Grief counselors are in high demand nowadays

Shoe, March 14, 2018:

"McCarthyism masquerading as liberal open-mindedness" in Silicon Valley / San Francisco

During a Reddit AMA, author/investor Tim Ferriss gives one of several reasons why he's leaving the Bay Area. 

Silicon Valley also has an insidious infection that is spreading -- a peculiar form of McCarthyism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) masquerading as liberal open-mindedness. I'm as socially liberal as you get, and I find it nauseating how many topics or dissenting opinions are simply out-of-bounds in Silicon Valley. These days, people with real jobs (unlike me) are risking their careers to even challenge collective delusions in SF. Isn't this supposed to be where people change the world by challenging the consensus reality? By seeing the hidden realities behind the facades? That's the whole reason I traveled west and started over in the Bay Area. Now, more and more, I feel like it's a Russian nesting doll of facades -- Washington DC with fewer neck ties, where people openly lie to one another out of fear of losing their jobs or being publicly crucified. It's weird, unsettling, and, frankly, really dangerous. There's way too much power here for politeness to be sustainable. If no one feels they can say "Hey, I know it makes everyone uncomfortable, but I think there's a leak in the fuel rods in this nuclear submarine..." we're headed for big trouble.

His destination, Austin, leans hard to the left itself, but apparently it's much less McCarthyite than SV/SF is.

Open-mindedness is seen as a virtue only when one's passionate views are held by a minority of those in positions of power and influence.  Once those views become dominant in some place (e.g. the Bay Area), open-mindedness goes out the window and dissenting opinions are suppressed.

Intellectual diversity is a threat to progressive hegemony, and it shall not be tolerated

Carl Trueman writes in First Things about the fact that modern universities seem designed to prevent vigorous-yet-civil debate about contentious issues.  As the progressive tribe solidifies its hold on western culture, the name of the game is conformity to the progressive ideal.  Not only will dissent not be tolerated; it will be punished in any way possible.

Universities [...] are not supposed to be confessional institutions inculcating a particular creed, nor should they be built on politicized extensions of child-rearing philosophies founded on self-esteem. They should be places where debate is part of the way of life, and where one has to live shoulder to shoulder with those with whom one differs. Yet they have become the very places where this inability to disagree is now apparently cultivated as a positive virtue. The truly educated person is now no longer the person who understands an opposing viewpoint even as he rejects it. For even to understand an alternative viewpoint is to collude in the oppression which such an opinion embodies.

I suspect that the future health of democracy depends upon university administrators worrying less about the dangers posed by whatever is the micro-aggression du jour and more about providing safe places for those who actually want to hold opinions and have debates. Safe places, that is, that are marked by the very risks and danger involved in intellectual engagement.

Trueman's hope (expressed in the second paragraph of the excerpt) is no more than a pipe dream, at least for now.

On the curious popularity of my post on Sam Elliott's political views

Nearly two and a half years ago I noted with approval how difficult it was to find out actor Sam Elliott's political views.  Little did I know that this would end up being one of the most-viewed posts in this blog's nine-year existence.  Google "sam elliott politics" and you'll see my two previous posts on the actor right at the top of the results.  Not bad for a blog that has for the most part been dormant for a couple of years.

I must admit that the response caught me by surprise.  Most of the comments tended to follow one or both of these themes:

• How dare you suggest that the free-speech rights of Hollywood actors should be suppressed!
• The free-speech rights of Christian leaders should be suppressed.

The first theme showed me that these readers had misunderstood my point.  The second theme was a reflexive response that, I suppose, was reasonable in light of the first misunderstanding.

Multiple misinterpretations later, I decided it was time to give it one more try.  I shall attempt to lay out my view as a logical sequence of statements.  Please make sure you understand each statement as I meant it before proceeding to the next.

1. Of course entertainers enjoy the same free-speech rights that every American is supposed to have.
2. I do not get upset when entertainers exercise this right, even when I disagree with the view being expressed (which is most of the time).
3. [Pay careful attention to this one, because it is the foundation of the point I was trying to make] Our culture grants far more weight to the political opinions of entertainers than those opinions would receive on their own merits.
4. [This one is important as well] Most entertainers are fully aware of the preceding point, and make every attempt to use their celebrity to influence political outcomes.  "Support this policy, not because I've appealed to your mind with a series of persuasive arguments, but because you like my acting/singing/whatever."
5. Politicians are all too happy to exploit entertainers' willingness to leverage their celebrity, and thus we're treated to the spectacle of entertainers headlining political rallies (which is fine) or being invited to give testimony to starry-eyed congressfolks on some bill that's being debated (which is silly, unless the entertainer actually is an acknowledged authority on the topic of debate).
6. [And here we finally get to Sam Elliott] So many entertainers follow this course that it's surprising (and in my opinion refreshing) to come across one who declines to play the game.
7. We say that "all [people] are created equal," but the reality is that in our celebrity-obsessed culture, the political opinions of entertainers are somehow "more equal" than yours or mine.

I suspect that my detractors in the May 2012 post are less likely to be bothered by this final statement,  but only because they tend to agree with the stated opinions of the vast majority of entertainers.  After all, it's great to get some major-league assistance from folks who believe as we do.

Okay, I'm ready for some to shift the attention away from entertainers to some other disliked demographic group again.  Whatever. 

Whether or not you agree with my seven statements above or not, please understand that I was trying to make a cultural observation, not a political one.

How to know if we really believe in the right to free speech

Mark Steyn, in a recent speech given in Australia:

Anyone can be in favour of free speech for Barney the Dinosaur and the Wiggles, but if you’re not in favour of free speech you find offensive and repellent and loathsome, you’re not in favour of free speech at all. And you’re on the side of creeping totalitarianism.

Ironically, a generation ago it was the left that claimed the need to remind conservatives of this truth.

Fla. congressman wants online critic fined and “imprisoned for five years”

Most politicians enter the profession knowing that they must develop a thick skin.  Take a stand on anything, and the critics will come out of the woodwork.

Florida Congressman Alan Grayson has distinguished himself by his outrageously extreme characterizations of his political opponents.  A Florida resident, fed up with the embarrassment the congressman has brought to her state, set up the web site mycongressmanisnuts.com to rally support for the cause of unseating him in 2010.



Grayson apparently thinks that the constitutional guarantee of the right of free speech applies only to those who agree with him.  Instead of ignoring the site or defending his actions, he filed a federal complaint against the website owner.

Grayson won’t be content with having the site shut down.  Relying on technicalities related to how the activist set up her fundraising committee, he also wants the site owner fined and “imprisoned for five years”.

Perhaps the My Congressman is Nuts site could launch an investigation into Grayson’s own fundraising activities.  I’ll bet there are a few gems in there worth posting for the world to see.

Not that there isn’t sufficient evidence already that Grayson doesn’t have what it takes to serve honorably in Congress.

(Via: Orlando Sentinel, December 18)