Now that it seems it will be Trump or Clinton – two sides of the same coin. No. Two of the same side of the coin. What is America, you know the country that the Obama administration left badly listing to port and rudderless, going to do now with that … choice?
As I and many here have pointed out, it’s not the politicians fault that those are our choices, it’s the voter’s fault. They do what is necessary to get elected and stay there – the voters enable both of those things. And then don’t pay attention to what’s going on, become party bots and go to the polls to pull one lever or another … as instructed.
I’m also enjoying a bit of irony. Mainly at the expense of those who, in the past, have always told me that a vote for a libertarian candidate or being not willing to vote for the prevailing GOP candidate is as good as a “vote for the other side”. Now that it appears that Trump will be the GOP’s candidate, I’m hearing a completely different tune from many of them.
The GOP has been known for quite some time as the “stupid party” and that moniker seems quite accurate and appropriate at the moment.
As for the Democrats, well they have an equally disgusting choice as their candidate. She’s a criminal and as big a con artist as is Donald Trump. She is, in the parlance, a grifter. She, like the joker in the Oval Office at the moment, has never accomplished a thing in her time of “public service”. In fact, the only thing she has going for her right now is she’s a woman – for the first “woman president” vote. Of course we’ve just suffered through almost 8 years of that sort of first and apparently the country has a masochistic streak that is yet unsatisfied.
I mean either one of these idiots is an abysmal “choice” so it is clear that if either is elected we’ll again be led poorly and ineptly right toward the abyss.
It’s the perfect ending for a once great republic – regardless of who wins, we’ll end up being led off the cliff by a NY liberal. How … apropos.
In the meantime, the libertarian party’s membership is booming. Of course those coming on board are no more libertarian than Donald Trump is conservative. But then, its about the only reasonably agreeable and calm port the defectors can find in this political sh*t storm.
Despite breathless coverage of Venezuela’s vanishing supply of condoms, toilet paper, and beer, perhaps the country’s most debilitating shortage has been that of food, which appears to be a motivating factor for growing antigovernment sentiment.
“I want the recall because I don’t have food,” one woman told the Venezuelan commentary site Contrapunto, referring to a referendum to recall President Nicolas Maduro that has so far reportedly drawn more than a million signatures in support.
“We want out of this agony — there is too much need in the streets,” another woman told Contrapunto. “We have much pressure because there is no food and every day we have to ask ourselves what we are going to eat.”
Many families have been reduced to one meal a day. In a verdant and rich country, this is what socialism has brought them too.
And the idiocracy in charge? Well, they’re reduced to abjectly stupid moves like this in an attempt to forestall the inevitable:
To try to shore up wages, Maduro on Sunday announced a 30% minimum-wage increase, which comes after a 25% hike on March 1 and is the 33rd wage boost since 1999. Beginning this month, workers and pensioners will earn 15,051 bolivars a month — only about $13, based on the black-market conversion rate, according to El País.
That amount may become even more paltry. Venezuela’s inflation rate in 2015 was 180.9%, according to the central bank, and the International Monetary Fund expects inflation in the country to reach 720% this year.
The acquisition of food has become the primary function of Venezuelans:
“I have to leave the house at 5 a.m., facing the risk of being killed, to stand in line all day and only buy two or three products,” Jhonny Mendez said.
Do yourself a favor and look through the pictures of the amount of food several families have in their house in a day that accompany the above article..
What has happened in Venezuela is criminal … there’s no other word for it. Chavez was a criminal and his henchman now in charge is also a criminal. What they’ve done to that country is unforgivable. And it was all predictable … in fact, it was predicted. I also have a feeling it isn’t going to end well:
Meanwhile, the return El Niño, a cyclical weather phenomenon, leads to widespread power outages across the country as the authorities’ incompetence and corruption are laid bare. 76 percent of Venezuelans have fallen into poverty and 13 percent eat only twice a day. Maduro’s government is rejected by 85 percent of the population.
Looting last week was contained but the Governor of Lara, Henri Falcón, a former Chavista, noted that “this is a thousand times worse than the reasons that led to the ‘Caracazo.’” He added that, at any moment, the political, social and economic crisis may lead to a conflict of incalculable consequences.
It seems, this week, that I’m all about proving Shark’s point that “every time I think we’ve reached peak stupid, something new comes along to prove me wrong.” Well here you go, Shark, the shot:
Bringing my adopted cat, Jameson, home with me in 2014 was one of the happiest days of my life.
Having to go back to work two days later was one of the worst.
While the rest of the country is hung up on the necessity of maternity leave — or even the newly coined “meternity” — one group continues to be overlooked when it comes to paid time off from work: new pet owners.
One of the important economic truths we who pay attention to markets have learned is the government should never be involved in picking economic winners and losers. It’s doomed to failure and it is even more doomed when driven by politics – which usually ignores reality for utopian visions they try to pay for with your money.
The recent utopian dream shared by the left and our leftists in government has been “clean energy”. Like wind turbines and solar. Why? Well it would help create a much more clean and healthy environment where the birds and bees and flowers and trees would all be much happier. And, after all, it is our responsibility to take the necessary steps to protect our wildlife.
According to a study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, every year 573,000 birds (including 83,000 raptors) and 888,000 bats are killed by wind turbines — 30 percent higher than the federal government estimated in 2009, due mainly to increasing wind power capacity across the nation.[i] This is likely an underestimate because these estimates were based on 51,630 megawatts of installed wind capacity in the United States in 2012 and wind capacity has grown since then to 65,879 megawatts. And, at one solar power plant in California, an estimated 3,500 birds died in just the plant’s first year of operation.[ii]
Oh wait, that’s not supposed to happen! And when it does, don’t the leftist environmental groups go batsh*t crazy (no pun intended).
I mean look how they were when oil was the culprit killing birds:
Over the past five years, about 2.9 million birds were killed by wind turbines. That compares to about 800,000 birds that a Mother Jones Blog estimated to have been killed by the BP oil spill that occurred in April 2010[iii]—5 years ago–despite not all of them showing visible signs of oil. Nevertheless, BP was fined $100 million for killing and harming migratory birds due to that oil spill. In comparison, the nation’s wind turbines killed more than 3 times the number of birds than did the BP oil spill over the past 5 years. And, wind turbines routinely kill federally protected birds and eagles.
Why I’m sure there have been protests and all by environmentalists haven’t there? And media coverage! I mean I remember watching hours of oil soaked bird footage on CNN and the other networks. Where’s the outrage? And where is the fines for this gross violation of all the leftist environmentalists hold sacred? Why isn’t the federal government stepping in and doing something?
Oh, they did? Boy, did they:
The Obama Administration on December 9, 2013, finalized a regulation that allows wind energy companies and others to obtain 30-year permits to kill eagles without prosecution by the federal government. The American Bird Conservancy filed suit in federal court against the Department of the Interior, charging it with multiple violations of federal law. [viii] Nonetheless, the Shiloh IV Wind Project in California, for example, received a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowing it to kill eagles, hawks, peregrine falcons, owls and songs birds while not being subjected to the normal prohibitions afforded under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Treaty Act.[ix]
Now that, my friends, is truly outrageous. Different standards for different industries – one fined at the first ruffled feather because it is the unfavored industry, and the other given a license to slaughter what we all believed to be “protected species”.
Your government at work, picking winners and losers and excusing the winners from adhering to the law. Special treatment. Is that equal treatment under the law?
Well of course not … but it is how banana republics do things.
Yesterday, the Shark said: “Every time I think we’ve reached peak stupid, something new comes along to prove me wrong.” Well, to prove Shark’s point, I found this:
The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.
The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.
To say this is probably one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read would be an understatement. It is certainly an indicator of how far the left will go in it’s “reasoning” to deny you the use of a gun and your basic right to self-defense. I said “basic” but self-defense is indeed an inherent right. You need no one’s permission to exercise it because you own your life and without protecting it, you would obviously cease to exist.
That apparently is lost on this statist rube. Let’s lay this out a little differently. This Huffington Post writer is attempting to persuade you that a civil right (an actual societal construct applicable only to a particular society) is somehow superior to an inherent right (a right that is yours without anyone or anything granting it. It is your existence and its requirements for survival that “grant” it. The right is applicable to all mankind without exception. It can be violated, but it can’t be taken away.). We have an idiot here who claims that if you defend yourself your action “imposes on justice”?
Wtf? Your action, especially if you successfully defend yourself, IS justice! And how you do it or with what is irrelevant! Gun? Knife? Crowbar? Throat punch? Each and every one of those may “impose on justice”, as he defines it and is your right. But this dolt tries to sell that as a primary reason to restrict the ownership of guns. Only cops should have guns and you should defer your “self-defense” to them!
This is a person that has no concept of inherent rights, what they mean and why they’re necessary. So he writes slop like this! And it gets worse as his “reasoning” stays in the ditch and hits a concrete culvert several times. No airbags deployed because his ideas weren’t worth spit to begin with and certainly not worth saving.
So Shark … suck it up bud. We’re not even close to “peak” stupidity. The stupid machine keeps on churning and the manure keeps on plopping out.
Still fascinated by all of this. This mossy little sub-culture that suddenly sprouted all these oversensitive and whiny little crybabies in the one institution where they ought to be trying on their big boy and girl pants fascinates me. Kind of like a bacteria culture fascinates a bacteriologist. And besides, what’s to say about Trump and Clinton? A con man and a crook are likely to be the nominees, brought to you by … “democracy”.
Anyway, now, apparently, there is hell to be paid at the University of Washington because the “cheer team” (what we used to call “cheerleaders”) offended some of the overweight and pasty womyn who populate gender and feminist studies. They apparently had the gall to notify those who were interested in the “cheer team” what was expected.
Cheerleaders, it turns out, are expected to have a certain look.
“U-Dub” students (hey, that’s just one letter away from U Dumb!) were unloading on social media, crying to counselors and fleeing to safe spaces after the cheer team posted an infographic describing the look to strive for if you’re planning to try out for the squad. (In the routinely craven manner of all universities, the UW spirit program ordered the graphic removed and called in nine tons of smelling salts for those affected.)
I repeat: The graphic was aimed only at young women seeking to be cheerleaders. Pasty-faced Womyn’s Struggles majors attending rallies in shapeless sweatshirts, and black-clad Emily Dickinson fans emoting agonized coffeehouse verse were not the target audience.
So, the graphic apparently “offended” the “uninterested” (i.e. those who had no intention of joining the cheer team but had no problem whatsoever passing judgement on their methods) to the point that they became interested because …
“I can’t believe this is real,” Jazmine Perez, the student government’s director of programming told the Seattle Times. “One of the first things that comes to mind is objectification and idealization of Western beauty,” she harrumphed.
Signe Burchim, a UW senior, added, “I think it’s really upsetting and kind of disheartening the way it’s basically asking these women who want to try out to perform their femininity — but not too much.” She said men would never be subjected to such a message while trying out for a sport.
The worldly Signe Burchim, UW senior, and person with so much knowledge of what goes on out in the real world absolutely and positively knows this to be a fact … well, according to her woman studies prof. Men are never asked to meet the standards of some group or team they would like to join (I assume there are men on the “cheer team”). Ever.
As for Ms. Perez and her attempt to make this about race, sorry, a swing and a miss. As the NY Post points out:
Contrary to Ms. Perez — who reminds us that college is a place where you pay $50,000 a year to unlearn the obvious — female beauty standards like facial symmetry and waist-hip ratio are pretty much universal. But here’s the thing she missed: The graphic made no demand that cheerleaders be pretty. Everything illustrated has to do with styling and presentation, not your actual attractiveness. And no, it isn’t racist: Race is nowhere mentioned or implied.
Tailoring your look to a group’s standards is how almost everything works. You don’t show up to play baseball in a scuba suit. You don’t show up for a business meeting in board shorts and flip-flops, unless you work in Silicon Valley, in which case you don’t show up in a tie and wingtips. And you don’t wear Goth makeup, “Born To Be Bad” tats and fishnet tights to a cheerleading tryout — unless you’re doing a performance art piece, which might actually be funny.
If you want to be a cheerleader, your hair should have “volume” and your eyelashes should be “false,” because that’s how cheerleaders roll. You don’t like it? Fine, do what everyone who feels the same way has been doing for decades: Sit in the bleachers, roll your eyes, make snarky jokes and stew in your jealousy.
But hey, these precious snowflakes have learned that almost anything that doesn’t make them feel happy is likely to have something to do with the patriarchy, racism, sexism, miscegenation, white privilege or some other yet to be identified shortcoming of the dominant culture. Don’t believe they learn it at school? Check out this email from a professor at the University of Missouri before it all went in the ditch:
Dr. Tim Evans, an associate professor in the Department of Veterinary Pathology, writes to his colleagues: “I applaud the support provided to our protesting students who, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with them, are using what they have learned in the classroom and putting it to practice.”
If what Dr. Evans says is true, what a profound disservice the faculties of these schools are doing to their students. As I’ve said any number of times, they’re letting the inmates run the asylum, and make no mistake, given the level of this sort of nonsense now ongoing at various schools, they more closely resemble asylums than they do institutions of higher learning.
But there’s a backlash building and the University of Missouri is only the tip of that iceberg. Parents recognized the inmates were in charge and pulled their kids or decided against sending them to that university. Money talks, SJW BS walks.
It is indeed going to be both fascinating and entertaining watching how this all finally sorts itself out. But I can’t at all help observe it all with glee as the very people who taught and enabled this generation of whiners and crybabies are the first it consumes.
It isn’t like you have to go back ages in history to see governing models that don’t work. The recent end of the Cold War provided perfect examples. But they collapsed in the ’80s and our younger generation has no memory of the hardships the people of those countries suffered under socialist totalitarian rule. They also give indications that they think government is the solution for all our problems instead of understanding that for the most part government is responsible for many of our problems. It seems they think that if we just had big government, everything would be lovely.
The “Feel the Bern” crowd are enamored with “social democracy”. They like to point to Europe and pretend that the system is a desirable one. But instead of pointing to Europe, perhaps they should cast their eyes to the south – to Venezuela. They might find it, oh, I don’t know, enlightening:
In 1999, Venezuela was taken over by Socialist who promised that he would punish big corporations and redistribute wealth to “the people” to provide health care, education, infrastructure, and even out income inequality. (Sound familiar?) The American Left cheered. Celebrities like Sean Penn and Danny Glover praised his Democratic Socialist economic measures. Chavez systematically nationalized the oil, banking, agricultural, food distribution, telecommunications, and power industries in Venezuela; because running them as social democratic communes would eliminate “greed” and give the people lower cost goods and services. The American Left praised him for “democratizing” the Venezuelan economy. When Chavez shut down opposition TV, radio, and newspapers the American Left defended it as necessary to protect the Revolution.
The American Left likes to pretend now that Venezuela isn’t a real example of Social Democracy; but up until the economy collapsed (as every sensible person knew it would) they were Chavez’s biggest cheerleaders, as the links above (or any Google search) shows.
It is, of course, a horrific example of a socialist takeover, but a typical one. A once well-off country with the most proven oil reserves in the world reduced to literal poverty. Food shortages, other commodity shortages, you name it, you can’t get it there. Oh, and about those oil reserves? Well it seems that Venezuela has an energy crisis. And the government’s solution? Well it said everyone should take Fridays off (yeah, screw productivity – that’s a capitalist construct) and this bit of brilliance:
Last week, his government said it was shifting its time zone forward by 30 minutes to save power by adding half an hour of daylight.
Socialism … in Venezuela’s case they’re actually feeling the burn.
Then there is Brazil. Brazil is the lover of “big governments” wet dream. Or as it has now become, a nightmare. Brazil is a failing state and the primary reason that it is failing is because of the premise under which it has operated for decades. Big government paternalism:
For all its modernist appeal, it was one more expression of the country’s long and troubled attachment to the concept of a giant paternalistic state, responsible for managing the affairs of the entire society, from its biggest companies to its poorest citizens.
“The problem is, from time immemorial, Brazil’s political leaders only see one way forward, the growth of the state,” said Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a former leftist intellectual who sought to reduce the size of Brazil’s government while president from 1995 to 2002. “But you need another springboard for progress, that doesn’t exclude the state but that accepts markets. This just doesn’t sink in in Brazil.”
Many wan’t to blame Brazil’s problems on corruption like the corruption scandal now rocking the nation. But the corruption arises from the base problem … big, unanswerable government:
While many observers of Brazil’s predicament have focused on the country’s corruption, that may miss the point. Brazil’s deeper problem lies in the failures of its Leviathan state, which has perennially reached for the utopian visions embodied in Brasília but instead has produced recurring cycles of boom and dramatic bust.
Of course there a huge lessons to be learned from these two countries that apply to this country and the current political arguments now being made. All, to some degree or another (with Socialist Sanders being the extreme) argue for both social democracy and bigger government. We apparently don’t learn from other countries but insist on learning the hard way, by repeating what has already failed any number of times.
That’s because of arrogance and the belief that the only reason any of this hasn’t worked in the past is the right people weren’t in charge.
With the class of politicians we have running today, Hugo Chavez would be a better choice to run their ideas.
And we all know how well he did.
Is it Friday already? A tip of the hat to Ott Scerb – nice to see him back in action.
So, a CEO has written a little guide for the special snowflakes that inhabit many of our colleges and universities. He gives them 5 points they need to learn before they leave their “safe spaces”. Below is number 1:
To all those of you looking for your “safe place,” I have to wonder: How the hell do you walk out of your dorm (or your parents’ basement) without getting hit by a bus every day?
So on behalf of CEO’s across the country, I’d like to share with you a few lessons that you might want to learn before graduation.
1. The Business World Doesn’t Give A Damn About You
No, really – it’s true. You saw something on the internet that you found offensive? You’ve got the sniffles? Your boyfriend broke up with you? Well, that sucks. Deal with it. I expect you to get your work done on time. Hit traffic that made you late for the fourth time this week? You should have learned after the first time that you needed to leave your house early.
Listen, even the best bosses have their breaking points. Excuses might fly in college, but they’re NOT going to fly when we’re paying you to actually get things done.
I liked this one because it says what they don’t seem to realize yet. In the big, wide world, they’re essentially unimportant. And only good work can make them important to any company. Start the crap they’ve started at school and they can find themselves in the unemployment line very quickly. Read the rest here. [link fixed]
Speaking of the Special Snowflakes, aka The New Red Guard, here they are trying to get something for nothing again claiming racism and bias at Harvard Law School:
“A group of Harvard Law School activists are demanding the graduate school do away with tuition fees, which they argue are “racially biased.”
Members of the group Reclaim Harvard Law School published an open letter Sunday addressed to Law School Dean Martha L. Minow and members of the Harvard Corporation — the University’s highest governing body — demanding an end to tuition costs that they argue impose an unfair financial burden on students of color, The Harvard Crimson reported.
Tuition at the law school will rise to $59,550 for the 2016-2017 academic year, and students are graduating with an average of $149,754 in debt, according to the law school’s website. Reclaim Harvard Law called the trend “outrageous” and asserted, “as a matter of justice, education should be free.”
“The effects of HLS’ astronomical tuition fees are racially biased,” the group wrote in their letter. “Due to the legacy of centuries of white supremacy and plunder, people of color are less likely to have amassed wealth in the United States. Therefore, these fees disproportionately burden students of color, not only by creating a barrier to attending HLS, but also by constraining the career choices of those who do attend by saddling them with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. How can Harvard Law graduates be expected to advance justice or the well-being of society when they are forced to make career decisions based on paying off this burdensome debt?”
The group did not provide any proposals on how Harvard Law School could feasibly do away with tuition, saying, “answering this is the very job we are paying extraordinary amounts of money for them to do.”
I suppose it never occurs to them that they are among the elite who have been chosen to be members of a particular Harvard Law class and that this seems to most to be exactly what it appears – a horribly obvious attempt to use emotion as an argument to get others to pay for your education. Makes you wonder how good they’ll ever be as lawyers.
One of the things climate alarmists seem to be spectacularly unaware of is how spectacularly poor their “scientific” track record is. For instance:
Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Of course, now it’s warming and carbon dioxide. In both cases, not only is the science far from settled, it seems to be spectacularly wrong again. At least when Watt talked about a new Ice Age it had actually been getting cooler for 20 years. That was enough for them then. But the fact that it hasn’t warmed at all in 20 years? Yeah, not significant. Funny stuff. Expensive if they get their way, but then as mad as the world has become and with the pending signing of the Paris accords, the excuse to get into your wallet is there, science or no science.
Alarmism is a cottage industry and now that the politicians are involved, it is a cottage industry to pays well.
In answer to the absurd bathroom controversy that seems to be brewing up everywhere, the retail giant Target put out this press release:
We believe that everyone—every team member, every guest, and every community—deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally. Consistent with this belief, Target supports the federal Equality Act, which provides protections to LGBT individuals, and opposes action that enables discrimination.
In our stores, we demonstrate our commitment to an inclusive experience in many ways. Most relevant for the conversations currently underway, we welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.
We regularly assess issues and consider many factors such as impact to our business, guests and team members. Given the specific questions these legislative proposals raised about how we manage our fitting rooms and restrooms, we felt it was important to state our position.
Everyone deserves to feel like they belong. And you’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.
I guess you can find idiots in every walk of life, even among those who run retail giants. Tell me, Target, if, in the name of inclusion you end up excluding the desires of the majority of your customer base, how much good will do you think your stance on this sort of nonsense inclusion will buy you.
Considering that, I just became a ex-customer of Target. That sort of absurd nonsense does not make me feel “accepted”, certainly not “respected” and anything but “welcomed”. My “feelings” obviously mean nothing to you. Target, you are pandering, and you’re ignoring your customer base. Social engineering isn’t a retail responsibility. Giving your customers what they want is.
Maybe they’ll figure it out. And maybe they’ll figure out that if you wish to accommodate a minority that “feels” a certain way about themselves, perhaps a single restroom that is “gender neutral” is the answer, and not having them force themselves into dressing areas and restrooms where their natural equipment says they shouldn’t be. This isn’t rocket science, but it appears to be for the ignoramuses at Target.
Curt Schilling was fired by ESPN on Wednesday, for expressing an opinion online earlier in the week which just happens to be the view held by the vast majority of the American people. Earlier this week, Schilling posted a picture of a transgender person, and made a comment regarding the effort to let transgender men use women’s restrooms.
“A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”
He’s absolutely right … it is pathetic.
What’s even more pathetic is that Schilling has to hold a certain point of view, apparently, to continue to hold his job. Well, that’s “inclusive” isn’t it? Bye bye ESPN. I thought you were a “sports network”. Apparently you’re an politically correct social engineering network and something I just don’t need in my life.
Finally a bit of good news. Last week I reported that Florida had essentially done away with civil forfeiture and I gave them kudos for dumping that unconstitutional form of stealing by police (illegal search and seizure). Well, Nebraska earns those kudos this week:
The newly signed law provides sweeping reforms. First and foremost, Nebraska now requires a criminal conviction to forfeit property. The accused must be convicted of an offense involving illegal drugs, child pornography or illegal gambling to lose their cash, vehicles, firearms or real estate. Nebraska joins just nine other states that require a criminal conviction as a prerequisite for most or all forfeiture cases.
Way to go, NE.
Hope you all have a happy and safe weekend!
Yes, I’m fascinated by this incident primarily because of the outcome or consequences. As more and more information comes out about the background, the more one sees that it wasn’t the administration (although it had a big role in the failure there) or whites who were the problem there (and yes, I’m sure that makes me a “racist” to the SJWs). It was the activists. There was a culture of fear all right, but it wasn’t white students who were responsible. You can sum up the problem with this Tweet:
Now whether or not this person was a Mizzou student or not, the fact that the tweet got 16 retweets and 3 likes speaks volumes. It is an attitude and how that attitude is represented on campus. For instance, a white student wrote to the Chancellor that he attempted to engage in a dialogue with some of his peers who apparently were black. The result?
I tried to foster peaceful, civilized discussion with a few peers. What I received was a combination of personal and racial attacks, with direct quotes such as “You can’t have an opinion on this because you are white,” “You have no right to speak,” and “Get the f*** out of the lounge.” I will not fill out a bias report on this because it has been made perfectly clear to me by both faculty and students that my skin color apparently gives me immunity from racial harassment, and I can only be treated as the aggressor in these situations.”
Note where he points out that his belief about his inability to get redress via a “bias report” has been fostered not only by students, but by a faculty which apparently has wholly bought into the myth that only whites can exhibit bias.
That sort of non-support translated into other problems. Increasing problems. Can anyone guess what they were? Here’s what a mother wrote to the administration out of concern for her daughter’s safety.
My white female student is being mobbed on her way to class and shouted at while being pushed claiming she’s a racist solely because of the color of her skin. . . . In the last 2 days she’s had 3 cancelled classes so her teachers could participate in this nonsense. So we’re paying for our child’s teachers to protest instead of educate?
Instead of standing up to what they supposedly hate and won’t tolerate – namely pure old racism – they ignored it and allowed it to continue because, apparently, they’re more afraid of a word than doing their jobs. As a result, their mission – education – suffered at the hands of out-of-control racist students. And yes, I’m more than happy to call them precisely what they are.
Additionally, their not addressing the intolerance of the activists only encouraged more of it.
So there is one reason students decided not to attend the University of Missouri this fall. There are many more. For instance:
On November 9, the vice president for human resources, Betsy Rodriguez, wrote to Missouri’s president, Tim Wolfe, saying that she thought he needed to see some videos being circulated on Twitter under the hashtag #ConcernedStudent1950. One video posted under that hashtag portrays a protester singling out people on campus, shouting, “If you’re uncomfortable, I did my job.” In the background, other protestors shout “power,” raising their fists.
“There are at least 2 [such Twitter videos] from Griffiths society today, and 2 from the dining halls (one of those — Plaza 900) included visiting high school students,” Rodriguez wrote. “The protestors are increasing in aggression and disruption. These are pretty scarey [sic].”
That’s right … visiting high school seniors were treated to the spectacle as well and made to feel unwelcome, especially if they were white. You can see the videos at the above link. Instead of being “oppressed” and “silenced”, it appears the protesters pretty much had the run of the place.
But had the administration grown a pair and stepped in to stop the nonsense, they might of avoided what happened in the near term and what has now happened as a consequence. But they didn’t. A day after the videos above surfaced, this discussion took place between two high ranking members of the administration:
A conversation later that day between Rodriguez and Michael Kateman, the university’s director of internal communications, raised other “collective thoughts” on the protesters’ behavior. “Even students not involved in the protests are getting agitated, fearful, and concerned,” their notes said, pointing out an incident where outsiders drove two hours to join the protests on the University of Missouri’s campus. “The protestors are willing to interrupt non-related events to protest. . . . Our concern is that the longer we wait to have mtg [to address the situation], the more we risk violence. The longer we wait, the greater the risk of violence.”
As you’re most likely aware, they waited too long. They let outside agitators establish themselves, and they had sympathetic faculty who made it worse while making fools of themselves. And the leadership? Absent.
It’s not like they couldn’t see this coming. Well before the events which caused all the consequences, they were made aware of the problem. A student wrote the former chancellor describing an encounter with this movement:
“Everyone has freedom of speech and expression,” she wrote. “But this was a large group of people. I know I’m not alone in saying that I felt very unsafe and targeted when I encountered them. . . . people screaming at me from the sidewalk.” She wrote that “all lives matter and discrimination should be fought against,” but she feared “that group brought more division, hostility, and discrimination than that one man [yelling racial slurs] could have.
But the immediate problem was ignored and allowed to grow. And instead of taking charge of the campus and it’s environment, the administration allowed it to become a place which people feared others simply because of the color of their skin. Here an employee of the University writes the former Chancellor:
My fear is that things are going to get out of hand and something very bad is going to happen,” she wrote. “My husband is a Sgt. for the University Police and he is having to be in the middle of this mess and having someone like Melissa Click do everything in her power to incite a riot will make things go from bad to worse. I normally take walks around the campus a couple of times a day but currently am afraid to do so because I am white. My daughter goes to school at Mizzou, has some night classes, and she is now afraid to walk around campus and go to class because she is white.
Racism … pure and simple. The protesters and activists were what they denounced. And they had created a climate of oppression and fear.
They must have been very proud of themselves.
The good news is the institution that ignored it and allowed it to happen is suffering the consequences of its inaction (or in many cases, its enabling). It is well deserved. And, hopefully, other academic institutions will learn from the experience, heed any warning signs and take appropriate action. The fact that a relatively small population of students and activists were able to make this sort of impact on a major university because they weren’t confronted immediately certainly should teach a lesson.
But then it seems in this age and time, lessons aren’t heeded and history repeats. I fully expect to see this happen again at least once, if not numerous times, in the not too distant future.
Consider yourself a climate skeptic? Well that’s dangerous ground if the new fascists have their way. And who are these fascists? Why a group of 20 Attorney Generals from blue states. The Federalist Society has the goods:
The twenty Democratic AGs’ (“Green 20”) concerted investigation against ExxonMobil (Exxon) and organizations deemed “climate change deniers” represents a threat to core constitutional commands of free speech, limited and constitutional government and the rule of law. This latest incarnation of regulation by litigation which seeks to punish climate change wrongthink has crossed a line that lies at the core of the First Amendment—a government imposing its orthodoxy upon its citizens. Declaring the need for “transformational” action on climate change as a settled question, Virgin Islands’ AG, Claude Earl Walker, announced, “We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuel. Vice President Gore has made that clear.” (Glad that’s all settled!)
As the United States Supreme court has noted: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” Further, punishing Exxon for its own research that expresses concern about climate change disincentivizes research and development and criminalizes the expressions of doubts, theories and concerns that are essential to the scientific method.
So, as others try to paint them as the “Green 20”, I’ll call them what they are – the Fascist 20. They are the very definition of fascists, or at least this part of the definition – “
You may roll your eyes at the latter part but isn’t their goal precisely that, i.e. deciding what industries is acceptable and which aren’t? And attacking those which “aren’t”. First it was the tobacco industry. That worked. So now, using the same sort of tactics and laws, they’re going after the fossil fuel industry, climate skeptics and anyone else they rope into this gaggle they want to eliminate.
This can also be likened to the Inquisition since it is clear, to many, that the “science” of climate alarmism has now become a religion, and it is time, since they can’t prove their point scientifically, to go after the heretics who are badly damaging their scam/religion.
If you don’t think that’s the case, consider this:
The tone taken by these attorneys general at their March 29th press conference with Al Gore reveals all. The calculated hysteria whipped up by Gore’s linkage of natural disasters and the spread of the Zika virus to climate change, was followed by the state AGs startling descriptors of their quarry—“morally vacant forces,” destroyers of this earth, planet destroyers, existential threats, deceivers! Walker announced his offices launch of “an investigation into a company that we believe must provide us with information about what they knew about climate change, and when they knew it,” a catchy formulation that was a verbatim echo of NY AG Schneiderman’s tone of climate McCarthyism.
This vituperative language calls into question these regulators impartiality and professional ethics and rises to abuse of the powers of the office of attorney general. Gore thrummed a bass-line of “fraud” and sensationalized recent weather news as “a nature hike through the Book of Revelation.” Somehow the rise of new diseases that Gore never heard of when he was growing up can be attributed to fossil fuel use (junk science, anyone?). NY AG Schneiderman closed the news conference with a litany of billions and billions of dollars of damage.
This is indeed, junk science and an attempt to use the authority of the law to both intimidate and silence those who find both the science and the arguments of the climate hysterics to be badly wanting.
This is a big “no-go” in terms of how this country is supposed to work. But we now have government agents as, basically, hit men, out to ensure the bosses agenda gets followed. And, obviously, they’ll stoop to any level, to include fascism, to get that job done.
Land of the free …?
Yeah, feast your eyes.