Here’s a bit of free advice: if you want to push overweening and censorious legislation like SOPA, make sure before you do so you aren’t going to later be caught using copyrighted photos without attribution on your campaign website.

That is, hide your own sins before you look to pre-emptively punish everyone else’s. You petty tyrants.

God, how I’ve grown to hate legislators.

At the University of Denver where I once taught (and where Brian Kiteley still teaches), the answer, apparently, is yes:

The professor [Arthur Gilbert, Josef Korbel School of International Studies] made these anonymous complainants feel harassed by – get this – bringing an art deco vibrator into the classroom during a discussion of how sexuality was theorized historically and by discussing studies linking masturbation to prostate health. Of course, the course unit where these egregious offences happened was titled ”Drugs and Sin in American Life: from masturbation and prostitution to alcohol and drugs.” The prissy fools who find a scholarly discussion of masturbation to be intolerable could have chosen to skip the class. What fun would that have been, though? They chose to attend and feel harassed by the discussion.

This is a 75-year-old prof with an unblemished record who is being banned from campus and enjoined from having any contact with students because he talked about masturbation and showed an antique vibrator to graduate students. There was no formal investigation, the numerous pleas on behalf of this distinguished scholar by his peers at different institutions have been disregarded, the attempts by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) to start a discussion with the university about this issue have been ignored [...]

I suspect that professors like Mr Kiteley were quick to rally to the defense of Professor Gilbert (as they should have), citing as justification the need of academics to be willing to pressure certain bourgeois conventions in order to expand intellectual exploration.

– Unless the academic is classically liberal, doesn’t hew to collectivism, and is appalled with the usurpation of his liberties by a rapacious, overweening, and unconstitutional federal leviathan — so much so that he’s willing to run a public forum in which political questions are discussed, and political satire (by way of, say, a cartoon that engages in extended metaphor) is deployed.

In which case, well, fuck him.

It’s the cachet of appearing intellectually daring that so appeals to many contemporary academics — and they wear such protests (as they do their tweed, both actual and metaphorical) as a status badge and social marker. When it comes to right-wing politics, however, all bets are off — and to these ostensible defenders of intellectualism, freedom’s just another word for “we have every right to shut you up for the greater good.”

I’m reminded of a story I’ve told here several times now of a friend of mine who was brought before a DU tribunal for having the audacity to teach Faulkner’s “Barn Burning,” in which appeared the word “nigger.” He was saved from his academic lynching when a black female literature professor spoke on his behalf: once she gave the imprimatur, all was well; because in the hallowed halls of academe, academic freedom is now balanced against identity politics, political correctness, and the assent of the “authentic.” And in this case, the black professor knew that the white professor she was defending was one of her (liberal) tribe. Had he a history of writing conservative political commentary, I have no doubt that he would have been sanctioned.

Or, to put it another way, contemporary “academic freedom” has become a politicized sham, just like every other tenet of liberalism the institutional left has carpetbagged. And the upshot is that careers can often be made or broken by something so subjective and intellectually dishonest as the outcome of a battle between competing grievance narratives waged by competing identity groups. In the case if Professor Gilbert, the political power of “sexual harassment” was pitted against the “academic freedom” that appeals to those who fancy themselves warriors against bourgeois conformism and conventional priggishness. When in any real climate of academic freedom, the charges themselves would have been dismissed and the complainants reminded that they are adults.

But then, there is all that delicious tuition money to consider, too — which keeps the administration quite cautious about offending students. So complex, you see, are the ways of “academic freedom”!

My wife and I — both Denver University veterans — couldn’t be more proud!

First, I thought this was Rick Perry’s best debate performance. He seemed much more relaxed and confident last night — like a man who is actually relaxed and confident, not simply trying to appear that way on a national debate stage. I hope his performance — which to my mind was his only really good one thus far — keeps him viable. At the very least, it’s bought him some time with me, for whatever that’s worth.

Second, Romney, it seems to me, is becoming more and more “conservative” with each debate. Like a student who wants to please, Romney seems to be absorbing the conservative message and has shown an ability to parrot it efficiently. The problem is, I simply don’t believe him: he’s always governed as a big government technocrat, and his feigned ignorance over the way his Super Pacs are behaving — are we to believe he had no idea what was being said on his behalf about Rick Santorum, eg? — both insulted my intelligence and revealed who Romney really is when the cameras are turned away and he isn’t putting on his debate facade: he’s a guy who will do anything to win even as he strains to keep his hands clean. There’s a phoniness to that I simply can’t abide. And worse, there’s a phoniness to his inevitability and pronouncements on his performance that I simply detest.

Santorum, again, impressed me, both with his honesty — he voted for certain signature legislation of the Bush presidency that he admits were mistakes (ironically, to be then caricatured years later as a big government phony conservative by, among others, the Bush people themselves, who at the time pressed hard for the votes, yet who now are supporting Romney!) — and with his willingness to take on Romney directly on his record. While it’s been Romney who has profited from ill-conceived anti-capitalist attacks by both Perry and Gingrich on Bain Capital (undeservedly, given Romney’s line of defense, in which he painted himself not as a capitalist but as an altruist out to create jobs rather than make money), the real beneficiary should have been Santorum, who refused to go along with those attacks, recognizing in them the faux-populism and anti-free market sentiments that underpin them. Like Gingrich, Santorum is willing to show his work — that is, his thinking on subjects is evident, enabling to us to see how he’s reached a certain position — and that differentiates him from, say, Romney, who after holding one position will suddenly arrive at its inverse, should the new stance strike him as required to appeal to a particular targeted constituency.

Gingrich, too, performed well last evening — particularly in his pointed rebuke to Juan Williams, who attempted to insinuate whispers of racism into the debate. Still, his attacks on Romney over private equity work were ill-conceived and Gingrich knows better; meaning that he was looking for a way to hurt Romney that he thought might resonate in the current political zeitgeist. Which only aids Obama.

As for Ron Paul? Well, yeah. Leave him on the stage long enough, and it’s only a matter of time before he slips into the Raimondo realm of 911 speculation, and from there, it’s on to the powerful Jewish lobby, and so on. Sorry — I know many of you like him — but I simply don’t trust him, and he’s surrounded himself with a number of (to me) unsavory attendants.

So. Your turn. Have at it.

… and all those coloreds just know it is their natural home where they can sing and dance and be taken care of.

DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL) appeared on the season premiere of HBO’s “Real Time” with host Bill Maher this Friday.

In the Overtime portion of the show, which is broadcasted and available only on the internet, Wasserman Schultz got into race politics, claiming the Democratic Party is the “natural home” for minorities. [...]

“There is a reason that the Democratic Party is far more diverse than the Republican Party, because the natural home, politically on major issues to Hispanics, to women, to Jews, to Asian-Americans, the diverse spectrum — to African Americans.”

“The entire spectrum of diversity is comfortable in the Democratic Party because we stand up for the issues that matter to those communities and Republicans shun them.”

As if we weren’t doing enough ourselves to strain the system, there’s this. Washington Times:

Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system.

The unclassified 2009 report “Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses” by financial analyst Kevin D. Freeman, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, states that “a three-phased attack was planned and is in the process against the United States economy.”

While economic analysts and a final report from the federal government’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission blame the crash on such economic factors as high-risk mortgage lending practices and poor federal regulation and supervision, the Pentagon contractor adds a new element: “outside forces,” a factor the commission did not examine.

“There is sufficient justification to question whether outside forces triggered, capitalized upon or magnified the economic difficulties of 2008,” the report says, explaining that those domestic economic factors would have caused a “normal downturn” but not the “near collapse” of the global economic system that took place.

Suspects include financial enemies in Middle Eastern states, Islamic terrorists, hostile members of the Chinese military, or government and organized crime groups in Russia, Venezuela or Iran. Chinese military officials publicly have suggested using economic warfare against the U.S.

Wait, no mention of Soros?

Then I call bullshit.

(thanks to geoffb)

Actually, that’s my headline. The NYT and Paul Krugman went with something less candid.

And you know, honest.

(thanks to JD)

****
update: Speaking of which…

My copy is on its way from Amazon, and once it arrives I plan on continuing my “provocateurism” series using the book as a jumping off point for discussions — most of which, I realize, will devolve into happyfeet redefining moderate as “staunch” while trying to cast conservatism as homophobic, xenophobic fringe extremism engaged in by Mexican-hating hill people and vacant-eyed Jesus vessels determined to persecute the gays, using the rhetorical tactics of the left to bolster the assertions.

Still, I’ma go for it anyway.

In the meantime, here’s Levin, introducing several of the premises of his book (I’d embed the videos here, but the player CNS uses doesn’t want to embed on my site — at least, not using the embed code on offer):

1. “You Cannot Have This EPA and a Constitution”
2. “Obama and the Dem Party Have Become Fanatical Utopians”
3. “U.S. Now ‘A Post-Constitutional Country’ And ‘It’s Going To Destroy Us’”

Discuss.

[note: as I was writing this post, UPS delivered my copy. Kismet?]

I pointed earlier to Obama’s sudden desire to “streamline” the federal government by — surprise! — asking for more Executive power. What I didn’t do is provide a helpful visual to show just how committed to “streamlining” President Efficiency truly is.

Consider that oversight corrected.

(h/t TerryH)

Which is only really “magic” in the sense that Reagan was somehow able to drag the Democrats along for the ride — and that his “formula” made the stagflation, ennui, and managed decline of the Carter years vanish into thin air!

The formula? Simple. Per Meese:

“[Reagan] reduced tax rates across the board,” said Meese. “He didn’t engage in any of this cultural warfare, class warfare that we have the president engaging in at the present time.

“Secondly, he had regulatory reform,” said Meese. “He eliminated a lot of unnecessary and burdensome regulations.

“Third,” said Meese, “he worked with the Federal Reserve to have a stable monetary policy.

“And fourth,” said Meese, “he slowed the growth of federal spending.

“Now, I think if a candidate committed himself to all four of those things, this is the magic formula that brought back the economy–that revived the economy–in 1980 and 81 and the years that followed, and started the longest period of economic growth in the history of the country,” said Meese.

“That’s what our candidates ought to be doing,” said Meese.

What I liked most about Michele Bachmann’s campaign was her emphasis on both reducing compliance costs and repealing Obamacare, two immediate reforms that would get the economy growing. Of the remaining candidates, most give lip service to adopting Reagan’s formula, and yet Romney defends the individual mandate, Newt proposes government and private sector alliances, Paul’s foreign policy seems to be “peace through pretending,” Santorum gives special dispensation to the manufacturing sector, and Huntsman worked for Obama.

So we’re in a bit of a purity pickle.

Going forward, my own belief is that we needn’t worry about who is “electable” — because that will be determined by who gets the most votes, and who gets the most votes will be determined by which candidate’s message best resonates, not by which candidate has been predetermined to appear best while delivering a tepid, careful message; instead, we need to worry about who will pursue a truly conservative path toward limited government — with the caveat that he will likewise maintain a strong national defense and is committed to the securing of our borders: Illegal immigration is becoming a civil rights issue for US citizens who, because they are having their votes diluted and their tax monies used to fund safety nets for illegals whom the federal government refuses to police, are becoming increasingly marginalized as owners of the government. And maintaining a strong national defense is one of the few powers actually granted to the federal government, and while one can quibble over the placement of bases and the like for strategic interest, what one can’t quibble over is the need to maintain our military superiority in order to maintain its power as deterrent.

From my point of view, the GOP is trying desperately to foist upon us the least conservative candidate. And watching putative conservatives rally behind this candidate out of fear that an actual conservative can’t win a general election is demoralizing, precisely because the same people seem to fall for the same self-fulfilling prophecy every four years — every time assuring themselves that having a Republican in office is at least better than having a Democrat, then claiming that the only way to achieve such an arrangement is to back the Republican who would most closely govern like a Democrat.

Ironic, isn’t it?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz declares the TEA Party complicit in the shooting of Gabby Giffords. Harry Reid issues a warning to Republicans to drop the TEA Party and its ‘extremism’.

Yet, it has been the Progressive Occupy movement that has a record of criminal activity, even as supporters dismissed the rape/robberies/assaults/murders as “that’s life” or it’s just the activities of a violent fringe.

However, now comes the story of the Occupy movement stealing a home for its own membership.

Occupy Wall Street protesters announced with great fanfare last month that they moved a homeless family into a “foreclosed” Brooklyn home — even though they knew the house belonged to a struggling single father desperately trying to renegotiate his mortgage, The Post has learned.

“They’re trying to take a house and say the bank is robbing the people because the mortgage is too high — so contact the owner!” fumed Wise Ahadzi, 28, who owns the home at 702 Vermont St. in East New York.

Occupiers “reclaimed” the row house on Dec. 6 and ceremoniously put out the welcome mat for a homeless family. [...]

[T]he family that OWS claimed to be putting into the vacant house has not yet permanently moved in. And it turns out the family is not a random victim of the foreclosure crisis, but cast for the part, thanks to their connection to the OWS movement.

OWS last week said it has spent $9,500 breaking into the house and setting it up for the homeless Carrasquillo family. A photo of the smiling family covers a window, under the slogan, “A place to call home.”

The head of the family, Alfredo Carrasquillo, 28, is an organizer for VOCAL- NY, a group that works with OWS. His Facebook page shows him in a “99 Percent” T-shirt at an OWS protest in November.

The Post visited the Vermont Street home last week — six weeks after OWS announced that the Carrasquillos were moving in — and the family was nowhere to be found.

In fact, the only people occupying the house were occupiers themselves.

No matter how many groups under an alphabet soup of acronyms used for Progressive/Leftist causes ostensibly for the peoples! (#OWS, ACORN, SEIU, ANSWER), its the same criminal covetousness seeking to rob non-members for themselves.

OWS leaders and Brooklyn Councilman Charles Barron, an OWS supporter, met with Ahadzi before the press conference to discuss the future of his property, he said. Ahadzi hoped that the group would help him regain his footing.

“Why can’t you fight for me?” he asked them.

“They told me I don’t qualify,” he said. “So my lawyer asked what the qualifications are. [They said] I have to be with an organization and they’ll deal with the bank and you have to be homeless.

“They said they couldn’t help me,” he added.

Well, doah. Listen to Harry Reid — when you give up your principles and join the Church of Statism, then in the spirit of “compromise” you might get back some of your own property.

Might. Let’s see that bended knee.