Katherine Timpf

Timpf: How Ocasio-Cortez Makes the Case against Socialism

On Wednesday, it was reported that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign had spent $4,000 on Uber rides — despite the fact that the self-described Democratic socialist herself had previously decried the company on Twitter: “NYC’s fourth driver suicide. Yellow cab drivers are in financial ruin due to the unregulated expansion of Uber. What was a living wage job now pays under minimum.” This is, of course, nothing short of hypocrisy. If you really thought a company was so bad, you’d probably make sure your campaign didn’t use it. If you really thought something was a problem, you probably wouldn’t give that problem $4,000. What’s more, if you were really concerned about the plight of NYC taxi drivers, you might, you know, give them some business, instead of giving your business to the very company you’d criticized for ruining them. What we have with this revelation is just another example of how Ocasio-Cortez’s time in the spotlight has made an argument against socialism, instead of for it. Her words may say that the heavily regulated taxi companies are better, but her actions say that she prefers Uber — a service that is only possible because of the thing she stands most opposed to: capitalism. Now, this is not the first time that something like this has happened. As Investor’s Business Daily notes, Ocasio-Cortez seemed to make an argument against herself again last week when she expressed her sadness over the closing of a restaurant where she used to work. In her post about the good times that she’d had there, she failed to mention that the reason it was closing was because it could not comply with New York City’s soon-to-be-implemented $15 per hour minimum wage. Perhaps unknowingly, she had expressed regret over something that had been caused by the very sort of policy she supports. Then there is, of course, the repeated and complete breakdown of her positions whenever they are evaluated through the lens of reality and facts. On August 7, she stated flatly that the “upper-middle class does not exist anymore in America” — undoubtedly an argument for a socialist-style redistribution of wealth — when the reality is that the upper-middle class has actually grown under our capitalist system in the last few decades. The very next day, she claimed that “Medicare for all is actually much more, is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now,” when the reality is that her plan would actually “raise government expenditures by $32.6 trillion over 10 years,” according to a fact check of her comments by the Washington Post. What’s more, her recent interview with Trevor Noah proved that many of her positions come from a foundation of a complete misunderstanding of the facts. As my colleague Charles Cooke notes, that interview “revealed that she does not know the difference between a one-year and a ten-year budget; confused the recent increase in defense spending with the entire annual cost of the military; implied that the population of the United States was around 800 million strong; and, having been asked to defend her coveted $15 minimum wage, launched into a rambling and inscrutable diatribe about ‘private equity’ firms that would have been a touch too harsh as a parody on South Park.” Many people might be tempted to see the rise of Ocasio-Cortez, and particularly her popularity in the media, to be some sort of sign that her version of socialism might actually be viable in this country. Anyone who is actually paying attention, however, would see that the opposite is true. At almost every turn, the spotlight on Ocasio-Cortez’s socialist ideals has shown how completely infeasible they are, and how often they are rooted in false information and misunderstanding. No one should know this better than Ocasio-Cortez herself. After all, if you look at her actions instead of her words, it seems that even she herself understands the benefits of capitalism — and her campaign has the Uber bill to prove it.

Alexandria is such a spectacular hypocrite…  But, hey..  She makes for fun tv because she’s a complete idiot.  And, she’s too scared to debate people like Ben Shapiro and others who would mop the floor with her.  Thanks to millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf for sharing this piece with us.

Timpf: Professor – Small Chairs in Preschools Are Sexist, ‘Problematic,’ and ‘Disempowering’

According to an academic article written by an Australian professor, small chairs in preschools are “problematic” because they’re “disempowering” for teachers. “In my first intra-active encounter with the small chair, I felt that it talked back to me about the preschool as a workplace that is gendered, feminsed, child-focused and ultimately disempowering,” Monash University senior lecturer Jane Bone writes in an article for the journal Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, titled “Ghosts of the material world in early childhood education: Furniture matters.” Even if talking with chairs were normal, I would still say that this seems pretty crazy. That physically small chairs are the standard for physically small people seems . . . well . . . standard. What do these preschool kids need, giant barcaloungers? To finger paint in? So that no one feels disempowered by a piece of furniture? That would be a great use of taxpayer money? The article, highlighted for its stupidity by the Twitter account New Real Peer Review, continues: ” The small chair passes on a very important commandment to teachers: “Thou shalt not sit down,” — you are here to work and, like women in retail, hospitality, and catering, and at home, you will run around after others and not focus on what you might need for yourself.” Look: I’ve always considered myself to be a very emotional person (and more emotional than most), and yet, I’ve got to say that I have never felt a deep psychological connection to a piece of furniture. And I’ve known a lot of furniture, not to brag. I’ve sat on it, laid on it, eaten off of it — but I’ve never had a conversation with furniture and certainly not one that left me feeling like I had lost power over my life. And, I mean, “commandment”? I definitely have a set of standards that I use to govern my life, but I’ve got to say that not a single one of them has ever come from a chair. I guess maybe I’m just not that enlightened. As for the veiled accusations of sexism, I would say that the only sexist thing about any of this is Bone’s insinuation that only women teach preschool. The abstract for Bone’s article may insist “that the small chair is a contentious and ambiguous artefact” that it is “problematic when considered from different perspectives” and that it “both supports and betrays the body/ies that are in contact with it,” but I’ve got to say that I’ve just never felt betrayed by a chair. The paper also theorizes that “early childhood education is haunted by the dead white males who still whisper their theories in the classrooms of the present, and inhabit the thoughts and conceptualisations about children of their lives.” I’m not sure exactly what Bone is suggesting here. Stop teaching anything that was pioneered by any “dead white males”? Just so she doesn’t worry about children feeling haunted by their ghosts? Then again, I’m not exactly sure what she’s suggesting with the chairs, either. To build bigger ones? Because I’m pretty sure that would be a very non-environmentally friendly waste of plastic and metal, all for the sake of reducing the risk to people who might have their feelings hurt by furniture, which I’d wager is probably a pretty small percentage. Bone’s paper was previously covered in an article on the College Fix.

Wow..  Thanks to millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf for sharing this with us.  You can catch Kat on the Greg Gutfeld show on weekends on the Fox News network.

Timpf: Schools Attempt to Ban Kids from Having ‘Best Friends’ because It’s Not Inclusive

According to a piece in U.S. News and World Report, some schools in the United States and Europe “are attempting to ban the entire concept of children having best friends,” because it’s not inclusive and kids get hurt. “The notion of choosing best friends is deeply embedded in our culture,” child and family psychologist Dr. Barbara Greenberg writes in a piece titled “Should Schools Ban Kids from Having Best Friends?” “Nonetheless, there is, in my opinion, merit to the movement to ban having best friends,” she continues. According to Greenberg, “there is something dreadfully exclusionary occurring when a middle schooler tells the girl sitting next to her that she is best friends with the girl sitting in front of them.” “Child after child comes to my therapy office distressed when their best friend has now given someone else this coveted title,” she continues. Greenberg says “Bring it on” to the idea of banning “best friends.” She explains: ” I am a huge fan of social inclusion. The phrase best friend is inherently exclusionary. Among children and even teens, best friends shift rapidly. These shifts lead to emotional distress and would be significantly less likely if our kids spoke of close or even good friends rather than best friends. . . . There’s an unspoken ranking system; and where there is a ranking system, there are problems. I see kids who are never labeled best friends, and sadly, they sit alone at lunch tables and often in their homes while others are with their best friends.” Is a best friend an “exclusionary” thing? Sure. Do kids without best friends feel like garbage sometimes? Absolutely. But the truth is, Greenberg is making the same incorrect assumption that so many people make when they advocate for banning language: that changing the language will change a single damn thing about the reality. It won’t. Instructing children, as Greenberg suggests, to talk about “close friends” instead of “best friends” isn’t going to change those friendships any more than suddenly referring to your ex as “my boyfriend” is going to mean that you’re back together. Think about it: Even if a school forbids children from using the phrase “best friend,” some kids will still have one person with whom they really connect, and it will be obvious to everyone that that two are closer to each other than to anyone else. Kids who don’t have best friends will still be aware of it when they, say, have to pick a partner for a project (if that’s even still allowed) and they keep getting the shaft from their “close friend” in favor of one of that “close friend’s” “close friends” —- the best friend. It’s tough to be in grade school without a best friend. I know; I did a few stints in that hellhole myself, and I spent a lot of gym classes having to partner up with a girl who bullied me (and smelled like cigarettes) — because I didn’t have a “best” friend, just “close” friends who were actually “best” friends with someone else. But would my school’s banning “best friends” have made any of that easier for me? No, because even though I was a kid, I was not a complete f***ing idiot. I could still easily tell you who were best friends, and that I did not have a best friend, because of these things called social cues. It would be nice to create a world without pain, and without exclusion, but that’s going to be a tough thing to do. For one thing, humans are by nature exclusionary. We’re all different, and we’ll all connect (or not connect) with one another in different ways. Every single person who has ever existed knows some people whom they like more than they like other people. It’s normal, and it’s not going to change — especially not by something so simple as refusing to call things what they are.

Exactly!  And, well said, Kat!  Millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf is responsible for that piece.     🙂

Timpf: The Eleven Most Ridiculously PC Moments of 2017

A lot of things happened in 2017 — including a lot of being offended. It was hard to narrow it down, but here — in no particular order — are the eleven most politically correct moments of 2017. Just click here.

Absolutely awesome!  Thanks to millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf for putting this funny list together.

Timpf: Security Theater Comes to Disney World Resort

Just when you thought Disney World couldn’t be a bigger nightmare, new security measures at some of its hotels are basically allowing Mickey Mouse and his obnoxious friends to invade your room. According to a piece in the Miami Herald, Walt Disney World Resort Hotels has removed the “do not disturb” signs from the rooms in three of its hotels and replaced them with “room occupied” signs as part of a new security policy. What’s more, a Disney cast member will now be required to enter each hotel room at least once per day to “ensure gun safety,” according to Walt Disney World News today. Disney has not explicitly stated its reasons for the new policy, but it seems to have been implemented in response to October’s Las Vegas shooting, when a man was able to enter a hotel room with a boatload of weapons and subsequently murder 58 people. Now, while I do appreciate that Disney wants to keep people safe, this is, quite frankly, a stupid idea. Stupid . . . but not surprising. After all, responding to violent incidents with overzealous, privacy-invading security theater is exactly what the government has been doing for years. The best example of this, of course, is the TSA. In the name of “safety,” you’re more likely to miss your flight because you’re stuck standing in line, and you’re guaranteed to have to spend upwards of $45 on a bottle of water because you can’t bring your own with you. You have to take your shoes off. Your clip-in hair extensions will set off the metal detector, and then you’ll have to be patted down by an officer who knows that you’re actually spending your life walking around wearing someone else’s hair. In some instances, the problems with the TSA have even crossed over from annoying to abusive: In March, a woman had to endure a “pat-down” of the inside of her underwear — something that sounds more like a sexual assault than a safety precaution — because she was wearing a panty liner. That same month, a 13-year-old boy with a sensory-processing disorder was reportedly traumatized after having to endure an absurdly detailed, brutally long “pat down” because he had left his laptop in his bag — an incident that also caused him and his family to miss their flight. The worst part, of course, is that the world isn’t really any safer from terrorism because of any of this. Anyone who wants to go through with a terror plot, or any kind of violence, can always just hit a “soft target” — such as the outside of an airport — instead. The exact same thing is true of this Disney World policy. First of all, it’s not hard to see how these new rules could ruin a vacation. Imagine this: You put up that “room occupied” sign, get into the bathtub, and put on some relaxing music. A Disney cast member — who knows only that the room is occupied, and not that it’s occupied by someone who doesn’t want to be bothered — starts knocking on the door. You can’t hear the knock over your music, and the next thing you know . . . a cartoon character is looking at you naked. Make no mistake: Disney’s new policy destroys the entire decompress-and-chill aspect of any vacation. Instead, you have to sit in your hotel room on edge all the time, knowing that at any moment, you might be expected to respond quickly to a knock at your door or else be joined by a dude in a Goofy suit. That doesn’t exactly sound relaxing — and, as it stands now, it isn’t going to make anyone any safer. Again, anyone who is really interested in hotel-based violence could probably get away with it regardless of this policy. He could make sure his weapons are easy to hide at a moment’s notice, and stay in his room to make sure that no one goes through his stuff. If a cast member tried to interfere in some way, then he could use the weapons on that person. Honestly, the only way that Disney could even hope to guarantee complete safety would be to arm its cast members with military-grade artillery, allowing them to enter into any room at any moment without knocking, and demanding that they search through everyone’s stuff. Yes, Las Vegas was terrifying and tragic, but would anyone really want to stay in a hotel that’s overrun with a gun-wielding, cartoon-costume-wearing army? That kind of scene may sound far-fetched, but when you think about it, it’s really not. After all, our society clearly has a penchant for valuing a false sense of security over privacy and civil liberties. People will willingly accept government surveillance and unnecessarily invasive pat-downs just because they’re told those measures are for their own “safety,” without thinking about whether that’s true — or about the liberty that’s being lost in the process.

I’ve not been to Disney World in over two decades..  I used to love going to Epcot..  But, given this disturbing report from millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf, I know that if/when I make it back to Orlando, I will absolutely NOT be staying at their resort(s).  This is the sort of reactionary, liberal, politically correct nonsense that hopefully doesn’t take hold and spread to other hotels/resorts.

Timpf: College Employs ‘Safe Space Marshals’ to Patrol Speeches for Offensive Content

King’s College in London is paying people £12 per hour to police speaking events on campus and take “immediate action” if they hear anything that might offend the audience. The marshals also put up posters and hand out leaflets reminding all attendees that “this is a Safe Space.” Examples of speech that might violate the policy “could include derogatory comments about someone’s age, disability, marital or maternity or paternity status, race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity, trans status, socio-economic status, or ideology or culture,” according to an article in the Telegraph. In addition to their pay, the marshals also receive benefits such as free spin classes and free fruit. The Telegraph reports that not one, not two, but three of these marshals were present when Jacob Rees-Mogg, a conservative member of Parliament, spoke there earlier this month. He was no fan of the policy. “It’s absolutely weird to send marshals to check the content of the speech by an elected member of Parliament,” he said. The school’s Libertarian Society has also launched a campaign against the marshals — and the group’s president, Georgia Leigha, claims that it has been “surprisingly” popular. But Momin Saqib, president of the university’s students’ union, still insists that the safe-space policy was simply “protecting” students and speakers. Listen: I’m all for being sensitive, but this has got to be one of the most insane things that I’ve ever heard. For one thing, the list of things that apparently can qualify as “offensive” or “discriminatory” in our politically correct culture seems to be growing by the day — hoop-earring-wearing white girls, trying to make people like the Beatles, and the size of classroom chairs have all been added to the list within the last eight months alone. It seems like it could potentially be quite difficult to get through a speech at King’s College without saying or doing something that the marshals might deem offensive. After all, just think about what kind of person would actually sign up to be “safe space marshal” in the first place. Most likely, these are people who have an obsession with safe spaces and microaggressions, and at least enough sanctimonious arrogance to actually feel that they have the authority to police other people’s speech — in other words, the kind of people who are generally the most ridiculous when it comes to declaring the innocuous unacceptable. Sure, Saquib may brag about how the marshals are “protecting” students from offensiveness, but honestly, if I were a student there, the thing I’d be most offended by would probably be the idea that I was unable to handle sitting through a speech without protection from insensitivity. The vast majority of these students are adults. What adult is not capable of existing in society without protection from hearing words they don’t like? I’m not sure I even want to know the answer to that.

Agreed!!  Thanks to millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf for sharing this eye-rolling story from across the pond.  Let’s hope this kind of insanity doesn’t take hold here at American colleges and universities…

Timpf: How to Stay Sane in an Unhinged World

I don’t know if you guys have heard about this yet, but our culture is going bananas. In March, a campus-wide email at Pitzer College in California instructed all white girls to remove their hoop earrings because they were cultural appropriation. In April, a British student union tried to ban clapping and cheering at its conferences over concerns that it was not inclusive to deaf people. (Note: A previous conference’s attendees had been instructed to use “jazz hands,” apparently unaware of how exclusive that might be to the blind.) In July, a Seattle-area councilman was reportedly opposed to hosing down sidewalks that reeked of excrement over concerns that doing so might be racially insensitive. In August, a fraternity retreat at one school ended early because some students were so frightened of a banana peel that it could not continue, and another school deemed the size of chairs on campus to be a microaggression against overweight people. In October, a school district in Toronto announced that it would be banning the use of the word “chief” in job titles over concerns that the word could be interpreted as a microaggression against indigenous people — even though the word is not of indigenous origin and its original meaning had nothing to do with indigenous people. That same month, students at the University of California, Berkeley demanded that they be excused from an in-class exam because they didn’t have enough privilege to be emotionally equipped to handle it. Oh, and it gets worse. As the list of things deemed unacceptable to say or do grows, we’re also seeing huge numbers of our country’s young adults not just disrespect, but actually misunderstand the First Amendment. In fact, a recent study found that a whopping 44 percent of United States college students believe that hate speech is not protected by the Constitution — no, not that it should not be protected, but that it is currently not protected — and the only thing that surprised me was that the number was not higher. After all, I’m constantly seeing stories like the one I wrote about in October, where a group of student protesters crashed a College Republicans’ meeting demanding it be shut down because “white supremacists” and “fascists” don’t have a “right of free speech,” and their very presence was making the library too “unsafe” for other people. It’s not just the students, either: In September, Princeton University’s Constitution Day lecture was titled “F%*# Free Speech,” and detailed how “the academy has never promoted free speech as a central value.” The list of crazy things I’ve seen in just the past few months is far too long to include in just one single post, but there is some good news: Not only do I still wear large hoop earrings almost every single day of my life, but I also spend many of my days detailing cultural craziness in columns…

And we’ll continue to keep reading them, Kat.  Millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf is responsible for that piece.

Timpf: I’m Not Arguing in Favor of the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Is the Argument

Whenever a gun tragedy happens in the United States, it seems like there are two sides: One that argues against Second Amendment protections, and one that argues for them. It seems simple enough, but what’s missing is this: The Second Amendment is the argument. It’s alarming how often people forget this. Whenever there’s violence, the Left starts to demand that the government get the guns off our streets, that it do so now, that it should have done it sooner to keep the people safe. In response, the Right often argues for the benefits of #2A, throwing out statistics such as the fact that gun violence has actually been dropping even though more people have been purchasing firearms, or philosophical arguments such as the idea that people looking to murder masses of people will find a weapon and a way regardless of what the laws are. My personal views may happen to fall into the second camp, but here’s the thing: Regardless of what your personal views are, it’s still true that our Constitution prohibits the kinds of things that the first group wants. If people on the left ever do talk about the Second Amendment, it’s often only to say that it’s “obsolete.” This is, of course, factually untrue: According to the Constitution, the Second Amendment is not obsolete until and unless two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of states agree that it is, or through the constitutional-convention method as detailed in Article V. Again, this isn’t even my argument; it’s the Constitution’s — and, like it or not, that’s important. Unfortunately, however, it’s very common to see the requirements of our Constitution being completely disregarded — even by our elected officials. For example: In New York City, it’s basically impossible to get a gun license unless you’re a police officer or security guard, and you have to pay upwards of $400 in fees just to submit an application that will certainly be rejected. Does that sound like a violation of my constitutional “right to keep and bear arms” to you? Yes; yes it does — and that should bother you, regardless of whether you personally happen to favor these kinds of rules or not. You may be someone who believes that it would be safer to eliminate guns from the hands of the public, and that’s fine — but you still need to view your activism through the lens of constitutional process. You need to be lobbying legislators to amend the Constitution, rather than lobbying officials to create laws that disregard it. Why? Because the Constitution always matters. If you want to say that it shouldn’t always matter, or that should matter except on this issue, then really, what you’re saying is that it never truly does — because you yourself have already stated that exceptions are okay. Either the document has integrity or it doesn’t. Either it has the power to protect our freedoms or it doesn’t — and to me, that seems like an easy choice.

Actually, there is NO choice.  The U.S. Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights (i.e. the first ten Amendments to the Constitution) is the rule-book.  It is the supreme law of these United States.  And those First Ten Amendments, or “Bill of Rights” have a certain heightened deference by the courts, as they were penned by those same founders who inked our Constitution.  So, millennial author Katherine “Kat” Timpf IS correct in saying that the Second Amendment “is the argument.”  But, even that assessment comes up a little short.  The fact of that matter is that the Second Amendment is law.  Period.  And, (God forbid) until that God-given right is legally removed, it is the law of the land; a law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court time and time again for over two centuries.

Timpf: Survey: Only 39 Percent of College Students Know That Hate Speech Is Protected Speech

In a recent survey of college students, only 39 percent responded that they that believe that the Constitution protects hate speech — which, by the way, it does. John Villasenor, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor at UCLA, surveyed 1,500 college students on free-speech issues. In response to the question of whether or not hate speech is constitutionally protected, only 39 percent correctly answered “yes,” 44 percent answered “no,” and 16 percent answered “don’t know.” Yes, a whopping 44 percent actually said that it isn’t protected. Not that it is protected but they think that it shouldn’t be, or that they’re not sure whether it’s protected or not, but that it is definitely not protected and they know that for a fact. It truly is terrifying, and in case you think this is just a case of dumb snowflake libtard kids not knowing how merica works, only 51 percent of the Republican students surveyed said that hate speech was protected, which is far from an impressive number. (To be fair, they did do better than the Democrats: Only 31 percent said yes.) Now, what makes the results of this survey especially enlightening (in that horrific, we-are-f***ing-doomed kind of way) is the context that it provides for what we’ve been seeing on college campuses. There’s been story after story about students protesting appearances by certain speakers on the grounds that they’re “hateful” and “offensive” — and now we know that, for an alarmingly high percentage of them, it’s not just that they think the school should have rules protecting them from speech, or even that there should be laws protecting against this kind of speech — it’s that they think there already are those laws. Apparently, a lot of those idiots who are sitting there writing anti-speech op-eds or standing on the streets holding anti-speech protest signs actually think they’re on the side of the law. You’d think this would be something that they would have at least Googled by now — given how savvy millennials are supposed to be on the Internet and all that — but apparently, that would be asking too much. Oh, and it gets worse: 19 percent responded that they actually believed that violence was an “acceptable” way to stop a speaker. Look, kids: Not only does the Constitution protect hate speech, but it should protect hate speech. Is that because hate speech is good? No, I don’t like the speech that I consider hate speech, and that’s the point — everyone is going to have a different opinion of what is and is not “hate speech.” What some people consider “hate speech,” others might consider to be hilarious or even virtuous speech, and it would be dangerous to allow the government to decide what qualifies. Any time you start thinking the government should intervene to stop speech that you don’t like, realize that those exact same rules could eventually be used to stop your own speech.

Exactly!! Millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf is responsible for that outstanding op/ed.

Timpf: Berkeley Mayor Is So Concerned About Antifa Violence That He Wants to Reward It

On Monday, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin (D) said he was so “concerned” about Antifa violence at a scheduled speech at the University of California–Berkeley that the school should cancel it altogether. In other words: His strategy for stopping Antifa violence is to give the group exactly what they want, and to let them know that the reason they’re getting what they want is because of their violence — and there really just aren’t enough desks in the world for me to smash my head on when I think about how dumb that is. The speech in question, of course, is one by alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. A conservative campus newspaper, the Berkeley Patriot, scheduled it as part of its “Free Speech Week,” and Arreguin says that the risk it might spark a violent reaction is one that his community should just not be willing to take. “I’m very concerned about Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter and some of these other right-wing speakers coming to the Berkeley campus, because it’s just a target for black bloc to come out and commit mayhem on the Berkeley campus and have that potentially spill out on the street,” Arreguin told the San Francisco Chronicle. “I obviously believe in freedom of speech, but there is a line between freedom of speech and then posing a risk to public safety,” the mayor said. “That is where we have to really be very careful — that while protecting people’s free-speech rights, we are not putting our citizens in a potentially dangerous situation and costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars fixing the windows of businesses.” Arreguin’s concerns are, of course, warranted. After all, the outcome that he’s worried about has happened before: In February, UC–Berkeley had to cancel one of Yiannopoulos’s speeches because Antifa showed up and started smashing windows and shooting off fireworks at the venue, causing $100,000 worth of damage to the school’s student union. Now, what happened in February was obviously unacceptable, and Arreguin is completely correct to say that he doesn’t want that happening in his city. Here’s the thing, though: Canceling the speech because of this violence is sending Antifa the message that its violence works. Arreuin toldt the Chronicle that he didn’t “want Berkeley being used as a punching bag,” but the truth is, that’s exactly what he’d be turning it into by bending over and allowing Antifa thuggery to dictate what kind of events its campuses can host. It’s lazy, it’s short-sighted, and quite frankly, idiotic. Thankfully, the school doesn’t seem to be heeding his advice. UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof told the Chronicle that officials at the school “have neither the right nor ability to interfere with or cancel invitations based on the perspectives and beliefs of the speakers.” Truly, it’s terrifying to imagine what kind of place this country would become if we started allowing extremist violence to limit our speech. If you, like Arreguin, think that Antifa’s violence is dangerous, then the absolute worst thing that you could do would be to tell them that it’s actually the perfect way for them to get exactly what they want. Yes, Arreguin may say that he “obviously believe[s] in freedom of speech,” but his reaction proves that he’d rather just sacrifice it than actually take the time to figure out how to do the job that government officials like him are elected to do — which is to protect the basic rights of the people whom they serve. The fact that an elected official in the United States could actually look at what happened in February and think that the lesson to be learned was “Oh, okay. Well, then now we know that we just limit speech then!” is idiotic and lazy at best, and terrifying at worst. Obviously, the focus should instead be on learning how to better prepare your community to face this threat, which is about so much more than just protecting its buildings and windows from damage. It’s about protecting its people’s very right to exist as free individuals in a free society, and there should be nothing more important to our elected officials than that.

Agreed!  And well said, Kat.  Millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf is responsible for that excellent op/ed.