Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Mizzou. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mizzou. Show all posts

Friday, November 20, 2015

Rape And Abortion Are Two Different Things

Mizzou Student Asks Ben Shapiro if Abortion Should Be Legal in Cases of Rape — See the Reply He Gets

A University of Missouri college student asked conservative pundit Ben Shapiro Thursday night if abortion should be permitted in cases of rape — and the New York Times bestselling author had a blunt response to the question.
Shapiro, who said that rapists should either be killed or castrated, said the issue of rape and abortion were “unrelated” to one another.
“Killing babies is wrong. Okay, these are two separate questions,” he told the Mizzou student. “They have nothing to do with one another. Connecting these two things is like saying, ‘I was raped, therefore I get to go shoot an unrelated person.’”
Watch the exchange (remarks around 12:48 mark):
The “Bullies” author argued that the political left often asks about rape while discussing abortion to introduce confusion.
“The two are unrelated. It’s an emotional argument to muddy the waters,” he said. “It’s amazing to me because the same people on the left who say, ‘Well, shouldn’t a raped woman be allowed to abort her baby?’ These are the same people who want to release rapists from prison after five years.”
Shapiro told students that the best way to decrease the frequency of rape would be to implement strict punishment for those found guilty of committing the crime.
“If you really want to stop this from happening, here’s a solution: go prosecute, castrate and kill rapists,” he said. “That’s a really good solution.”
“I have another solution,” Shapiro added. “Let women carry guns and teach them how to use them. So any time they are in a position of rape, they shoot the guy. The left’s solution seems to be to stop the baby, my solution is to stop the rape.”
Shapiro’s talk at the University of Missouri was, in part, sponsored by the conservative Young America’s Foundation.

Friday, November 13, 2015

Is A New Mao Revolution Starting On Campuses

The Cultural Revolution Comes to America’s Campuses

by Roger L Simon
NOVEMBER 13, 2015 - 5:10 AM
melissa_click_mao_ivy_wall_11-12-15-2
Today’s undergraduates probably know little, if anything, about the cataclysmic movement in China known as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It began in 1966 before all of them (and even a great number of their professors) were born. This massive national crusade, instigated by Chairman Mao Zedong, was intended to create a pure communist man and woman, devoid of the constraints of materialism and personal ambition.
It started with the closing of the schools and the re-education of intellectuals and the bourgeoisie and ended up with years of incredible violence, taking millions of lives. The actual statistics are still a state secret, but a recent biography of Mao states “at least 3 million people died violent deaths and post-Mao leaders acknowledged that 100 million people, one-ninth of the entire population, suffered in one way or another.”
I got a personal look at the remnants of the Cultural Revolution in 1979 when on an “activist’s” tour of China. The country was still extraordinarily impoverished and primitive. Propagandistic thought control was everywhere, broadcast on loudspeakers and splayed out on ubiquitous billboards urging the masses to “Criticize Lin Biao and Confucius” (Lin Biao was a former ally, then competitor, of Mao’s who died in a mysterious plane crash) or “Smash the Gang of Four,” one of whom was Mao’s wife, then in disrepute. Whenever you asked a question of your interpreters, even a bland one, you got a rote response. Everyone was too timid to say anything the slightest bit controversial. Newspeak reigned. It was like living in Orwell’s 1984 five years early.
So you will excuse me if, from the outset, when I heard how our college campuses were being overtaken with these new-fangled “trigger warnings” and “microagressions,” perfect Maoist terminology for our computerized times, it immediately gave me the heebie-jeebies. Thought control, via political correctness, had come to America in the very spot it had begun in China — the schools.
Recent events at the University of Missouri and Yale (where I attended graduate school), plus now other institutions, have only increased my apprehension. It’s not  at the level of the Cultural Revolution — professors haven’t been asked to wear dunce caps yet and no one (to my knowledge) has been killed — but the portents are not reassuring.
Mob rule, not anything close to democracy, is at play. The so-called SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) seem to be functioning as early avatars of the infamous Red Guard, bullying and then threatening violence to anyone whose thoughts run outside what is deemed to be correct.
College professors and administrators quiver in their path. In the case of Mizzou, the president resignedbefore any concrete evidence of racism was made manifest. It still hasn’t been days later. At dear old Yale, it’s even more bizarre because there were no imputations of racism in the first place, only that there might have been or might be. Forget Bull Connor and the KKK, inappropriate Halloween costumes were the new danger. It was all about having a “safe space” so  feelings wouldn’t be hurt, as if the world could be perfect and the human species remade for an extraordinarily fragile generation of coddled students.
Some people ridicule these students as “snowflakes” unable to stand up to the slightest discomfiting words or images. But it is far worse than that. These so-called “snowflakes” are the potential shock troops of the aforementioned Red Guard, American style. There is a fine line between the extreme entitlement that demands to be warned before reading Ovid’s Metamorphoses (as happened recently at Columbia) and a kind of narcissistic rage acting out against any presumed enemy in its path. How do you think the CR actually happened in China? Yes, the country was significantly poorer, but the psychological evolution was strikingly similar.
So think twice if you don’t think it could happen here. Who would have thought the president of one of our great public universities would lose his job in part because someone said he saw a swastika written in feces on one of the bathroom walls, which now, suddenly, no one can find and might have been a photograph in the first place, if it ever existed?
As we say in Hollywood, it’s “The Crucible Meets Animal Farm,” the Salem witch trials meets four legs good, two legs bad.  But the professors who teach those anti-fascist masterworks aren’t doing anything to defend against it. Lobotomized by political correctness they attempt to be even-handed, in the way many did with Mao and Stalin.  The same results await them.
And we citizens sit outside our great universities and watch the conflagration.  It’s only just begun.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Mizzou Professor Says It Like It Is!

See the Email Mizzou Professor Sent to Students That Resulted in Him Turning in His Resignation

A popular professor at the University of Missouri turned in his resignation Wednesday after igniting controversy when he refused to cancel class for students who claimed to feel unsafe visiting campus.
Image source: University of Missouri via NBC News
Image source: University of Missouri via NBC News
Dale Brigham, an associate professor of nutrition and exercise physiology, wrote in an email to his students that a previously scheduled exam would be held as planned.
“If you don’t feel safe coming to class, then don’t come to class,” Brigham wrote his students in an emailobtained by Campus Reform. “I will be there, and there will be an exam administered in our class,” he continued, imploring his students to stand up to the bullies on campus. “If you give into bullies, they win. The only way bullies are defeated is by standing up to them.”
Image source: Campus Reform
Image source: Campus Reform
Many students have said they don’t feel safe visiting campus as racial tension increases following the resignation of the university president.
After sending the message to his students, Brigham faced intense backlash on social media. Students hurled insults at him while others called for him to be fired.
Facing pressure, Brigham sent a followup email to students notifying them that the exam had been canceled and he would resign his position.
Image source: Campus Reform
Image source: Campus Reform
A spokesperson for the university, however, told KOMU-TV that the school would not accept his resignation.

Only Speech Allowed On Campus Is Politically Correct Language. So Long To An Exchange Of Ideas

Following the forced resignations of the President and Provost of the University of Missouri, demonstrations against campus administrators has spread across the country. Students – many of whom are Black, gay, transgender and Muslim – claim that they feel "unsafe" as the result of what they call "white privilege" or sometimes simply privilege. "Check your privilege" has become the put-down du jour. Students insist on being protected by campus administrators from "micro-aggressions," meaning unintended statements inside and outside the classroom that demonstrate subtle insensitivities towards minority students. They insist on being safe from hostile or politically incorrect ideas. They demand "trigger warnings" before sensitive issues are discussed or assigned. They want to own the narrative and keep other points of view from upsetting them or making them feel unsafe.
These current manifestations of a widespread culture of victimization and grievance are only the most recent iterations of a dangerous long-term trend on campuses both in the United States and in Europe. The ultimate victims are freedom of expression, academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. Many faculty members, administrators and students are fearful of the consequences if they express politically incorrect or dissident views that may upset some students. So they engage in self-censorship. They have seen what had happened to those who have expressed unpopular views, and it is not a pretty picture.
I know, because I repeatedly experienced this backlash when I speak on campuses. Most recently, I was invited to deliver the Milton Eisenhower lecture at Johns Hopkins University. As soon as the lecture was announced, several student groups demanded that the invitation must be rescinded. The petition objected to my mere "presence" on campus, stating that my views on certain issues "are not matters of opinion, and cannot be debated" and that they are "not issues that are open to debate of any kind." These non-debatable issues include some of the most controversial concerns that are roiling campus today: sexual assault, academic integrity and the Israel-Palestine conflict. The protesting students simply didn't want my view on these and other issues expressed on their campus, because my lecture would make them feel unsafe or uncomfortable.
The groups demanding censorship of my lecture included Hopkins Feminists, Black student Union, Diverse Sexuality and General Alliance, Sexual Assault Resource Unit and Voice for Choice. I have been told that two faculty members urged these students, who had never heard of me, to organize the protests, but the cowardly faculty members would not themselves sign the petition. The petition contained blatant lies about me and my views, but that is beside the point. I responded to the lies in my lecture and invited the protesting students to engage me during the Q and A. But instead, they walked out in the middle of my presentation, while I was discussing the prospects for peace in the Mid-East.
According to the Johns Hopkins News-Letter another petition claimed that "by denying Israel's alleged war crimes against Palestinians" I violated the Universities "anti-harassment policy" and its "statement of ethical standards." In other words, by expressing my reasonable views on a controversial subject, I harassed students.
Some of the posters advertising my lecture were defaced with Hitler mustaches drawn on my face. Imagine the outcry if comparably insensitive images had been drawn on the faces of invited minority lecturers.
I must add that the Hopkins administration and the student group that invited me responded admirably to the protests, fully defending my right to express my views and the right of the student group to invite me. The lecture went off without any hitches and I answered all the questions -- some quite critical, but all polite – for the large audience that came to hear the presentation.
The same cannot be said of several other lectures I have given on other campuses which were disrupted by efforts to shout me down, especially by anti-Israel groups that are committed to preventing pro-Israel speakers from expressing their views.
The point is not only that some students care less about freedom of expression in general than about protecting all students from "micro-aggressions." It is that many of these same students are perfectly willing to make other students with whom they disagree with feel unsafe and offended by their own micro and macro aggressions. Consider, for example, a recent protest at the City University of New York by Students for Justice in Palestine that blamed high tuition on "the Zionist Administration [of the University that] invests in Israeli companies, companies that support the Israeli occupation, hosts birthright programs and study abroad programs in occupied Palestine [by which Israel proper] and reproduces settler-colonial ideology throughout Cuny though Zionist content of education."
Let's be clear what they mean by "Zionist": they mean "Jew". There are many Jewish administrators at City University. Some are probably Zionists. Others are probably not. Blaming Zionists for high tuition is out and out anti-Semitism. It is not micro-aggression. It is in-your-face macro-aggression against City University Jews.
Yet those who protest micro-aggressors against other minorities are silent when it comes to Jews. This is not to engage in comparative victimization, but rather to expose the double standard, the selective outrage and the overt hypocrisy of many of those who would sacrifice free speech on the altar of political correctness, whose content they seek to dictate.
  • Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Emeritus Professor at Harvard Law School and the author of two new books: "The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes?, " available on Kindle and other e-book sites andAbraham: The World's First (But Certainly Not Last) Jewish Lawyer, available on Amazon.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Gettin Down With The Bros! Multi Million Dollar Spoiled Kid Is Trying To Be A Normal Knuckle Dragging Hoodlum At Mizzou. Trouble Is, There Is NO Evidence Of Any Of The Discrimination Occurring!

From: Louder With Crowder blog:

Oppressed Mizzou ‘Hunger Strike’ Student Is Actually Hilariously Wealthy…

MizzouStuentProtester
We’re still not sure what exactly happed at Mizzou (we try to get to the bottom of it here), but at the center of it seems to be student Jonathan Butler going on hunger strike because…someone yelled a racial slur at him? Apparently it was traumatic enough he “updated his will and signed a ‘do not resuscitate’ order.”

Ok, so we have a college student who was “oppressed” at one of the top universities in the country. Someone may have yelled something. His SJW friends claim that someone smeared a poop swastika on a mirror. Though of course, there is no proof. Because when you see a poop-swastika, you don’t document that crap, you keep walking and Tweet about it. Also, we’re sure white privilege played a part in all this somehow.
Here’s the rub though. Butler complains about white privilege and how it played a role in his oppression and poop-swastikas? I wish I was this oppressed… (special thanks to the Tweets of Paul Watson and Jim Hoft for bringing this to our attention):
Johnathan Butler is a member of a prominent Omaha family. The newspaper says Butler’s father is Eric L. Butler, executive vice president for sales and marketing for the Union Pacific Railroad. His 2014 compensation was $8.4 million, according to regulatory filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

That’s right. The student in the middle of all this Mizzou hype? He’s just another overprivileged college student living off of daddy’s millions.
In other words, he’s your typical modern liberal activist.
Allow us to re-cap the timeline for those who haven’t been following or are confused about WTF is going on with this school.
  • Kid complains about racial slurs. Goes on hunger strike.
  • Students claim to be victims of “systemic” racism on campus. Zero photos, video or any proof provided.
  • Students claim to find a “poop swastika” on campus. No photos, video or any proof provided.
  • No proof ever provided for “systemic” problem, so the “system president” Tim Wolfe doesn’t really do much.
  • Students get so angry and start protesting that Tim Wolfe resigns. To this day, nobody knows what he did wrong. No really, even MSNBC said “… huh?” (watch the video of a confused MSNBC here).
  • Students form another protest. They lock arms to lock out the press, physically assaulting a student reporter simply trying to document the whole ordeal (see the unbelievable video on said altercation here).
  • That night, SJW students claim there is gunfire on campus, and an official rally from the KKK. No photos, video or any proof provided.
  • All of the claims from last night are proven to be verifiably false.
  • Now we find out the “original” hunger-strike protestor is actually part of a multi-millionaire family.
You cannot make this crap up. But if you’re wondering what to do with your crap, maybe make a winking smily face.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Reporters Are Persona Non Grata At Mizzou

#SJW Students at #Mizzou Create Human Shield To Block Reporters

MizProtest Link
So this is happening. The students of Mizzou are as open minded as their physical stance of linked arms and scowled countenances, not allowing the press to report on the story at hand. The group which preaches tolerance and acceptance is demonstrating exactly why we think they’re hypocrites, creating a human chain to trap in… the truth? Aw, hell. Here’s what happened:
COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — The president of the University of Missouri system stepped down Monday amid criticism of his handling of student complaints about race and discrimination.
President Tim Wolfe said his resignation was effective immediately. He made the announcement at the start of what had been expected to be a lengthy closed-door meeting of the school’s governing board. He largely pre-empted that session in a halting statement that was simultaneously apologetic, clumsy and defiant.
Tim Wolfe received complaints that students were being made fun of and they couldn’t handle it. Is that an over-simplficiation? Maybe. But this president of a university just resigned because people were unhappy with how he handled people being mocked. Sure, about their race. Sure, it’s not a nice thing to do. But mocked nonetheless.
For months, black student groups have complained of racial slurs and other slights on the overwhelmingly white flagship campus of the state’s four-college system. Frustrations flared during a homecoming parade Oct. 10 when black protesters blocked Wolfe’s car, and he did not get out and talk to them. They were removed by police.
Here’s my issue with this “issue” at the college campus. Everyone is dragging their safety blankets and crying to daddy to do something about the meanie white kids who are making fun of the poor, put-upon and helpless black kids. No word yet on if any black kids ever said anything derogatory to any white kids, because that doesn’t matter. It’s racist for you to even think it. Stop thinking. Rather than the students dealing with whatever issues they were having amongst themselves (like adults, because you know, college is for 18 year olds and above) these “strong” confident students put their thumbs in their mouths and wailed, bashing the mean, white man in charge of the college “patriarchy.” When daddy told the kids to stop being a bunch of crybabies, they called for his white privileged, cis-gendered head. There was screaming, wailing and gnashing of teeth to get their way.
Yet again, we have a free speech problem coupled with an overly sensitive people problem. Sorry if that’s triggering you, but maybe you should go shred a founding document to make yourself feel better (yes, that happened. We wrote about shredding the Constitution here).
Now the college students are hindering another first amendment issue: the press. Instead of allowing the press to come and report on what’s going on, they’re locking reporters out.

Colleges Descend Into PC Chaos

University of Missouri and 

Yale Show What Mob Rule 

Looks Like in Higher Education

Students gather on the University of Missouri campus to show support for Jonathan L. Butler, a 25-year-old graduate student who held a hunger strike for seven days, until his university president resigned. (Photo: Bill Greenbklatt/UPI/Newscom)
America’s universities are supposed to be places 
where students can get an education. The vast 
majority of students want that. Some, however, 
do not. They want a “safe space” where their 
strange ideas about society can be aired 
without criticism, and where they can 
unilaterally punish other students for failing to toe the mass line. These student activists want blood.
At Yale University, last week, a number of 
members of the Black Student Alliance physically surrounded an administrator and 
berated him for standing up for free speech 
and are now demanding his resignation. 
Caught on camera, one can easily see 
how dangerous the situation was.
In another example, the president of the 
University of Missouri, Tim Wolfe, has resigned. 
His resignation comes after more than 
30 members of the football team threatened
 not to play unless he was forced out. Their claim 
was that, in unspecified ways, Wolfe failed to 
eradicate “structural racism” on campus.
These situations have much in common, and
 the story is becoming a familiar on
First, both situations involve student activists 
disrupting education, allegedly on behalf of 
education. At Yale, the activists claimed that 
allowing free discourse and debate and 
challenging their assumptions threatened the
 “safe space” they thought Yale was.
At Mizzou, activists claimed that failing to deal 
with “structural racism” was harming their 
education. Both groups of students listed not
 specific harms, but rather vague interests in 
feeling good at their university.
Second, both situations involve administrators
 being asked to clamp down on the free expression
 of other students. At Yale, students were upset 
that Yale administrators were not clamping 
down on Halloween costumes. At Mizzou, students wanted more unspecified action against perceived
 racism on campus.
Third, both situations involve menacing groups 
of students that come very close to physical 
violence. At Yale, for example, students physically encircled the administrator, shouted him 
down, and got very close to him in a 
threatening manner. At Mizzou, students 
physically surrounded the car of Wolfe 
and demanded he exit the vehicle into the mob.
This pattern is becoming more prevalent on 
American campuses. In the name of education, 
education is being disrupted by intolerant 
student activists, harming the experience for
 everyone else. At my alma mater, New York
 University Law School, a small cadre of 
students is complaining about Halloween
decorations that included a man hanging 
from a noose, because such a decoration was
These students, complaining about harmless 
decorations at an optional fall party, are 
attempting to assert disruptive political 
control over all aspects of educational life.
If one accepted all of the claims and agreed
 with the political aims of the student activists,
 one might think it advisable to close such
 unrepentantly bigoted universities down.
A more moderate response by university 
officials, however, would be to take their job 
as educators seriously. If a student seeks to 
disrupt the safety or education of another 
student, punish the disruptor.
If that were to happen, colleges would once 
again become “safe spaces” for free thought and expression.
This piece has been updated to state that 
Jonathan L. Butler’s hunger strike was for 7 days.