Thursday, August 27, 2015

Jorge Ramos: Sense of Racial Entitlement Trumped

It’s typical of race hustlers: they feel entitled. As members of a politically correct victim group, they think that claims of historic oppression free them from obeying the rules that apply to everybody else.

They get away with way too much.

But not always, as a confrontation between race hustler Jorge Ramos and Donald Trump showed. From The American Spectator:
Jorge Ramos played the race card in an Iowa press conference.

Donald Trump would have none of it. Bravo.

So as the scene unfolded on CNN, there is Donald Trump in Iowa, holding a press conference.

And from off screen comes this insistent voice — barely heard as there was no microphone for the unidentified speaker. But even barely heard it was clear whoever it was had a cause to promote — an agenda. Trump, the anti-Hillary who repeatedly talks to reporters of all stripes, all networks, all publications, was clearly in the process of calling on another reporter. The speaker was having none of this. He demanded attention from Trump — right NOW!

As it came clear that Trump — no Bernie Sanders he — was not going to be bullied by whomever and would actually run his own press conference — the cameras pulled back to reveal the rude guy.

It was Jorge Ramos of Univision. Ahhhh. The agenda comes clear. Univision — the company that broke its contract with Trump and dumped the Trump-owned Miss Universe when Trump noted that yes, in fact, there were illegals coming across the U.S. border and committing crimes. Trump promptly answered Univision back with a $500 million lawsuit. So Ramos was there in Iowa to score a blow for race card playing. And as he continued his rant — Trump promptly had him removed. Eventually, he gave the OK for Ramos to return, welcomed him back, and had a completely civil exchange on immigration. The incident was perfect metaphor for the illegal immigration issue. Ramos jumped the press conference rules and was sent back — only welcomed back inside when he agreed to live by the same rules as the rest of the press corps in the room.
Trump, whom we don’t much like, deserves kudos for this.

Minorities (or more properly, hustlers who claim to represent them) have been pampered and coddled way too much. Just a few examples:

Marquette Students Push Back

This latter case, however, created a lot of push back from Marquette students. A student (apparently a leftist) named Zoe Del Colle produced an album on Facebook of what she called “The Racist Comments of Marquette Students.” In fact, the vast majority of comments are not racist at all, they just take exception to the claims of the race hustlers.

The album is a fine view into the minds of the politically correct. They see racism everywhere, and then when people don’t buy their overwrought claims, that’s more evidence of racism. In fact, these folks can’t admit that anybody could disagree with their politics and not be racist.

Kudos to the Marquette students who left those Tweets (most of them, anyway). The campus leftists have been coddled too long. They deserve the treatment Trump gave Ramos: you obey the rules and we will listen to you, but we may disagree with what you say. And if you call us a racist, we will dismiss you as a politically correct yahoo.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Black People Prefer “All Lives Matter” to “Black Lives Matter”

The “Black Lives Matter” movement has arisen to protest supposed unjustified police shootings of black suspects. Never mind that in the majority (and probably a lopsided majority) of cases the shootings have been justified. The narrative of racial oppression demands that the activists insist that cops undervalue black lives.

Bizarrely, when well-intentioned but muddle-headed liberals have said that “all lives matter,” the activists have gone ballistic.

First case, the president of Smith College:
The president of prestigious Smith College is red-faced and apologetic Tuesday for telling students on the Northampton, Mass., campus that “all lives matter.”

Kathleen McCartney wrote the phrase in the subject line of an e-mail to students at the school, whose alumni include feminists Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, former First Lady Nancy Reagan and celebrity chef Julia Child. McCartney was attempting to show support for students protesting racially charged grand jury decisions in which police in Missouri and New York were not charged in the deaths of unarmed black men.

Protesters have adopted several slogans in connection with the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, including “Black Lives Matter.” McCartney’s more inclusive version of the refrain was seen as an affront that diminished the focus on black lives and racism, according to emails obtained by FoxNews.com.

“We are united in our insistence that all lives matter,” read the e-mail,in which she made clear she was strongly behind the protests, writing that the grand jury decisions had “led to a shared fury… We gather in vigil, we raise our voices in protest.”

But she soon received backlash from students for her phrasing. They were offended that she did not stick with the slogan “black lives matter.”

The Daily Hampshire Gazette, which first covered the story, quoted one Smith sophomore, Cecelia Lim, as saying, “it felt like she was invalidating the experience of black lives.”

In response to student backlash, McCartney apologized in another campus-wide email Friday, saying she had made a mistake “despite my best intentions.”

She wrote that the problem with the phrase lay in how others had used it.

“I regret that I was unaware the phrase/hashtag ‘all lives matter’ has been used by some to draw attention away from the focus on institutional violence against Black people,” she wrote.
Next case, Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley. We won’t go into the details, which are equally bizarre.

But now comes a Rasmussen Poll which asks likely voters (including black Americans) whether “black lives matter” or “all lives matter” is closest to their view.

Among blacks, 31% say “black lives matter” is closest to their view, but 64% say that “all lives matter” is closest to their view.

Thus, by more that two to one, black people in America side with the humane notion that all lives matter, and not with the activists’ race hustling.

Thus McCartney and O’Malley look like typical muddle-headed liberals. They cave to the radical activists, and take a position at odds with the majority of black people.

Liberal campus bureaucrats like McCartney talk a lot about “inclusion.” But in fact “inclusion” is just an Orwellian term for an exclusive concern for politically correct victim groups.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, August 14, 2015

Congress Moves to Protect Free Expression on College Campuses

A press release from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:
House Judiciary Chairman Wants Answers about First Amendment from Public Colleges

WASHINGTON, August 14, 2015—The Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee sent letters today to the presidents of 161 public colleges and universities across the country to ask them why their policies fail to protect the First Amendment rights of students and faculty.

The letters were sent by Representative Bob Goodlatte to leaders of institutions that received the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s (FIRE’s) lowest, “red light” rating in our annual report on campus speech codes. Colleges that receive this rating maintain at least one policy that clearly and substantially restricts protected speech.

The letters follow FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff’s testimony before Congress earlier this summer. On June 2, Lukianoff testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice about the state of free speech on America’s public college campuses.

“During my testimony, I shared FIRE’s deep concern that highly restrictive speech codes are the rule rather than the exception on public college campuses nationwide,” said Lukianoff. “A congressional hearing on campus censorship was an important first step. It is even more encouraging that Chairman Goodlatte is taking action to address the problem.”

In the letters, Chairman Goodlatte writes, “In FIRE’s Spotlight on Speech Codes 2015, your institution received a ‘red light’ rating. … We write to ask what steps your institution plans to take to promote free and open expression on its campus(es), including any steps toward bringing your speech policies in accordance with the First Amendment.”

No public college or university may legally maintain speech codes that violate the First Amendment rights of students or faculty.

“Students’ education suffers when colleges and universities infringe on free speech,” said Azhar Majeed, director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Education Program. “FIRE is eager to help these institutions bring their policies in line with the First Amendment and welcomes opportunities to work with administrators to do so.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.

CONTACT:
Katie Barrows, Communications Coordinator, FIRE: 215-717-3473; katie@thefire.org
Robert Shibley, Executive Director, FIRE: 215-717-3473; robert@thefire.org
Marquette, being a private school, is not affected by this, in spite of having a speech code with a “red light” rating. Of course, private schools should be free to restrict speech if they choose to, although in virtually every case this is a bad idea. And private universities are acting immorally if they promise free expression and then stifle speech. Indeed, in most cases their proclaimed policies protecting speech constitute a contractual obligation.

Campus leftists and campus bureaucrats are likely to whine about “Congressional interference” in higher education. But of course, they have accepted (with enthusiasm on the part of the leftists, and supinely on the part of the bureaucrats) massive intervention on the part of the Federal government, especially the Obama Justice and Education departments. Obama administration bureaucrats have aggressively moved to vitiate due process rights of males accused of sexual assault, and to broaden the doctrine of “harassment” to outlaw speech to which any intolerant and overwrought black, gay or feminist objects.

So it’s good that there is some push back here. Unfortunately, the authoritarianism of campus leftist faculty and staff, and the vested interests of campus bureaucrats are firmly aligned behind the suppression of politically incorrect speech.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Incarceration Prevents Crime

Liberals have never liked punishing criminals. Oh, they have made exceptions, wanting harsh punishments for “hate crimes” against groups such as blacks and gays, and they really want rapists punished. But garden variety criminals doing garden variety crimes have been the object of a huge solicitude from liberals.

Of course, this attitude reflects the class interests of the sort of people who are liberals. Instead of punishment, liberals’ preferred anti-crime strategy has been a vast expansion of social programs (if we just spend enough money on social programs, crime will go away) and rehabilitation for criminals (administered, of course, by liberal professionals).

But in the real world, failure to keep criminals locked up has nasty consequences. One historic example is from Philadelphia, where a liberal judge imposed a “prison cap,” forcing the release of thousands of offenders based on the claim of prison overcrowding:
Mayor Edward Rendell, a former district attorney, has been battling for years to get the city out from under a devastating eight-year-old prison cap imposed by U.S. District Judge Norma L. Shapiro. . .

Judge Shapiro is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACL’U's prisoners’ rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. She has used complaints filed by individual inmates to gain control over the prison system and empowered a group of court-appointed prisoners’ rights lawyers to micromanage the jails.

In effect, Judge Shapiro has single-handedly decriminalized property and drug crimes in the City of Brotherly Love. Some 67 percent of all defendants released because of her prison cap simply fail to appear in court. The number of outstanding bench warrants for misdemeanor and felony cases has soared to 46,637 in March from 16,595 in 1987. And in the past 18 months alone, 9,732 arrestees, out on the streets on pre-trial release because of her prison cap, were arrested on second charges, including 79 murders, 90 rapes, 701 burglaries, 959 robberies, 1,113 assaults, 2,215 drug offenses and 2,748 thefts.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Marquette Axes College of Professional Studies

A message from the Provost:
As we approach the beginning of the academic year, we are writing to share a few academic updates. Over the past two years, nine university committees have conducted great work in collaboration with our partners from Huron Consulting to actively review and analyze our enrollment strategies. These efforts, combined with ongoing academic Program Reviews, have put us in a strong position to determine how we best move forward.

Our extensive analysis of the College of Professional Studies revealed that while we have a high quality product, the college is not financially viable in its current model. We cannot continue to compete without a major influx of resources in a market where competition has increased dramatically in recent years. Our strategic plan, Beyond Boundaries, calls for all of us to ensure our valuable resources are sustainable and to be responsible stewards of these resources. Therefore, we will now work with the University Leadership Council, the University Academic Senate and faculty leaders across campus to review a proposed plan to phase out the college’s operations.

For this current academic year, the College of Professional Studies will continue to deliver all four of its degree programs as planned through 2016 Commencement. Beginning fall 2016, the College of Professional Studies Leadership and Organizations degree will be housed administratively in the Klingler College of Arts and Sciences. This move will continue to provide wonderful opportunities for adults seeking an accessible undergraduate degree at Marquette.
The College of Professional Studies is one of the great bad ideas the Marquette administration has ever had.

Lured, apparently, by the hope of making a lot of money, Marquette decided to jump into a burgeoning market: Degrees ‘R Us operations catering to “non-traditional” (read, older) students who want a Bachelor’s degree.

For many years at Marquette, departments were under pressure to offer a certain number of evening courses, in order to accommodate such students. We taught our share, and the vast majority of students were always the traditional collage-age undergraduates. But there was an integrity to the process. The non-traditional students paid the same tuition, took equally demanding courses, and met the same requirements as traditional students. When they got a degree, it was a bona fide Marquette degree.

But the sight of institutions offering cut-rate degrees at lower cost with much laxer requirements lured Marquette into trying to compete in a market in which it was not well-prepared to compete, offering an education inferior to its traditional one, doing something sharply removed from its distinctive competence.

We heard accounts, from the few regular Marquette faculty teaching in the College of Professional Studies, of being pressured to reduce course demands far below the level required of traditional Marquette students. Thus the College of Arts and Science refused to accept credits from Professional Studies toward graduation requirements (except in a few rare special cases).

Political Science was particularly unhappy that Professional Studies offered a section of POSC 2201 (American Politics). Our view what that we “owned” POSC 2201. If that sounds like bureaucratic turf protection remember this: Political Science had a strong vested interest in maintaining the quality of 2201, just as (say) Nikon has a vested interest in maintaining the quality of cameras that bear its brand name. The Professional Studies version of 2201 was taught by faculty that could not possibly have gotten a tenure track job in Political Science, nor even an adjunct position.

Political Science complained to various Deans of Arts and Sciences, but none took up the cudgel for us on that issue. OK, Deans have a lot of battles to fight.

But this whole business is an example of how institutions like Marquette should not go running after the latest fad in higher education. Admittedly, the bloated ranks of administrators at Marquette (as at other institutions) creates a huge incentive to find “initiatives” to justify a small army of assistant deans and associate provosts and all the other staff that the “initiatives” require.

Admittedly, Marquette’s whoring after a huge raft of politically correct “diversity” initiatives has been more damaging than the millions of dollars the College of Professional Studies lost, since the former has involved trashing Catholic teaching on a variety of issues. But broadly considered the issue is the same: when you sell a lower quality education (as when you offer a secular education while calling yourself “Catholic”) you squander the value of the brand.

Labels: , , ,

The Many Things Wrong With Donald Trump

From Rick Esenberg, a thorough thrashing administered to the fellow who has eclipsed, in terms of media attention, all the Republican candidates who might have a chance to be president, and might actually make things better:
There’s really no question that Donald Trump’s performance in the GOP debate was childish and boorish. Often he simply blustered and stumbled to barely coherent responses. He bragged about buying politicians and stiffing his creditors. He whined about being treated unfairly and confused common standards of decency with political correctness. He asked us to believe that he can bend foreign governments to his will. Yet he can’t even handle Megyn Kelly.

In the days since then, he’s only made it worse. I understand that Twitter is not exactly a forum for the expression of any thought that is much more than a sentiment, but his feed reads like that of an over fresh high school kid. The man is an embarrassment.
And later:
Some on the left want to say that Trump offers some kind of unveiled conservatism, but that’s preposterous. He is not conservative. He is a big government crony capitalist who has fed at the subsidy trough and advocated for eminent domain abuse. He is a pro-choice (or was, until yesterday afternoon) and a supporter of Obamacare. He has contributed to Hillary Clinton. If anyone in the current GOP field would share Obama’s ambitious view of what a President can and ought to do who would use his pen and phone rather than the tools the Constitution provides it is Trump.
Read the whole thing.

Full disclosure: Esenberg is representing us against Marquette’s administration and its attempt to fire us.

Labels: , , , ,

Palestinian TV: Teaching Kids to Kill Jews

Saturday, August 01, 2015

Texas “Christian” University: Punishing a Student for Politically Incorrect Speech

There is something like this almost every day: a student says unkind things on social media about black rioters in Baltimore and about Islam and he is punished by his college.

From The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:
FORT WORTH, Texas, July 29, 2015—Texas Christian University (TCU) has abandoned its stated commitments to free speech and due process after a group of Internet commenters were offended by one student’s social media posts and complained to university administrators.

TCU suspended student Harry Vincent for commentary posted to his personal Facebook and Twitter profiles related to current events, including the protests in Baltimore, the threat of terrorism, and the spread of the “Islamic State.” The suspension comes after a non-student, using the name “Kelsey” and apparently living in Maryland, created a post on her Tumblr page containing screenshots of a selection of Vincent’s posts. Kelsey labeled Vincent’s commentary “racist” and “disgusting” and asked readers to contact TCU to report his speech.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) wrote to TCU today to urge the university to reverse the charges and sanctions applied to Vincent for his protected extracurricular expression. FIRE also expressed dismay with TCU’s violation of Vincent’s due process rights, which included coercing an apology from him prior to any determination of guilt.

“If TCU no longer believes student rights are important, it should just come out and say so,” said Ari Cohn, an attorney and Senior Program Officer for Legal and Public Advocacy at FIRE. “Tricking students into attending TCU by making glowing promises of free speech and due process rights—only to go back on those promises following unreasonable demands from someone who doesn’t even attend the school—is shocking and itself offensive to the most basic sense of fairness. TCU should reverse its action against Harry Vincent immediately.”

TCU is a private university and thus not legally bound by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, it is both morally and contractually bound to honor the explicit and repeated promises of freedom of expression that it makes to its students. Among these is TCU’s “Demonstration Guidelines” policy, which states that “TCU firmly supports the rights of all members of the University community to express their views.”

From approximately December 2014 through April 2015, Vincent occasionally posted commentary on his Facebook and Twitter profiles related to current events. Vincent’s viewpoints on these events apparently inspired Kelsey’s Tumblr post on or about April 28, 2015. Shortly after publishing her post, Kelsey and some of her readers reported that they received a response from TCU Associate Dean of Campus Life Glory Z. Robinson that said “the Campus Life Office will address this situation.”

On April 29, Vincent received a letter from Robinson charging him with violating two student conduct code provisions, those relating to “Infliction of Bodily or Emotional Harm” and “Disorderly Conduct.” At the conclusion of a May 1 ”investigative” meeting at which Vincent was first informed of the basis for the charges, Robinson directed him to write a letter of apology for his posts and detail the punishment that he felt would be appropriate for his speech.

On May 8, Robinson informed Vincent that she had found him in violation of the two conduct code provisions and that he would receive a “Suspension in Abeyance” through August 15, 2016, and be placed on “Disciplinary Probation” through his graduation from TCU. Under the terms of his suspension, Vincent can only attend his classes and cannot reside on campus, participate in any co-curricular activities, or utilize any non-academic facilities on campus. He is also required to complete a course on “Issues in Diversity,” complete 60 hours of community service, and meet with Robinson on a regular basis.

On July 16, an appeals panel of TCU faculty members and administrators denied Vincent’s appeal and upheld all aspects of Robinson’s decision. In a July 24 letter formalizing the panel’s decision, Student Conduct and Grievance Committee Chair Lynn K. Flahive summarily dispensed with Vincent’s appeal arguments and declared, “The choices you made caused harm to other individuals. These types of comments are not acceptable at TCU … .”

In addition to betraying its promises of free speech, TCU has also betrayed its due process promises. Robinson coerced Vincent into writing an apology and proposed sanction prior to any determination of his guilt, and then used those statements as evidence of his guilt. In doing so, Robinson violated TCU’s “Fair Play Rights for Students” policy, which states that students have the right “[t]o remain silent about any incident in which s/he is a suspect. No form of harassment shall be used by a university representative to coerce admissions of guilt.” TCU also did not inform Vincent about any details of the specific complaints against him, despite his having requested the incident reports and complaints against him.

“If the TCU administration is willing to punish its students every time they offend someone on the Internet, TCU students should be very afraid,” said Cohn. “That TCU would sacrifice its students’ free speech and due process rights to appease a social media mob betrays where its priorities lie—with its public relations department, not its students’ fundamental rights.”
If one looks at Vincent’s actual posts, it should be obvious that they express strong opinions, but are not racist.

For example, he says that Baltimore rioters (“hoodrat criminals” he calls them) should be “shipped off and exiled to the sahara desert.” Apparently, any criticism of any black people (even criminals who are rioting) is considered racist. Or, put another way, in the minds of leftists, the rioters are the authentic representatives of the black community, so criticizing them is criticizing all blacks.

Likewise, Vincent adds that “maybe then they’ll realize how much we provide for them (welfare, college tuition, obama phone’s [sic] medicare, etc.)”

Associating black people with welfare dependency is something that the left does not like. But of course, if somebody wants to cut back welfare programs, the same leftists will loudly call such initiatives racist!

In reality, in 2009, 25.1% of persons living in black households were receiving food stamps, while only 6.9% of persons in white (non-Hispanic) households got food stamps. Indeed, a bit over half of all blacks (50.9% to be exact) lived in a household getting some means-tested assistance, as opposed to only 20.5% of non-Hispanic whites.(See Table 543 here.)

The fact of black welfare dependency should not be used to taunt black people generally, but it’s a perfectly fine response to race hustlers who are constantly claiming that a racist America oppresses black people.

In another post Vincent says that Islam is “clearly not a religion of peace” and that Obama “needs to step up and take action.” Certainly an arguable position, no matter how it offends the politically correct.

Of course, at TCU as in academia generally, blacks are protected from hearing anything at odds with the supposed black political agenda, but calling whites racist and berating them for supposed “white privilege” is condoned and even encouraged. Attacks on Islam are frowned on (and punished) but nasty attacks on Christianity are perfectly OK.

This case should make it clear to any Christian parents who want to send their children to a Christian university that TCU is not such a place.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Outlaw the Redskins Name? Just the Beginning

From an anonymous e-mail. We don’t know who first wrote this, but it’s all over the ‘net. It was written in response to an oh-so-politically correct column by Clarence Page.
Dear Mr. Page:

I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward. Let’s also ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians.

If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns. The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60’s alive. Gone. It’s offensive to us white folk.

The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men’s lives.

I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

Then, there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!

Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.

The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children. The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.

The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves.

As a die hard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women’s athletic teams to something other than “the Beavers” (especially when they play Southern California) . Do we really want the Trojans sticking it to the Beavers???

I always love your articles and I generally agree with them.

As for the Redskins name I would suggest they change the name to the Do Nothings to better represent their community, paying tribute to the idiots in Congress.
Once one starts looking for grievances, the possibilities never end. The U.S. Army, for examples, has attack helicopters named Sioux, Iroquois, Apache, Black Hawk, Kiowa, Comanche, Cayuse and Cheyenne.

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Global Warming/Climate Change: Extended Discussion

Talking to legendary Chicago talk show host Milt Rosenberg, two global warming skeptics (James M. Taylor and Steve Goreham) discuss the issues in depth.

Interestingly, proponents of man-made global warming refused to appear on the show, leaving Rosenberg to play the role of devil’s advocate. This, Rosenberg explains, is almost invariably the case as warming advocates imperiously insist that warming is “settled science” about which there is no legitimate doubt.

But public opinion polls shot there most certainly is doubt among the citizenry.

So if their case is so strong, why won’t the advocates avail themselves of the opportunity to convince doubters with their (supposedly) superior arguments? It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the issue is way more complex than the warmists want the public knowing, and that they fear they would be on the defensive.

Instinctively, we should distrust people who refuse to argue their case. Their refusal implies that they live in a little bubble where everybody shares their assumptions, and they fear stepping out into the world where their assumptions will be challenged.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 20, 2015

Bye, Bye First Amendment

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Humanity in South Carolina

As a Klan demonstration faced off against a bunch of black militants and white leftists, an act of humanity by a black trooper put what has happened there in the proper perspective.
For their part, the white citizens of Charleston have rallied around the black church whose members were killed, so much so that an MSNBC reporter broke down on the air.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Left Wing “Netroots” Really Hate Walker

From Politico:
PHOENIX, Ariz. — There’s no love lost for any of the 2016 Republican presidential contenders at the 2015 Netroots Nation confab, but attendees reserve a special kind of loathing for one candidate in particular: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

It’s an understandable sentiment given the setting. This year’s edition of the annual convention of liberal activists is heavily focused on bread-and-butter economic issues, with a strong union presence. The AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association have booths set up near the center of the convention hall, and many of the other booths are focused on one economic topic or another. Two large American flags with rainbow stripes instead of alternating red and white hang from the LGBT Netroots Connect booth, an indication of how forcefully gay rights are defended here.

All of which makes this a very hostile crowd for Walker, who regularly trumpets his victories over public-sector unions in his home state, and now weaves his opposition to the Supreme Court’s recent same-sex marriage decision into his stump speech as well.

“Scott Walker is probably the most dangerous of the Republicans in my opinion. And that’s just my opinion,” Dan O’Neal, the Arizona state coordinator for the Progressive Democrats of America, said. “He and Bush are probably the two most dangerous in terms of competing with Bernie or Hillary.”

It’s not that there are any warm and fuzzy feelings toward the rest of the GOP field, but it’s Walker who stirs the most negative passions among liberal activists.

“I mean, if you look at the records, Scott Walker has destroyed the economy and it’s been devastating for workers there,” Stephanie Taylor, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said on Thursday as she sat in a conference room alongside Adam Green, the other founder of the liberal political action committee. “I would hate to see that happen to America.”

Green quickly interjected, saying Walker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are the least appealing of the bunch. “But that’s not to say we could live with the other ones,” he added.

This year, Netroots attendees sporting pro-Bernie Sanders buttons are everywhere (on Thursday, it was hard to find a Hillary Clinton logo), and none of them had positive things to say about Walker.

And just as Sanders, with his unabashedly pro-labor views, fires up his left-leaning supporters, Walker’s union-busting boasts send them into paroxysms of rage.

“To me he looks like a little twerp,” said Fred Koegel, a retired member of the Iron Workers of Chicago Local 11 union. “He looks like the kid that hired the bullies in the schoolyard to protect him. That’s him, OK?”
This kind of raw hatred on the part of the left has, in fact, proven to be a huge political asset for Walker.

It is a truism among political scientists that people with intense preferences matter more in politics than people with bland opinions. But it doesn’t work that way when extremists are conspicuously deranged. The leftists’ tantrums in Wisconsin didn’t seem to hurt Walker. Ordinary voters are likely to sympathize with the targets of the extremists. This is especially true when the target of the extremists is rather mild-mannered and earnest. (Between left extremists and Donald Trump, the issue is more complex.)

Most certainly, nobody in the Walker campaign is crying in their beer over news like this.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, July 13, 2015

ABC in 2009: Global Warming Disaster by 2015


This from the Media Research Center. Of course, the fact that the media has puffed absurd scenarios doesn’t mean there is no man-made global warming. But numerous examples like this mean you can’t trust what the media tell you about the issue. Following is a part of the transcript of the segment from Good Morning America.
GMA
6/12/08
8:34am

CHRIS CUOMO: Now, we will have a dramatic preview for you of an unprecedented ABC News event called “Earth 2100.” We’re asking you to help create a story that is yet to unfold: What our world will look like in 100 years if we don’t save our troubled planet. Your reports will actually help form the backbone of a two-hour special airing this fall. ABC’s Bob Woodruff will be the host. He joins us now. Pleasure, Bob.

BOB WOODRUFF: You too, Chris. You know, this show is a countdown through the next century and shows what scientists say might very well happen if we do not change our current path. As part of the show, today, we are launching an interactive web game which puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.

[NOTE: ABC provides no graphics or identification for any of the following individuals/activists featured. Identifications taken discerned from web article.]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE #1: The public is sleepwalking into the future. You know, sort of going through the motions of daily life and really not paying attention.

JAMES HANSEN (NASA/AL GORE SCIENCE ADVISOR): We can see what the prospects are and we can see that we could solve the problem but we’re not doing it.

[Graphic: Welcome to 2015]

PETER GLEICK (SCIENTIST/PACIFIC INSTITUTE): In 2015, we’ve still failed to address the climate problem.

JOHN HOLDREN (PROFESSOR/HARVARD UNIVERSITY): We’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.

UNIDENTIFIED “REPORTER:” Flames cover hundreds of square miles.

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We expect more intense hurricanes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE #5: Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don’t know really know where the end is.

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #2: Temperatures have hit dangerous levels.

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #3: Agriculture production is dropping because temperatures are rising.

HEIDI CULLEN (WEATHER CHANNEL/CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT): There’s about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows.

...

CUOMO: I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?

WOODRUFF: It’s very soon, you know. But all you have to do is look at the world today right today. You know, you’ve got gas prices going up. You got food prices going up. You’ve got extreme weather. The scientists have studied this for decades. They say if you connect the dots, you can actually see that we’re approaching maybe even a perfect storm. Or you have got shrinking resources, population growth. Climate change. So, the idea now is to look at it, wake up about it and then try to do something to fix it.

...

WOODRUFF: But the best of these regular reports that come from people that are watching, we’re going to put those on, all of this on our two-hour production that’s going to happen in the fall. And we just want more of these people to watch. And we’ve gotten already some remarkable interviews from these people. And just take a quick look.

UNIDENTIFIED TEENAGER: It’s June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.

SECOND UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gas reached over $9 a gallon.

THIRD UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’m scared [bleeped] right now, but I have to get this out.

WOODRUFF: So the producers actually work with those people that send in their ideas into the website. And then we’re just hoping that the goal is ultimately get these ideas very soon.

CUOMO: Lovely. Bob Woodruff. Thank you very much. You can find out much more about how you can be part of this exciting and important show. You can go to Earth2100.tv. Earth2100.tv or you can go to ABCNews.com.
Being the Mainstream Media, of course, means never having to say “we are sorry we lied to you.”

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, July 11, 2015

Going International: Marquette Makes Jerusalem Post

An article on intolerance on American campuses, focusing especially on anti-Israel activism, mentions several instances of censorship and silencing of non-leftist views:
Not by accident is the most leftist dominated segment of American life also that in which free speech is least protected. Kirsten Powers (a Democrat) has written a new book called The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. Much of that book is devoted to American universities where left-wing students, administrators and faculty have sent the message that “anyone [who] strays off the leftist script... might find themselves investigated, harassed, ostracized, even expelled” because their speech has given offense.

Nearly 60% of the colleges and universities in America have campus speech codes that dramatically restrict, if not obliterate, freedom of speech. One, for instance, bars students from “offending... a member of the university community.”

Fordham University prohibits using email to “insult.” Offense and insult are determined by the ones so offended. Numerous universities have instituted “trigger warnings” on course content to warn students that course material may cause them distress by challenging their worldview.

Janet Napolitano, chancellor of the University of California system, the nation’s largest, recently instituted seminars for deans and department chairs to guide them in things that should no longer be said because they constitute “micro-aggressions,” defined as “brief, subtle verbal or non-verbal exchanges that send denigrating message to the recipient because of his or her group membership.”

Included are such statements as “America is a land of opportunity”; “I believe that the most qualified person should get the job”; “America is a melting-pot” and “affirmative action is racist.”

Each of these “suggestions” seeks to impose a particular societal vision and/or foreclose societal debate. They constitute a liberal version of the Gulag’s reeducation centers. Objections to the first two statements are based on a desire to portray America as so racist that individual talent and hard work are virtually irrelevant and it is impossible to speak of a hirings based on merit. “America is a melting-pot” is objectionable, because it prefers the traditional view of America as an affirmational society bound together by certain common ideas over the multicultural vision of a balkanized society based on ethnic, racial and sexual identities. The view that non-colorblind admissions and hiring is inherently racist is one side of a long-standing debate, and it just happens to be the view adopted by the US Supreme Court of late.

A group of Scholars of Color recently disrupted a class at UCLA, charging that the tenured professor had committed “micro-aggressions” against them. Example: The professor changed one student’s capitalization of “indigenous” to lower case, and thus disrespected her ideological point of view. Were the students punished for disrupting a class? No. The 79-year-old professor was instructed to stay off the graduate campus for a year, and UCLA commissioned an “Independent Investigative Report on Acts of Bias and Discrimination Involving Faculty.”

At Marquette University, a Jesuit school, Prof. John McAdams was stripped of tenure and fired for a blog post, in which he criticized by name a graduate teaching assistant who had told a student that he could not defend the traditional Catholic teaching on same-gender marriage in class because it might offend other students.

McAdams wrote that the graduate student had used “a tactic typical among liberals now.

Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.”

His firing proved how right he was and how effective those tactics have proven.
Of course, part and parcel of this intolerant leftism is hostility toward Israel.
Not all offense is equal. Jewish students live in a hostile environment, which can at times be genuinely frightening, on many campuses across America. Last summer, Boston police had to protect pro-Israel students over three successive days from pro-Palestinian mobs shouting “Jews back to Birkenau.” Over 50% of Jewish students report that they have personally experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism.

No one, it seems, is particularly concerned about aggressions – micro or otherwise – against them, even though Jew hatred is not exactly an unknown phenomenon throughout history.

On about 200 campuses, there are annual Israel Apartheid Week rallies calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. Many of the events are formally sponsored by academic departments and promoted by professors on their emails.

Ruth Wisse, in “Anti-Semitism Goes to School” (in the May Mosaic) describes how a group of pro-Palestinian student groups demanded that candidates for student government at UCLA and Berkeley sign a pledge that they will not participate in trips to Israel organized by groups like AIPAC or Aish International’s Hasbara Fellowships. Most candidates refused to sign, but the student government president did.

While expressing discomfort with the pledge, UCLA’s Jewish chancellor declined to go further on the grounds that promotion of the pledge is a form of free speech. When it comes to leftists, minorities and those otherwise easily offended, the subjective hurt of those offended trumps free speech; when it comes to insult and intimidation of Jewish students, however, the value of campus free inquiry and speech is suddenly rediscovered.

As Wisse puts it, “Institutions that enforce ‘sensitivity training’ to ensure toleration for gays, blacks and other minorities may inadvertently be bringing some of these groups together in common hostility to Jews as the only campus minority against whom hostility is condoned.”
Jews, for a few decades after the Holocaust, had the status of a politically correct victim group, toward whom liberals were sympathetic. But that era is gone.

Why is this? First, because Israel is an ally of the United States, and liberals and leftists, not liking America, instinctively dislike America’s allies also.

Secondly, liberals and leftists pride themselves on being champions of the world’s victims. Jews, and the state of Israel, have not played the part of victim. Jews have succeeded splendidly in American society, and Israel has not only prospered as a free society, it has decisively beaten off Arab attacks. Not the sort of place that can be portrayed as victimized.

Thus we have the (happily) unsuccessful attempt on the Marquette campus to divest from companies doing business with Israel. Some flavor of this campaign can by seen in the Twitter feed of Students for Justice in Palestine.

But the anti-Israel campaign has been supported by several official units of Marquette.

Labels: , , , , , ,

20 Cheap, Tacky, Totally Unfair Jokes About Democrats



Also, see the comments below the video on YouTube for more jokes.

To Democrats: you can use most of these jokes against Republicans by simply changing a name or two.

But one that wouldn’t work so well:
Why does Bill Clinton wear boxer shorts?

To keep his ankles warm.

Labels: , ,

Friday, July 10, 2015

Bogus Racial Incidents on College Campuses

There have been a lot of bogus “racist” incidents on college campuses, incidents staged by leftists and members of minority groups, aimed at promoting a “diversity” agenda by making people believe that the modern college campus is just crawling with racists. And thus there needs to be a full court press to indoctrinate the entire student body into the shibboleths of political correctness.

A few examples can be found in Ann Coulter’s book Mugged.

White Gangs at Columbia University — 1987

In March 1987, eight months before Tawana Brawley became a household name, black students at Columbia University made the rather incredible charge that mobs of white students were beating up black students on campus. About a dozen blacks claimed to have seen or been victims of these racist attacks.

In the 1980s, American colleges were sturdy sentinels against the merest hint of a racist thought. There were seminars on racism, posters against racism, bake sales against racism, racism “awareness” days, articles denouncing racism, consciousness-raising sessions about racism. More resources were devoted to studying racism than studying history, chemistry or math. It would be hard to find a single person on an American college campus, at least post-1980, who would have one good thing to say about racism.

Moreover, the alleged perpetrators of these racist beatings at Columbia weren’t teenaged toughs with criminal records in a working-class neighborhood: They were college students at an Ivy League school.

But blacks claimed that whites were so terrorizing them that they were afraid to walk alone on campus. According to their spokeswoman, Barnard student Cheryl Derricotte, it was “open season on black people.”

The usual nonsense ensued. There were sit-ins, administration building take-overs, and noisy rallies outside the fraternity house said to harbor the white racist thugs. Fifty people were arrested as a result of the anti-racism protests. Most of them were white. Twenty-three Columbia students staged a sit-in at 1 Police Plaza in lower Manhattan to demand the arrest of the white students they claimed were beating up blacks on campus.

Black students formed a group to protect themselves from the marauding white mobs and — in what was always a good sign — hired C. Vernon Mason as their lawyer. “The message has gotten out,” Mason said, —“that black students are not safe on the Columbia campus and someone is going to have to answer for this.”

Newsweek quoted Frank L. Matthews, publisher of Black Issues in Higher Education, saying that he blamed the surge of college racism on white students’ “reading the messages” from the Reagan administration. Of course, another theory is that it was black students “reading the messages” from a media that gave full-court press to even simulated racist incidents and refused to hold black people accountable for false reports.

If you are not a journalist, it will come as no surprise that, after painstaking investigations by both the police and the very politically correct university, the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. According to dozens of eyewitnesses, it was black students who had started a fight with white students late one night after a dance, and then made up the cock-and-bull story about roving white gangs targeting blacks.

None of the newspapers and magazines that had reported the original story about white racists stampeding through an Ivy League campus ever got around to mentioning that it was a lie—not the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek or Time magazine. Careful readers had to wait for this admission in the Christian Science Monitor about a year later:
[T]he the university report on the incident, which relied on the signed statements of 22 eyewitnesses ...differed substantially from the account given by the blacks and used by the news media in reporting the story. [I]n the Columbia account, the actual brawl was provoked by a group of five to seven blacks outside the hangout. [T]heir story of “a white lynch mob” has since been discredited.
No charges were brought by the university or the police against the students for filing a false police complaint.

The national news coverage of a story about Ivy Leaguers as latter-day Bull Connors triggered dozens more of these incidents at campuses around the country. These were all hoaxes, too. But no matter how absurd the idea of marauding white students attacking blacks on college campuses, the false charges kept coming and liberals kept believing them.

Sabrina Collins, Emory University

A few years later, in 1990, Sabrina Collins, a black premed student at Emory College, claimed to have been the victim of a campaign of racial ha­rassment — “die, [N-word], die” had been painted on her floor, bleach poured on her clothes and typed death threats slipped under her door. Even her stuffed animals had been mutilated. As a result of these incidents, Collins fell mute and had to be hospitalized.

Hundreds of students held a rally to protest racism as a result of what had happened to Collins. One student, Leonard Scriven, denounced what he called the “pervasive system of racism” at Emory. At a meeting of students and faculty about the incident, a newly formed black student group, Students Against Racial Inequality, submitted a list of demands, including more black students and faculty members, two new centers for the study of African American culture . . .and the firing of the director of public safety, Edward A. Medlin.

The public safety office had already responded to Collins’s allegations by equipping her dorm room with additional locks, a portable motion detector and an alarm system. Safety officers patrolled her hallway as well as the area outside her dormitory building. The office of public safety had called in local, state and federal investigators. But the students against racial inequality wanted this poor guy’s head.

After a thorough inquiry, the Georgia. Bureau of Investigation concluded that Collins had perpetrated the racist acts on herself. Her fingerprints were the only ones on the letters and were arranged on the page in a pattern indicating that she had put the letter in a typewriter; the letters had been composed on a typewriter in the library she frequented; and, finally, the letters also spelled “you’re” as “your” — as was Sabrina’s habit. The incidents had begun just as Collins was being investigated for an honor code violation for cheating in a chemistry class.

No charges were pressed against Collins. The story vanished. Let’s just hope the head of public safety was allowed to keep his job.

Gilbert Moore, Jr., Williams College — 1993

Fake racist incidents on college campuses became as common as Madonna’s music. Against a background of daily lectures against racism, some racist letter or graffiti would materialize, there would be a generalized gnashing of teeth about the pervasiveness of racism and then the perpetrator would always turn out to be a black student.

At Williams College in 1993, hideous racist messages were found on the door of the Black Student Union. An uproar ensued. Two days later, Dean Joan Edwards announced to general relief that the culprit had admitted responsibility and was being punished — but neglected to mention that the student was black until two weeks later, as the rumor mill went wild.

Junior Gilbert Moore Jr. said he had put up the racist notes as a response to actual racism at Williams — of which there was no evidence or he wouldn’t have needed to fake it — and to encourage more dialogue about racism, because twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week was not enough. The college rose to the challenge — by suspending him for one semester. Enraged that a black student would be held responsible for anything he did, some black students denounced the harsh penalty, threatening to leave Williams. Moore concluded: “The system . . . has failed me.”

Alicia Hardin, Trinity International University — 2005

Federal investigators must have been getting bored with the hoax hate crimes on college campuses they kept being asked to investigate. After OJ, even the media’s hysteria was muted. Nonetheless, when three students at Trinity International University, a small Christian college near Chicago, received threatening racist letters in 2005, scores of newspapers across the country ran with the news.

A New York Times article on the alleged hate crime was bristling with references to the Christian nature of the school: “Christian College Secludes Students after Hate Letters ...a small Evangelical Christian college ...a conservative Bible-based school .. more than 20 students held hands in a circle to pray . . . Affiliated with the Evangelical Free Church of America, the university mission statement says that its education is based on ‘the authority of God’s inerrant word, Holy Scripture,’ and that it seeks an international identity with ‘people drawn from every tribe and tongue.’”

As is required by law, Jesse Jackson met with the victims of the letters, reporting that they “feel like a target is on their back because they are black.” Charlie Dates, a black student getting his masters in divinity, did not sound especially worried. He told the Times, “Crazy people do crazy things. It’s nothing to be terrified over.”

There was big coverage for the initial allegation. You would not read in the New York Times, however, that the perpetrator turned out to be a black student, Alicia Hardin. She had staged the racist incident because she “wanted to switch schools.” But as soon as she confessed, the Times lost interest in the story.

So did most of the newspapers from around the country that had given banner coverage to the original story. Only a handful bothered informing their readers about the investigation’s results. When the hoax part of the story was reported at all, it usually showed up in demure, hundred-word items buried deep inside the newspaper. 

Instead of bemoaning the runaway popularity of Fox News, the liberal media might consider cutting into Fox’s popularity by not aggressively hiding the news.

None of the racist incidents sweeping college campuses ever turned out to be true. They were either the normal bumps and jostles that come with being a human being — or, more often, they were complete frauds perpetrated by wannabe victims.

Here at Marquette

Which brings up a supposed evidence for racism at Marquette. From a statement signed by a few dozen leftist faculty:
The evidence for Marquette’s racist climate is manifold: explicitly racist comments such as “black lives don’t matter” on the social media site YikYak; racist graffiti in the campus library; daily microaggressions and more.
Somebody needs to produce the offensive Tweets from Yik Yak; at the moment we don’t see anything objectionable. Of course, the comment could have been removed. If there was such a comment, it could have been a hoax, or indeed could have been a lament about the low value put on black lives.

Likewise, we would like to see the “racist graffiti.” In this era when everybody has a smart phone, there must be an image, right? And is it a hoax too? Even if some racist did it, he’s not likely to repent and see the error of his ways due to some Stalinist reeducation.

As for “microaggressions,” the concept is defined absurdly broadly to include things at which only somebody with a chip on their shoulder would take umbrage. Indeed, some perfectly reasonable expressions of opinion are defined, by campus leftists, as “microaggressions.”

The simple fact, of which anybody who knows Marquette students is fully aware, is that they are not racist. Do they sometimes hold opinions that campus leftists don’t like? Opposing affirmative action, for example? Or believing that the biggest problem blacks have is not white racism but the small number of black children who have a dad? Most certainly. And they have every right to believe those things.

But that’s something leftist faculty don’t accept.

Labels: , , , , , , ,