180grader

Nu er den borgerlige netavis 180grader endelig oppe at køre. Det ser rigtig godt ud allerede nu. Jeg håber følgende om avisen:

- At den med et borgerligt-liberalt udgangspunkt vil angribe både højre og venstre i Folketinget.

- At den ikke forfalder til rendyrket og barnlig tilsvining af venstrefløjen. [PS. Det kan vi andre stå for.] (Farvning kan blive for meget. Seneste udgave af Arbejderen kaldte eksempelvis Wolfowitz for krigsforbryder. På forsiden. Og nej, det var ikke en leder. Man bør ikke kalde folk for forbryder, førend de er blevet dømt. I hvertfald ikke personer i et retssamfund.)

- At avisen i det omfang, det med ressourcebegrænsninger er muligt, også vil beskæftige sig med traditionelle journalistiske områder såsom udenlandsstof.

- At ikke alt behøver være udpræget borgerligt. Notitser og mere “objektive”, faktuelle artikler er velkomne.

Så vidt jeg ved kan man støtte avisens første hårde tid ved at klikke på dens netannoncer.

Derudover kan jeg nævne, at jeg (til højre) har lavet en widget med 180graders nyheder.

Held og lykke til avisen.

Here Be Anti-Feminist

Check out this rambling but entertaining critique of feminism (via Asymmetrical Information). Some excerpts:

1. Making A Priori Moral Assertions About Thoroughly Empirical Questions

This is really my main complaint about feminism, as philosophy, and I mentioned it in the Principles post already. I get the sense whenever listening to feminist arguments that there are conclusions I am being morally goaded into drawing about how the world works even before I have been allowed to investigate — that women and men’s intelligence “must” be found to be equal, or that if men are smarter at some things, women “must” be smarter at others in such a way that it all evens out (in some grand, ill-defined metaphysical sense) so that everyone feels like an equal partner in democracy at the end of the day. That’s just bad science.

(…)

To take a collegiate example: tradition dictated that young men shouldn’t walk around half-naked in front of women they hardly know, and the left demolished that taboo with the result that women — even smart, “liberated” women — found themselves quite alarmed by the naked men walking around their dorm rooms but unable to articulate their objections in (hated) traditional language (”boorish,” “unseemly,” “not gentlemanly”) and so had to concoct (proper) leftist rationales — not always terribly good ones — for a de facto return to the old order and in some cases separate bathrooms (”All those men are potential rapists!” “If we’re all naked, they may objectify me!” “I can see his patriarchy hanging out, for goodness’ sake!”).

(…)

But the tragic thing is that I am perhaps more feminist in one narrow sense than anyone: I want one truly equal (intellectually, emotionally, morally) partner and had assumed since imbibing the feminist messages pervading pop culture in the 70s and 80s that that was a natural, relatively easily-found thing. And while I was in effect being a naive feminist and trying to engage women in respectful conversation about philosophy, women were sleeping with the callous football captain and the even more callous professor (hey, beats dating your equals). So it shall ever be, and it’s time men stopped letting women dupe them into feeling guilty about it and time we all stopped denying it.

I am reminded of a female co-worker in my ABC News days, one who considered herself both a libertarian and a feminist, who said she resented men so often choosing to date younger women, as though this were entirely up to the (icky) men. “When you were a high school freshman,” I asked her, “Did you want to date the freshman males or the seniors?” The seniors, she admitted. “Well, then, think of this as payback time,” I told her.

(…)

If modern women behave like hos, feminism tends to insist, the blame must belong to men, the evil capitalist system with its income disparities, or some aberrant self-esteem problem on the part of select females. But what happens to feminism’s egalitarian worldview if this is simply the way women tend by nature to like it, absent lots of rationalistic or religious haranguing to behave otherwise?

Traditional, 70s-style feminists have spent the past four decades honing their arguments against conservatives and capitalists, but I suspect their cause is ultimately going to be done in instead by a rising generation of trashy hos.

(…)

Liberals, being naturally inclined to totalitarianism, are willing to expend a great deal of (other people’s) resources trying to shoehorn social reality into their mental picture of how it ought to operate. As women end up poor, without husbands but saddled with children, liberals are perfectly willing to denounce traditional ideas of marriage in one breath (Who needs a male breadwinner?) and call for ever-increasing wealth redistribution with the next breath — to pick up the shattered pieces of the society they’re destroying.

(…)

What exactly is this “girl power” (for lack of a better term) form of feminism that the Generation Y members now fall for if not simply the usual feminist hypocrisy — regard us as equals even while giving us special treatment — gussied up in its latest form, in which we are ordered to believe that in addition to being exactly as smart and employable as men they are also just as macho (until they cry)?

(…)

What has feminism become if not self-interested, tribalist pleading on behalf of a group that has already won all its morally relevant battles?

(…)

And to those of my fellow libertarians who covet the “feminist” label — some calling themselves “individualist feminists” or “iFeminists” to show their opposition to the socialism so common in feminist writings: if some would contend that “conservatism” is too much entangled with the use of coercion for anyone of a libertarian bent to want that label, what on Earth are we to think of the label “feminist,” which seems to me almost invariably bound up with some of the most intrusive statist schemes ever devised, from legally policing what can be said in the workplace to what the composition of our workforce can be and, in many instances, what its members can be paid

(…)

Oh, and that raises a side point that I think is worthy of a few books and doctoral theses: far from feminism being the opposite of chivalry, it should by this late juncture in history be obvious that both chivalry and feminism are just systems for getting men to treat women more gently than they treat other men. The difference is that under chivalry, both sexes admitted this was the arrangement and under feminism, we are supposed to pretend women are being held to the same standard even when they aren’t.

“TV uden Grænser” – nu med grænser

Fra en artikel i Jyllands-Posten:

Tykke børn grovæder, når der vises fødevarereklamer på tv [viser ny engelsk undersøgelse] - Forbrugerrådet kræver generelt EU-forbud mod tv-reklamer for usunde fødevarer i alle dagtimerne. (…)
Forbrugerrådet mener, at den danske regering ligesom bl.a. den svenske og britiske burde arbejde for et forbud i EU’s tv-direktiv “TV uden Grænser”, som i øjeblikket er under revision.

Måske skulle EU i så fald overveje at ændre direktivets navn.

Jeg synes generelt, at der bliver lovgivet alt for lidt på baggrund af enkelte undersøgelsers resultater. Der findes også alt for få forbud, i øvrigt.

Danske Studerendes Fællesråd spørger studerende, om de vil betale for noget, som de hidtil har fået gratis

Hvad mon de får af svar?

Danske Studerendes Fællesråd (DSF) – en interessegruppe for studerende – laver lige nu en online-undersøgelse af, hvad “studerendes holdning til brugerbetaling i uddannelsessystemet” er. Du kan som studerende deltage i undersøgelsen. Jeg har allerede besvaret spørgeskemaet – om end jeg er usikker på, hvorvidt jeg er blevet registreret, da det slutter med, at vinduet pludselig lukkes ned.*

Uanset hvad, så kan man ikke tage undersøgelsen alvorligt. Ikke bare er det dumt at spørge folk, om de helst vil have noget gratis eller mod betaling; kilden er jo heller ikke ligefrem uvildig. Lad os se, hvad man meget hurtigt kan læse på DSF’s hjemmeside om brugerbetaling:

Danmarks første almene betalingsuddannelse åbner på Syddansk Universitet (SDU) til efteråret. ”Det er første gang vi ser universiteterne udbyde en hel bacheloruddannelse med brugerbetaling, og vi er bekymrede for udviklingen”, udtaler Rune Stahl fra de studerendes landsorganisation, DSF.

Under reglerne om åben uddannelse har SDU åbnet en hel bacheloruddannelse i Jura, og det er hermed første gang, at der bliver udbudt almene betalingsuddannelser i Danmark.

- Der er tale om et stort skridt i den forkerte retning. Det er første gang vi ser en hel uddannelse med brugerbetaling. Hvis man virkeligt mener vi skal have gratis uddannelser i Danmark, kan vi ikke acceptere at der udbydes hele bacheloruddannelser mod betaling, udtaler uddannelsesordfører Rune Stahl fra Danske Studerendes Fællesråd (DSF).

Uddannelsen starter 1. september, og det koster den enkelte studerende 50.000 kroner at deltage i uddannelsen, der strækker sig over 5 år.

Personligt synes jeg, at det er uhyggeligt, hvordan folk er så inderligt imod, at andre gør ting, som ikke vedrører dem det mindste. Hvorfor være imod at nogle kan få sig en uddannelse ved at betale for den? Går det ud over dig selv, at folk kan få lov til at vælge? Bliver din egen uddannelse dyrere eller ringere af, at folk har en mulighed for at vælge noget andet? Udelukker betalingsuniversiteter eksistensen af gratis universiteter?

—

*Måske kunne de ikke lide mine svar…

Opsummering af den aktuelle Universitetsavisen

Se Universitetsavisen på nettet.

Uddrag:

Forsiden:

Mediestormen om lektor Mikael Rothsteins politisering af religionsundervisningen handler ikke om kendsgerninger og sandhed, men om at han er en kulturradikal labal hvis holdninger skal jordes på forsiden af Jyllands-Posten.

Mere af det samme på s. 4-6.

—

KU tvinges til at offentliggøre undervisningsevalueringer. Undervisere og studerende er imod, men videnskabsminister Helge Sander (V) står fast.

Deloverskrifter: “Hænges ud”, “Internt anliggende”, “Ender med popularitetskonkurrence”. Kommentarer fra fem (5) højtstående KU-ansatte, der alle er imod. Ingen andre end Helge Sander synes tilsyneladende, at det er en god idé. Åbenbart kan jeg som studerende hellere ikke synes det.

—

Forfulgt af De Sorte Ørne. Dødspatruljer jager aktive studerende på Colombias universiteter. Støtte fra Danmark kan gøre en forskel.
(…)Ifølge studenterorganisationen er de studerende kommet i skudlinjen på grund af deres indædte modstand mod regeringens planer om at privatisere de offentlige universiteter. (…) »Vi håber at de danske studerendes organisationer vil bakke os op. Reformerne på uddannelsesområdet i Colombia er ikke så forskellige fra hvad der er ved at ske i EU. Vi har en fælles modstander der hedder liberalisering af de videregående uddannelser. (…) Faktaboks: ACEU er Colombias største studenterorganisation. ACEU er tværpolitisk og organiserer både studerende fra højrefløjen og venstrefløjen. Blandt organisationens mærkesager er fri offentlig uddannelse og en politisk løsning på borgerkrigen i landet.

Jeg er sikker på, at denne “tværpolitiske” organisation vil finde masser af sympatisører i de danske “tværpolitiske” studenterorganisationer.

Køb en kandidatgrad. Er du for doven eller for dum til at bestå eksamen? Ikke noget problem i Colombia – hvis du bare har penge nok. Markedslogik. På private universiteter i det sydamerikanske land Colombia er det muligt at købe sig til de gode karakterer og akademiske grader. »Sådan er det fordi de studerende bliver set som kunder. Markedets logik er at kunderne kan få hvad de har råd til at betale for,« siger Diego Marín [fra ACEU] (…) »De videregående uddannelser
bliver McDonaldiseret. (…)

Det er selvfølgelig også USA’s skyld, som det fremgår af artiklen. Det er i øvrigt en sjov anti-privatiserings-, anti-liberaliseringshøjrefløj, Colombia tilsyneladende har.

Bagsiden:

Sander hader at få post. De studerende på Københavns Universitet har bombarderet videnskabsministeren
med postkort i protest mod brugerbetaling, men han vil meget hellere have en e-mail. Kampagne. (…) De studerende har dog valgt at følge opfordringen fra Sander, så alle der frygter at der er brugerbetaling på vej, kan nu sende en e-mail-protest via hjemmesiden www.stopbrugerbetaling.dk.

Lidt reklame for politiske kampagner skader vel ikke.

The EU (and the world) in 50 years from now

I’m a bit late with this, for which I apologize.

Two weeks ago, the Economist published a survey of the European Union. The survey ended with a rather delightful long-term prediction of what Europe will look like in 2057 for its 100-year anniversary (readers of mine might notice by now that I like reading predictions). Some excerpts follow:

A centenary celebration, 2057

The EU is celebrating its 100th birthday with quiet satisfaction. Predictions when it turned 50 that it was doomed to irrelevance in a world dominated by America, China and India proved wide of the mark. A turning-point was the bursting of America’s housing bubble and the collapse of the dollar early in the presidency of Barack Obama in 2010. But even more crucial were Germany’s and France’s efforts later in that decade, under Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy respectively, to push through economic reforms.

These reforms produced a sharp fall in unemployment just as Europe began to enjoy a productivity spurt from the spread of information technology. The eventual result was a growing labour shortage, which was not resolved until the arrival of Turkey and Ukraine as full members in 2025. The accession soon afterwards of the first north African country, Morocco, helped to prolong Europe’s boom.

(…)

The other cause for quiet satisfaction has been the EU’s foreign policy. In the dangerous second decade of the century, when Vladimir Putin returned for a third term as Russian president and stood poised to invade Ukraine, it was the EU that pushed the Obama administration to threaten massive nuclear retaliation. The Ukraine crisis became a triumph for the EU foreign minister, Carl Bildt, prompting the decision to go for a further big round of enlargement. It was ironic that, less than a decade later, Russia itself lodged its first formal application for membership.

At the same time politicians in Brussels and Washington, grappling with the blocked Middle East peace process, had a eureka moment. EU membership had worked, eventually, in Cyprus, which was reunified in 2024; why not try it again? So it was that Israel and Palestine became the EU’s 49th and 50th members.

The big challenge now is what to do about Russia. Its application has been pending for 15 years. Some say that it is too big, too poor and not European enough to join. But now that the tsar has been symbolically restored, Russia has an impeccably democratic government. A previous tsar saved Europe from Napoleon nearly 250 years ago. It would be apt to mark the anniversary by welcoming Russia back into the European fold.