If you haven’t already guessed, I’m a James Taranto (Best of The Web Today) junkie. I was reading his column today and noticed two interesting things. First, Mr. Taranto also mentioned the Linda Quiquivix incident and, second, he had an interesting second installment regarding a recent op-ed written by Anita Hill, the woman who long ago tried to derail the Supreme Court nomination process for Justice Clarence Thomas with some pretty outrageous accusations.

The long and short of both Mr. Taranto’s posts on the Anita Hill op-ed was the thought which occurred to me of a parallel between Ms. Quiquivix and Ms. Hill. They are both impressively intelligent women, and they both seem to be short on wisdom.

What good is intelligence without wisdom? Intelligence is the tool, wisdom is the application of the tool. Without the latter, you have something (and someone) truly dangerous. Perhaps a truck careening down a highway without a driver is a good analogy. In both cases, Linda and Anita have proven themselves to be a danger to anyone who happens to find themsleves in their path.

Fortunately, Justice Thomas has the wisdom to temper his intelligence. I think he is formidable in both those traits and I admire him tremendously. I’m going to get the audio version of Justice Thomas’ book. I look forward to benefiting from his wisdom.

Linda Quiquivix Update

I received an email just about an hour ago with the following message:

In February 2007 you wrote a blog story on Linda Quiquivix, I noticed in yesterday’s Daily Tar Heel that she was recently arrested for assault with a deadly weapon on a government official.

The message contained a link to the Daily Tar Heel’s Police Log page, which reported:

Graduate student Linda Elizabeth Quiquivix was arrested Thursday for assault with a deadly weapon on a government official, according to University police reports.

Many thanks to the person who wrote to let me know of this. I would be happy to credit the person, but he or she never left anything but an email address, and I have no intention of giving that out without this person’s express permission.

If anyone hears any additional information on what happened, please let me know.

Original Post - Published in February of 2007

James Taranto of Opinionjournal.com’s Best of The Web Today recently called attention to an article by a grad student at UNC, Chapel Hill and contributor to the campus newspaper, The Daily Tarheel. The article was penned by Linda Quiquivix (pronounced kee-kee-vicks), an obviously intelligent and driven young lady.

Ms. Quiquivix’s article is titled, “Know this, future ex-boyfriends of mine,” and it lends credence to my long-held belief that a person can be both highly intelligent and very unwise. Here are a few relevant excerpts from the article:

Friends who know me weren’t surprised to learn that my Zionist boyfriend and I broke up last summer shortly after Israel began dropping bombs on Lebanese children. But the friends who really knew me were surprised to learn that I had even dated a Zionist to begin with.

In my defense, I thought he was just Jewish when it all began - a progressive one who was white but had tendencies for black supremacy. Politically, we aligned well, so I figured that he’d automatically agree with my stance on Israel-Palestine.

Right from the first sentence, her prejudices are clear, and her assumptions regarding the world nothing less than legion. What does it mean to be a “Zionist” or even to be “just Jewish.” And, without going ad nauseam into this whole topic, why is it that Linda feels so strongly about the bombs dropped on Lebanese children but not the hundreds of missiles fired at Israeli children? Missiles which, by the way, continue to rain down on Israelis even to this day from Gaza.

I could probably go on for pages with Ms. Quiquivix’s article, but I think I should cut to the chase. There are two startling trends in this article that I believe reflect the current mental state of left-leaning liberals in the US today:

A massive number of assumptions which left-leaning liberals tend not to question.
The prevalence of double standards which liberals often decry in others but rarely question in themselves (which, if you think about it, is a double-standard in itself).

Let me list out just a few of the assumptions which Linda makes in just this one article:

• You’re a Zionist if you support Israel
• Nations which are more powerful are always in the wrong
• If you’re white, you already have one strike against you
• People who are aligned politically should agree on everything
• If you’re “brown” then you must have anarchistic tendencies
• If you don’t agree politically, you can’t date
• A boy’s primary value comes from his penis
• Boys must be “enlightened” by their girlfriend(s)
• The state represents only the interests of the powerful

A sizable list, wouldn’t you agree? Add to this list the double-standards which Linda seems to proudly display for her readers and what you seem to have is quite a mish-mash of racism, false assumptions, hatred, and just plain naivete. And let’s not forget the fact that liberals often look to the state to solve problems, whereas conservatives tend to look to society. But in her article, Ms. Quiquivix seems to think that the state is the major problem. Now you know why conservatives want limited government. A government that can solve all your problems can also create many many more problems.
For example, why is it alright for Ms. Quiquivix to state that the value she places on her boyfriend is in his penis when, for a male to make a similar comment about a woman’s value being in her sexual organs would likely end in his expulsion from that institution? I guess the saying which applies here is, “where’s the outrage?

In addition, why must the male be “enlightened” by the female? I thought relationships were all about the joys of mutual discovery. Of course, here Ms. Quiquivix displays a very typical egocentric view of the world for someone her age. “The world revolves around me,” is what she is saying. No shocking revelations regarding that worldview.

Finally, an interesting assumption that Linda makes regarding her ex-guy is this; she assumes he was hanging the Israelis flag over his bed to show his solidarity with Israel. Perhaps he hung it there simply to drive her away. You know, sort of like wearing a cross to keep vampires away.

Regardless of the ex-boyfriend’s flag-posting motivations, Ms. Quiquivix is clearly an intelligent, articulate, and motivated young lady. She has traveled already to more nations than I may ever see. Which is why I find it so ironic that she is so naive and unwise.

Again, this is not simply Linda’s problem, but a tendency of left-leaning liberals in general. They expect everyone to share their worldview. If you do not, then you are “bad,” or “evil,” or, a “zionist,” or even “just like hitler.”

We must share their values or be rejected. I prefer rejection.

An article published by Newstar.com offers some insight into the meaning of the word ignorance. An elementary school on the campus of Grambling State University, while teaching about racism and the civil rights movement, put a noose around an elementary school child’s neck:

According to an article in the newspaper written by Justin LaGrande, posted on the student newspaper Web site some time this week, and sent to The News-Star by Ruston Daily Leader publisher Rick Hohlt, “kindergarten and first-grade students at Alma J. Brown Elementary will always remember the day they marched for equality. The children marched in protest of the imprisonment of Mychal Bell, and the seemingly racial bias shown toward blacks in a small Louisiana town.”

LaGrande wrote that while the students “marched,” they actually only circled their playground with their teachers during the event.

“Before marching, the students were taught about racism,” LeGrande wrote. “They also learned about the events surrounding the ‘Jena Six’ and their arrest.”

According to the article, teachers “had a replica noose and explained why it is such a symbol of racism. They also allowed the children to carry chains and shackles.”

The Gramblinite’s Web site Friday included a comment from a woman who identified herself as Irene Booker. She said in her posted comment, “Yes, it was a rope around the little girl’s neck. It was a (safe) demonstration as to what the rope symbolized to blacks. This was my granddaughter and she along with so many of the other students did not understand the intimidation of the noose. I held her in my arms and she knows that I would not harm her or put her life in danger. In order to understand racism one must experience it to make the connection.”

Is it ignorant to teach children about racism and it’s consequences? Not at all.

The problem with this incident is that the teachers and Irene Booker, the child’s mother, were teaching fear and anger. Is this a good idea?

Showing young children a noose and explaining that it was used to hurt people and make them afraid — which is something that all elementary-age children can understand — is perfectly appropriate. Teaching them to fear the noose is in no way productive. Even with parental approval, to put a noose around a child’s next and hold it up as if they were going to be hanged is a horrible idea.

If you disagree, please free to tell why you think I’m wrong.