Friday, August 28, 2015

On Being Offended and Campus Speech Codes

UNC- Wilmington Professor Mike Adams on Free Speech

Welcome back to class, students! I am Mike Adams your criminology professor here at UNC-Wilmington. Before we get started with the course I need to address an issue that is causing problems here at UNCW and in higher education all across the country. I am talking about the growing minority of students who believe they have a right to be free from being offended. If we don’t reverse this dangerous trend in our society there will soon be a majority of young people who will need to walk around in plastic bubble suits to protect them in the event that they come into contact with a dissenting viewpoint. That mentality is unworthy of an American. It’s hardly worthy of a Frenchman.
Let’s get something straight right now. You have no right to be unoffended. You have a right to be offended with regularity. It is the price you pay for living in a free society. If you don’t understand that you are confused and dangerously so. In part, I blame your high school teachers for failing to teach you basic civics before you got your diploma. Most of you went to the public high schools, which are a disaster. Don’t tell me that offended you. I went to a public high school.

Of course, your high school might not be the problem. It is entirely possible that the main reason why so many of you are confused about free speech is that piece of paper hanging on the wall right over there. Please turn your attention to that ridiculous document that is framed and hanging by the door. In fact, take a few minutes to read it before you leave class today. It is our campus speech code. It specifically says that there is a requirement that everyone must only engage in discourse that is “respectful.” That assertion is as ludicrous as it is illegal. I plan to have that thing ripped down from every classroom on campus before I retire.

One of my grandfathers served in World War I. My step-grandfather served in World War II. My sixth great grandfather enlisted in the American Revolution when he was only thirteen. These great men did not fight so we could simply relinquish our rights to the enemy within our borders. That enemy is the Marxists who run our public universities. If you are a Marxist and I just offended you, well, that’s tough. I guess they don’t make communists like they used to.

Of course, this ban on “disrespectful” speech is really only illusory. The university that created these speech restrictions then turns around and sponsors plays like The Vagina Monologues, which is loaded with profanity including the c-word – the most offensive and disrespectful word a person could ever possibly apply to a woman. It is pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

So, the university position can be roughly summarized as follows: Public university administrators have a First Amendment right to use disrespectful profanity but public university students do not. This turns the First Amendment on its head. The university has its free speech analysis completely backwards. And that’s why they need to be sued.

Before we go, let us take a few minutes to look at the last page of your syllabus where I explain the importance of coming to class on time, turning off your cell phone, and refraining from talking during lectures. In that section, I explain that each of you has God-given talents and that your Creator endowed you with a purpose in life that is thwarted when you develop these bad habits.

Unbelievably, a student once complained to the Department chairwoman that my mention of God and a Creator was a violation of Separation of Church and State. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: If any of you actually think that my decision to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence in the course syllabus is unconstitutional then you suffer from severe intellectual hernia.

Indeed, it takes hard work to become stupid enough to think the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. If you agree with the student who made that complaint then you are probably just an anti-religious zealot. Therefore, I am going to ask you to do exactly three things and do them in the exact order that I specify.

First, get out of my class. You can fill out the drop slip over at James Hall. Just tell them you don’t believe in true diversity and you want to be surrounded by people who agree with your twisted interpretation of the Constitution simply because they are the kind of people who will protect you from having your beliefs challenged or your feelings hurt. 

Second, withdraw from the university. If you find that you are actually relieved because you will no longer be in a class where your beliefs might be challenged then you aren’t ready for college. Go get a job building houses so you can work with some illegal aliens who will help you gain a better appreciation of what this country has to offer.

Finally, if this doesn’t work then I would simply ask you to get the hell out of the country. The ever-growing thinned-skinned minority you have joined is simply ruining life in this once-great nation. Please move to some place like Cuba where you can enjoy the company of communists and get excellent health care. Just hop on a leaky boat and start paddling your way towards utopia. You will not be missed.

Professor Mike Adams is no stranger to controversy.  This tenured conservative professor ruffled the feathers  progressives by having the temerity to assert that marriage consists of one man and one woman.

Considering the ferocity of condemnation from his colleagues, it is a reminder that the Theory of Gender is all about intellectual totalitarianism transferred to the polity. It seems such elitists intellectuals are leaders of the idiot tribe, influencing the otherwise apathetic hoi polloi.

H/T: Mike Adams

The Theory of Gender and Totalitarianism

Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron on the Theory of Gender

Ambrose Bierce on Idiots

Ambrose Bierce on Idiots

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Jorge Ramos' Blurred Lines on Rights – ¡Que cara dura!

Jorge amos on Immigrant's Rights

Republican Presidential hopeful Donald Trump held a news conference before a rally in Dubuque, Iowa.  Mr. Trump called on a reporter but Jorge Ramos jumped the journalistic queue and pressed his invariable query advocating immigration regularization for illegal aliens.  

Trump rebuffed Ramos for overstepping his recognition.  As Ramos lectured the candidate that he could not deport 11 million people and insisting that he had the right to talk, Mr. Trump signaled to security in order to have the unruly Univision anchor escorted from the room. 

A little later during the presser, Ramos was allowed back into the press pool and got to ask his question, albeit in an argumentative and interrupting manner.

After the event, Jorge Ramos sought to rally the press against Donald Trump as an extremist . When interviewed by George Stephanopolis of ABC News (which Ramos is affiliated with via Fusion) Ramos claimed:

As a journalist you have to take a stand. I think the best journalism happens when you take a stand and when it comes to racism, discrimination, corruption, public life, dictatorship or human rights, as journalists, we are not only required but we are forced to take a stand and clearly when Mr. Trump is talking about immigration in an extreme way, we have to confront him and I think that’s what I did yesterday.

Be that as it may, Ramos clearly was not called upon in the initial exchange.  But because Ramos things that he has the right to do so and it suits his purposes, he will break the rules.  Not unlike what what illegal immigrants do.

Clearly, Jorge Ramos is passionate about advocating a comprehensive immigration reform which would result in regularization, which is anathematic to Mr. Trump meteoric campaign. But reporters ought to be reporting and not advocating, especially when questioning at press conferences.  

Mr. Ramos seems to think that he has many special rights.  Ramos reasserted his Mexican heritage and is a proud participant in American and Mexican elections. The American government does not take a stand on dual citizens voting in foreign elections. But that seems like a special right which emboldens Mr. Ramos and inspires him to yearn for other compadres to share in that privilege of blurred lines. 

But is it right for a journalist to be biased against a subject who one is covering?  It has long been shown that the media leans left.  In the post Fairness Doctrine broadcasting, commentators have clearly partisan perspectives.  As long as these biases are clearly disclosed, the audience can discern that the perspective can be jaundiced.  But Mr. Ramos was a reporter who argued with his subject out of turn.  Does Ramos believe that he has the special right to interrupt or advocate?

There is an idiomatic Castillian (peninsular Spanish) expression "¡Que cara dura!" which can be literally translated as "What a hard face!" but is captured in the Yiddish expression "What chutzpah!".  Jumping the journalistic line and then justifying it as taking a stand against extremism  epitomizes that idiom.  Moreover, posing as a reporter and then acting akin to a "Black Lives Matter"  agitator does not seem right.  Furthermore, aggressively covering Republicans when his family is involved in the Hillary 2016 campaign is a misappropriated right. 

From the District of Calamity--  ¡Que cara dura! 

A.A. Milne on Gratitude

A.A. Milne on Gratitude

Friday, August 21, 2015

NYT Political Reporter Refuses to Condemn Hillary Clinton

NYT Reporter Jeremy Peters on Hillary Clinton

On MSNBC's Morning Joe, New York Times Politics Reporter Jeremy Peters refuses to comment on a federal judge's declaration that leading Democrat Presidential candidate former First Lady, Senator, Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had not followed government policy while at the State Department. 

It is understandable that a reporter may not want to reveal his or her political bias and condemn a figure to which access can be limited. But the converse is not true for progressive politicians and the Lamestream Media.

What is remarkable, however, was the persistence that Joe Scarborough displayed in trying to get Peters to badmouth Hillary.  It is also notable that Washington Post columnist Gene Robinson, only gave the facts regarding Hillary's e-mails and refused to comment.  Moreover, it looks like Robinson enjoyed watching Peters squirm.

Tucker Carlson on Donald Trump Phenomenon

Tucker Carlson on Donald Trump

Drew Carey on Eating

Drew Carey on Eating

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

On Debates, the DNC and Clinton Coronations

Martin O'Malley on Democrat Debates

In the wake of the widely watched first Republican debate, Democrat Presidential hopeful former Governor Martin O'Malley (D-MD) roundly criticized the Democrat National Committee for limiting the number of debates to six and excluding any participants from other debate forums.

Thurgood Marshall on the First Amendment

Thurgood Marshall on the First Amendment

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Carly Fiorina on Tough Questions

Carly Fiorina on Donald Trump

Trumpetteers may complain that this is piling on their brash, blunt talking primary hero but the ad hominem, misogynistic attacks allow for other Republican Presidential candidates to impeach the character of their opponent. 

Carly Fiorina won the happy hour GOP Debate by being forceful, substantive and not afraid to civilly distinguish herself from certain candidates.  Fiorina's portfolio as a Washington Outsider and businessman would stand to gain if Donald Trump fades.  Nevertheless, Fiorina is more apt to gain the womens' vote than one who smears about hormones "She was bleeding from wherever". 

Betwixt Bluster and Boorishness

The first prime time 2016 Republican Presidential debate featured the top ten candidates based on national polling.  Some complained that having so many politicians on the stage gave short shrift to substantive consideration about the issues, in so far that candidates would have ten minutes or less each in the spotlight.  Still the exercise allowed America to become acquainted with the aspiring GOP nominees, discern their demeanor as well as shed some light on where they stand politically. 

Based upon polling popularity for the blockbuster Fox News debate was Donald Trump, the billionaire businessman who bravado and brash campaigning has stolen much of the early political coverage.  As the front-runner, he got the most attention and harsh questions from the moderating panel. Early in the debate, Megyn Kelly inquired about how Mr. Trump he referred to women --

“Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.
You’ve called women you don’t like 'fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.'"

Trump tried to brush off the challenge by qupping that he was only referring to Rosie O’Donnell. This was neither well received by the booing audience nor Megyn Kelly who insisted that these degrading insults were directed at more than the so called “Queen of Mean”. Trump shifted his argument to noting that America is too politically correct and we do not have time for that. 

Bluntness and being anti-PC reflects the anger of the so called Silent Majority who have propelled Trump to the top of the summer polls. But this retort was unsatisfactory to an abrasive executive who seems oriented to intimidation. Trump interjected that he thought that Megyn Kelly was disrespecting him and not being nice. Trump asserted that he had always treated her well and Trump passive-aggressively asserted he might have to rethink that consideration, but that he would never do that.

After the debate ended, Trump (or his staff) was up until 3:45 a.m.  tweeting. This social media sharing attacked Megyn Kelly and he also retweeted a message declaring that Kelly was a bimbo.

 Not to be outdone, during a day after media appearance on CNN, Trump berated the Kelly File host by saying: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.” 

Whatever could Mr. Trump meant (sic)?  The best the Trump team could spin on that pointed choice of phrase was that Mr. Trump meant “whenever”.  Sure. 

Aside from boorish bimbo eruptions concerning Megyn Kelly, some Trump-etteers complain that Kelly is not a conservative.  That may well be true, but over 90% of the press corps is liberal. Tim Russert was a liberal from upstate New York who would ask hard gotcha questions of both sides hoisting a politico by their own petards  Megyn Kelly seems cut of the same cloth, though it was troubling to hear post debate softballs which Kelly tossed with DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

It is foolish to expect as a Republican, which Trump now says that he is, that he will receive fawning treatment from the political media. But if Mr. Trump feels threatened by pointed political questions, how would he react in the Oval Office against our adversaries or even allies?

There was scuttlebutt that big GOP donors and the Republican establishment had ordered a take down of Trump. Instead of the assault  mainly coming from Trump’s rivals to the “Game of Thrones”, the attack stemmed from the biased panelists of Fox News. Granted, they do have Karl Rove on all the time, it is dubious that FNC takes their marching orders from “the Architect”.  How about aggressive journalism which asks tough questions, trying to create controversy and attract eyeballs?

In response to the misogynistic musings  coming from “The Donald”, Eric Erickson uninvited Mr. Trump from participating in the the Red State Gathering in Atlanta.   Erickson wrote:  

“[I] also think that while Mr. Trump resonates with a lot of people with his bluntness, including me to a degree, there are just real lines of decency a person running for President should not cross.
His comment was inappropriate. It is unfortunate to have to disinvite him. But I just don’t want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal. It just was wrong.”  

Now Trump-etteers discount Erickson as just a tool of the establishment.   It seems in Trump territory, it’s always someone else’s fault.  That seems like such a familiar modus operandi, except there was no rush to blame Bush (for now).

Res ipsa locquitur is a Latin phrase for “It speaks for itself”.  Trump’s pugnacious predilections to berate women whom he dislikes epitomizes the “war on women” gist of Kelly’s hard question. Implying that Kelly’s questions stemmed from menses is sexist, disrespectful an degrading. Suggested synonyms from Webster's dictionary for boorish are: course, uncouth, loutish, churlish. 

The derogatory demeanor in the exchanges with Megyn Kelly speaks directly to Trump’s reputation for dealing with women with whom he disagrees.  This was not a off the cuff quip, this is a persistent pattern of behavior.  Are these qualities which Americans wish to see stemming from the Oval Office.

This derogatory demeanor speaks directly to Trump’s reputation for dealing with women with whom he disagrees.  This was not a off the cuff quip, this is a persistent pattern of behavior. 

But it’s not the only instance of boorish behavior coming from Team Trump.  Michael Cohen, special counsel to Donald Trump and a Vice President of the Trump Organization, threatened a political reporter who was going after a marital rape allegation by Ivana Trump during her 1980s divorce by suggesting:

"I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we're in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don't have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know, So I'm warning you, tread very f---ing lightly, because what I'm going to do to you is going to be f---ing disgusting. You understand me?"

  Politics isn’t beanbag but such bullying behavior is remarkable.  In an environment in which the Lamestream Media lap dogs cower so as not to lose access to the White House, I shudder to see such thuggish tactics employed on professional practitioners of the freedom of the press.  Trump put little distance from his errant aide. After all, Cohen was just doing his boss’s bidding and using intimidation tactics that seem culled from the Art of the Deal (1987).

Then there was the McCain mutiny.  During a candidate forum in Iowa in July 2015, Frank Luntz got Donald Trump to comment on Senator John McCain (R-AZ). McCain had recently called the 15,000 people who turned out at a Trump event in Phoenix as “crazies”.  Trump berated McCain as being a loser and then followed up by insisting: 

“McCain is not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, okay? I hate to tell you that. He’s a war hero because he was captured, okay? And I believe perhaps he’s a war hero but right now he’s said some very bad things about a lot of people.”

 Afterwards, Trump refused to apologize according to the civic script. Professional political pundits thought that the outrageous comments would sink Trump’s candidacy, but it only increased his stature as a primary celebrity.

The campaign is in its early stages and there is a crowded field. It was unrealistic to expect precises platform positions in a first debate, but two hours on center stage can give a feel for the demeanor of a candidate and offer indications on his or her likeability.  

During the debate, Donald Trump was bold enough to raise his hand to say that he would not commit to supporting the eventual Republican nominee (unless it is himself) nor would he rule out being spoiler third party Presidential candidate.  Bold and brash as well as being self centered and unconventional.  These qualities may appeal to anti-establishment political firebands, while potentially alienating the Republican base which actually votes in Republican primaries.  Pugnacious personality who is always spoiling for a fight may make for fun reality television but it is dubious if Americans seriously want that in our living rooms each night as Commander in Chief.

 When someone tells you who they are, believe them. Between the bluster and the boorishness, we are getting the measure of the man. Time will tell if Trump’s braggadocio and bullying can politically cash the checks which his mouth is underwriting.  There is plenty of opposition from the Silent Majority to the craziness contained in Political Correctness, however Greg Gutfeld is right that political incorrectness is speaking the truth but not necessarily lewdness. 

Charles Spurgeon on Happiness

Charles Spurgeon on Happiness

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Donald Trump on Graft

Carly Fiorina: "I didn't get a call from Bill Clinton before jumping in the race."

Bobby Jindal on Planned Parenthood

Debating the Debut Debate Details

Fox News will be host the first of the Republican Presidential debates.  Currently there are 17 announced candidates for the Republican nomination. Rather than have a dozen and a half politicos get little more than three minutes on center stage for a “debate”, Fox News announced that it would only host the ten top national candidates based on polling.

This criterion caused a crimp in some candidate’s modus operendi.  Candidates like former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) can try to use their national fund raising prowess and success to sustain a long primary battle. Whereas insurgent candidates, like Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina, hope that national exposure from being in the GOP debates may spark a surprise early victory and generate a groundswell that leads to the nomination.

Other  credible Republican candidates, however,  may employ other strategies and have different (if unspoken) ultimate goals.  Donald Trump relishes his time in the limelight. It is unclear if Trump is preparing for a sustained primary effort, but Trump’s bluster on illegal aliens combined with the tragic San Francisco killer has made sanctuary cities a real issue in the campaign.

 Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) launched a quixotic campaign for President.  Aside from being Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) “reasonable Republican” sidekick, Graham has little following outside of the Palmetto State.  Nevertheless, with his 32 years of military service along with being on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Graham seemed to be well positioned to be a champion for War Hawks and a voice for a robust military in the primaries.

Graham’s road to success to the nomination would be to make a splash during the debates, catch fire during the early February 20th South Carolina primary then do well during the SEC primaries on March 1st, which includes North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee.  That would give Graham a voice at the table in Cleveland.

The Fox News debate rules moot that strategy.  Graham is not in the top ten while publicity phenomenon Donald Trump is.  So Graham has acerbically opined about Fox News rules.

Pretty funny lines, from a reputedly pretty funny guy in private.  But Graham’s Presidential campaign announcement had all of the ardor of an accountant. It is dubious if his political gift is to draw crowds or attract enthusiastic audiences.

Unlike the 2012 cycle, where there were over twenty debates, this time the venues will be fewer and supposedly the GOP will be more careful about the hosts to avoid set ups, like George Stephanopolis’ out of the blue contraception question. So getting on-stage for the big event is vital for a periphery presidential candidate like Graham.

According to the latest poll by The Economist and YouGov.US, Graham only garners 1% and obviously does not make the top ten cut.  What is interesting is former Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) also did not make the prime time debate, despite rabble rousing against the current frontrunner Donald Trump.

At a time when military readiness issues, such as responding to the not yet announced Iran Nuclear Deal and the continued draconian cuts of armed forces personnel, Senator Graham chooses to make his mark by complaining about Fox News debate rules and how Trump is killing the Republican party.  It’s a pity that Lindsey Graham  has shown his lack of leadership skills on issues of crucial importance to his campaign and the country.  If Graham is smart, he would use his time at the “Kiddie Table” to set the table about issues that he his passionate about rather than berate the system.

Maverick Metaphor on Planned Parenthood

Rush Limbaugh on Planned Parenthood

The series of expose videos from the Center for Medical Progress has focused the public on Planned Parenthood's practices of purportedly selling baby parts (fully formed fetal tissue specimens).

Planned Parenthood defenders have employed various answers to these unsavory images of abortionists in action marketing and procuring their "product". These excuses have ranged from attacking the source for being biased, entrapping the abortionists  or releasing  edited videos (even though uncut full length videos were simultaneously released).

Pro Choice proponents slightly shifted the array of excuses to play on womens' reproductive health rights, claiming that abortion is only a small portion of Planned Parenthood's mission.  In fact, pro choice people claim that only 3% of Planned Parenthood's work is actually abortion.  Well, as Rich Lowrey observed, it depends on how the statistics are complied.  For instance, when a pregnant woman comes to Planned Parenthood, she is given an initial assessment,  a STD test, a pregnancy test and an appointment for the termination of the pregnancy.  So if each of these components are separately tabulated that means that only 25%  of Planned Parenthood's procedures are abortions.  Limbaugh makes a big deal that Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms thus he contends they effectively do not really cover womens' health. 

But looking at Planned Parenthood's books, 38.4% of Planned Parenthood's income stems from abortion services.  That doesn't even count how selling fetal tissues adds to their bottom line or finances Planned Parenthood executives aspirations for Lamborghinis.

If we lived in a nation that still respected the rule of law, the Department of Justice would be investigating the numerous instances of federal law violations which the videos exposed of selling body parts, altering medical procedures to ensure procurement and possible live birth abortions (through intact cadavers being marketed). But instead, liberal applications of justice in some states have gone after the investigative journalists free speech rights  through prior restraints as well as California Attorney General Kamala Harris (and Democrat US Senate candidate) is investigating the Center for Medical Progress for prospective violations of law. 

Rush Limbaugh's mordant metaphor may make some people uneasy. But so should Planned Parenthood's barbaric modus operandi for marketing "post abortive material". These Planned Parenthood expose videos pull back the curtain on the progressive euphemisms about abortion and reveal ugly realities. The question is whether the elites will protect their conceits or deal with the displays of exposed lawlessness and inhumanity. 

Walt Disney on Getting Started

Walt Disney on Getting Started