Some good news from HuffPo: they’re going under

June 15, 2017 • 9:45 am

Well, this time I can have unalloyed Schadenfreude, as I dislike HuffPo so intensely. Grania often asks me why I even read it, and my answer is “Why do we smell the milk in the carton even though we know it’s gone bad?” Here’s their headline (click on screenshot to see the good news):

I was surprised at this since PuffHo pays many of their contributors nothing—a form of exploiting people by promising them “exposure” while profiting from those poor wannabe writers. So much for their avowal to create more economic equity (see below).

Here’s part of the report:

HuffPost laid off over three-dozen [JAC n.b.: there is no hyphen in “three-dozen”] employees Wednesday, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, as part of broader corporate cutbacks.

The creation of a new Verizon digital unit called Oath, following the acquisition of Yahoo, is expected to result in roughly 2,100 layoffs. Verizon owns AOL, HuffPost’s parent company.

Writers Guild of America, East, HuffPost’s union, said Wednesday that they were notified of 39 members being laid off.

. . . The HuffPost layoffs come as Lydia Polgreen, who took over as editor-in-chief earlier this year, is assembling a newsroom leadership team, which includes former Daily News Editor-in-Chief Jim Rich, and charting a new editorial vision. She recently oversaw a rebranding of the site, which was co-founded by Arianna Huffington, who left the company in August.

. . . Polgreen and HuffPost CEO Jared Grusd praised outgoing employees’ “dedication and admirable passion” in an email to staff.

“We’ve spoken publicly about our mission to build HuffPost into the most impactful news brand in the world, and we are steadfast on our commitment to fulfilling that mission,” they wrote. “But today is not a day to talk about the steps we’re taking there, but to pause and reflect on our colleagues and to celebrate their contributions to HuffPost.”

“Impactful”? Is that even a word? I checked with the Oxford English Dictionary, my go-to authority, and a search turned up this:

 As for “the most impactful news brand in the world”, well, that ain’t gonna happen so long as HuffPo reports only news that fits its ideological biases, which are resolutely anti-Trump and pro-Regressive Leftism.  I, too, hate Trump, but his Presidency has driven the site literally insane, peppering article after article with gratuitous and irrelevant slurs on The Donald. And when their equivalent of an editorial writer is Samantha Bee, who’s treated as if she’s the equivalent of Rachel Maddow in political commentary, then you know something’s wrong.

I hope the rag goes under, as it’s an embarrassment to the Left. The only loss to me will be its use as a source of Islamophilic articles: the endless stream of PuffHo pieces celebrating the wonders of the Religion of Peace and the bravery of hijabis—pieces that have given me so much fodder to discuss.

As for their new mission under editor Polgreen, I’ve written about it before: it’s pure social-justice warriorism, not the dissemination of news. While the editor’s mission statement sounds good, it’s really a cover to advance a Regressive Leftist agenda, one that damages true progressives:

I think we can do better for people who feel that too much political and economic power has accrued to a very small elite. People who feel they are on the outside looking in at the prosperity created by globalization and technological transformation. That the game is rigged; that the deck is stacked against them; who feel that the house always wins. That definition includes many, many people who voted for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I suspect it also includes the majority of people who voted for Trump. It certainly encompasses voters on both sides of Brexit and the French presidential vote that took place over the weekend.

For me, the biggest divide in America, indeed across the globe, is between those who have power and those who don’t, and that doesn’t easily line up with our red and blue, left or right politics. The media has come up short in telling the story of one side of that divide ― of the people experiencing anger, voicelessness and powerlessness.

Here’s how they empower the marginalized:

Who cares?

HuffPo: A combination of People magazine and Salon.

Cambridge University infantilizes its women students

June 15, 2017 • 8:30 am

The headline of this short piece from The Independent (click on screenshot to see the article) says it all:

An excerpt from the report:

Cambridge University examiners have been warned against using words such as “flair”, “brilliance” and “genius” when assessing students’ work because they are associated with men, an academic has revealed.

Lucy Delap, a lecturer in British History at the top-ranking institution, said History tutors are discouraged from using the terms because they “carry assumptions of gender inequality”.

She told The Telegraph: “Some of those words, in particular genius, have a very long intellectual history where it has long been associated with qualities culturally assumed to be male.

“Some women are fine with that, but others might find it hard to see themselves in those categories”.

Dr Delap, who specialises in gender history, said one of the reasons why men get more first class degrees at Oxford and Cambridge than women is because female students struggle with the “male dominated environment”.

. . . “We’re rewriting our first two years of our History degree to create a wider set of paper choices,” she explained, “to make assessment criteria clearer, and to really try and root out the unhelpful and very vague talk of ‘genius’, of ‘brilliance’, of ‘flair’ which carries assumptions of gender inequality and also of class and ethnicity.“

The article (and Delap) also mentions “reading lists dominated by male authors and the lack of diversity seen in college portrait collections.” I’m not sure what I think of this. If important women historians or women’s roles in history or the writing of history are being neglected, then yes, by all means put in women authors. But should they put them in just to raise gender parity, regardless of whether they fit into the curriculum or are considered valuable contributions to the curriculum? Like the male-dominated portraits, reading lists reflect the sexism of the past: the fact that women weren’t given equal opportunity to excel in academics. We’ve progressed now, and most of us think that opportunity should be there from the outset: right from what we Americans call “grade school.” There should be no differential treatment of the sexes, especially if it marginalizes one group.

But should we also assure equal outcomes: fixing things so that that the disparity in achievement at present—Cambridge University reports that “In 2015-16, 31 per cent of women gained firsts in history at Cambridge compared with 39 per cent of men”—becomes exactly equal? What if the numbers were reversed and more women than men got firsts: would that also constitute a problem?

Well, the word “genius” is overused, as few people of either sex fit my notion of that word, but really: “flair” and “brilliance”? Are other words like that “associated with men”?

I see this language policing as risible and offensive to women. The words are gender-neutral, and if they have been associated with men in the past and not with women equally bright, well, that should be rectified. But it shouldn’t be fixed by ditching the words, for crying out loud! And what will they do—invent new words? The Independent reports that “In order to help Cambridge University progress in terms of gender equality, Dr Delap said her department wanted to use language that was more ‘transparent’”. But what kind of language is more transparent than “brilliance”? Is “brilliant” more sexist than “very smart”?

The other action Cambridge is taking is this:

[Delap’s] comments follow a debate sparked by the Oxford University History Faculty this week, when the department was accused of sexism for introducing a “take home” exam paper.

The move was said to be part of a restructuring of the degree course, with the hoping of boosting results for female students who are statistically better performers at long term assessment over sit-down exams.

To that, and the new language policing, Grania said this:

This is disappointing nonsense from an academic who ought to be able to do better. Instead of trying to build women students up, she’s decided to infantilise them and treat them as feeble creatures unable to compete. What a waste of opportunity!

Here’s a photo of Dr. Delap; her Cambridge bio is here:

Photo by Warren Gunn, on Cambridge University website.

h/t: Al

Readers’ wildlife photos

June 15, 2017 • 7:30 am

Today we have a potpourri of photos; the first comes from reader Tim Anderson in Australia, who does astronomical photos:

This is a picture of the Jewel Box (NGC 4755), a “small” open star cluster located very close to the Southern Cross. It contains about one hundred stars. The Jewel Box was first described by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille in 1751. The image is a composite of 30 frames each of red, green, blue and white filtered light.

And from Jerry Piven, who didn’t identify the bird (readers?), but said that his friend IDed the snake as a black snake (probably Pantherophis obsoletus):

Perhaps this might make your wildlife posting? I’ve never seen a bird follow a snake through the grass and over a path only to nip at its ophidian tail so assiduously. Perhaps the snake had tried to purloin her eggs or chicks. I’m no ornithologist so I can only speculate.

And three from Stephen Barnard, who gets special kudos as he finally trapped the mother of Jerry Coyne VI and Not Jerry Coyne. Mom was feral and wild, but Stephen saved her from being euthanized and is trying to get her adopted as a barn cat.

Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota):

These moose twins (Alces alces) hang out together. I used to see them with their mother, but she’s moved on.

Sandhill Crane family (Grus canadensis). I see these birds every day in the field across the creek. It’s interesting to observe the growth of the colt. (That’s what crane chicks are called.) It can’t fly, and I’m puzzled why the coyotes don’t get it. Maybe the adults are effective at defending it.  This photo is heavily cropped.

Finally, my own mallard ducklings (Anas platyrhynchos) in the pond outside my office. I feed them three times a day with a combination of oatmeal and Cheerios, and, with the combination of their normal food of insects, minnows, and vegetation, they are waxing fat. In fact, I can hardly continue to call them “ducklings”: they’re DUCKS! This is just an iPhone photo; no time for even a point and shoot when I’m using one hand to toss them their noms:

Thursday: Hili dialogue (and Leon monologue)

June 15, 2017 • 6:30 am

Good morning on the Ides of Junes (June 15, 2017); I’m absolutely certain that some reader will tell me that it’s not really the Ides of June and that reader will probably be correct. It’s National Lobster Day, and, even better, it’s National Beer Day in the UK, celebrating the day the Magna Carta was sealed in 1215. Wikipedia makes two observations:

. . . ale is mentioned in clause 35 of Magna Carta, which states:
Let there be throughout our kingdom a single measure for wine and a single measure for ale and a single measure for corn, namely ‘the London quarter

and

Beer Day Britain was instigated and driven forward by beer sommelier, writer and drinks educator Jane Peyton. It took place for the first time in 2015. The main focus of the day is the National Cheers To Beer that takes place at 7 pm when people also sing the Cheers To Beer anthem co-written by Jane Peyton.

Brits, does that in fact really happen, with people singing “Cheers to Beer”?

On this date in 1215, King John of England affixed his seal to the Magna Carta (see above), and in 1667 the first human blood transfusion was administered by Dr. Jean-Baptiste Denys, though I believe there’s some controversy about the date of the first such transfusion. On June 15, 1878, Eadweard Muybridge’s series of photographs proved for one and for all that yes, all four feet of a horse can leave the ground when it runs. Muybridge went on to take many series of stop-action photos. On this date in 1937, sixteen climbers on an expedition to Nanga Parbat were killed in an avalanche: the worst disaster on an 8000-meter peak, even counting the Everest debacle of 1996, when eight climbers were killed. Finally, on this day in 1970, Charles Manson went on trial in Los Angeles for the “Sharon Tate” murders.

Notables born on this day include Saul Steinberg (1914). Erroll Garner (1921), Waylon Jennings (1937; he’s 80 today), and Neil Patrick Harris (1973). I am old. Those who died on this day include Ella Fitzgerald (1996) and Casey Kasem (2014).  All of us are going to die!

In the comments below, reader Ken suggested that I put up this video of Erroll Garner playing “Misty”, adding that Garner couldn’t even read music! And it’s a great performance, so here it is:

Since it’s Black Music month, here’s Ella doing “It don’t mean a thing”:

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is wide eyed in fear. When I asked Malgorzata what kind of work was frightening poor Hili, she responded, “Oh, keeping the world in order.”

Hili: I’m terrified.
A: What of?
Hili: The amount of work that awaits me.
In Polish:
Hili: Jestem przerażona.
Ja: Czym?
Hili: Tą ilością pracy, którą mamy przed sobą.
In nearby Wloclawek, Leon’s staff has made a gorgeous garden on their new property, but are still awaiting delivery of their wooden house from the South. In the meantime, Leon sits in the garden and questions the bees:

Leon: What issue are they buzzing about?

Via Matthew Cobb: The classic hare vs tortoise race. Reptile wins!

https://twitter.com/PersianRose1/status/875173656065957888

And from Grania, a cat sleeping upside down (it’s a gif):

Steve Paikin interviews Lawrence Krauss

June 14, 2017 • 3:00 pm

If you’re a fan of physicist Lawrence Krauss, here’s a half-hour video in which he’s interviewed by Steve Paikin of the Canadian channel TVO’s show The Agenda. (Paikin is 57: can you believe it?) I was once on his show, and was impressed by Paikin’s preparation and probing questions, as well as his ability to direct the interview and his practice of letting the interviewee speak without excessive intrusion. He’s one of the best interviewers going, and I’m sure he read Krauss’s book (as he read mine, as his copy was full of his notes and bookmarks).

Krauss’s spiel is very similar to his talk at the recent Imagine No Religion meeting in Toroto (for which he got a standing ovation), and is centered on his new history of modern physics,The Greatest Story Ever Told–So Far: Why Are We Here?  Although the book doesn’t add much to similar histories, Krauss excels in his public talks on physics, infecting the audience with his own enthusiasm for science. You get a flavor of this in the interview.

h/t: Barry

Black is White Department

June 14, 2017 • 12:30 pm

From PuffHo (click screenshot to see a necessity made into a virtue):

There’s Feminist Sarsour at lower left

Saying “I am a hijabi feminist” is like saying “I’m a Confederate-flag-waving anti-racist” or “I’m a ball-and-chain toting, striped-suit-wearing free man.”

Three quotes from Sidra Binte Islam’s piece:

When in reality, the hijab/burqa stands for freedom. The freedom to practice one’s religion, symbolic of our obedience to Allah. It means modesty, it is an outer manifestation of our inner modesty. There’s a very common misconception about the hijab that it has only been imposed on women when in reality, men too have been asked to lower their gaze, grow a beard and to guard their modesty.

24:30:

“Tell the believing men that they should reduce/lower (يغضوا) their gaze/vision and guard their private parts…”

24:31:

“Tell the believing women that they should reduce/lower (يغضضن) their gaze/vision and guard their private parts…”

Apart from modest clothing, the hijab is also symbolic of modesty when it comes to the social world. For instance, these days when women often get gazed at by men and we don’t like those lustful gazes, that’s when the hijab ordains men to lower their gaze and vice-versa.

Tell that to the men in Iran and Afghanistan that continue to ogle covered women. Better yet, tell it to the morality policy. And in some countries there’s no “asking” but “telling.” This also holds in the West when many Muslim girls are shamed for not covering. I’d love to see a survey showing how many men in, say, Iran “lower their gaze” when they see a woman in a hijab!

and

Hijab is not oppression for women but a symbol of empowerment. Today, we live in a society where women are subjected to sexualisation and objectification and that’s where the hijab de-sexualises women. It gives them recognition for who they are and not for what they look like. Today, women are subjected to inferiority complexes because of what they look like or if they don’t meet the standards of beauty set by patriarchal society. The flourishing makeup industries prove that, or to be more precise, fairness creams. According to these industries, for a woman to look confident and be liked by men, she has to look good, she has to be fair, she has to be slim, etc.

 If this is the case, can we expect to see Western feminists like the PuffHo editors reducing their objectification by veiling? I don’t think so.

Anyway, check out the new “Hijabarbie” from a CNN piece, “The hijab-wearing Barbie who’s become an Instragram star“. The empowering doll is wearing eyeliner, eye shadow, lipstick, and appears to have plucked eyebrows. How is THAT supposed to be de-sexualizing yourself? You can’t have it both ways.

When all else fails, blame this on the West:

This rhetoric of oppression has come from the west, from the time of colonisation. Leila Ahmed, in her book “Women and Gender in Islam”, writes that when in the 19th century, the British and the other colonisers came to Muslim countries, they looked for a means to justify their colonisation and the only way was to label their traditional culture as regressive. And yes they made the hijab their target.

Tell that to the women of Iran and Afghanistan, who were largely unveiled until Islamic theocracy mandated or pressured Muslim women to have veils. In 1979, the women of Iran rose up, en masse and in vain, against the requirement that they wear the hijab. This came not from the West, but from Iranian mullahs. And see my post on how women in Kabul and Tehran dressed in 1970 versus now. BIG difference! Is that due to the West?

A new film on anti-Semitism: up for one day, but in German

June 14, 2017 • 11:30 am

The German film “Auserwählt und ausgegrenzt – Der Hass auf Juden in Europa” (“Chosen and excluded: the hatred of Jews in Europe”) is online illegally, but only for a day. It is highly regarded as thorough and honest, and you can read about it on the German Wikipedia, which will translate the piece into English wenn Sie kein Deutsch sprechen können.

The automatic translation of part of it:

The hate of Jews in Europe is a 90-minute documentary by the authors Joachim Schroeder and Sophie Hafner from the year 2016 about anti-Semitism in Germany, France , the Gaza Strip and the West Jundland – including the Jews’ hatred of Muslims . The film took a media interest both inside and outside the German-speaking countries after the TV channel Arte had rejected a broadcast in the summer of 2017. The WDR , which produced the film and had previously edited it in an editorial, expressed “doubts about the journalistic quality of the documentation”.

On 13 June 2017 the news and entertainment portal Bild.de published the film for the duration of 24 hours. The documentation is preceded by an introduction, in which the picture editor Claas Weinmann explains:

” Chosen and discriminated – the hatred of Jews in Europe – that is the anti-Semitism documentary that Arte does not want to show, and which still examines the WDR. We have been discussing this film for weeks, without being allowed to SEE him. The suspicion is, therefore, that the documentation is not shown because it shows an anti-Semitic view of the world in large parts of the society, which is staggering. Our historical responsibility obliges us to take a firm stand against the inadequacies, which are documented in the documentation. But we must all know what we are dealing with. That is why BILD shows the film, which the public broadcaster Arte NOT wants to show for 24 hours. “

On the same day, Arte responded with a press release stating that Arte had noted that Bild.de had put the documentation online on its own responsibility. “Even though this approach is strange, ARTE has no objection to the public’s own opinion on the film.” Furthermore,

“However, ARTE can not and does not want to legitimize the film by means of its own broadcasting since, without ARTE being informed about it, it deviates significantly from the agreed broadcast concept. Such an approach can not accept ARTE in this as in any other case.  The hypothesis that the film does not fit into the program for political reasons is simply absurd. The program proposal, which was originally approved by the program conference, expressly envisaged the subject of anti-Semitism concealed under the cover of Israeli critics – but not in line with the editorial line of ARTE East, but in Europe. ”

So, if you speak German, watch it NOW. I can understand most of it, but lack time to watch the whole thing, and so can’t judge its quality or objectivity. If you understand German and watch it, weigh in below