Category: ideological culture

education and schooling ideological culture

Why Fire the Dean?

Students and faculty at the University of Southern California are upset because a popular dean of the Marshall School of Business, James Ellis, has been fired by interim USC President Wanda Austin. Hundreds have rallied in protest and petitioned for his reinstatement.

Why the ouster?

The administration has offered a vague indictment about “lack of diversity” and problematic handling of racial- and gender-bias complaints. There’s apparently a commissioned report, the Cooley report, about the complaints. But few have seen it.

“Jim has not been allowed to see the Cooley report, despite repeated requests to do so by him, his legal counsel, a trustee, and me,” says donor and USC board member Lloyd Greif. “Nobody has seen it.”

Greif argues that no complaint dealt with by Ellis’s office “alleged any egregious conduct, and none of them involved inappropriate behavior by Jim.”

Was old white male Ellis expelled for presiding over a too-little-diverse student body (and perhaps for being inadequately “diverse” himself), as determined by an arbitrary standard?

Without transparency or due process, who could know?

But lack of any official accountability suggests some warped notion of “diversity justice” is being applied here, a notion that dismisses rational goals and relevant facts to focus only on whether the ethnic/gender/other-unchosen-trait makeup of a sub-population sufficiently mirrors that of the general population.

If so, is this a standard that should be applied universally?

No matter how you answer that question, note what is not being focused upon: providing a good education.

This is not Common Sense.

I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Dean Ellis, diversity, racism, quotas, protest, blacklisting

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags blacklisting, Dean Ellis, diversity, racism

ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall

Who Rules the French?

yellow vests, jackets, France, protests, taxes, nationalism

The petition that Priscillia Ludosky posted on Change.org many weeks ago was labeled “For a Drop in Fuel Prices at the Pump!” Now more than a million people have signed it.

“Taxation as a whole represents about two-thirds of the price of fuel,” the French activist informed.

Sparked by the tax hike, working people have joined massive weekend protests in Paris and throughout France — five weeks running— against the Macron government.

The Gilets Jaunes or “Yellow Vest” movement has already forced the removal of the fuel levies. While French President Emmanuel Macron’s approval rating has plummeted down into the low 20s, polls show support for the protesters by two out of three French citizens.

“[E]lected officials take advantage of power to become aristocrats of public money,” Ms. Ludosky told protesters via bullhorn last weekend.

This movement is about a lot more than the price of fuel.

“The citizens’ initiative referendum,” noted France 24, an English language news channel, “now one of the main demands of Yellow Vest protesters in France. The RIC [Référendum Initiative Citoyenne] would in theory allow the people to propose a law, get rid of one, change the constitution or demand the resignation of an elected official.”

For the last ten years, France has had a national initiative and referendum process, but citizens are dependent on the support of legislators, none of whom have taken the initiative — pun intended.

“The idea is that once 700K people ask for it,” the report continued, “there would have to be a national referendum on the issue.”

An essential democratic check on power that the French — and all people — must have.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags France, jackets, nationalism, protests, tax policy, yellow vests

ideological culture too much government

Fields of Schemes

Hopes, wishes and cinematic sentiment are not a business plan.

A baseball stadium in Camden, New Jersey is being shut down three years after the team for which it was built has left town.

At the groundbreaking in 2000, then-Governor Christine Todd Whitman said she’d “heard the message from the movie Field of Dreams: ‘If you build it, they will come.’ Well, soon we will see a field of dreams right here in Camden, and my prediction is ‘they will come.’”

So it’s the movie’s fault?

Officials had hoped that crowds would steadily come to see the Camden Riversharks play ball, boosting the local economy and enabling repayment of the taxpayers’ “investment” of $18 million.

Didn’t work out.

The minor-league team threw in the towel in 2015 after missing several lease payments. The Camden government bought the property. They couldn’t find a successor team, so now the stadium is going. It will cost another million in taxpayer dollars just to tear it down.

Lesson learned? Er, no. Another taxpayer-funded development will replace the stadium.

Of course, private investors can also err when spending their own money. But they’re less likely to throw millions at projects with little prospect of profit. When their investments do fail, companies tend to cut their losses much faster than government officials who are ladling out other people’s money.

Unlike many government planners, private investors of private capital are also not eager to keep repeating their worst blunders.

Meanwhile, perhaps best of all, when private investors misjudge a project, non-investors lose nothing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.

Tags porkbarrel politics, spending, sports stadium, stadium, stadiums, waste

ideological culture term limits

Hating the Senate

The longest-serving politician in Congress — ever — thinks he has the perfect reform to put American government back on track.

Former House Democrat John Dingell wants to abolish the Senate.

According to him, the United States should go unicameral.

The ancient bicameral tradition — which goes back to Sumer — is so old hat. He thinks that, these days, “in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous.”

Dangerous? Well, he has always hated the Senate. He sees it as a place where “good bills go to die.”

His new book explains this at length, but I confess: it would go against my principles to put any money into that man’s pocket by buying The Dean: The Best Seat in the House (2018). He almost personifies everything I’m against. His very career is an atrocity. In 1955, John Jr. took over the House seat from his father, a 22-year incumbent, and then six decades later, in 2015, basically bestowed it on his wife.

That’s 86 years and counting.

How many times did he swear to uphold the Constitution? And yet he doesn’t seem to understand that Article V, governing the amendment process, establishes one specific limitation: “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

Jettisoning the U.S. Senate would seem to be such a deprivation.

The opposite of this Dingelldorf reform would be more in keeping with the spirit of our system: term limits.

To keep anything like a John Dingell Sixty-year Stretch from ever occurring again.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo credit: University of Michigan

» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.

Tags amendment, bicameral tradition, Democrat, House, John Dingell, reform, Rep. John Dingell, Senate

free trade & free markets ideological culture Popular

Creeping Bernie-ism

Bernie Sanders, Walmart, Tucker Carlson, socialism

If you have been watching Tucker Carlson, recently, on Fox or in his bizarre interview with Ben Shapiro, you might have noticed something peculiar: the conservative newsman-commentator sometimes sounds awfully similar to Bernie Sanders.

Both think that if some of Amazon’s and Walmart’s employees are not paid “enough” to live without government assistance, that means the companies are being subsidized by taxpayers.

Ryan Bourne finds this odd, too, judging it “peculiar” to suggest that, “when setting wages, a company employing low-skilled workers should ignore the value of the tasks the employee actually undertakes for them.”

It’s almost as if these guys haven’t thought it through.

“If Sanders is right that programs such as food stamps modestly subsidize employers who pay low wages,” Bourne argues, “then his hugely expensive Medicare-for-all and free-college-tuition proposals would constitute a massive subsidy to low-wage employers.”

Similarly, when Donald Trump and his allied Republicans push for what we used to call “workfare” requirements, that would mean that the jobs the recipients get also constitute subsidies.

Both Carlson and Sanders apparently assume that companies pay workers according to the needs of the workers determined by subsistence levels — presumably by the old Marxian Iron Law of Wages — and not according to their competitive productivity. That is, what they are worth.

As is common with demagogues, Sanders and Carlson both blame the only companies that are at least paying low-skilled workers something, rather than all those other companies and potential benefactors who aren’t paying them at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.

Tags Bernie Sanders, socialism, Tucker Carlson, Walmart

ideological culture tax policy

Class War in France

France, French, tax, protests, yellow, jackets

The French have a talent for riot, public protest, and street-based insurrection.* The current mayhem in Paris has been escalating every weekend since starting in mid-November.

Why weekends? This is a working-person revolt.

“Rioters ran amok across central Paris on Saturday, torching cars and buildings, looting shops, smashing windows and clashing with police in the worst unrest in more than a decade, posing a dire challenge to Emmanuel Macron’s presidency,” Yahoo News informs us. “The authorities were caught off guard by the escalation in violence after two weeks of nationwide protests against fuel taxes and living costs…”

Yes, this is a tax revolt.

You see, the taxes are part of a carbon emissions reduction program — the kind of taxes that Democrats are eager to put into place in America. Leftists and environmentalists worldwide should pay special attention.

The gambit, of course, is this: cityfolk tend not to mind such taxes less because they do not take the hit immediately. People outside cities, on the other hand, drive everywhere, often for their jobs. In Paris, well, not so much. The city has even enacted an ordinance to outlaw all but electric automobiles by 2030.

It’s called the “yellow vests [jackets] movement” to symbolize the government’s anti-driver mindset: “all motorists had been required by law — since 2008 — to have high-visibility vests in their vehicles when driving.”

Sure, push around ordinary motorists.

The protest movement has been largely made up of these people, since many businesses and professionals get exemptions from the taxes.

It’s a class war thing. You might think Macron and other elitists in government would understand their own country.

But no.

So, why?

It’s a big government thing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Maybe that is why the street violence of “refugees” and children of Middle-Eastern and North African migrants have been taken with as much tolerance as it has been: the rioters have seemed so very French.

PDF for printing