Ideologically Pure

I've always associated the idea of being "Ideologically Pure" in American colleges with the activist left community. Perhaps it's because of the community of activist vegans I knew and lived with for a year (long story - but don't worry faithful readers, it involves me eating lots of hamburgers!). It's a bum rap that the hippie-esque left gets associated with the value of "relativism" - because those people tend to be more in line with a True Believer in The Cause, and tend to be distrustful of those who don't believe (or worse, believe only half-heartedly or have doubts), than any good old fashion antipositivist could imagine.

There were the vegans who, in private no doubt, loathed the vegetarians for not being willing to suffer enough in the cause. There were the vegans who raced to be even more pure than their brothers-in-arms. And there were the members of the GLBT community who might have been more comfortable leaving the Bs at the bottom of the rainbow (one wonders if there were secret GLT "Bs: make a choice already!" meetings).

And for those who the very idea of getting a college education reeked of indoctrination or those who felt that colleges didn't go far enough in ordering society there were schooling alternatives (Personally, for the purposes of designing society I'll always take my chances with the capitalists' Culture Industry than with Phish and white girls who have dreadlocks).

Mind you, the only 'conservatives' I knew were a few kids holed up in the local church and attached Newman House, more concerned about how they would match up in baby output versus their contemporaries than in matters of ideas. That and the various frat people I encountered were also more concerned with managing the upcoming weekend party (and the legal troubles afterwards) or young Republicans making little Michael-Mooresque pranks.

So I'm equal parts happy and horrified to see the New Yorker's profile on Patrick Henry College. I know Christian focused college have existed for quite some time, but I've always sensed that they were like a giant Newman House run amock. Lots of odd 'socials', lots of making sure you get married before you graduate, etc. Little did I know that the Will to Believe was as strong there as any campus activist group.

The school was originally started as a college for homeschooled children and as a repertoire for aides and volunteers for hard-right politicans. So picture classroom after classroom of children who have been 'untainted' by classroom interaction and having to deal with, or be inspired by, teachers who aren't their parents.

The article doesn't have any links to the webpage, but it is worth it to explore around. First up is the Statement of Faith all kids who matriculate to the college have to sign. Check it out. " The Bible...is the inspired word of God, inerrant in its original autographs ... Man is by nature sinful and is inherently in need of salvation..." All I had to sign was a Academic Integrity agreement. Sadly I could not find the dress code students adhere to online. If it is anything more strict than a stained, slept-in comic book t-shirt, I would have been in major trouble...

A lot has been written on the high-level policies of these Christian Colleges - their bans on inter-racial dating, their Full Support of republicans on the march, their disturbing speakers and sources of funding, attitudes toward Evolution, etc. But little has beeen written on the student's day-to-day life. As smoking and drinking are strictly forbidden, I genuinely don't know how they would spend their free time. I thought perhaps they sat around and listened to Minor Threat.

I should have known the answer: they try and become the most pure. This must be hard on a campus of virgins, non-drinkers or drug takers. But they find their way. One student sent out an email reminding women to dress modestly for the Spring Dance because "“It is sin for you [girls] to tempt us [men]." RAs write private emails if a girl dress 'inappropriately' (one such note forced a homeschooler, who is no doubt well-prepared to deal with the stresses of modern life, to cry endlessly in a hallway).

I wish more was spent on the day-to-day grind of the classes but the article has some gems - this professor of Biology "tells students that the earth was created in a week." Another great moment was were students wailed on Clinton for Waco, but couldn't think of a lie Bush may have told to protect the country while discussing The Prince.

It's always a cause for concern the fact that these kids who are pure on the right here have extremely more access to high government office and power than the social planners on the left. I can only hope that all that seclusions causes them to go nuts 10 minutes outside of the bubble. That or our country wakes up and realizes that the people at the wheel of our country shouldn't sign an agreement believing in the idea of the End of the World in our lifetimes.

Coming to a town near you - less affordable housing, more Home Depots.

In a move closely watched by suburban townships and housing advocates across the country, the Supreme Court came down against homeowners today in Susette Kelo v. City of New London in a 5-4 vote. Susette Kelo lives in a middle-class home in the city of New London. The city decided to claim eminent domain to seize her house and neighborhood to hand over to the New London Development Corporation, a private company who intents to use the property for private developments - specifically a development involving hotels and a marina.

At issue is determining whether or not there is any check to local governments claiming eminent domain as long as they are willing to compensate for whatever the property is worth. Let's clarify what this is not: (a) The intended use is not public (schools, roads, parks), or even for a third party developing a public use ("Taco Bell Presents: The Gordita Public Park"). It's entirely for the economic benefit of a third-party. This is a hurdle to jump - as the 5th amendment is pretty specific in saying - "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." (b) The land in question is not blighted - a word that has a legal and regulatory meaning. Blighted property can be grabbed for whatever reasons with compensation - as the Supreme Court has determined in 1953. The area is question are full of safe, comfortable, older-middle class homes.

Well The Supreme Court found in favor of the city and economic developers today. “The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

I know a few people who work in the intersection of suburban business/politics - and the suburbs of America have been watching this case with their tongues wagging. And now they've been granted the golden wand. An area of middle-class minorities have somehow found their way into your white suburb? Wave your new eminent domain wand and *poof* - A mini-mall full of Home Depots and high-end condos takes its place. Thinking you could turn two blocks of affordable housing over into rows of rich townhomes piled on each other? Go for it - with the faith of the judicial branch of our government. Legally, nothing is prohibiting you from turning a church into a Wal-mart (and you know how churches don't pay taxes...).

It's always an odd day when I finding myself rooting for Scalia and the Cato Institute. But they have the points. Anyone interested should read Cato's brief on the matter. Private interests are arguing that there is a public benefit to new businesses and more expensive housing as it increases tax revenue. The appeal to a "public benefit" is what Stevens wrote in his majority opinion. This may be true (I tend to be doubtful of economic analysis done by people with a profit motive), but constitutionally it doesn't matter one bit - as "public benefit" (not mentioned in the constitution) has nothing to do with "public use" (specifically mentioned, for good reason) - and the fact that anybody is getting these two things confused is a major problem for our country.

Those people who love to argue that there is no difference anymore (the market will no doubt save us!) amaze me here. Beyond the obvious idea that private industry has no element of "the public" to it (I have no consitutional right to petition the stockholders of Wal-mart with my grievances), the idea that local townships have carte blanche to take and give property as they see fit has an unlimited potential for explotation of the poor, the benefit of the rich, the elimination of the not-wanted, and all kinds of other abuses.

From Reason magazine:

Justice Antonin Scalia sought to clarify the principle guiding the city's use of eminent domain: "Are we saying you can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?"

"If they are significantly more," Horton said.

The rich reaping from the government because they are rich is, by definition, not democracy. A disgusting day for our government. Petition your local government - it's all up to state regulations now.

Oh Shit, I hope I don't have one.

In a stellar display of "actual science" researchers at UCLA and Cal Tech have located what they beleive to be a "Jennifer Aniston neuron". That's right, a epiletic research patient was shown to have neuron the fired specifically in recognition of Jennifer Aniston and only Jennifer Aniston.

It is presumed that this neuron is designed to recognize one individual person, or specifically in this case:

Even more disturbing is the fact that they seem to have also located a "Friends" neuron. I am not talking about a neuron that recognizes people with whom you are friendly, but rather a specific neuron devoted to recognizing reference to the situational comedy "Friends." The concept is really quite simple. Basically, when you are exposed to stimuli a number of neurons fire as a result. These neurons map to sort of a matrix of "learning" neurons. As time passes, and you are exposed to the same basic stimuli over and over again, this matrix shrinks. Essentially it can be said that your brain is getting more adapted to recognizing what you are looking at, hearing, smelling, ect. The logical end to this process would be that after repeated, brain numbing exposure to something your brain would adapt to the point where a single neuron fired in recognition of a particular set of stimuli- in this case Jennifer Aniston, and also the show Friends.

Now, the logical end to this post is to conclude that it is both disturbing and exceptionally amusing that the first time scientists were able to locate such a fantastically adapted neuron it was adapted, not to recognize your wife, girlfriend, or grandmother, but Jennifer Aniston and the situational comedy Friends (two seperate neurons by the way). So if ever we are asked if our culture has been saturated with celebrity, we now know the answer...as well as the answer to some important questions about brain mechanics.

If you think that this is all been made up, here is the original research in pdf format. The publication Nature is the single most well respected source in the scientific community. Having papers published there means very rigorous peer review as well as groundbreaking work.

Have fun.

MISUNDERESTIMATION

On Erik Martin's entry dated June 17th, we received the following comment, from an intellectual giant claiming the name "You Gays Suck Balls":

This website is gay as hell. none of you queers know a damn thing about anything cept fudgepacking. DIE fags.. ohhh and i hate NIGGERS

Five months ago we introduced our viewers to the magical world of unemployed, semi-literate girls who are too ugly to be strippers and thus become webcam prostitutes. In those five months, ginandtacos assumed that the principals involved in that expose on idiocy would have found something better to do. Ginandtacos was wrong. As Robert Duvall qua Tom Hagen once said, these girls have no families (and certainly no paid employment). It is like they never existed.

In closing, then, click this link to direct your ideas about this brilliant comment to "CJ" over at shykiss.com. And while you're at it, be sure to ask if whatever venereal disease was so clearly evident in the thousands of pictures of her crotch (yet not one of her face....HMMM) has cleared up. Ginandtacos is always mindful of the health of those who occupy the bottom 5% of the social ladder, without whom our orders could not be incorrectly taken at Taco Bell drive-thrus.