Why anyone in the right mind would want to actually go to war with a nuclear power proves that are totally insane — why do you the previous administration of the US and the USSR nuclear policy was called MAD Mutually Assured Destruction.
Tag Archives: Stop and frisk
The Unforeseen Consequences of Transgenderism
I can’t even believe that we are discussing this. The only way I would even consider an Xy in an XX would would be if all the XY’s sex organs were removed and the XY was on hormon treatment. That would eliminate any pretenders.
Psychologist Toby Watson—Psychiatry is Misleading the Public About Mental Disorders – YouTube
Worth listening to …
Freedom Watch Notifies Congress of “Deep State” Intelligence Whistle-Blower – full pdf…
Gowdy Interrogates Comey
Wellesley College Says Controversial Speakers “Impose On The Liberty Of Students” By Making Them Think Too Much
by Tyler Durden
Re-Posted from ZERO HEDGE Mar 22, 2017 7:25 PM
Authored by Alex Morey and Samantha Harris via TheFire.org,
In anti-intellectual email, Wellesley profs call engaging with controversial arguments an imposition on students
In an email to fellow faculty yesterday afternoon, a committee of Wellesley College professors made several startling recommendations about how they think future campus speakers should be chosen. If implemented, the proposals by the faculty Commission for Ethnicity, Race, and Equity would have a profound impact on the quality and quantity of voices Wellesley students would be permitted to hear.
FIRE has obtained the email, sent by one of the signatories to a faculty listserv, and republished it in full below.
While paying lip service to free speech, the email is remarkable in its contempt for free and open dialogue on campus. Asserting that controversial speakers “impose on the liberty of students, staff, and faculty at Wellesley,” the committee members lament the fact that such speakers negatively impact students by forcing them to “invest time and energy in rebutting the speakers’ arguments.”
And here we thought learning to effectively challenge views with which one disagreed was an important part of the educational process!
They point specifically to a recent appearance by Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis, a self-described feminist who has criticized Title IX implementation and a “culture of sexual paranoia” on campuses.
(Kipnis’ visit elicited a video response from Wellesley students who disagreed with her.)
The committee recommends that those inviting any future speakers “consider whether, in their zeal for promoting debate, they might, in fact, stifle productive debate by enabling the bullying of disempowered groups,” adding that the committee would be “happy to serve as a sounding board when hosts are considering inviting controversial speakers, to help sponsors think through the various implications of extending an invitation.” They also argue that “standards of respect and rigor must remain paramount when considering whether a speaker is actually qualified for the platform granted by an invitation to Wellesley.”
But the implementation of such reforms would, in itself, establish a campus orthodoxy and a climate in which any speaking invitation might be subject to prior review by a select few faculty.
Kipnis, reached for comment by FIRE, disapproved.
“I find it absurd that six faculty members at Wellesley can call themselves defenders of free speech and also conflate my recent talk with bullying the disempowered,” Kipnis told FIRE in an email.
“What actually happened was that there was a lively back and forth after I spoke. The students were smart and articulate, including those who disagreed with me.”
“I’m going to go further and say — as someone who’s been teaching for a long time, and wants to see my students able to function in the world post-graduation — that protecting students from the ‘distress’ of someone’s ideas isn’t education, it’s a $67,000 babysitting bill.”
FIRE will be looking more into this development at Wellesley in the coming days.
Full email below:
From: ?Michael P Jeffries? <?mjeffrie@wellesley.edu?>
Date: Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:43 PM
Subject: [FacStaffDiscuss] Statement from CERE faculty re: Laura Kipnis Freedom Project visit and aftermath
To: Faculty-Staff Discussion <?facstaffdiscuss@wellesley.edu?>
To: Wellesley Community
From: Faculty on Commission for Ethnicity, Race, and Equity (CERE)
Re: Laura Kipnis visit and aftermath
3/20/17
Over the past few years, several guest speakers with controversial and objectionable beliefs have presented their ideas at Wellesley. We, the faculty in CERE, defend free speech and believe it is essential to a liberal arts education. However, as historian W. Jelani Cobb notes, “The freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered. The enlightenment principles that undergird free speech also prescribed that the natural limits of one’s liberty lie at the precise point at which it begins to impose upon the liberty of another.”
There is no doubt that the speakers in question impose on the liberty of students, staff, and faculty at Wellesley. We are especially concerned with the impact of speakers’ presentations on Wellesley students, who often feel the injury most acutely and invest time and energy in rebutting the speakers’ arguments. Students object in order to affirm their humanity. This work is not optional; students feel they would be unable to carry out their responsibilities as students without standing up for themselves. Furthermore, we object to the notion that onlookers who are part of the faculty or administration are qualified to adjudicate the harm described by students, especially when so many students have come forward. When dozens of students tell us they are in distress as a result of a speaker’s words, we must take these complaints at face value.
What is especially disturbing about this pattern of harm is that in many cases, the damage could have been avoided. The speakers who appeared on campus presented ideas that they had published, and those who hosted the speakers could certainly anticipate that these ideas would be painful to significant portions of the Wellesley community. Laura Kipnis’s recent visit to Wellesley prompted students to respond to Kipnis’s presentation with a video post on Facebook.
Kipnis posted the video on her page, and professor Tom Cushman left a comment that publicly disparaged the students who produced the video. Professor Cushman apologized for his remarks, but in light of these developments, we recommend the following.
First, those who invite speakers to campus should consider whether, in their zeal for promoting debate, they might, in fact, stifle productive debate by enabling the bullying of disempowered groups. We in CERE are happy to serve as a sounding board when hosts are considering inviting controversial speakers, to help sponsors think through the various implications of extending an invitation.
Second, standards of respect and rigor must remain paramount when considering whether a speaker is actually qualified for the platform granted by an invitation to Wellesley. In the case of an academic speaker, we ask that the Wellesley host not only consider whether the speaker holds credentials, but whether the presenter has standing in his/her/their discipline. This is not a matter of ideological bias. Pseudoscience suggesting that men are more naturally equipped to excel in STEM fields than women, for example, has no place at Wellesley. Similar arguments pertaining to race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, and other identity markers are equally inappropriate.
Third, faculty and administrators should step up in defense of themselves and all members of the Wellesley community. The responsibility to defend the disempowered does not rest solely with students, and the injuries suffered by students, faculty, and staff are not contained within the specific identity group in question; they ripple throughout our community and prevent Wellesley from living out its mission.
In solidarity,
Diego Arcineagas
Beth DeSombre
Brenna Greer
Soo Hong
Michael Jeffries
Layli Maparyan
[emphasis added]
Anti-Trump Propagandist David Brock Suffers Heart Attack
by Tyler Durden
Re-Posted from ZERO HEDGE Mar 22, 2017 3:05 PM
Founder of Media Matters, and infamous Hillary “attack dog” and agit-prop specialist, David Brock has suffered a heart attack, but is expected to make a “swift recovery,” a senior aide said Wednesday. As The Hill reports,
“David Brock suffered a heart attack while working in the Washington DC office early Tuesday,” Bradley Beychok, Brock’s chief of staff, said in a statement.
“He was quickly transported to a local hospital, received prompt medical treatment, and we are looking forward to a swift recovery.”
“We thank everyone for their well wishes, and especially want to thank the wonderful doctors and staff who treated David. We kindly ask for privacy as he recovers,” the statement added.
Brock, 54, a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, founded the non-profit liberal media watchdog publication Media Matters for America in 2004.
As a reminder, in November 2016, Brock created a vast system of agitation and propaganda was set up in order to destroy the reputation and the authority of President Donald Trump as soon as he arrived in the White House.
“This will be THE gathering for Democratic donors from across the country to hear from a broad and diverse group of leaders about the next steps for progressives under a Trump Administration,” Brock wrote to the donors in an email.
“What better way to spend inaugural weekend than talking about how to kick Donald Trump’s ass?” Brock said.
In order to convince US public opinion of the President’s insanity – a man who says that he hopes for peace with his enemies, and wants to collaborate with them in universal economic prosperity – one of the greatest specialists of agit-prop (agitation & propaganda), David Brock, set up an impressive system even before Trump’s investiture.
The current campaign is organised in secret by four associations:
Media Matters is tasked with picking up on Donald Trump’s mistakes. You read his bulletin every day in your newspapers – the President can’t be trusted, he got this or that point wrong.
American Bridge 21st Century has collected more than 2,000 hours of videos showing Donald Trump over the years, and more than 18,000 hours of other videos of the members of his cabinet. It has at its disposition sophisticated technological equipment designed for the Department of Defense – allegedly not in working order – which enables it to look for contradictions between their older declarations and their current positions. It should be extending its work to 1,200 of the new President’s collaborators.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — CREW is a firm of high level lawyers tasked with tracking anything that could create a scandal in the Trump administration. Most of the lawyers in this association work pro bono, for the cause. These are the people who prepared the case for Bob Ferguson, the Chief Prosecutor of the state of Washington, against the immigration decree (Executive Order 13769).
Shareblue is an electronic army which has already connected with 162 million internauts in the USA. It’s job is to spread pre-ordained themes, for example:
- Trump is authoritarian and a thief.
- Trump is under the influence of Vladimir Putin.
- Trump is a weak and quick-tempered personality, he’s a manic-depressive.
- Trump was not elected by the majority of US citizens, and is therefore illegitimate.
- His Vice-President, Mike Pence, is a fascist.
- Trump is a billionaire who will constantly be faced with conflicts of interest between his personal affairs and those of state.
- Trump is a puppet of the Koch brothers, who are famous for sponsoring the extreme right.
- Trump is a white supremacist and a threat to minorities.
- Anti-Trump opposition just keeps growing outside Washington.
- To save democracy, let’s support the democrataic parliamentarians who are attacking Trump, and let’s demolish those who are co-operating with him.
- Overthrowing Trump will take time, so don’t let’s weaken in our resolve.
Of course, we wonder how long it will be before 54-year-old Brock’s heart attack is blamed on Putin in some way?
DEMOCRAT COUNCILMAN LABELS ICE AGENTS ‘NAZIS’ FOR ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAW
The Demorats can whine and moan all they want it will not work there are no many bad things being done by the illegal alien Denorats
‘ALARMED’ AS DETAILS WIDELY DISSEMINATED…
I think is will turn out good for trump and made of the Demorats
House Intel chairman: Trump’s personal communications may have been collected…
Of Course they were or Trump would not have tweeted what he did. They needed to set of the demorats first then come out with the information
Centinel2012 