The Incoherence of Liberal Feminism

At the Other McCain.

"Another clever young girl trying to get rich selling books to slightly-less-clever girls" http://t.co/QjzvB1KVBy pic.twitter.com/VPwhxPzyke

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) September 23, 2014

The Unfree Speech Movement

From Sol Stern, at the Wall Street Journal:

This fall the University of California at Berkeley is celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, a student-led protest against campus restrictions on political activities that made headlines and inspired imitators around the country. I played a small part in the Free Speech Movement, and some of those returning for the reunion were once my friends, but I won't be joining them.

Though the movement promised greater intellectual and political freedom on campus, the result has been the opposite. The great irony is that while Berkeley now honors the memory of the Free Speech Movement, it exercises more thought control over students than the hated institution that we rose up against half a century ago.

We early-1960s radicals believed ourselves anointed as a new "tell it like it is" generation. We promised to transcend the "smelly old orthodoxies" (in George Orwell's phrase) of Cold War liberalism and class-based, authoritarian leftism. Leading students into the university administration building for the first mass protest, Mario Savio, the Free Speech Movement's brilliant leader from Queens, New York, famously said: "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. . . . . And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

The Berkeley "machine" now promotes Free Speech Movement kitsch. The steps in front of Sproul Hall, the central administration building where more than 700 students were arrested on Dec. 2, 1964, have been renamed the Mario Savio Steps. One of the campus dining halls is called the Free Speech Movement Café, its walls covered with photographs and mementos of the glorious semester of struggle. The university requires freshmen to read an admiring biography of Savio, who died in 1996, written by New York University professor and Berkeley graduate Robert Cohen.

Yet intellectual diversity is hardly embraced. Every undergraduate undergoes a form of indoctrination with a required course on the "theoretical or analytical issues relevant to understanding race, culture, and ethnicity in American society," administered by the university's Division of Equity and Inclusion.

How did this Orwellian inversion occur? It happened in part because the Free Speech Movement's fight for free speech was always a charade. The struggle was really about using the campus as a base for radical politics.

I was a 27-year-old New Left graduate student at the time. Savio was a 22-year-old sophomore. He liked to compare the Free Speech Movement to the civil-rights struggle—conflating the essentially liberal Berkeley administration with the Bull Connors of the racist South.

During one demonstration Savio suggested that the campus cops who had arrested a protesting student were "poor policemen" who only "have a job to do." Another student then shouted out: "Just like Eichmann."

"Yeah. Very good. It's very, you know, like Adolf Eichmann, " Savio replied. "He had a job to do. He fit into the machinery."

I realized years later that this moment may have been the beginning of the 1960s radicals' perversion of ordinary political language, like the spelling "Amerika" or seeing hope and progress in Third World dictatorships.

Before that 1964-65 academic year, most of us radical students could not have imagined a campus rebellion. Why revolt against an institution that until then offered such a pleasant sanctuary? But then Berkeley administrators made an incredibly stupid decision to establish new rules regarding political activities on campus. Student clubs were no longer allowed to set up tables in front of the Bancroft Avenue campus entrance to solicit funds and recruit new members.

The clubs had used this 40-foot strip of sidewalk for years on the assumption that it was the property of the City of Berkeley and thus constitutionally protected against speech restrictions. But the university claimed ownership to justify the new rules. When some students refused to comply, the administration compounded its blunder by resorting to the campus police. Not surprisingly, the students pushed back, using civil-disobedience tactics learned fighting for civil rights in the South.

The Free Speech Movement was born on Oct. 1, 1964, when police tried to arrest a recent Berkeley graduate, Jack Weinberg, who was back on campus after a summer as a civil-rights worker in Mississippi. He had set up a table on the Bancroft strip for the Berkeley chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). Dozens of students spontaneously sat down around the police car, preventing it from leaving the campus. A 32-hour standoff ensued, with hundreds of students camped around the car.

Mario Savio, also back from Mississippi, took off his shoes, climbed onto the roof of the police car, and launched into an impromptu speech explaining why the students had to resist the immoral new rules. Thus began months of sporadic protests, the occupation of Sproul Hall on Dec. 2 (ended by mass arrests), national media attention and Berkeley's eventual capitulation.

That should have ended the matter. Savio soon left the political arena, saying that he had no interest in becoming a permanent student leader. But others had mastered the new world of political theater, understood the weakness of American liberalism, and soon turned their ire on the Vietnam War.

The radical movement that the Free Speech Movement spawned eventually descended into violence and mindless anti-Americanism. The movement waned in the 1970s as the war wound down—but by then protesters had begun their infiltration of university faculties and administrations they had once decried.

"Tenured radicals," in New Criterion editor Roger Kimball's phrase, now dominate most professional organizations in the humanities and social studies. Unlike our old liberal professors, who dealt respectfully with the ideas advanced by my generation of New Left students, today's radical professors insist on ideological conformity and don't take kindly to dissent by conservative students. Visits by speakers who might not toe the liberal line—recently including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Islamism critic Aayan Hirsi Ali —spark protests and letter-writing campaigns by students in tandem with their professors until the speaker withdraws or the invitation is canceled...

Still more.

Everything the left touches it destroys. So it is with so called "free speech." America's campuses today are the least free places in the United States. Always resist these people. Always stand against the left, whatever you do. You'll be on the right side of decency. The leftists, not so much.

'Maybe Democratic leaders aren't finding success in expanding their liberal base because fair-minded Americans don't easily gravitate to a political party led by people whose default election tactic is to demonize its opponents..'

Well, of course, the Democrats are the party of hate.

From Tom Bevan: The End of Civil Rhetoric (via Instapundit):

It’s also true that Democrats are under pressure to rev up what appears to be a lethargic electorate or face defeat at the polls in November. It’s unfortunate that we’ve come to accept the idea that voters can only be motivated by fear and anger toward their political opponents.

Yep, that's all they've got.

Barack Obama's Latte Salute

So disrespectful, god.

Watch here.

And at Breitbart, "Obama's Disrespectful 'Latte Salute' Shocks and Offends."

The #ISIS Threat to the U.S. Homeland

Andrea Mitchell reports for NBC News, and she's taking the ISIS threat quite seriously:

Charles Krauthammer: Syria Airstrikes 'Not Significant' Militarily

Once again, the inimitable Dr. Krauthammer:

Michelle Fields Calls Out Celebrity Warming Hypocrites at New York People's Climate March (VIDEO)

Hey, classy babe Michelle Fields was batting 1.000 at the communist people's march on Sunday. She just hammered the celebrity hypocrites, Leo DeCaprio most deliciously.

Outstanding.

At Pajamas, "PJTV’s Michelle Fields: Are Climate Change Hypocrites Leonardo DiCaprio and Senator Bernie Sanders Out of Touch with Reality? (Video)."

Talking to Leonardo Dicaprio about climate change. Don't think he was happy about me bringing up his yachts & jets pic.twitter.com/3TAkP6rbjD

— Michelle Fields (@MichelleFields) September 21, 2014

Leonardo Dicaprio suddenly loses his hearing when I ask him about his yachts http://t.co/aAUv0RMzF2 #ClimateChangeMarch

— Michelle Fields (@MichelleFields) September 22, 2014

VIDEO: RFK Jr. refuses to give up cellphone to save planet... http://t.co/81EjlTGDlJ

— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) September 22, 2014

Alicia Keys Poses Nude for Peace

A fabulous woman, she posed nude and pregnant.

At London's Daily Mail, "Pregnant Alicia Keys posts nude photo of herself with peace sign painted on baby bump to draw eyes to We Are Here charity movement."

And at NPR, "Meet the Global Groups That Alicia Keys Got Naked For."

Alana Goodman and Ellison Barber Discuss the Hillary Letters

I'm a little underwhelmed, although it is new and interesting.

And hey, the ladies at the Free Beacon are doing big investigative journalism the mainstream press refuses to do. That's something.

Here, "The Hillary Letters: Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky Correspondence Revealed."

Bill O'Reilly Proposes Mercenary Army to Defeat #ISIS

From last night's Talking Points Memo, "Defeating ISIS and other terror groups."

And this morning, on CBS This Morning:



Also, O'Reilly's new book, Killing Patton: The Strange Death of World War II's Most Audacious General.

Mark Zuckerberg's $10 Million San Francisco ''Fixer-Upper' Has Neighbors Pissed Off

Well, I'm sure he's telling 'em to suck it up, for the Masters of the Universe and all that.

At the San Francisco Chronicle, "Neighbors feeling squeezed by work on Mark Zuckerberg’s S.F. home":

Welcome to Fort Zuckerberg — the $10 million Dolores Heights “fixer-upper” that Mark Zuckerberg and his wife have turned into a massive construction encampment that has some neighbors feeling under siege by the Facebook founder.

Their problem goes beyond the rash of “no parking” signs on 21st Street near Dolores Street that have kept them from parking outside their own homes these past 17 months.

Dozens of construction workers, using backhoes and jackhammers, are busy installing everything from a new kitchen to bathrooms and decks — and tearing up the sidewalks for new fiber-optic cables that will connect to the home.

And it’s all being overseen by round-the-clock security.

“This is nothing short of a fortress,” said one homeowner, who asked not to be named to avoid a public kerfuffle with the new Facebook neighbors.

Assessor’s records show that contractors for Zuckerberg and his wife, UCSF physician Priscilla Chan, have taken out no fewer than 10 permits for millions of dollars in construction work to the 1920s-era home — located just a block and a half from hipster central Dolores Park.

One permit lists a $65,000 remodel of the kitchen and six bathrooms — a figure that appeared to be so small that one real estate agent called it “a joke.”

Yeah, and I'm sure he's putting some illegal aliens to work as well, further pissing off the locals. Heh, even those San Fran progs have limits on their tolerance, especially as they get their NIMBYism on.

Pro-Life Marchers Press Spanish Government During Madrid Protest

From EuroNews:

Thousands of anti-abortion campaigners have marched in Madrid accusing the Spanish government of betrayal over an electoral promise to restrict the rights of women to terminate their pregnancies.

Reports have suggested the conservatives have been considering shelving the controversial plans, even though they have an absolute majority.

The bill allows abortion only in cases of rape or serious health risk to the mother - not for a malformed foetus.

Jill Tarlov, Wife of CBS Senior Vice President, Dies After Being Hit by Bicyclist in Central Park

Man, what a way to go.

At NYT, "Woman Hit by a Bicyclist in Central Park Dies":

When the weather is fine, the main roadways in the park are filled with pedestrians, runners, in-line skaters, horse-drawn carriages, cars, pedicab drivers, leisurely bikers and racing cyclists all competing for limited space.

This last group, the racers, have come under scrutiny after the accident on Thursday.

Ms. Tarlov, who lived in Fairfield, Conn., had been in New York City shopping for a present for her daughter, according to her family.

She was walking through the park around 4:30 p.m. when she stepped into the roadway.

At the same time, Mr. [Jason W.] Marshall was coming down the street on his racing bike, the police said.

Mr. Marshall swerved to avoid a group of pedestrians, the police said, but struck Ms. Tarlov. She was rushed to the hospital and was placed on a ventilator.

Mr. Marshall, a professional baritone saxophone player who lives in Harlem, remained at the scene. He has not been charged with any crime.

Extremist Climate Change Rhetoric Heats Up as the Warming 'Consensus' Collapses

From John Fund, at National Review, "The Crumbling Climate-Change Consensus":

One reason the rhetoric has become so overheated is that the climate-change activists increasingly lack a scientific basis for their most exaggerated claims. As physicist Gordon Fulks of the Cascade Policy Institute puts it: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea-ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.” He points out that there has been no net new global-warming increase since 1997 even though the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 25 percent since then. This throws into doubt all the climate models that have been predicting massive climate dislocation.

Other scientists caution that climate models must be regarded with great care and skepticism. Steven Koonin, the undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Obama’s first term, wrote a pathbreaking piece in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal in which he concluded:

We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influence. . . . The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high. . . . Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties, but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.

Even scientists who accept the conventional scientific treatment of the subject by the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change increasingly question just how much it would help to curb emissions or to radically redistribute wealth, as activists like Klein urge us to do. Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, told me that all of the carbon-reduction targets advocated by the U.N. or the European Union would result in imperceptible differences in temperature, at enormous cost. “We would be far better off and richer if we did simple things like painting roofs in hot climates white and investing in new technologies that could help us adapt to any change that is coming,” he says. Even the U.N.’s own climate panel admits that so far, climate change hasn’t included any increase in the frequency or intensity of so-called extreme weather.

More.

PREVIOUSLY: "'The modern climate alarmism movement has been hijacked by the remnants of those who still adhere to the defunct tenets of revolutionary Marxism...'"

Why Beheading?

From Jeff Jacoby, at the Boston Globe:

ISLAMIC STATE has made the beheading of victims a key element in its campaign of terror and conquest. Most conspicuous in recent weeks have been the murders of Westerners James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and David Haines, whose severed heads and decapitated bodies have been shown in threatening videos produced by the jihadists. In the years since 9/11, other Islamist terrorist groups have circulated equally ghastly beheading videos. Among the earlier victims were journalist Daniel Pearl, businessman Nicholas Berg, and construction contractors Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong — all Americans beheaded by Al Qaeda.

Last week, meanwhile, Australian police arrested 15 suspects allegedly linked to Islamic State; they are accused of plotting to publicly behead a victim abducted at random.

Clearly the terrorists relish the horror beheading evokes in America and other Western democracies, as well as the fear it inspires among Kurds, Shiites, or other local forces standing in the path of their juggernaut. Psychological warfare is an essential element in Islamic State’s military strategy, writes Shashank Joshi, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London. Even when heavily outnumbered, Islamic State has been able to leverage its reputation for implacable brutality “to dissuade Iraqi forces from ever seeking battle.” And by killing American and British hostages with such sadistic relish, it aims to intensify the desire of many in the West to wash their hands of involvement in Iraq once and for all.

But there are other ways to terrorize, other gruesome means of mass murder — suicide bombings, poison gas, hijackings. Why the emphasis on beheading?

No doubt part of the explanation is that beheadings tend to draw more attention than suicide bombings and exploding cars. Deadly though they are, car bombs and shootings have lost much of their shock value in Western eyes. It takes an unusually high death toll for a bombing in Iraq to attract as much media attention as the decapitation of a single hostage by an English-speaking Islamist wielding a knife. Terrorists crave attention, more now in the digital age, perhaps, than ever before. Islamic State and other jihadist groups have many ways to commit mass murder. But for generating a spectacle that will be noticed — and shuddered at — the world over, sawing off the head of an American journalist or a European relief worker, then uploading the video to the Internet, is hard to beat...

More.

RELATED: At LAT, "Islamic State's soft weapon of choice: social media."

Flashback: 2010's 'Progressive' Obama-Democrat 'One Nation' March Was All About Communism

Follow-up to yesterday's post, "'The modern climate alarmism movement has been hijacked by the remnants of those who still adhere to the defunct tenets of revolutionary Marxism...'" As I noted there:

And keep in mind these people aren't fringe. They're mainstream leftists, the kind of whacked out weirdos who've ventured out time and again at all the progressive, Democrat Party protests since Obama took office. The loons are the mainstream of today's left, and they have no freakin' clue.

Yep, exactly.

Remember, back in 2010 and the March for Jobs, Justice, and Peace? Well, that event sponsored by all kinds of mainstream Democrat Party groups and Obama for America-style organizations. And no surprise, it turned out to be one big Marxist revolutionary loon-fest. Here, "Progressives March on Washington for 'One Nation Working Together' — Thousands Rally in Support of Socialist Agenda."



And just think, we're more screwed today than when Obama took office. Thanks loony-prog-commie-Democrat-revolutionary-dregs!

Hackers Target Emma Watson, Threaten to Release Nude Photos

At Telegraph UK, "Emma Watson Targeted by Hackers Who Say They Will Release Naked Photos in Four Days":

The hackers are threatening to publish nude photos of Emma Watson in retaliation for her speech where she announced that she was a feminist.

The actress Emma Watson is being targeted by hackers who are threatening to publish nude photos of her in retaliation for her speech where she announced that she was a feminist.

Although the countdown does not specifically say that naked pictures will be published, the site is believed to have been made by members of the internet forum 4chan, who were behind the recent release of hacked pictures of celebrities such as Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton.

US website Gawker quoted posts, since deleted, that appear to show the timing of the release is no accident and that the publication of pictures would be a direct response to her speech.

One of the comments quoted says: "She makes stupid feminist speeches at UN, and now her nudes will be online."
The hackers say they will leak nude photos of the Harry Potter star in under five days time.

An image of Emma Watson wiping away a tear appears on the site beside a digital timer which is counting down the seconds until the release.

The words: "Never forget, the biggest to come thus far" are written in capital letters on the bottom of the screen.

More.

U.S. Airstrikes in Syria

Folks were tweeting the news a little while ago. And now the developing story at the Los Angeles Times, "U.S. begins airstrikes over Syria."

White House Fence Jumper Omar Gonzalez Had 800 Rounds of Ammunition in His Car

At the Washington Post, "White House fence jumper had ammunition, machete in car, prosecutors say." And at the Hill, "Prosecutors: White House fence jumper had 800 rounds of ammo in car" (via Memeorandum).

Yes, but we should feel sorry for him, because PTSD. At the Los Angeles Times, "White House intruder was an Army vet with PTSD, family says":

The intruder who scaled a White House fence and made it through the front doors was an Army veteran diagnosed with combat trauma, but authorities said Saturday the case was still under investigation.

A family member in California said Omar J. Gonzalez, 42, of Copperas Cove, Texas, near Ft. Hood, has been homeless and living alone in the wild and in campgrounds with his two pet dogs for the last two years.

“We talked to him on 9/11 and he said he planned to go to a Veterans Administration hospital to seek treatments,” said the family member, who asked that he not be identified pending completion of the Secret Service investigation.

“He’s been depressed for quite some time,” the relative said. “He’d been taking antidepressants and anti-anxiety medication. I suspect he stopped taking it, otherwise this wouldn’t have happened.”

More.

Actually, Barack's not pleased, PTSD or not. At US News, "Obama Concerned Intruder Got in His Family's Home."

People's Climate Demarche

An awesome leader, at today's Wall Street Journal:

Hundreds of thousands of people attended yesterday's People's Climate March in New York: http://t.co/e3cs5dHjeV pic.twitter.com/q9J29qjmZr

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) September 22, 2014

Tens of thousands of environmental protestors paraded through New York City on Sunday, in a "people's climate march" designed to lobby world leaders arriving for the latest United Nations climate summit. The march did succeed in messing up traffic, but President Obama won't achieve much more when he speaks Tuesday at this latest pit stop on the global warming grand prix.

Six years after the failure of the Copenhagen summit whose extravagant ambition was to secure a binding global treaty on carbon emissions, Mr. Obama is trying again. The Turtle Bay gathering of world leaders isn't formally a part of the international U.N. climate negotiations that are supposed to climax late next year in Paris, but the venue is meant to be an ice-breaker for more than 125 presidents, prime ministers and heads of state to start to reach consensus.

One not-so-minor problem: The world's largest emitters are declining to show up, even for appearances. The Chinese economy has been the No. 1 global producer of carbon dioxide since 2008, but President Xi Jinping won't be gracing the U.N. with his presence. India's new Prime Minister Narendra Modi (No. 3) will be in New York but is skipping the climate parley. Russian President Vladimir Putin (No. 4) has other priorities, while Japan (No. 5) is uncooperative after the Fukushima disaster that has damaged support for nuclear power. Saudi Arabia is dispatching its petroleum minister.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon excused these truancies at a press conference last week: "In any event, we have other means of communications, ways and means of having their leadership demonstrated in the United Nations." In that case, why not do a conference call?

To understand the coldness of this brush off, global CO2 emissions increased to 35.1 billion metric tons in 2013, a new record and a 29% increase over a decade ago. Of the year-over-year carbon climb, China at 358 million metric tons jumped by more than the rest of the world combined and is responsible for 24.8% of emissions over the last five years. Over the same period, developing nations accounted for 57.5%.

What this means is that regardless of what the West does, poorer countries that are reluctant to sign agreements that impede economic progress hold the dominant carbon hand. No matter U.S. exertions to save the planet from atmospheric carbon that may or may not have consequences that may or may not be costly in a century or more, the international result will be more or less the same, though U.S. economic growth will be slower....

So the problem is so dire that we must impose huge new costs on carbon and energy production, but don't worry—you won't feel a thing. The government will create all new energy industries and wealth in a seamless transition. Caveat emptor: Supposedly professional economists who promise that scarce resources can be made scarcer at zero cost have stopped practicing economics. They have become politicians, if not as honest.

Rather than debasing economics, perhaps the climate lobby should return to the climate science and explain the hiatus in warming that has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years depending on the data set and which the climate models failed to predict even as global carbon dioxide emissions have climbed by 25%. Their alibi is that the new warming is now hidden in the oceans, an assertion they lack the evidence to prove.

RTWT.