The Changing Meaning of Chickensh*t

For at least the last ten years and probably much longer, I've been seeing the term "chickensh*t" implying cowardice.

It wasn't that way when I was younger.

Back then, it meant petty, arbitrary rules or orders that were annoying, rather useless, and a form of (possibly unintentional) low-grade harassment.

As for cowardice, the work "chicken" was used.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might claim that "they" wanted people not to have a term like chickensh*t for the petty, arbitrary, annoying, rather useless rules or orders "they" were giving us.

Remember When Only About 30% Were Smart Enough for College?

The current (January-February 2018) issue of the Atlantic includes an article titled "The World Might Be Better Off Without College for Everyone" by Bryan Caplan -- link here.

It reminded me that back when I was college age (late 1950s) I sometimes heard or read the somewhat casual observation that to graduate from a decent (or better) college or university, one had to have an IQ of about 110 or better. That works out to around 25 or 30 percent of the population being that capable.

Elementary and secondary schools generally did a better job of basic skills preparation in those days. And on the job-hiring end, there was probably a lot less credentialism than now. The result was that not having a college degree wasn't a career crippler.

I think that system was better balanced than the current one whereby vocational education is often downplayed and in some cases eliminated from the high school curriculum for some reason related to "esteem-building."

In recent times I've heard calls for everyone getting a college education.  The fantasy behind this notion was that professional-level jobs would suddenly appear to absorb the universal attainment of higher education.  But if higher education is actually or even potentially universal, then the term "higher" no longer applies: college simply becomes added years of high school.  Which might be happening anyway, given all those college majors with two-word names, the second word being "Studies."

Censoring "Fake News"

When I was a lot younger appeals for bringing in experts to resolve or manage problems seemed entirely reasonable.  Some readers might even recall advertisements featuring an actor dressed up as a physician urging us to use some product or another.  Nowadays, appeals to authority seem to lack the punch they used to have: folks are getting a lot more skeptical.

Today's political climate finds major news media engaged in a nonstop effort to destroy the President.  All too often a negative story is presented, only to be sheepishly retracted when proven false.  This is "fake news."

There has been discussion of restricting dissemination of fake news -- try Googling on "censoring fake news" to see some examples.

Related to that are other efforts afoot to to have media providers ban Internet items that various "victim" groups claim to be offensive.  And over in Europe, governments might be beginning to take steps to ban political speech by certain parties that established parties consider unworthy.

Who would be brought in to judge what tweets, blog posts, etc. are worthy of being banned?  Why, some supposed experts ... who themselves surely have biases.

What we would have is a form of thought control, no matter what part of the political spectrum is in charge of the operation.  Open, unfettered speech, no matter how politically offensive it might be to certain people, is the best way to avoid dictatorship.

None of the above is original thinking on my part.  Nevertheless, the ideas are worth repeating in these confused, troubled times.