brookings, you’ve been right all along, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!
At schools less wealthy than Princeton, the struggle isn't for status so much as for survival. In just the last six months, Howard University and the University of Vermont both eliminated their classics departments, citing the untenable costs of maintaining them. Other departments have survived only by making Greek and Latin optional. "We'd have fewer majors otherwise," said Eric Adler, a classicist at the University of Maryland. "We can't afford the requirements."
The scramble for students is in part a product of academia's consumerist culture, which treats education as an instrumental, customizable good. "Many institutions promise students that they can pursue their own interests and goals," said George Washington University's Samuel Goldman. "But it turns out that most students prefer pre-professional majors to the humanities and don't like prerequisites or distribution requirements, especially for language study. If we simply give the customers what they want, the liberal arts will struggle to survive."
Concessions to the customer often serve the interests of the ideological entrepreneur. Progressives are "very happy with the neoliberal curriculum," Adler told the Free Beacon, because it rejects the idea that some texts are more important than others. Meanwhile, the "strategic initiatives" that culminate in cuts to classics have also tended to culminate in the creation of diversity offices. In 2017, for example, the University of Tulsa launched a five-year plan to "empower" students to "bring value to others." Greek and Latin were deemed insufficiently valuable and axed as a result—but the university was happy to foot the bill for a "diversity outreach admissions counselor" who would advance "student recruitment."
Academic corporatization did not begin with corporate progressivism, however. Its roots date back to the mid-19th century, when universities transitioned from a prescribed curriculum to an elective-based one. That transition was spearheaded by Charles Eliot, Harvard University's 21st president, who abolished long-standing liberal arts requirements and gave students unprecedented freedom to choose their classes. In so doing, he conceived of education as a kind of free market: Disciplines that attracted sufficient student attention would prosper and live; those that didn't would die.
The result, says Adler, was "a race to the bottom in which every discipline had to act as its own salesperson." Classics could no longer take students for granted, but had to justify itself amid curricular competition.
The justification classicists settled on is still with us today: Learning Greek and Latin might not have any direct utility, they argued then, but it would promote habits of "mental discipline"—the 19th century term for "critical thinking."
This was a novel argument. From the Mayflower Compact to the Civil War, American universities had viewed classics as a means of moral formation. They did not teach Homer and Virgil to make students smarter, but to make them better. It was only after academia became a market, governed by the amoral churn of supply and demand, that classics received a market-based rationale.
The corporatization of classics may be sold as a victory for diversity. In truth, it is anything but. Contemporary humanities are obsessed with the study of different cultures, one classicist observed. "How are you going to understand ‘the other' if you don't learn their language?"
"Nature and The Lancet played important roles in enabling, encouraging, and enforcing the false narrative that science evidence indicates Sars-CoV-2 had a natural-spillover origin points and the false narrative that this was the scientific consensus.”
"The science establishment colluded to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory, assisted by prominent experts with clear conflicts of interest, patsy politicians and a pathetic media that mostly failed to do its job."
"[A]t the heart of this scandal lie some of the world’s most influential science journals. These..have played a central role in shutting down discussion and discrediting alternative views on the origins, with disastrous consequences for our understanding of events."
The real reason the elite hated Donald Trump was not that he was an ideological conservative (he only sort of was) or that he tweeted mean things (they like mean tweets, just not ones directed at them). It was that Trump identified the failures of “the best and the brightest” and called them out. There is nothing these experts hate more than challenges to the authority they think they deserve.
hedera, Tu esi jauka, bet vientiesīga. Šis shout-out speciāli Tev:
“ Former @CDCgov director @redfield_dr got death threats from fellow scientists after telling CNN he believed #COVID19 had lab origin. “I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis,” Redfield told @VanityFair.”
"You dropped 150 grand on an education you could've gotten for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library"
Pie extranjero vērtīga norāde uz rakstu par institucionālo groupthink:
"The most important lesson though is not just that this was likely a muddle being retconned as strategy (and we should be wary of such post-hoc reasoning in the future) but it also illustrates a key weakness of groupthink among expert views- once something becomes the “institutional opinion” it automatically gets endorsement from every other major institution similar to the way an AAA rating was rebroadcast through the financial system in 2008. You think you’re getting a diversity of viewpoints which are coalescing around the truth, but in reality many institutions are just repeater stations who accept the incoming opinion unquestioningly and then derive all their other positions from there."
"Classics majors at Princeton will no longer be required to learn Greek or Latin" :D :D :D :D
We’re living in a country that’s the finest place on earth
But some folks don’t appreciate this land that gave them birth
I hear that up in Washington they’re having an awful fuss
‘Cause Communists and spies were making monkeys out of us
The bureaus and departments have been busy night and day
They’re figuring out just how we gave our secrets all away
And Congress has appointed a committee, so they said
To find out who’s American and who’s a low-down Red.
They call them up to Washington to speak for Uncle Sam
But when they ask them what they are, they shut up like a clam
I wish they’d take and put me on the witness stand today
I’d yell so loud old Stalin could hear me all the way
I’m no Communist, and I’ll tell you that right now
I believe a man should own his own house and car and cow
I like this private ownership, and I want to be left alone
Let the government run its business and let me run my own
Our government is bigger than it ever was today
The more they hire to work for it, the more they have to pay
Our public servants should be proud and honest you would think
Instead of taking bribes and dressing up their wives in mink
The taxes keep on going up, of that there is no doubt
But still, they just can’t take it in as fast as they dish it out
Our national debt is a monster size and growin’ every day
Our children’s children, still unborn are gonna have to pay
Our dollar used to be the soundest money on this earth
But now two bucks won’t even buy a good old dollar’s worth
Unless we stop inflation and take care of what we’ve got
The Communists may win the fight and never fire a shot
I’m no Communist, and I’ll tell you that right now
I believe a man should own his own house and car and cow
I like this private ownership, and I want to be left alone
Let the government run its business and let me run my own
There is no "neutral" public square, that notion is a libertarian fantasy.
Right now, secular humanism dominates our society, with terrible consequences.
Labs raksts. It kā par Draghi, bet patiesībā par tehnokrātisko Eiropu. “The price of Draghipolitik is this: it is consolidation without democracy. Empowered elites with alienated voters.” https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/may-2
Fac et aliquid operis, ut semper te diabolus inveniat occupatum.
"Šobrīd redzu, ka LGBT+ kopienā ir samilzusi problēma un tā ir radikalizācija. No tiem, kurus kādreiz lika cietumos un apspieda, mēs paši esam kļuvuši par apspiedējiem citu atšķirīgā skatījuma uz dzīvi dēļ.
(..) Redzu, ka LGBT kopiena ir ierauta politiskās spēlēs. Mans redzējums – tie daudzie, kuri tēlo LGBT aizstāvjus, tādi ir aiz aprēķina, nevis brīvas gribas vadīti. To es redzu, salīdzinot viņu uzvedību LGBT kopienas vēlētāju priekšā un visu vēlētāju priekšā.
(..) Un nu es pakavēšos pie tā, ko redzu – Latvijā starp tradicionālo ģimeni un homofobiju tiek likta vienlīdzības zīme. Manuprāt, tā ir ļoti slikta ideja uzskatīt kādu ģimenes modeļa pastāvēšanu par homofobisku un LGBT kopienai draudīgu.
(..) Tāpēc lūdzu piedošanu visiem tiem, kurus kāds no LGBT kopienas pēdējā laikā pazemojis vai citādi aizskāris par viņu kristīgo vai tradicionālo pārliecību.
(..) Es redzēju LGBT kopienas naidu un ņirgāšanos par tradicionālo vērtību paudējiem, par viņu reliģisko piederību, uzmākšanos un apsaukāšanos. Tā nevar būt atbilde uz kāda cita pastrādātu homofobisku vardarbību!"
Varam pievērsties sarunai par īstajiem naida kurinātājiem mūsu sabiedrībā. Vairākas dienas Latvijas sabiedrības faktiskais vairākums tika dēvēti par līdzvainīgiem barbariskā noziegumā – ikviens, kas uzskata, ka ģimenes pamats ir vīrieša un sievietes savienība. Par vainīgiem tika nosaukta baznīca, konservatīvās partijas un konkrēti politiķi. Atsevišķi žurnālisti aizmirsa jebkādu “medijpratību”, jo viss taču skaidrs. Kāpēc gaidīt faktus un kaut kādu izmeklēšanu?
(..) Jau iepriekš rakstīju par dīvainībām, kas varētu būt saistītas ar LGBT lobiju. Dīvaini viltus profili, kas pauž neiecietību, pašu izlīmētas “homofobiskas” uzlīmes. Tas, ka notikumi Tukumā, bez faktu noskaidrošanas, momentā tika izmantoti viņu juridisko prasību popularizēšanai, bija tikai likumsakarīgi. Pārsteidz tikai pārgalvība un nekaunība, kurai nav robežu. Pat zemiskums, ja saprotam, ka runa ir par konkrētu cilvēcīgu traģēdiju.
Likumsakarīgi tas ir arī kreiso galvenās politiskās metodes kontekstā – viņi pilnīgi visu dara un pasniedz caur upura lomas prizmu. Tā ir ļoti iedarbīga varas tehnoloģija – tā izslēdz diskusiju, tā liek taisnoties oponentam, ka viņš nemaz nav varmāka, tā automātiski pašus ieceļ morāli augstākā pozīcijā, tā izraisa līdzjūtību publikā. Twitter kreiso pūlis šajā pozīcijā jūtas kā mājās – upura loma ir viņu mobinga, viņu agresijas pamatojums, kas pašiem nekad nešķiet kā agresija, jo viņi jau tikai aizstāvas. Pret tiem tur – apspiedējiem – “konserviem”.
(..) Drošības iestādēm ir jāturpina monitorēt komunisma un neomarksisma ideju un metožu izplatību jauniešu vidē. Tāpat būtu jāizvērtē tādu organizāciju darbība, kas uzskata provokācijas un melus par pieņemamiem līdzekļiem savu mērķu panākšanai. Un jāsper nepieciešamie soļi, lai sargātu valsti un tautu.
Veselību cietušajam, kuram papildus fiziskajām ciešanām ir nākusi klāt visa šī nevajadzīgā uzmanība un iesaistīšana politiskā akcijā.
Sveiki, Cibas brašuļi!
We believe we are in the early to middle stages of a worldwide sovereign debt bubble collapse. The “bubble” which exists today is in debt and the currencies which are backed and supported by this debt. This is a very big deal and does not happen very often. In fact, no one alive today has ever seen a sovereign debt collapse of a large country.
You need to consult the history books to find one, with the last ones occurring in the 1900’s to 1930’s. Because of this, the average investor today is not prepared for what is coming.
Historically, these crises occur when sovereign debt exceeds 100% of GDP as identified by Reinhart and Rogoff in their book This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. Presently, the on balance sheet US Federal Debt ($28.1 Trillion) is 130% of GDP ($21.6T). Off balance sheet liabilities (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid) add another $100 to $200T depending upon assumptions.
This debt level could not be serviced (much less reduced or paid off) if interest rates, which are the price of money, were set by a free market. In this respect, the monetary authorities world-wide, through price fixing of interest rates, have broken the financial markets. History proves that price fixing does not work (see USSR and grain prices). The price of money is the most important price in capitalism and messing with it distorts the price of everything. Capital is not allocated efficiently. In a free market system, interest rates balance the needs of savers and borrowers.
With over-indebtedness as a backdrop, history shows us that there are only three ways for a country to deal with a situation like this.
1. Default. Debts collapse to worthlessness as entities fail. Which leads to Deflation.
2. Restructure/Revalue against some superior form of money. Reset. (see Roosevelt 1934).
3. Inflate the currency and GDP versus the Debt. (see US Post WWII).
Option 1 is possible, and perhaps in due course, option 2 could be chosen. However, in our current political structure, we believe the most likely path the US will take is option 3 (Inflation). Therefore, we believe inflation is in our future. Not just a little bit of inflation, a lot of inflation!
When an economy becomes too debt saturated things begin to break, and the government generally intervenes to prevent the natural deflationary cleansing that would occur without intervention. The government intervened in 2008 during the GFC. In March 2020 when the economy grinded to a halt (COVID was the match, but the fire had been built), the government again stepped in (with an unprecedented order of magnitude) to prevent a severe deflation and economic collapse.
(..) As far as we can see, he only has two possible tools: (i) raising interest rates; and (ii) withdrawing monetary liquidity (i.e., reverse QE). Given the levels of national debt, both of those tools would lead to a system wide collapse, in our opinion. To be fair, maybe the Fed can jawbone or threaten these tools to calm down inflation, but they are walking a very thin line. The market has demonstrated at many instances in the past three years (e.g., Q4 2018) that it cannot handle higher interest rates or less liquidity. Some have said: “you cannot taper a Ponzi”.
In our opinion, Powell was bluffing in front of Congress. He knows inflation is coming, so he warns of it. Like Rudolf von Havenstein in 1920 Germany, he is hoping he can control inflation once unleashed.
“Abolish the police? Border patrol? Capitalism? Or cancel Lincoln? The problem isn’t that I don’t get what you’re saying or that I’m old. The problem is that your ideas are stupid.”
"We are optimistic enough to believe that no administration, Left or Right, is going to impede the education of the brightest"
-The Bell Curve, page 92
Not so fast! Xi Jinping would like to thank the Commonwealth of Virginia for its kind assistance in hindering American advancement and thus abetting ascendant Chinese Communist Party hegemony:
Loudoun County school board member Ian Serotkin announced that the “Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative (VMPI),” is a “a sweeping initiative by the Virginia Department of Education to revamp the K-12 math curriculum statewide over the next few years” by “eliminat[ing] ALL math acceleration prior to 11th grade.” The VDOE website says that in addition to improving equity, the change will “[e]mpower students to be active participants in a quantitative world.”
People who engage in protesting care more about politics than people who donate money, and people who donate money care more than people who simply vote. Imagine a pyramid with voters at the bottom and full-time activists on top, and as you move up the pyramid it gets much narrower and more left-wing. Multiple strands of evidence indicate this would basically be an accurate representation of society.
(..) Liberals are in their personal lives more intolerant of conservatives than vice versa across numerous dimensions in the US and the UK. Those on the left are more likely to block someone on social media over their views, be upset if their child marries someone from the other side, and find it hard to be friends with or date someone they disagree with politically.
(..) The discussion here makes it hard to suggest reforms for conservatives. Do you want to give government more power over corporations? None of the regulators will be on your side. Leave corporations alone? Then you leave power to Woke Capital, though it must to a certain extent be disciplined and limited by the preferences of consumers. Start your own institutions? Good luck staffing them with competent people for normal NGO or media salaries, and if you’re not careful they’ll be captured by your enemies anyway, hence Conquest’s Second Law. And the media will be there every step of the way to declare any of your attempts at taking power to be pure fascism, and brush aside any resistance to your schemes as righteous anger, up to and including rioting and acts of violence.
There’s a way to interpret the data discussed above that is more flattering to conservatives than presenting them as the ideology of people who don’t care. Those who identify on the right are happier, less mentally ill, and more likely to start families. Perhaps political activism is often a sign of a less well-adjusted mind or the result of seeking to fill an empty void in one’s personal life. Conservatives may tell themselves that they are the normal people party, too satisfied and content to expend much time or energy on changing the world. But in the end, the world they live in will ultimately reflect the preferences and values of their enemies.
(..) To put it in a different way, to steelman the populist position, democracy does not reflect the will of the citizenry, it reflects the will of an activist class, which is not representative of the general population.
(..) I’m not suggesting this is the path conservatives should take; they might feel that a stronger, more centralized and powerful government is too contrary to their own ideals. In that case, however, they’ll have to reconcile themselves to continue to lose the culture into the foreseeable future, at least until they are able to inspire a critical mass to do more than just vote its preferences.
“Pagājušo sestdien tika apglabāts Anglijas karalienes Elizabetes dzīvesbiedrs, princis Filips. Bēres notika, maksimāli ievērojot gadsimtiem senas tradīcijas (cik nu tas bija covid laikos iespējams). Arī pati bēru ceremonija bija atstrādāta un noslīpēta līdz pēdējam sīkumam. Katra karalisko gvardu kustība, katra soļa mehāniskā precizitāte simbolizēja sistēmas nemainību, stabilitāti un mūžīgu nesatricināmību. Proti, tieši to, ko nekādi nevar ciest monarhijas pretinieki un kreisie aktīvisti. Ne jau omīte, sirmā karaliene Elizabete viņus uztrauc un kaitina. Viņus kaitina pati tradīcija kā tāda.”
Pārējais rakstā ir “meh”, bet šis IMHO precīzi.
“More importantly, these "systemic"-based social theories allow for the externalizing of blame, responsibility, and locus of control, which is psychologically necessary to people who can't countenance the fact that smart ≠ valuable or competent in a real economy.”
The idea is to let the government control the 'velocity of money'. For example, the US is giving out stimulus checks for COVID - the clear goal is to keep business afloat and people spending, but what if they just put the money into savings or crypto? The government did not achieve their goal. To achieve their goal, they program the money with "must be spent on consumer goods and/or rent in the next 6 months." Then they put a "smart contract" on the money and say "can only be spent if you are drug free and looked for a job in the last 6 months."
Ģimene, izglītība, taupība, personīgs mājoklis, centība darbā un tīrība sadzīvē
“Conservatives care about things that are close to them; home, family, neighborhood. These are things one can have a sense of control over; a self-agency.
Liberals care about things far away from them; planet, climate, society. These are things out of their control.”
Uzskatu, ka atsakoties no Kontinentālo tiesību sistēmas (romiešu-ģermāņu Napoleona Kodeksa saimes) un pieņemot t.s. anglosakšu vispārējās tiesības (Common Law), mēs tikai iegūtu.
Kamēr Eiropas Savienība neatradīs savas cojones ("stratēģisko autonomiju"), turpināsim dzīvosim ASV kultūras "atbalsu kambaros", sevišķi Baltijā, kur ASV ir vienīgais "nacionālās drošības un varas turpinātības" garants, gribam to vai nē. Un nemaz neesmu tik pārliecināts, ka, stratēģisko cojón atrodot, ES "atbalsu kambari" solās būt sevišķi labāki.
“Šobrīd konservatīvajiem jārēķinās tikai ar cenzūras, piedodiet, politkorektuma važām, bloķēšanu sociālajos tīklos, atlaišanu no darba un nomelnojošām kampaņām. Ja tā ir kreiso “tolerance”, tad bail iedomāties, kāda ir viņu agresija.”
Šis ir viens negaidīts Wiki šķirklis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIMAC
Sāksim nedēļu ar pozitīvu atziņu! Nav realizējušās Arta Sveces sākotnējās bažas par portālu, kuru "neviens no malas nepieskata". Kā redzams, no malas tomēr pieskata ļoti rūpīgi, varētu pat teikt—skrupulozi, un dažiem tas, šķiet, kļuvis pat par gandrīz pilna laika darbu.
Šeit ir mans svētdienas aicinājums krishjaanis2 izdzēsties no Cibas:
Daži cibiņi ir neviļus sev izdarījuši lāča pakalpojumu.
Man jautāja, vai ir pareizi melot par to, ka Tu neesi tas, kas Tu esi? Jā, ja nevēlies atklāt savu identitāti, dažkārt vispareizākā rīcība ir melot, acīs skatoties. Tieši vakar iznāca noskatīties "Persischstunden (2020)". Stāsts par ebreju, kas savam oficierim pie līķu bedres (ne)krietni melo, ka ir persietis. Viņš paliek dzīvs, jo oficieris vēlas izmācīties persiešu valodu. Ebrejs viņam katru dienu māca sadomātu persiešu valodu un paliek dzīvs. Tā, lūk. Melot ir labi* terms and conditions apply.
Agnese K*********, Internetā visi drīkst Jums nepiekrist un izteikt iebildumus.
Šādu iebildumu izteikšanu Jūs, protams, drīkstiet ierobežot (izmantojot "ban" funkciju, ierobežojot komentārus utml.), bet to nekādi nevar klasificēt kā uzmākšanos (pat tādās reizēs, kad tas Jums ir sagādājis personīgas neērtības).
"Stalkošana", savukārt, nozīmētu ielaušanos privātajā dzīves telpā. Lai gan cilvēcīgi ir saprotams tas diskomforts, ko šādi uzbāzīgi komentētāji un iebildēji var radīt, šī nav Jūsu privātā dzīves telpa — nevienam nav pienākums glaudīt pa spalvai.
Cita lieta, ka Jūs, iespējams, saskatāt, ka kāds komentārs pakļauj Jūs briesmām, apdraud veselību vai pat dzīvību. Tādos gadījumos noteikti piekrītu tam, ka par to jāziņo kompetentām iestādēm.
Navigate: (Previous 50 entries)