David Brooks Says that the Universities are the Crown Jewels of American Life. That’s Baloney

In a recent op-ed essay in the New York Times, David Brooks called for a “civic uprising” against the Trump administration. Brook envisions a revolt of the intellectual elites, including those who hang out in the universities, which he described as “the crown jewels of American life.”

The universities, Brooks extols, “are hubs of scientific and entrepreneurial innovation,” and “[i]n a million ways, the scholars at universities help us understand ourselves and our world.”

Brooks goes so far as to attest that the universities mold young students to become cultured, critical thinkers:

I have seen it over and over. A kid comes on campus as a freshman, inquisitive but unformed. By senior year, there is something impressive about her. She is awakened, cultured, [and] a critical thinker. The universities have performed their magic once again.

I’m sorry, David, but that’s pure, unadulterated bullshit. As the media shows us daily, the universities are not nurturing students to be cultured, critical thinkers. They’re producing anti-Semitic racists who rampage through college campuses spewing venomous hatred toward Jews.

If the universities were doing their jobs, they would be educating young people to think rationally and to have some understanding of Israel’s heroic struggle to maintain the only democratic society in the Middle East. Instead, anti-Israel student protesters voice their support for Hamas--a gang of rapists, torturers, kidnappers, body snatchers, arsonists, and-child killers.

Moreover, if the nation’s university leaders were compassionate champions of social justice, which they claim to be, they would not be hiking tuition year after year, forcing their students to take on ruinous levels of debt to obtain liberal arts and humanities degrees that are worthless.

To be fair, Brooks admits that American universities have flaws. “Many have allowed themselves to become shrouded in a stifling progressivism that tells half the country: ‘Your voices don’t matter.’”

Brooks fails to acknowledge that the “flaw” he describes as “stifling progressivism” is not a quaint and harmless eccentricity. It is an expression of the universities’ bigotry, provincialism, and base contempt for traditional American values.

In short, Brooks is wrong to say that American universities are advancing “the glories of our way of life.” On the contrary, the gasbags who run the colleges and teach in them are programming their students to be intolerant, racist, simplistic, and self-absorbed. And they’re charging a boatload of money for the privilege of destroying American culture. 

An anti-Israel encampment at Columbia: "the glories of our way of life"

To the Barricades! NY Times's David Brooks Calls for a "Civic Uprising" Against the Trump Administration

 David Brooks recently published an op-ed essay in the New York Times calling for a "civic uprising" against the Trump administration. A terrifying vision flashed through my mind of blood in the streets.

A civic uprising! In my mind's eye, I saw an enraged Times columnist Maureen Dowd shaving President Trump's head as the Parisians did to Nazi collaborators at the end of World II. I also saw Frank Bruni and Paul Krugman filling empty Perrier bottles with gasoline to make Molotov cocktails to throw at Teslas.

The more I contemplated Brooks's call to arms, the more frightened I became. In the Hamptons, I envisioned the Beautiful People mocking RFK Jr at an inquisition and forcing him to eat Spam sandwiches made with Wonder Bread. I saw Hedge Fund managers dragging Tulsi Gabbard by her hair through the streets of Martha's Vineyard and making her answer for the despicable crime of trying to get foreign rapists out of the country. 

However, after reading Brooks's essay a second time, my panic subsided. I realized the shock troops for his "civic uprising" were not so fearsome. Brooks called for "Americans in universities, law, business, nonprofits, and the scientific community" to form "one coordinated mass movement" to stop Trump. That doesn't sound too scary.

After carefully rereading Brooks's manifesto, I also discerned that Brooks's "civic uprising" was not a call for guerrilla warfare. No, he was just pleading for more litigation. "Pile on the lawsuits," he urged.

I understood then that David Brooks's game plan for destroying Donald Trump was nothing more than the same, tired tactics the coastal elites have used unsuccessfully since the beginning of Trump's first administration. Litigation, hysterical references to Fascism, and mass rallies led by the grouchy old cranks in the Democratic party--that's David Brooks's big idea.

It never occurred to him to try to defeat Donald Trump at the ballot box by presenting Americans with sound ideas for improving their lives. That's because the op ed writers at the Times, the nation's pampered university leaders, and the Democratic Party hacks don't have any ideas. That's why they bray about "the end of democracy," spew profanity, and call  for a "civic uprising."

The New York Times editorial board is leading a" civic uprising" against Donald Trump.
Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Bruni, and David Brooks are pictured from left to right.

90-Second Food Review: An Excellent Hospital Breakfast for a Cardiac Patient (A Day Without Grits Is Like a Day Without Sunshine)

I underwent a catheterization procedure at a Baton Rouge hospital this morning. By the time the procedure was over, I hadn’t eaten in 24 hours, and I was hungry.

"Would I like some breakfast and a cup of coffee?" a nurse asked.

"Yes, I would," I replied, silently wondering what a cardiac patient gets for his hospital breakfast. Low-fat cottage cheese and a carrot stick?

Soon, the nurse returned with a Styrofoam tray and a cup of strong, black coffee. I knew from the first sip that I was drinking Community coffee, the only coffee people in South Louisiana drink. Indeed, the F word in Louisiana is not F---; it's Folger's.

My Styrofoam tray was separated into three compartments. One compartment held a single link sausage. The second compartment contained hot scrambled eggs. The third and largest compartment was filled with grits, a food I came to love after moving to Louisiana more than 30 years ago.

How about condiments? I examined a Styrofoam bowl containing packets of butter, salt, pepper, and grape jelly for my toast. I was disappointed not to find a little bottle of Tabasco sauce, but my condiment bowl contained the next best thing: a packet of Cajun seasoning, which I sprinkled on my eggs and grits.

All in all, I had a great hospital breakfast, and I was grateful that the hospital dietitian had approved me for a hearty helping of grits. 

My hospital care team included seven or eight young, energetic, and efficient people. Thank God, I thought to myself, that the folks bustling around me had chosen a medical career instead of majoring in gender studies or sociology.

Millions of Americans lack skills or training for a worthwhile vocation.  Seven million working-age men are unemployed and aren't even looking for work. Millions of others are pursuing college degrees in fields that don’t lead to a well-paying job. 

Every day, I meet workers in the service industry who are lethargic, sullen, and resentful because they work in menial jobs they don't want to do. I wonder how many hold bachelor's degrees in fashion design or art history.

Americans should be grateful to everyone who has chosen to pursue a healthcare career. I am constantly astonished by how cheerful and competent most of these people are.

At this stage of my life, I'm convinced that universities should close their liberal arts and humanities programs and focus solely on training young people for useful and meaningful jobs. In the future, America will need marine biologists, environmental engineers, and medical technicians. I don’t think we will need many people with degrees in philosophy, anthropology, sociology, or diversity studies.

If the U.S. Department survives the Trump administration's commitment to shut it down, I hope it will stop issuing student loans for worthless college degrees in liberal arts, humanities, and social sciences. Too often, borrowing money to get an education in these fields doesn't lead to a good job and leaves graduates with mountains of debt--debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. 

Image credit: Jake West

Colleges peddling expensive liberal arts degrees are engaging in fraud

My professors defined sociology as the painful elaboration of the obvious and psychology [as] the painstaking study of human behavior by people who need to be studied.

Dan E. Dunlap

As Mike Rowe pointed out recently, "Nothing has gotten more expensive in the last 40 years than a 4-year degree. Not real estate, not healthcare, not energy, nothing.” Indeed, it now costs around $90,000 a year to attend a private college.

And it is not just the exclusive schools that charge nose-bleed prices.  Columbia University costs $93,000 a year, including tuition, housing, and books. Landmark College, a tiny, obscure Vermont school, is almost as expensive. The total cost of attending Landmark for one year is $86,000. 

Is a college degree worth a quarter of a million dollars? No, of course not. And though a case can be made that an undergraduate degree in accounting or business will eventually pay off, no one can defend the insane cost of obtaining a liberal arts degree at a private school.

Columbia, for example, a university riddled with anti-Semitic racism, offers degrees in sociology, gender studies, and Yiddish studies. What kind of job will a Columbia grad be qualified to fill with a degree in those fields?

Colleges across America fund degree programs in the humanities, liberal arts, and social sciences that don't give graduates useful job skills. Why aren't these programs closed down?

Two reasons. First, universities continue to offer degrees in these fields because they have tenured professors who staff liberal arts departments who are very difficult to fire. 

Second, hundreds of private colleges define themselves as liberal arts colleges. It would be tough for these schools to justify their existence if they scrapped their liberal arts majors.

In my view, colleges that charge outrageous tuition prices that force students to take out loans to obtain low-value degrees are engaging in fraud.  College students are beginning to figure that out, and that's why enrollment in liberal arts programs is declining.

"Deserve Ain't Got Nothing To Do With It": The Dems Refuse To Be Realistic About the Ukraine War

 President Trump is trying to end the Ukraine War. Earlier this week, Vice President J.D. Vance proposed that the fighting stop with Russia keeping the ground it's gained and Ukraine pledging not to join NATO.

Obviously, President Trump's hand is strengthened if the mainstream media and the nation's political leaders are united behind him. Unfortunately, Trump's detractors don't like the Vance peace proposal. German Lopez, writing for the New York Times, implied that Trump favored Russia over Ukraine: 

Russia invaded Ukraine, but you wouldn’t know that from the peace negotiations. At every step, President Trump has pushed the victim to give ground, while the aggressor has given little of substance.

Prominent Democrats have also criticized Trump for not being more supportive of Ukraine and Ukrainian President Zelensky. Last month, Senators Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, and Chris Murphy denounced President Trump and Vice President Vance on television talk shows for supposedly ganging up on Zelensky when he visited the White House.  As reported by the World Socialist website, all three "backed the Democratic Party’s pro-war line, calling for stepped-up military aid to Ukraine and intensive efforts to defeat the Russian forces . . . ."

Zelensky insists there can be no peace until Russia withdraws from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.  He surely takes solace from the Democrats' opposition to Trump's peace initiative, which gives him some cover for stubbornly resisting a reasonable end to the war.

Zelensky and the Democrats argue that prolonged warfare is justified because Ukraine is the innocent victim of Russian aggression. But of course, Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn't see things that way. 

From Putin's perspective, the United States meddled in Ukrainian politics in 2014, when the CIA engineered the overthrow of a popularly elected, pro-Russian Ukrainian president. Russia, reasonably alarmed, invaded Crimea, where it had a significant military presence, and annexed it to the Russian motherland.

Zelensky and the Democrats believe Ukraine deserves better than Trump and Vance's proposed peace deal. But, to quote Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven, "Deserve ain't got nothing to do with it."

The Ukrainians can fight on indefinitely so long as the U.S. provides them with financial assistance and copious military aid. But the casualties will be enormous, and Ukrainian cities will lie in ruins.

Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. will all be better off if the Ukraine war is brought to an end. Unfortunately, Zelensky and his Democratic Party allies have selfish motivations for opposing a reasonable peace deal.

 

Zelensky must agree to abandon claims to Crimea, or the Ukraine war will end badly

 As reported in the New York Times, Vice President J.D. Vance proposed an end to the Ukraine war on these terms: Russia will keep the Ukrainian territory it now holds, including Crimea, and Ukraine will abandon its efforts to join NATO.

Vance's proposal is reasonable. Indeed, all parties must agree to a settlement somewhat under these terms, or the war will drag on indefinitely and thousands more Russians and Ukrainians will die.

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky said that Ukraine will never agree to allow Crimea to return to Russia, arguing that his nation's constitution forbids it. This is nonsense.

Crimea has been part of Russia since the 18th century, and Russia continued to have a military presence there even after Ukraine gained its independence in 1991. Eleven years ago, Russia annexed Crimea, and the Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia.

Russia will never give Crimea back to Ukraine, and everyone knows that. Zelensky's refusal to consider the issue means he is willing for the Ukraine war to go on indefinitely, with the U.S. footing the bill.

The world is well aware that Ukraine suffered mightily under Russian rule. The Holodomor and Stalin's terror campaign are still in Ukraine's national memory. Nevertheless, Russia's claims on Crimea and the largely Russian-speaking regions of the Donbas are reasonable.

The fighting will either end this year or escalate. If Zelensky refuses to bargain in good faith, I believe the U.S. should wash its hands of the Zelensky regime and end all military support.

Now is the time for the Democrats to pause their hysterical criticism of the Trump administration and show their support for President Trump's peace efforts. 

Democrats will have plenty of time to call Trump a Nazi, a criminal, and a rapist after the Ukraine war is concluded. Until that fighting stops, the Democrats need to behave like grown-ups and support Trump's peace efforts.

90-second Movie Review: "The Last Stop in Yuma County" is a Cautionary Tale for Handgun Owners

 The Last Stop in Yuma County is a sleeper. The film was made on a pauper's budget of only $1 million, and has no big-name stars. Almost the entire movie takes place in a rundown Arizona diner, which gives it the feel of a stage play. Although Last Stop won some regional film-festival awards, it was not nominated for a single Oscar.

Now the film is streaming on Paramount+ and other platforms to strong reviews. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 97 percent rating on its Tomatometer. Matt Zoller Seitz, a reviewer on rogerebert.com, gave Last Stop a three-star rating.

I won't summarize the plot, which is so simple that I would give the whole story away if I attempted a summary. Suffice it to say that the movie features a lot of people carrying handguns, which they use to disastrous consequences.

States have liberalized their handgun laws in recent years. According to the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), 46 states allow adults to openly carry handguns,  including 31 states that don't require a permit. In Mississippi, where I live, an adult can openly carry a gun or wear it concealed without a license or training of any kind.

Fortunately, few citizens exercise their right to openly carry a pistol. Over the last two years, I've only seen three people carrying a holstered handgun, including one guy openly carrying a .380 autoloader at Sunday mass. 

Carrying a handgun is a bad idea, which The Last Stop in Yuma County repeatedly demonstrates. Some folks fantasize about pulling a 9 mm pistol to stop a mugger or save innocent bystanders from a crazed mass killer. Indeed, USCCA reports that armed civilians have saved 220,000 lives.

However, I'm skeptical. Although heroic outcomes occur from time to time, I believe an untrained civilian with a gun is more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than a villain. And I've read several news stories about people who killed an armed attacker and found themselves charged with murder or reckless homicide.

If you think carrying a handgun in public is a good idea, watch The Last Stop in Yuma County. I think you'll change your mind.

Image caption: United States Open Carry Association