Bloodthirsty Liberal

Not a very clever or insightful title, I admit, but WTF am I supposed to say about this?

A group of California artists wants Mexicans and Central Americans to have more than just a few cans of tuna and a jug of water for their illegal trek through the harsh desert into the United States.

Faculty at University of California, San Diego, are developing a GPS-enabled cellphone that tells dehydrated migrants where to find water, and pipes in poetry from phone speakers, regaling them on their journey much like the words of Emma Lazarus did a century ago to the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free’’ on Ellis Island.

The Transborder Immigrant Tool is part technology endeavor, part art project. It introduces a high-tech twist to an old debate about how far activists can go to prevent migrants from dying on the border without breaking the law.

Immigration hard-liners argue that the activists are aiding illegal entry to the United States, a felony. Even migrants and their sympathizers question whether the device will make the treacherous journey easier.

I don’t want wetbacks to die either (a word I apply only to those literally caught in the act of illegally entering the country), but why can’t these “artists” apply their “skills” to discouraging them from trying? Surely, Shephard Fairey’s Obey poster plastered across the banks of the Rio Grande would give “dehydrated migrants” (really, is that any less offensive than “wetbacks”?) pause before violating our sovereignty.

The effort is being done on the government’s dime - an irony not lost on the designers, whose salaries are paid by the state of California.

“There are many, many areas in which every American would say, ‘I don’t like the way my tax dollars are being spent.’ Our answer to that is an in-your-face ‘So what?’ ’’ says UCSD lecturer Brett Stalbaum, 33, a self-described news junkie who likens his role to chief technology officer.

Count to 10, BTL, count to 10. Really, don’t you just want to punch him in that smug face of his?

Brett Stalbaum and Micha Cardenas hope to create water-guidance software for cellphones to be given away in Mexico.

But no, we are a nation of laws (or used to be). And he may get his in the end (which something tells me is how he likes it—BTL, bad!):

“If it’s not a crime, it’s very close to committing a crime,’’ said Peter Nunez, a former US attorney in San Diego. “Whether this constitutes aiding and abetting would depend on the details, but it certainly puts you in the discussion.’’

Let’s hope it puts them in jail.

Why is this the first I’ve heard of this story?

Another Case of PTSD? [Mark Steyn]

…and this time the poor guy’s not even in the military! From Channel 12 WBNG:

A Binghamton University professor is dead tonight after being stabbed by an anthropology student.

That’s one way of putting it. Another is that Abdulsalam Al-Zahrani killed Richard T Antoun, author of Understanding Fundamentalism: Christian, Islamic and Jewish Movements.

More here, including a mug shot of the “alleged” assailant:

As usual, he seemed like such a nice person:

“The police, they came, and when they were allowed to enter into his room, they took all his stuff,” said Jules Sakho, Al-Zahrani’s roomate.

His roommates say police also found a knife in a dumpster near the apartment.

But police do not have a motive at this time.

…

“I would think it was because of the whole dissertation being rejected. But I cannot confirm it, he had issues with his financials.

…

His roommates and neighbors also say his behavior was strange.

“He was all the time shouting in Arabic, shouting threats, insulting this country for no reason,” said Sakho.

…

“Sometimes, for no reason, asking if I am afraid of death or not, ” said Sakho.

“He says a comment like, ‘I feel like just waking up and destroying the world’,” said Pena.

Al-Zahrani was a Saudi Arabia national and Sakho says he was Muslim.

But the D.A. believes the stabbing was not religiously motivated. Sakho says he thinks Al-Zahrani had psychological problems as well.

Holmes, you amaze me!

Look, the guy was nuttier than a Snickers bar—hardly unusual for a grad student—but police are supposed to look for motive when investigating a murder. I hope they look beyond “financials”.

The predictable denouement:

But both roommates say they never thought Al-Zahrani would kill.

“It’s crazy that you can have someone living with you like that and not know,” said Pena.

“He kept on making threats, but I thought it was just a way to intimidate people. I couldn’t imagine that he could go so far,” said Sakho.

Doesn’t that describe Muslim terrorism? For years we thought their howling and ululating about death to the Great Satan and lopping off heads was their just blowing off steam. Little did we realize (fools that we are), that the steam was actually the black acrid smoke of jet fuel and skyscraper in flames.

As the old joke goes: what’s the secret of comed—timing.

If these climate clods had only camped out couple of days earlier, they might have made a point. As it is, I think they just made out:

Night after night, in bustling college quads and quaint town greens, on urban fire escapes and the storied Boston Common, scores of college students have taken sleeping bags to hard earth and huddled under billowing tents. For six weeks they have done this, forsaking the comfort of the indoors as a grand gesture about what is happening outdoors - and the connection between the two.

They are protesting what they call “dirty electricity,’’ power generation that pollutes the environment. So, last night, on the eve of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, they massed one last time in the shadow of the golden dome of the State House, colorful tents rising amid the crunch of icy snow underfoot.

“Icy snow” wasn’t a clue? Not for these “scores” of college students. (Word of advice to the co-eds among them: “scoring” is all your male counterparts are there for, I promise you. Promise. That shaggy-haired, unshaven, vaguely smelly guy—which one? doesn’t matter—huddled in the sleeping bag next to you would gargle with sweet crude if he could so much as fondle your barrels. Sorry, but you know it’s true.)

Now, if only these Warming Wimpies had camped out just a couple of days earlier, they might have enjoyed weather like this:

It was not Christmas in July, but it sure felt like it.

As T-shirted workers prepared Boston’s Christmas tree today for its official lighting — the symbolic start of the city’s holiday season — joggers, dog-walkers, and college students playing hooky were delighted and dumbfounded by the record-breaking high temperatures.

“I’ve never worn shorts in December before,” said Emerson College sophomore Margaret Bateman, who was skipping class sprawled in the Boston Common grass.

Temperatures hovered in the upper 60s from dawn to the late afternoon, hitting 69 degrees at Logan Airport at 2 p.m. Boston’s previous record high for Dec. 3 was 65 degrees in 1932. Norwood hit 70 just after noon.

Lesson number one I hope you learn in college. The Left will lie to you. They always have, they always will.

There’s just so much to enjoy in this story, I won’t burden you with a preamble:

Professors file health care lawsuit
Adjunct instructors challenge denial of insurance coverage

A group of part-time community college instructors filed a lawsuit yesterday against the state, saying that hundreds of adjunct faculty in Massachusetts’ public higher education system are unfairly denied health care coverage.

The lawsuit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court on behalf of five instructors, follows nearly a decade of unsuccessful wrangling with state legislators to get an adjunct health insurance bill enacted into law. It also comes as schools, particularly community colleges, are increasingly turning to adjuncts amid burgeoning enrollment.

“We’ve been trying on the Hill to persuade the state to do the right thing, and, to be frank, I just ran out of patience,’’ said Joseph T. LeBlanc, president of the Massachusetts Community College Council, which is a plaintiff in the suit, along with the Massachusetts Teachers Association. “It’s a case of justice. The state ought to be providing a large chunk of these people with a health insurance plan.’’

The situation is particularly startling, the plaintiffs say, given the 2006 state law mandating health insurance coverage for all residents. The Teachers Association estimates that about 500 adjunct faculty members meet the state’s longtime definition of part-time employees - those who working at least 18.75 hours a week - and should be eligible for state health insurance because they work at least that amount, including classroom, grading, and preparation time.

If successful, the lawsuit would set a legal precedent that would extend to adjunct faculty at all the state colleges and universities, said Matthew Jones, attorney for the Massachusetts Teachers Association.

I like how the headline calls these people “professors”, while the article uses the more accurate and less prestigious “instructors” or “adjuncts”. But that’s an aside.

The real tastiness is that the state which “boasts” (read: labors under) the nation’s deluxe model of socialized medicine is actively denying state employees their basic human right of health insurance. Excuse me while I hold my sides and slap my knee.

What’s that? Where’d I get the notion that health insurance is a basic human right? Why, the story told me so.

Amy Whitcomb Slemmer - executive director of Health Care For All, a consumer advocate group - said health care is “a basic human right.’’

“To deny it to educators, whom we entrust to cultivate and enrich the state’s young minds, seems unkind and unfair,’’ said Slemmer.

I guess that makes the state’s higher education authority a junta, and maybe the Governor a Robert Mugabe—both violators of “basic human rights”.

Governor Deval Patrick ran and won with the slogan “Together We Can”. Later, his campaign guru, David Axelrod, won with another candidate under the banner of “Yes We Can”. Today, adjunct instructors in Massachusetts’ community colleges (the overwhelming majority of whom voted for both these bozos, I feel safe in saying) can say, full of hope and change, “Together, We’re Conned”.

Amherst… Amherst… didn’t I just write about Amherst three weeks ago?

This quaint leafy town in Western Massachusetts is known for its diverse mix of college students and retirees, a former farming community characterized by suburban small talk just as much as cultural institutions. But it is never one to shy from foreign policy, either.

“We like to set our own foreign policy,’’ said Ruth Hooke, a retired University of Massachusetts professor, a Town Meeting member, and participant in Pioneer Valley No More Guantanamos, a local chapter of a national movement calling for the release of detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

…

Under a petition Hooke submitted to the town’s Select Board - approved by a 2-1 vote Monday night - the town will call on Congress to rescind its ban on detainees resettling in the United States….

Right, that place.

Well, they’re at it again:

“Gov. Patrick is outraged and extremely disappointed at reports that the University of Massachusetts has again extended a speaking invitation to Raymond Luc Levasseur,” said Patrick spokesman Joe Landolfi.

The governor last night called on UMass brass to “review” the abrupt about-face.

Levasseur, now under federal parole in a Maine halfway house, was the radical leader of United Freedom Front, a violent anti-government group linked to some 20 bombings, including one at the Suffolk County Courthouse in 1976.

So, he’s our Bill Ayers, in other words. Maybe not free as a bird, but guilty as sin.

Because the group’s rage resulted in the slaying of a New Jersey state trooper and attempted assassination of two Bay State troopers, cops strongly protested and the speech at UMass-Amherst was called off last week - until news yesterday that it was still being planned for Thursday night on the publicly funded campus.

…

Law enforcement sources said the event will take place in a campus building. Separate sources said the event is being sponsored by the Department of Social Thought and Political Economy, a progressive campus group, and that a UMass professor extended the invitation to Levasseur. Attempts to reach that group last night were unsuccessful.

If this were truly about freedom of speech, I would look forward to the German Department’s sponsorship of an address by Holocaust denier David Irving, or even the Physics Department’s invitation to global warming skeptic Richard Lindzen.

But no, their views are not welcome, not worth defending (one with good reason, one without—you figure out which is which).

But I’m not letting the governor off the hook. A governor with stones would kill this thing good and dead. Sarah Palin would come in, guns blazing (literally); even Rod Blagojevich would threaten to throw a can of hairspray at the guy if he didn’t leave.

One can argue with the stimulus model as an efficient means of jump-starting the economy (and I do, preferring broad tax cuts to individuals and business to create jobs directly), but some of the money is indeed going to some construction projects, however inefficiently.

But can anyone argue that this is stimulus?

The University of Massachusetts is giving about 20,000 undergraduates a rebate of $1,100 this year after federal stimulus money made up a cut in state funding, university officials said.

The university system’s board of trustees had increased fees by $1,500 in February, the highest fee hike at UMass in years, hoping to offset expected gaps in funding. The $1,100 relief, available to students not already on financial aid, should help, said UMass President Jack Wilson.

…

[T]he university system will pay out more than $22 million in refunds, said Robert P. Connolly, a UMass spokesman.

…

But with stimulus funds representing only a one-year fix, fee hikes or cuts may have to be reconsidered in 2011, officials said.

“It’s definitely buying us time,’’ Wilson said. “We have to use this stimulus money to make a soft landing next year. We can’t wait until the situation is upon us.’’

I don’t have an opinion on whether the state should kick in the cash to pay these students’ tuitions (well, I sorta do, but it’s irrelevant right now).

But how does this create or save jobs? Actually, by keeping these snots in school, it prevents them from going out and getting a job.

But there I go letting my opinion show.

If academia truly believed in diversity of thought, they’d hire a bow-tied conservative nibbish like Ben Stein or George Will to teach our children, instead of another Jew-hating Arab terrorist:

Following harsh condemnations by Jewish organizations, Canada’s Carleton University dropped plans on Tuesday to rehire a professor accused of killing four people in the 1980 bombing of a Paris synagogue.

Hassan Diab, 55, had been given a contract to teach a sociology class two days a week until mid August. Diab’s lawyer told a court Monday that his client had expected to resume teaching this week.

But the university said that a full-time faculty member “will immediately replace” him, explaining the move was meant to provide students “with a stable, productive academic environment that is conducive to learning,” according to a statement. The release also said there would be no further comment on the matter.

Diab, a Lebanese native who became a Canadian citizen in 1993, has been under virtual house arrest since he was arrested late last year. He has been granted bail but under strict conditions, while he’s fighting efforts by French authorities to extradite him.

The Canada office of the influential organization B’nai Brith said that the university had done “the right thing” by not letting Diab teach. Before the university statement on Diab, the organization released a statement saying it was “deeply disturbed” by the news that the alleged bomber of the deadly Rue Copernic synagogue will be teaching.

It was easier to replace him with a like-minded associate—dime a dozen, especially in Canada—than to trot out the tired defense of academic freedom.

Still, they lost a uniquely talented individual:

The Lebanese-born Canadian is accused of parking a bomb-laden motorcycle outside the synagogue on Paris’ Rue Copernic, killing three Frenchmen and an Israeli woman.

Mr. Diab has denied the allegations through his lawyer, who says he wasn’t even in France at the time. Colleagues have expressed disbelief.

Until yesterday, the French case against Mr. Diab was in a file sealed from public view, but yesterday the file was opened by order of a Canadian judge.

The case has four main points:

- Mr. Diab resembles police sketches of the bomber;

- His handwriting matches that of the bomber;

- He is identified by intelligence sources and former friends as having been a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine;

- His passport was used to get into France around the time of the 1980 bombing, in suspicious circumstances.

A misunderstanding, I’m sure.

From the institute of higher learning that brought us a “virtual pogrom” last month, a conference on Zionism:

A controversial conference on peace in the Middle East is set to start Monday at Toronto’s York University, despite sharp criticism from local and international Jewish groups, who have called the partly government-sponsored event a “blatant exercise in anti-Zionist propaganda.”

Entitled “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace,” the three-day meet features presentations by dozens of speakers, including Palestinian and Israeli scholars.

“The conference seeks to systematically measure models based on two states or a single binational state, federal and con-federal approaches, and other models in between and beyond,” according to the organizers. “The framework of the conference invites robust academic critique of the deficiencies, promise, and perils of the range of prospective models of statehood.”

…

“This sham of a conference, which questions the Jewish state’s very right to exist, promises to be a veritable ‘who’s who’ of anti-Israel propagandists,” Frank Dimant, the vice president of B’nai Brith Canada, said in statement. “This is not an issue of academic freedom, despite the great lengths the university is going to, to try to paint it in that light. It is purely and simply about delegitimizing the Jewish state and its supporters here at home - an exercise that runs far afield of so-called legitimate academic discourse.”

…

“The speakers range from the extreme left - those who say Israel should be wiped off the map - to Israelis who are quite hesitant about going,” Gerald Steinberg, the executive director of the Israeli watchdog NGO Monitor, told Haaretz. “Some of them said they realized that it’ll be a mini Durban,” he added, referring to the controversial UN-sponsored conference on racism.

I linked to the earlier story above, but here’s a reminder:

York University has reprimanded two students who took part in a mob that barricaded Jewish students in a Hillel lounge while yelling anti-Jewish and anti-Israel slurs.

In findings not made public, the university named Krisna Saravanamuttu, the incoming president of the York Federation of Students, and Jesse Zimmerman as having violated the York Student code of conduct for their participation in last February’s mob, which contributed to Jewish students “feeling intimidated, frightened, tense and nervous.”

The report found that Saravanamuttu and Zimmerman promoted an atmosphere of “hostility, incivility and intimidation.”

O, Canada, our home and nativist land…

Canadian columnist David Warren takes a few weeks off after Easter every year.

But he’s back, with a vengeance:

I think Barack Obama came quite well out of his first 100 days. The personal qualities that got him elected do transfer to elected office, in his case. He is eloquent and unflappable; he is unreadable yet outwardly consistently charming; he looks close up when at a distance, and at a distance when close up; he is smooth and ruthless in the pursuit of his political goals. He has, as we already knew, the gift of charisma with crowds, the seemingly magical ability to embody sweet reason even when making statements entirely hollow of substance. There is something very presidential in that.

I was especially impressed with the way he remained “above the fray” when one cabinet appointment after another proved to be a dog. Somehow it wasn’t Obama’s mistake; somehow it became the fault of the person he had appointed. The new president had the gift of making himself invisible at will; though it should be said that he depends on supine mass media to accomplish this trick.

…

But the speech at Notre Dame was a master-stroke.

Aware that his own support for abortion and his similar “progressive” ethical stances on all other life and social issues were what made him most alien to Catholic and traditionally Christian voters, he went to work fashioning a wedge. Just getting the leading Catholic university in the U.S. to confer an honorary degree on him — given his uncompromising “pro-choice” positions — was a major accomplishment. For, by granting this the powers at Notre Dame themselves drove a tremendous wedge, on President Obama’s behalf, into the heart of their own community, dividing those who were appalled by their decision from those who were not appalled.

But I watched the speech itself — given the kind of live mass coverage that commencement speeches seldom receive — with a kind of admiring horror. In a few short minutes of sophistical artistry, Obama had changed the issue from whether we should allow the killing of babies, to whether we should tolerate the sort of people who are against such things. And then, by declaring that we should, indeed, tolerate such people, he harvested the general applause.

Here is a man who will in fact change America. I flinch at what it will become.

So do we, Mr. Warren. So do we.

In fact, we flinch at what it has become.

As usual, I find Rush’s take interesting:

The real question’s not what did Obama say. I mean Obama is who he is. He was consistent as he can be. The question is what happened to Notre Dame over the years? I mean that’s the real question. Obviously Notre Dame is what’s changed, and I think in simplified terms you’d have to say that Notre Dame is what? A major American university and what has happened to major American universities? They’ve all been overrun by the left, and we all know the Catholic Church has its own liberal members who are trying to tell the Vatican and the pope to leave them alone and modernize the church and so forth. So it appears that that’s happened at Notre Dame.

Most interesting of all, Obama in his own words on what to do with those unpleasant fetuses who insist on being born alive, after an abortion:

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

Only a radically left-wing Constitutional “scholar” could walk down that line of reasoning—the unborn (or “erroneously” born) are persons, ergo shielded by the equal protection clause—and reject it because it conflicts with the free and unfettered access to abortion.

We may disagree on whether such “reasoning” is monstrous, but no one can deny that it is de facto presidential.

Did you catch President Obama’s commencement speech at Arizona State University the other day?

Me neither, and I don’t blame you: watching his head bob back and forth between teleprompters (which shake and smolder from overuse) is an activity that gets old faster than raw fish (and is about as malodorous).

But if you listen to the advice the President and First Lady give to the youth of America, you will learn that they’re through with America as it has been. His ascension marks a Year Zero, after which the country (which he inherited!) is “remade” (how often does he use that word?).

First, the President:

Now, some graduating classes have marched into this stadium in easy times - times of peace and stability when we call on our graduates to simply keep things going, and not screw it up. Other classes have received their diplomas in times of trial and upheaval, when the very foundations of our lives have been shaken, the old ideas and institutions have crumbled, and a new generation is called on to remake the world.

“Remake the world”—what did I tell you! The messianic complex is yours, B-HO; don’t project it on everyone else.

Anyway, it’s easy to see where this is going:

It should be clear by now the category into which all of you fall. For we gather here tonight in times of extraordinary difficulty, for the nation and the world. The economy remains in the midst of a historic recession, the result, in part, of greed and irresponsibility that rippled out from Wall Street and Washington, as we spent beyond our means and failed to make hard choices.

…

For many of you, these challenges are felt in more personal terms. Perhaps you’re still looking for a job - or struggling to figure out what career path makes sense in this economy. Maybe you’ve got student loans, or credit card debts, and are wondering how you’ll ever pay them off. Maybe you’ve got a family to raise, and are wondering how you’ll ensure that your kids have the same opportunities you’ve had to get an education and pursue their dreams.

In the face of these challenges, it may be tempting to fall back on the formulas for success that have dominated these recent years. Many of you have been taught to chase after the usual brass rings: being on this “who’s who” list or that top 100 list; how much money you make and how big your corner office is; whether you have a fancy enough title or a nice enough car.

Well, a job would be nice. These kids have invested four years (and tens of thousands of dollars) to learn a trade, or in some way to prepare themselves to join the world (not “remake” it) of workers, doers, creators—and he’s making them feel like Oliver Twist asking for more gruel.

I think I know what he’s trying to say, but the “formulas for success” he disparages have been remarkably successful. The current recession included, isn’t the American economy a success story beyond imagining and belief?

Guess not:

I want to highlight two main problems with that old approach. First, it distracts you from what is truly important, and may lead you to compromise your values, principles and commitments. Think about it. It’s in chasing titles and status - in worrying about the next election rather than the national interest and the interests of those they represent - that politicians so often lose their way in Washington. It was in pursuit of gaudy short-term profits, and the bonuses that come with them, that so many folks lost their way on Wall Street.

The leaders we revere, the businesses that last - they are not the result of narrow pursuit of popularity or personal advancement, but of devotion to some bigger purpose - the preservation of the Union or the determination to lift a country out of depression; the creation of a quality product or a commitment to your customers, your workers, your shareholders and your community.

Oh yeah, that describes Nancy Pelosi and Bill Gates to a T.

What is Obama talking about?

Let me repeat my belief: capitalism is an engine, an enormously powerful engine that has no equal in HP, torque, compression, etc. But it has no steering wheel, no ability to choose direction. The role of government is to guide, as lightly and as effortlessly as possible, that engine in the direction that most benefits its people. But it is as foolish to sit in your car with the engine off, wondering why it doesn’t go when you turn the wheel, as it is to expect the government to be able to fuel and run the economy. Or to expect it (the car or the economy) to have a moral sense.

But here’s Obama trying to make the sale, close the deal:

With a degree from this university, you have everything you need to get started. Did you study business? Why not help our struggling non-profits find better, more effective ways to serve folks in need. Nursing? Understaffed clinics and hospitals across this country are desperate for your help. Education? Teach in a high-need school; give a chance to kids we can’t afford to give up on - prepare them to compete for any job anywhere in the world. Engineering? Help us lead a green revolution, developing new sources of clean energy that will power our economy and preserve our planet.

Or you can make your mark in smaller, more individual ways. That’s what so many of you have already done during your time here at ASU - tutoring children; registering voters; doing your own small part to fight hunger and homelessness, AIDS and cancer. I think one student said it best when she spoke about her senior engineering project building medical devices for people with disabilities in a village in Africa. Her professor showed a video of the folks they’d be helping, and she said, “When we saw the people on the videos, we began to feel a connection to them. It made us want to be successful for them.”

Which is more than you have done, Mr. President.

I have no quarrel with any of his suggestions: who could? But what if it is your bliss to become the best heart surgeon there is, widening the aortas of the rich and famous? Is that so bad? Or becoming a lawyer to defend Dow Chemical in a class action suit? Isn’t that how our system works? If everyone taught in a “high-need” school (as he seems to suggest), who would teach the spoiled little snots in the fancy private schools?

The contributions of everyone should be celebrated: business baron and community organizer. Where the hell do you think the money is going to come from if everyone works with disabled Africans (as Obama himself has never done)?

I have been a liberal, and I have been a conservative, and I was no more generous as an enlightened lefty than I am as a neanderthal. Statistics repeatedly prove the opposite is more generally true. Certainly, our own president’s personal history does.

But he’s made his point.

Now, what about his old lady?

First lady Michelle Obama praised graduating students at California’s smallest, youngest public university for their determination to succeed, urging them to give back to their communities with the same fervor they showed to bring her to campus.
…

“Many of you may be considering leaving town with your diploma in hand, and it wouldn’t be unreasonable,” Mrs. Obama said before a crowd of 12,000 wilting in the blazing afternoon sun. “By using what you’ve learned here you can shorten the path perhaps for kids who may not see a path at all. I was once one of those kids.”

…

“You will face tough times. You will certainly have doubts, and let me tell you because I know I did when I was your age,” she said. “Remember that you are blessed. Remember that in exchange for those blessings, you must give something back. You must reach back and pull someone up. You must bend down and let someone else stand on your shoulders so that they can see a brighter future.”

Now, that’s not bad. At least she doesn’t shame them for wanting to succeed.

(One more line from her husband: “The trappings of success may be a by-product of this larger mission, but they can’t be the central thing. Just ask Bernie Madoff.” Honest to God, Barack, give it a rest.)

But is that all it was to these graduates—just show up and receive their “blessings”? Did no one do any work? (This is a California state school, so maybe not.)

I am going to make a statement as broad and generalized as anything quoted above: some of these graduates worked a hell of a lot harder, and brought themselves a hell of a lot further, than did either Barack or Michelle Obama. And they did so to make something of themselves, not to make something of someone else (as if they even could).

Why are liberals so closed-minded about ways to “give back”? I was. Now, I think Steve Jobs, or Donald Trump, or even Bernie Madoff does more to bring along the disadvantaged than any ACORN activist or homeless advocate (well, maybe not Bernie).

To the graduates of Bloodthirstan Technical School, Class or 2009, I say this: the world somehow survived this long without you. It’s not perfect, but then it never was—its thermostat is shot to hell, alternately freezing up solid and melting into a puddle; it’s misshapen, not a perfect sphere, but wider at the equator; periodically, life here gets wiped out by cataclysmic impacts with comets and asteroids. You are welcome to join us. There is no bouncer, no dress code—no open bar—no ticket required. You can dance with the one that brung you, or you can go home with the hot blond (male, female, or both). Just find a spot on the dance floor and shake what your mama gave you. It’ll have to do.