You Won’t Believe This One

by John Stevenson

In the fitness center of Ottawa's Carleton University, someone complained to the gym management that she found that the presence of a scale triggers her anxiety.  She requested the scale be removed.  Presumably, the scale traumatized her by reminding her that she is fat. 

Now you would assume that management would simply tell her not to use the scale.  Not good enough.  Apparently her anxiety was triggered not by actually using the scale but by its mere presence within her view. 

So---and you won’t believe this part---they actually removed the scale so that this one gym user would not be emotionally distressed.  Don’t stop reading---this is not a joke.

Of course a controversy erupted, because there are apparently still some sane members of the campus community.  There has been a backlash and ridicule of the decision to remove the scale.  One student suggested banning mirrors because they could be equally distressing.  Another suggested banning calculators because they reminded him he is flunking a math class.  One social media post summarized: “Are you for real, Carleton? What a sick joke.”

Stepping away from the absurdity for a moment, let’s consider the merits of this decision: how it will benefit the afflicted student.  Presumably, she will go on to live in a world beyond ivied Carleton.  There she will doubtless encounter other anxiety-triggering events and objects.  Will the drill sergeant, the employer, the highway patrolman, or anyone else in the real world beyond academia leap to accommodate her need to be shielded from reality?  Doubtful.

In fact, while there is not absolute consensus among psychologists, the preponderance of thought is that confronting rather than running away from problems is the better course.  Most laymen (oops---laypersons) would agree.  So it’s likely that the intuition of those who ridiculed the management decision was correct: hiding from the problem is a bad decision. 

Two things strike me about this incident.  First is the fact that a very small minority (or even a single complainer) is able to alter life for so many others who are just trying to go to work, class, the gym, whatever.  That seems to happen all too frequently, with the many having to accommodate the needs---real or imagined and no matter how frivolous or dubious---of one or a very few who claim offense or emotional trauma.  And this is most prevalent in the academic world, where administrators seem incapable of saying no, get over it, buck up, case dismissed.

Second, I often wonder if the complainer is just a prankster, looking for the most absurd possible offense to allege, just to see if it will be taken as legitimate and then to savor the ensuing chaos.  There are daily examples of supposed emotional trauma in the news, and it almost seems as if they are competing in an absurdity derby. 

After all, these ever-escalating claims of offense are emanating from college campuses---and college kids are notorious pranksters.  Back in the day, it was panty raids.  Today it’s a contest to see who can come up with the most absurd complaint and yet be taken seriously.

Conundrum of the Day: When is illegal not illegal?

by Chris James

 What is it about the word illegal that people---almost exclusively liberals and other left-wing pettifoggers---don't understand?  Illegal means unlawful.  When you break a law, there is a penalty associated with that law for the express purpose of punishing you for your transgression.  So that you learn from the experience and never do it again (it says here).

The most obvious living example of the hypocritical corruption of the word illegal, so that its meaning is deliberately vaporized, is when it is applied to the "illegal" entry into this country by migrants from south of the border.  This patently illegal refutation of the illegality of this activity has got so far out of hand as to bring down wrath on those who even use the word illegal in context. The preferred smarmy and invidious euphemism when referring to south-of-the-border immigrants is "undocumented (insert your own friendly, neutral noun here; profanities and the word 'aliens' are criminally forbidden)".

But the cause of illegally kidnapping the concept of "illegal" is not limited to weighty matters like immigration.  A recent newspaper column defined the extent to which the cancer had metastasized.  In fact, all the way down to the lowly cyclist.  You know, those usually brightly colored individuals, wavering along on fragile, engine-less vehicles, more or less at the side of the road, and who endlessly complain about other road users who apparently have no right to be there at all.

The column was written by the Director of the California Bicycle Coalition.  If there is a Sophistry Hall of Fame, then this utterance should be the first thing you see when you come through the door.  It is so hysterically infantile and self-serving that you may not make it to the toilet in time.  His thesis?  Cyclists roll through stop signs (and, incidentally, traffic lights) all the time and therefore this should not be an illegal maneuver for cyclists.  His reasoning?

 1. "At cruising speed, bikes flow so easily that their riders don't even need to hold the handlebars (OMG!).  But a stopped bike falls over."  Not if the rider puts a foot to the ground, or better, gets off the saddle and stands astride the cross-bar.  Notwithstanding the fact that many riders wear shoes that lock into the pedals so that they are simply too lazy to free themselves and take a stand.

2. "It takes a great deal of time and energy for someone on a bike to go from full stop to steady roll, which is why cyclists so rarely stop at stop signs."  Oh, you poor babies.  My hemorrhoids bleed for you.  And is this a driveling, monumental admission of guilt, or what?

  

3. "Rather than continuing to call that a crime (stop sign running)---one so common that police and courts don't have the resources or will to enforce it (does that ring a bell on the immigration issue?)---perhaps it is time to legalize safely and slowly rolling past stop signs on a bicycle."  Personally, I have never seen a stop sign on a bicycle, but then I have lived a very sheltered life.

4. "Yes, I know that there is rampant lawlessness among cyclists.  I hear those complaints all the time, most of them justified".  And these are the same sociopathic nincompoops who are going to ride slowly and safely through stop signs?  OMG!

5. When all else fails, play the race card.  "Furthermore, studies in some communities in California, including here in the East Bay, show that police stop people of color on bicycles more frequently than they stop whites.”  No citations supporting this assertion, and, from me, no comment.

There is more bilious rambling in the column about what an Eden our society would be if we would adopt this proposed putrid protocol.  No normal person with more than one brain cell would accept this detritus.  Right?  Wrong.  State Assembly Bill AB 1103, proposing this change, is about to be seriously considered by the Assembly Transportation Committee.  Geez!  Gimme High Speed Rail.  Please.

Racist and Divisive Patriotism

by John Stevenson

In this year’s Iowa State High School Boys Basketball Tournament, rivals Valley High and Des Moines North High faced off in the first round.  Valley High’s school colors are orange and black, but for this game many of their fans turned out in patriotic red, white, and blue.

Some supporters of North High charged racism.  Huh?  Erin, one of the North High moms, is quoted: “For the supporters of one team from a primarily white part of town to paint themselves as the ‘team of the USA’ it strongly implies that the other team, the less white team, is less American.”

On the other side, Valley High student Mallorie said “This country is the United States of America and our colors are red, white, and blue no matter what color of skin you have or what race you are. The intention to offend anyone…was nowhere in the thoughts of any of our student body. Why would it be? We all live in America.”

Valley High’s student body is 76% white.  North High’s is 31% white (28% Hispanic, 25% Black, the remainder are other races).  Some of the reporting says that North High has a significant but unspecified population of refugees, but I’ve been unable find any data on this.  So the thinking goes that displays of patriotism by Americans, in America, is offensive to minorities and refugees (if there are any refugees in Des Moines).  An odd concept that refugees would resent the national symbols of their refuge, but let’s forge ahead. 

Complainers at North High included the assistant coach, but not the head coach who said that he did not notice the USA apparel or see sinister intention by the Valley High students,  “...we are proud of our diversity at North High…”  So not all saw it the same way.

There were, of course, the inevitable allegations of racial slurs, including the chant “deport them.”  These may have been imaginary, since none of the officials, administrators, or teachers present said they heard any such thing. 

Apparently Valley High supporters come decked out in USA apparel for games they believe to be of special significance.  (Probably a more likely occurrence in the heartland than here on the left coast.)  For example, they did it for their football game against Dowling Catholic High earlier this school year.  More on that in a moment.

Probably the most discouraging comment came from North High student DeNasja: “Even if that was their theme for the game, I feel like they should have switched that because everyone knows North is a more diverse school.”  Translation: minorities and refugees (if any) are rightly offended by American patriotism, so don’t display America’s colors.

Sadly, Valley High’s student council was moved to send the usual obligatory and groveling letter of apology (“deeply sorry if we have offended anyone”) but also pointed out “we have traditionally dressed in such a fashion for great games such as the one last night.” 

Was it Valley High’s motive to demean North High for their diversity?  Well, remember Dowling Catholic High?  Dowling is 87% white compared to Valley High’s 76%.  That would seem to militate against the claim of racial motivation for wearing the red, white, and blue.

But the bigger picture.  The complainers claim offense at having to view the red, white, and blue.  They go beyond being unsupportive, or even indifferent, but instead are hostile to America’s colors.  Or at least hostile to having it displayed by a group perceived as whiter (and therefore more American?) than they are.  This is very sad, because it says that we are no longer a melting pot but instead a hopelessly fractured society.

And a solution.  Note to the offended: embrace your national colors.  The Harlem Globe Trotters wear red, white, and blue.  If they can do it, so can you.  The flag is our common ground.  The red, white, and blue belongs to all of us.  Join up.

For those who care, Valley High won the game 57-55.