's Feet

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance anyone?

I saw it as a kid and it left a big impression on me, especially "print the legend."

Wonder why I went into journalism anyway.

Karl

The complexity of TNG's satisfying morality plays mostly came from consideration of system-level interactions, rather than individual ones. They considered what was superior in a society's moral framework (the Federation was always better) and what made it so, rather than how particular characters were more righteous (Kirk was always the best).

It's rare to find that depth of meta-analysis in classic Westerns, though you it does sometimes happen when Red Indians are involved.

WTP

"print the legend."

First time I saw that decades ago I was sure that I knew what it meant. Since the advent, exposure really, of Fake News, I’m not so sure. It has taken on a few meanings that I cycle through every time I watch it.

I sneeze in threes

O/T, but are you aware that Miss Penny has gotten married. I don’t recommend reading the article below.

https://www.wired.com/story/my-highly-unexpected-heterosexual-pandemic-zoom-wedding/

David

are you aware that Miss Penny has gotten married?

And yet Laurie has spent so many years telling us, quite emphatically, that marriage is obsolete, a sham, a vile tool of the patriarchy, and that “romantic love is a systemic lie designed to manipulate women into lifelong emotional labour.” And that, “I happen to believe in dismantling the social and economic institutions of marriage and family.”

Maybe she meant your marriage, and your family, not hers.

pst314

Maybe she meant your marriage, and your family, not hers.

When a socialist says "all property is theft" he implicitly excludes his own.

Daniel Ream

TOS was sold as "Wagon Train to the stars"

Oh, not this again. Roddenberry did not mean Star Trek was intended to be a Western. He meant that the production structure of the show was intended to mimic Wagon Train - the main cast as a framing device for what was essentially a series of guest stars headlining their own plots, in a milieu where there needn't be any continuity of place or plot from one episode to the next.

The obvious exception being DS9’s In the Pale Moonlight

It's not at all coincidental that In the Pale Moonlight and similar elements like Section 31 could only be added to the canon after the notoriously vindictive Roddenberry was safely dead.

Who the bleep would think it would be a good idea to have children on a warship?

Marketing droids who'd figured out that TNG's actual audience was a great deal more middle-aged and female than they'd originally assumed. This reaches its pinnacle with the "Flotter" episodes of Voyager.

Wesley Crusher existed merely because the series creators wanted a character that the kids could "identify with"

Wesley is Roddenberry's Mary Sue. Wheaton has said that he struggled with the character until he realized that, and began playing Crusher as Eugene Wesley Roddenberry's mini-me. Also, the "Luke" in "Luke Skywalker" is short for "Lucas".

The complexity of TNG's satisfying morality plays

It took me a moment to realize you weren't being sarcastic.

The reason the first season of TNG was so appallingly awful is that Roddenberry insisted upon his neo-utopian vision of the UFP ("There is no hunger, there is no greed, and all the children know how to read" ~ per Jonathan Frakes). Many of the original TOS writers were brought back to work on TNG and almost immediately left because they could not get Roddenberry to understand that if there was no conflict then there was no drama, and since he'd removed any possibility of internal conflict they were left with ray guns and bug-eyed monsters and papier-mache rocks.

Still, to describe TNG's morality plays as "complex" when they are, by design, simplified and pared-down versions of pre-existing works is a bit curious, to say the least.

It's rare to find that depth of meta-analysis in classic Westerns

The very first episode of Colt .45 contains a scene where the protagonist, a traveling salesman for the Colt firearms company, explains to two young women that faster, better, more powerful guns are just tools in the hands of men, and that it is up to men to find better ways to make peace than with guns (the gun he is currently advertising is the Colt Peacemaker, hence the reference).

They considered what was superior in a society's moral framework (the Federation was always better) and what made it so, rather than how particular characters were more righteous (Kirk was always the best)

Elder: No! No! Only the eyes of a chief may see the Ee'd Plebnista.

Kirk: This was not written for chiefs. Hear me! Hear this! Among my people, we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected, but wherever we have gone, no words have said this thing of importance in quite this way. Look at these three words written larger than the rest, with a special pride never written before or since. Tall words proudly saying We the People. That which you call Ee'd Plebnista was not written for the chiefs or the kings or the warriors or the rich and powerful, but for all the people! Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words, 'We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.' These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well!

Cloud: The Kohms?

Kirk: They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?

Are you sure we're watching the same Star Trek? I know there's a lot of fan films out there.

pst314

Wesley is Roddenberry's Mary Sue...

I never heard that. Interesting.

The reason the first season of TNG was so appallingly awful is that Roddenberry insisted upon his neo-utopian vision of the UFP ("There is no hunger, there is no greed, and all the children know how to read" ~ per Jonathan Frakes).

As I recall, Harlan Ellison's original script for "The City on the Edge of Forever" involved Enterprise crew members dealing in illegal drugs. Roddenberry nixed that as inappropriate for his utopian vision. I'm not sure what I would have thought of Harlan's script, he being the dystopian scold that he was, but Roddenberry was indeed in many ways a boring and silly utopian.

ComputerLabRat

... that the way to fight for “high-quality schools” is to abandon expectations of competence.

Yeah try that in an Asian cultural majority region and see how well it goes down. Which they did, and found out it was "not very well". Of course these clowns think racism is at the bottom of everything, as they can't see beyond the epidermal melanin content. But culturally, Asians tend to have 2-parent families, and place high value on hard work to achieve competence and success. Has little or nothing to do with skin color but a lot more to do with cultural values.

I can see a lot of Tiger Mom types getting pretty pissed off to think that some kids would get admitted to Lowell without demonstrating basic competence in much of anything when they've pushed their own to excel to get into a high quality school. Good on them for pushing back on this racist dumbing down of everything.

pst314

...the way to fight for “high-quality schools” is to abandon expectations of competence.

That was an consequence of the failure of the left's social engineering programs: They started out, generations ago, demanding that all educational opportunities be opened up to blacks. But after so many years of failure they now demand that standards be lowered so as to redefine success so as to include black failures. And what's more, everyone's educational opportunities must be sabotaged so that blacks do not look bad.

pst314

You can make a case that the repeated failure of the left's dreams has driven the left insane.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

OK, I'm confused.

Later Monday, Members of Parliament are set to vote to confirm the powers. Trudeau suggested that he sees the vote as an indication of the level of confidence the House of Commons has in his continued leadership.

“I can't imagine anyone voting against this bill as expressing anything other than a deep mistrust in the government's ability to keep Canadians safe at an extraordinarily important time,” Trudeau said.

If Parliament is going to vote about the emergency powers, that means they are a part of the government, so the statement makes no sense, or is Brandeaux pulling a "l'état, c'est moi"?

pst314

When a tweet starts out, "As a women studies major...." you know it is going to be comedy gold, albeit dark comedy.

Steve E

OK, I'm confused.

If I understand correctly, your confusion comes from the expectation that a Member of Parliament is a part of the Government. That is true in the sense that Government in Canada is bicameral with an elected Parliament and an appointed Senate under the Queen's representative (Governor General) as the Head of State.

But Government, in this case, has a more specific meaning. The party which holds a majority of seats in Parliament or can convince enough members of other parties to support their agenda to effect a majority on house votes forms "The Government". The other Members of Parliament are considered opposition party members and as such are not part of the "The Government".

I may have misunderstood what you're asking though. In any case, Turdeaux is pulling a "l'état, c'est moi".

Darleen

"I guess in a kind of new Iron Curtain of Chinada you’re not allowed to voice your dissatisfaction."

NateWhilk

When a tweet starts out, "As a women studies major...."

From a reply to that tweet, "Folks should hold the fathers to a higher standards"

Yes, women should hold the potential fathers to higher standards before having their children.

David

It’s not at all coincidental that In the Pale Moonlight and similar elements like Section 31 could only be added to the canon after the notoriously vindictive Roddenberry was safely dead.

For those unfamiliar, Section 31 is a secret organisation within Starfleet that does their clandestine dirty work – spying or the occasional assassination, etc - and is generally despised by our main heroic characters. And yet, in DS9, during the Dominion war, and faced with a totalitarian, genocidal enemy, Section 31 in large part saved the Federation, the entire quadrant, by infecting the Founders, via Odo, with a terminal pathogen. Without the infection - which left our heroes aghast and spluttering with moral indignation - the war would have been unlikely to end, at least not without further massive losses. The enemy’s surrender was, if memory serves, only extracted with the offer of a cure.

asiaseen

Yes, women should hold the potential fathers to higher standards before having their children.

And, indeed, be more selective as to the partners they choose to breed from.

PiperPaul

Colt Peacemaker

Speaking of Peacemakers...


.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

The other Members of Parliament are considered opposition party members and as such are not part of the "The Government".

Got it now, I had been thinking in terms of our sausage factory down here where the minority party still has means to sidetrack stupidity - not that it is foolproof, or that the current majority party doesn't think the same.

Spasiba.

WTP

As a kid, reading about parliamentary systems in other countries, I found the term "bring down the government" or "new government" exceptionally misleading and overdramatized once I understood what people meant by it. It's not like the entire system and constitution were changing. It's not a revolution. The government isn't being "brought down". The politicians in it yes. But it's a terribly stupid and almost Orwellian terminology. Though I'm sure it serves some propaganda type purposes to say that the politicians ARE the government.

WTP

Meant to add...So in such a linguistic context is Trudy really wrong if he/they believes "l'état, c'est moi"?

pst314

Liberalism is childishness masquerading as wisdom.

Just ran across these P.J. O'Rourke quotes:

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."

"The principal feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things — war and hunger and date rape — liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things.... It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal."

My God, has it really been 30 years? I feel old.

ccscientist

"as a women studies major" OFFS. It takes 2 parents and grandparents nearby to properly raise children (ie without neglecting them). Fathers are incredibly important. Boys without fathers get in trouble and don't finish school at a much higher rate. The Left has been making fun of chastity and chaperones and parental involvement for decades. It really is up to the women: don't have sex without marriage and for gods sake don't have kids with a bunch of different men. It is bad for you and bad for the kids. Matriarchy can only exist due to welfare--it isn't a real system.

pst314

Fathers are incredibly important.

I recall 70's feminists saying that fathers were useless, just as men were useless. And I think I read some utopian science fiction stories in which men were entirely absent--to the benefit of everyone.

Steve E

you’re not allowed to voice your dissatisfaction.

Artur Pawlowski isn't the most likeable guy in the world, but what the cops, courts and government are doing to him can only be described as persecution.

Steve E

So in such a linguistic context is Trudy really wrong if he/they believes "l'état, c'est moi"?

I've had this discussion/debate with several people. In my mind, the State is really the People or the entire body politic. The Government is the means by which the State is managed. So representatives are elected to fulfill the will of the People and manage the State's affairs. There are laws, institutiions and accepted practices in place to ensure that those representatives don't overstep their bounds which, of course, leads to tyranny. The problems we're currently encountering in Canada have resulted from the failure of the Government to act within the law and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Convoy people are basically saying to the Government, get back in your lane.

More directly, however, Turdeaux is a Member of Parliament and Prime Minister of Her Majesty's Government. His role is to fulfill the executive function of government. He is NOT the Head of State. That role falls to the Governor General who is the Queen's representative. Practically, though, the GG is appointed by the Prime Minister and fulfills a mostly ceremonial role. So you could argue the Prime Minister is both executive head of Government and Chief of State, though technically that's not the case.

For Turdeaux to continue as Prime Minister he needs to maintain the confidence of his Party (for they are the only ones who select him as leader) and the Confidence of the House of Commons. When his party has a majority this is easily done, when he has a minority, as is the current case, he needs the support of other Members of the House or other parties of the House to get his agenda enacted. There is strong party discipline in the Canadian system and it is very, very rare that an MP would vote against his party. It is also uncommon, once an informal coalition has been formed, in the case of minority government, for the House to defeat a Government action. First, the Government is unlikely to introduce anything it cannot win and second, nobody wants an election.

Sorry for the long winded response, but Turdeaux is not the State, but our system is easily corruptible so that he can act like he is the State. The current problem, as some Canadians see it, is how to bring the Government back in line without having to wait until the next election.

TomJ
But Government, in this case, has a more specific meaning. The party which holds a majority of seats in Parliament or can convince enough members of other parties to support their agenda to effect a majority on house votes forms "The Government". The other Members of Parliament are considered opposition party members and as such are not part of the "The Government".

I'd go further; the Government is only the front bench. Backbenchers, even of the governing party, are legislators not governors.

Steve E

I'd go further; the Government is only the front bench.

Good point. In practice, once an election is over, Government backbenchers may as well stay at home. They're only needed for votes, which in Covid times, can be done electronically.

TomJ
By loudly denouncing all bad things — war and hunger and date rape — liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things..

30 years nothing. Tom Lehrer nailed the attitude in '65.

pst314

30 years nothing. Tom Lehrer nailed the attitude in '65.

And South Park updated it in 2005. "Oh man, I can't wait to see the look on those little Eichmann's faces when they hear this crunchy groove."

The comments to this entry are closed.