hot metal slag

hot metal slag

Monday, December 27, 2010

What's the Matter with Stanford?

The left is a mess. Why? There is a lot of talk about the media, corporations, "triangulation," expecting too much from our elected officials, and of course, the massive stupidity of our fellow countrymen which we, somehow, don't share.

This may all be true. But what I know is the academy. I've spent enough time in school, and kept my ear to the tracks enough, to see some real serious problems with the academy, and how it has lost touch with its responsibility to the public.

How fucked is the academy? It's full of:

  • Overspecialized pinheads who inevitably try to extend their tiny field to cover all creation. You'd think these folks were trying to scare up funding, but even economists do it. Must be genetic.
  • Sell-outs
  • Third-World-Movement Anti-Imperialist Revolutionary Wannabe's, those brave Professors who wax poetic over the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle in between shopping trips to Whole Foods. Fight the Power!
  • And the related group of postmodernist/critical theory doucebags, who substitute the upper-middle-class-guilt-fueled rage of the Revolutionaries with upper-middle-class flightiness and fecklessness.

Here is our case in point, a charming dialogue between the late Richard Rorty and the dead-in-frontal-lobe-only Robert Harrison. Now, I don't know jack about Rorty's "formal" "philosophy," but in this rather broad discussion about politics and the such, he makes a good amount of sense to my ears, most of the time.

The key moment, around minute 50, goes like this:

HARRISON: Shouldn't philosophers try to re-think our relationship with nature in order to solve our looming environmental crisis?

RORTY: Nah, that's a problem for engineers to address within the current system.

HARRISON: But don't we need a new system?

RORTY: What political system would you propose, other than social democracy?

HARRISON: We need a radical rethinking, finding new heroes in the past -- we should re-read Thoreau! Then engage in voluntary impoverishment! But I don't actually mean that, I'm just saying we should, you know, think about it. Because we are the problem.

You get the picture. What's notable isn't just the silliness of Professer Harrison's knee-jerk negativity (radical rethinking!), it's that he is a professor. At Stanford, one of the nation's most prestigious schools.

Think about the incredible intellectual flaccidity that precedes this kind of dialogue. For a great example, just click here, and try to figure out what the fuck this guy is saying. This kind of crap is all over the modern academy. Long on whiny critiques, dead short on anything concrete. Long on self-righteous impugning of everyone--but everyone! and dead dog short on any sense of personal responsibility to create workable solutions. Utter, utter douchebaggery.

These are the people "educating" large numbers of our leaders; they set the tone of our high-end discourse and create standards of knowledge and learning that resonate throughout our society.

These people are fucking everything up. They are full of shit, and anything they could contribute is powerfully overwhelmed by the fecal tide. After decades of this kind of nonsense, we're left with--instead of leaders or even grunts--a bunch of fools who won't tell someone that two and two are four, if they're from another culture, because they don't want to be guilty of "cultural imperialism." And, anything from our culture is irreversibly tainted--must be quarantined in thought and practice, festooned with asterisks, the footnotes reading-- what? White? Imperialist? Evidence-based?

Yes, friends, we're talking about nihilism. I know this song has been sung before, but we leftists don't seem to take it seriously. We don't see the problem.

But the problem is all too real. It should be clear to us now, that we cannot afford to diddle ourselves in the bushes while the city burns. But how can we not, when the answer to the big question about what we should do with this damn society is "Uhh, re-read Thoreau!" That is worthless! But it's what we get from the modern "academy."

And it is crippling! People inculcated with this whiny anti-everything-ism can barely decide which shoe to tie first. Take back our society? Fight a winning fight against the massive right-wing machine that is driving us headlong into Banana Republic-dom? Convince our fellow citizens--of anything--when we don't really believe anything, because that would be "oppressive"? Make a plan of action?

Doing things have consequences! Consequences are bad! We must not do anything!

Do you really think this is a dim-witted parody? Am I really going too far? Have you looked around this country recently? Have you looked at the left?

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Skipping it

I know I promised Mercury readers a post about my glorious flame war on that webpage, but I decided to leave the matter in the past, since it was of an angry spirit.

Sorry. Hopefully this absolution will free me to post more regularly.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

WikiRape

Dear Internet,

My thoughts on the rape charges against Assange:

Big questions hang over this affair, over the accusers, the accused, and the charges themselves. No one can deny that powerful forces want to fuck Julian Assange in the ass with a medium-sized treebranch (as large as unlubricated allows), nor can one deny that Mr. Assange is a unique individual, who may have women issues, like any number of people.

One thing that always needs to be made clear--if only to prevent a feminist lynching--is that having sex with someone who doesn't consent is rape. If they consent to sex with a condom, and you slip it in sans chapeau, you are engaging in rape, just like if you shoved it up their ass after talking about how you wanted to "make love."

Not that that doesn't count as making love, far be it from me to judge, whether love is for you a matter of sproingy buttsex or the dullest "natural" copulations. But as a definitional matter, unless your partner understands that you know love a posteriori (and as a product of the internet, I would sincerely hope that we all have evolved to the point where we can, with facility, spell love A-N-A-L), you should probably disambiguate your phraseology before embarking upon sodomy.

ANYway! As the above digression just maybe suggests, but probably doesn't, there's a lot that goes in to the creation of consent. Especially in sexual matters, where suggestion and nonverbal communication are central, the standard feminist line about "no" meaning "no" falls flat. So, ladies, for everyone's sake, if or when you withdraw consent, make it fucking clear, please?  Nobody wants to be an accidental rapist. Intentional, unfortunately yes, but that's a minority. No one wants to be an accidental rapist.

And this is the concern about the Assange Affair. Putting aside speculations about catty women and corrupt prosecutors (after all, everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt) the circumstances of the charges, as far as I have heard, are clearly ambiguous. OK, here's the punch line of the whole fucking post:

Hey guys! Does Julian Assange even fucking speak Swedish?


Oh yeah.

Sincerely Yours,
Slag of the Internet