Kicking. Squealing.
1. Charles Murray’s latest at Wall Street Journal.
2. Also at WSJ, James Taranto makes an important point on the “you didn’t build that” controversy:
The basic substantive problem with the Lakoff-Obama argument is that it blurs the distinction between an uncontroversial proposition (government is necessary) and a highly disputed one (government of its current size and scope is necessary and may even be insufficient).
Only anarchists believe that government serves no role in maintaining the country. The argument is that the Left believes that because the government has previously had a hand in some endeavors that it must have an increasingly large input going forward. When the government began investing heavily in roads it wasn’t also investing heavily in so many other programs. The problem isn’t that the government wants to build up infrastructure and that conservatives are just opposing it out of hand, though some of it is political jostling. But there is a very legitimate fear that the government is trying to do too much, and that there is a natural limit to how much money the government can spend to achieve that goal.
3. Humans have a natural tendency to objectify women.
4. Simon Templar at Breitbart on The Newsroom’s anti-gun rhetoric. I hope to have a piece published exposing some of the agitprop of this show.
5. A Jezzie writes a piece advising men to not cold approach a woman at a bar by putting hands on the small of her back. The woman’s argument is basically “guys we know what you’re up to, this doesn’t work.” Problem is, the strategy persists because it does work enough to maintain its existence. I guess the Jezzie can help fulfill her own prophecy by drumming up enough outrage to piss women off enough to eradicate the small-back maneuver.
re: Jezebel. Anytime a female writer complains about being looked at or touched, the real message is “Look at how much men want to look at and touch me — look at how desirable I am!” Most complaints by women are a disguised form of bragging. Or narcissism, which is what feminism really comes down to in a lot of ways.
Interesting. Coming Apart resonated very strongly with me, and I find it difficult to separate the cultural bifurcation it depicts from the economic bifurcation that many claim is inevitable in a 100% unregulated market. I wonder what Murray thinks about this.
It’s ironic that “you didn’t build that” comes from an affirmative-action president.
Murray thinks the public has a negative view of the financial industry because of poor messaging and the failure of other rich people to sing its praises. I think the public has a negative view because they see it adds little value to people outside of finance and has enormous costs. If he thinks it is positive he should explain why income for most Americans is stagnant while Wall Street has prospered.
I’m trying to put my finger on why the Jezebel literary style is so atrocious. It’s like it’s false in every particular– pseudo-elegant phrasing (“that, my friends…”) mixed with copious squirm-worthy cursing (“bullfuckitty bullsit”), all meant only to indicate that author is wicked smart ‘n educated– way smarter than you tea party redneck business fascist– but also that she’s hella tough and could kick your ass and call you faggot (which she can do because she’s “reclaiming” the word), even though she’s only 5′ and 100lbs.
It’s not just jezzies, unfortunately. It’s basically the entire alt-weekly universe that writes, thinks and worships in this manner. That includes of course the actual faggots and their heteronormative fellow fixie travelers.
@billy Chav
THIS. JUST THIS.
(how’s that for a brief parody of their terrible prose?)
@Mercer,
did you even read Murray’s essay? He explicitly addresses golden parachuetes, government earmarks, subsidies, insider knowledge and distinguishes between earned success and unearned success.
jz,
Yes I read it. I see no mention by Murray that average Americans incomes have been stagnant. I do see an assertion that “The benefits of more efficient allocation of capital are huge,” but no evidence to back up the claim. Wall Street’s allocation of capital has hugely benefited Wall Street income. It has not benefited most Americans. This is not an image problem despite what the headline states.
@Billy Chav
Double that weight and you might get an accurate description.
Pingback: Snark Attack « Gucci Little Piggy