Archive for Civility

Best Analysis I’ve Read In A Long, Long Time

The hopping mad electorate

Frustration, anger, despair. Allow life’s negatively charged emotions to run free long enough and they all arrive at the same place—madness. We are there.

Or many of us are, in the U.S. and all over a troubled world.

Some 30% of Republican voters want as their president the former host of “Celebrity Apprentice.” About the same percentage of Democrats prefer a 74-year-old Socialist who seems to believe federal revenue is created by pixies.

The British Labour Party just cast its lot with a leader whose choice for finance minister includes among his interests “fomenting the overthrow of capitalism.” A torrent of Syrian refugees has unhinged European liberalism. Islamic State is drowning history itself in blood, while the pope is giving speeches on climate change.

Not least, the future of the slow-growth, anxiety-producing American economy is in the hands of one nice lady named Janet Yellen, who presides over what is literally a central-bank black box. Crazy.

A friend last weekend said he thought the story about the University of New Hampshire’s website publishing a bias-free language guide, which declared that use of the word “American” is “problematic,” was a hoax. Of course, it was real.

Is it trivial of me to conflate campus microaggression theory with Islamic State’s barbarism? I don’t think so. Because it is when people start to conclude that all of this stuff has rolled into a huge, spinning, out-of-control ball of incomprehension that it becomes madness.

That’s when normal people default their politics to the Howard Beale Option. Howard Beale was the anchorman gone ’round the bend in the movie “Network,” who started shouting on his broadcast one evening, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Beale’s last-straw rant is a compendium of political crises and petty annoyances that added up to a society running off the rails. Driven mad, Beale yells: “I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first, you’ve got to get mad!”

That was 1976. This is 2015. It’s back. What happened?

In June, Republicans were conducting a respectable competition for their presidential nomination among experienced, accomplished public figures—Govs. Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie and Rick Perry, plus provocative newcomers such as Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and the rest.

Unnoticed then but discovered in days after Donald Trump’s Beale-like presidential announcement June 16 (“I will build a great, great wall!”) was that at least 25% of Republican voters had already gone mad. Whether angry mad or just plain crazy mad hardly matters. They’d had it, loooong before the presidential campaign started. An agog political class watched Bernie Sanders prove that 25% of Democrats were also mad as hell.


In the U.S. and Western world generally there is a spreading sense of weak or poor political leadership. Because he sits as president of the United States, the lead nation, Barack Obama bears responsibility for much of this madness. His conduct of the presidency, more than all the other pilloried persons in public life, led us to Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

More at the link.

I am in the mad camp – whether mad-angry or mad-crazy – or both – has yet to be determined. The President of the Banana States and his Democrat Party are all bullies, and who can even begin to imagine forgiving them for what they’ve put the country through? Certainly not Yours Truly.

– Aggie


An Innocent Bystander

I can’t necessarily say race relations were better before Obama took office—but they couldn’t have been worse:

Often in war, attacks on intended targets can result in collateral damage. The Washington-Jerusalem clash over the Iran nuclear agreement is a case in point. The fallout is producing casualties among both supporters and opponents of the deal that can only gladden the hearts of mullahs in Tehran.

Congressional votes on the nuclear accord are still days away, but now is the time to focus on the damage that’s being done. Left unchecked, the effects could be lasting.

Witness evidence compiled by the New York Times:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who opposes the deal, was lampooned on the Daily Kos Web site as a traitorous rodent.

Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), who also opposed the nuclear deal, said she has “been accused of being treacherous, treasonous, even disloyal to the United States.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who announced his support for the deal, was called, on his Facebook page, “a kapo: a Jew who collaborated with Nazis in the World War II death camps. One writer said Nadler had ‘blood on his hands.’ Another said he had ‘facilitated Obama’s holocaust,’ ” the Times’s Jonathan Weisman and Alexander Burns reported.

And it’s not just a matter of an apparent divide among American Jews or the gulf between major Jewish organizations opposing the Iran deal and the deal’s Jewish supporters. The collateral damage falls across religious and racial lines. As a deal supporter, I know.

In response to a recent column in which I cited senior House Democrat and Congressional Black Caucus member James E. Clyburn’s (S.C.) criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu taking an end-run around the White House to flay the nuclear deal before a Republican-led Congress, I received this e-mail from a reader using the pseudonym “visitingthisplace”: “Black Jewish relations have always been a two way street. The Jews gave money to black causes, marched and died for civil rights, and in return, the black [sic] looted and burned the Jewish businesses to the ground. .?.?. In spite of your education and your opportunities, you are still just another anti-Semitic street ni**er.”

Colbert King, the ni**er in question, did not type “ni**er”.

So, how did we get here? Why are Jews depicted as traitorous rodents, treacherous, treasonous, even disloyal, kapos—and blacks as street ni**ers?

The question that needs pondering, especially in Israel, is “What’s next?” Netanyahu evidently missed Ralph Waldo Emerson’s admonition, “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”

The prime minister took the undiplomatic step of going over the head of a sitting president to a Republican Congress with the intention of delivering a death blow to that president’s internationally negotiated nuclear accord — and missed.

Political offense of that scale is particularly open to penalty. But Obama is bigger than that.

Which “Obama” is he talking about? George? Uncle Omar? It can’t be Barack Hussein “If they bring a knife we bring a gun” Obama II. Barry “Whose ass to kick” Sotero. Senator “You’re likeable enough, Hillary” Obama. Team Obama just ran the (losing) campaign of Netanyahu’s opposition in the recent elections! How “big” is that?

Netanyahu may have swung and missed at Obama’s “internationally negotiated nuclear accord”, but it is his country, Israel, that will pay the price.

This is of small comfort:

Secretary of State John F. Kerry outlined steps the United States will take to bolster the security of Israel and the United States’ Gulf state allies: $3 billion for Israel’s missile defense programs; enhanced funding for next-generation missile defense systems; a $1.89?billion munitions supply package; tunnel detection and mapping technologies; and giving Israel first dibs on the U.S.-made next generation F-35 fighter aircraft coming off the line next year.

Kerry said there also would be increased arms shipments and new security deals with Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The region is in a frenzy of an arms race, with the Gulf States reportedly ready, willing, and able to buy a nuke off the shelf from a Pakistani Walmart. Iran’s coffers are restocked, and everyone is just waiting to see where they start (or resume) trouble next. My money’s on Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria.

Au contraire, Elizabeth Warren. This world on fire? Obama built that.

Comments (1)

Dumb Or Dumbfounded?

Can’t figure Trump

Polling experts agree on one thing when it comes to Donald Trump’s presidential run: They’ve never seen anything like it.

The businessman’s dominance of the Republican presidential race is forcing experienced political hands to question whether everything they know about winning the White House is wrong.

The shocks have come in quick succession, with the businessman first rocketing to the top of national polls, and then taking double-digit leads in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
In another act of political magic, Trump managed to flip his favorability rating from negative to positive in one poll during the span of a month — a feat that Monmouth University’s Patrick Murray called “astounding.”

“That defies any rule in presidential politics that I’ve ever seen,” Murray, the director Monmouth’s Polling Institute, told The Hill.

Trump’s favorability rose from 20 percent to 52 percent among Republican voters between July and August, Monmouth found.
“Throw out the rulebook when it comes to Trump, that’s not even in the parameters of what we see as unusual,” Murray said.
But as the attacks on Trump have intensified, so has his level of support.

Polls released Tuesday show Trump lapping the field in New Hampshire, where he leads his nearest Republican rival by 24 percentage points. The story is the same in South Carolina, where the latest poll gave him a 15-point edge.

While political scientists and other experts continue to insist Trump will not win the Republican nomination, he’s converted at least one high-profile skeptic.

GOP pollster Frank Luntz had dismissed Trump from the start, and declared after the first presidential debate that his campaign was doomed.

But after convening a focus group Monday evening where Trump supporters showed an unflappable allegiance, Luntz changed his tune.

“This is real. I’m having trouble processing,” he said, according to Time.

“I want to put the Republican leadership behind this mirror and let them see. They need to wake up. They don’t realize how the grassroots have abandoned them,” he added.

Absolutely for free, I, Aggie, will attempt to explain this to pollsters, journalists, and other politicians. Here goes:

1. ObamaCare was shoved down our throats. Not a single Republican voted for it, but, when the public turned over both the House and Senate to the Repulicans, they sat on their thumbs. They didn’t get rid of it or alter it. Consequently, we have some “folks,” typically self-employed, tiny businesses who now pay nearly 1/3rd of their gross for health care coverage. Think about the one-man shop that does small carpentry or repair or removes tree stumps – or even the therapist with a very small private practice. Hardworking, independent individuals who have taken care of themselves their entire lives have been screwed. Completely screwed. And, Republicans just talk. Most of them end up taking jobs that they don’t want in order to get health care. The braver ones just pay the penalty ObamaCare tax. In other words, people have shut down businesses that they spent years, even decades, building due to this law.

2. The Unclenched Fist did not work with Mr. Putin.

3. The Arab Spring led to tens of thousands of deaths and frightening instability.

4. The Iran Deal will lead to terrorism and a nuclear arms race.

5. People who disagree with Obama’s policies are sick of being called racists.

6. People perceive some of their economic suffering to have been caused by people crossing the borders, and putting stress on our economy. They are also angry about welfare benefits going to non-citizens.

7. People are tired of the condescending, arrogant attitude they have endured by Obama, the democrats, and their proxies.

8. People are sick and tired of the lies.

9. Trump, blow-hard that he is, talks back forcefully, and has managed to convince many “folks” who have been victimized by Obama’s Leftist policies, that he will turn things around.

I am sure that the list could be lengthened. Feel free to write suggestions and I will add them.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Kirsten Powers Is On A Roll

How liberalism has ruined college

This is interesting because Ms. Powers is a democrat consultant and one of the beleaguered libs on Fox News. She has written a book on this topic and I suppose she is using every possible outlet to promote it.

This sums it up.

On today’s campuses, left-leaning administrators, professors, and students are working overtime in their campaign of silencing dissent, and their unofficial tactics of ostracizing, smearing, and humiliation are highly effective. But what is even more chilling—and more far reaching—is the official power they abuse to ensure the silencing of views they don’t like. They’ve invented a labyrinth of anti-free speech tools that include “speech codes,” “free speech zones,” censorship, investigations by campus “diversity and tolerance offices,” and denial of due process. They craft “anti-harassment policies” and “anti-violence policies” that are speech codes in disguise. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s (FIRE) 2014 report on campus free speech, “Spotlight on Speech Codes,” close to 60 percent of the four hundred–plus colleges they surveyed, “seriously infringe upon the free speech rights of students.” Only sixteen of the schools reviewed in 2014 had no policies restricting protected speech. Their 2015 report found that of the 437 schools they surveyed, “more than 55 percent maintain severely restrictive, ‘red light’ speech codes—policies that clearly and substantially prohibit protected speech.”

There are many examples at the link, including what happened to the female president of Smith College. She had to apologize for sending an email which had as its subject: All lives matter. That is racist, you see.

As readers of this blog know, students can be expelled for speech that the Left doesn’t like, but look at what has happened to some professors:

Many of the incidents sound too absurd to be true. But true they are. Consider, for example, how Yale University put the kibosh on its Freshman Class Council’s T-shirt designed for the Yale-Harvard football game. The problem? The shirt quoted F. Scott Fitzgerald’s line from This Side of Paradise, that, “I think of all Harvard men as sissies.” The word “sissy” was deemed offensive to gay people. Or how about the Brandeis professor who was found guilty of racial harassment—with no formal hearing—for explaining, indeed criticizing, the word “wetbacks.” Simply saying the word was crime enough. Another professor, this time at the University of Central Florida, was suspended for making a joke in class equating his tough exam questions to a “killing spree.” A student reported the joke to the school’s administration. The professor promptly received a letter suspending him from teaching and banning him from campus. He was reinstated after the case went public.

Or how ’bout this?

In November 2013, more than two dozen graduate students at UCLA entered the classroom of their professor and announced a protest against a “hostile and unsafe climate for Scholars of Color.” The students had been the victims of racial “microaggression,” a term invented in the 1970s that has been recently repurposed as a silencing tactic. A common definition cited is that racial microaggressions “are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults towards people of color.” Like all these new categories, literally anything can be a microaggression.

So what were the racial microaggressions that spawned the interruption of a class at the University of California at Los Angeles? One student alleged that when the professor changed her capitalization of the word “indigenous” to lowercase he was disrespecting her ideological point of view. Another proof point of racial animus was the professor’s insistence that the students use the Chicago Manual of Style for citation format (the protesting students preferred the less formal American Psychological Association manual). After trying to speak with one male student from his class, the kindly seventy-nine-year-old professor was accused of battery for reaching out to touch him. The professor, Val Rust, a widely respected scholar in the field of comparative education, was hung out to dry by the UCLA administration, which treated a professor’s stylistic changes to student papers as a racist attack. The school instructed Rust to stay off the Graduate School of Education and Information Services for one year. In response to the various incidents, UCLA also commissioned an “Independent Investigative Report on Acts of Bias and Discrimination Involving Faculty at the University of California, Los Angeles.” The report recommended investigations, saying that, “investigations might deter those who would engage in such conduct, even if their actions would likely not constitute a violation of university policy.”

Oh, well, this is the world that we, the Baby Boomers, created. We raised our kids to be ridiculously hyper-sensitive, and we insisted that teachers take note. We desperately wanted to be good and we defined “good” as anything that was opposed to conservative thought or policy. I am not sure why we seem to have marched in lock-step, but it is obvious that we have. The people most hurt by these decisions are the weakest people in society. We have suggested that they cannot stand up for themselves, cannot think for themselves, and cannot learn difficult material. Hey, BTL, when you think about it, all this does it to make life easier for our kids!

Don’t worry,
Be happy!


PC College Students Have Wonderful Sense Of Humor

This is a joke, right?

There’s big trouble at Stevenson College in California. Students are accusing the school of racism and insensitivity after they were served Mexican food during a sci-fi theme night.

The students were specifically upset about the use of the word “aliens” – as in space aliens. They say combining refried beans with creatures from another world is racist – because apparently mistaking Chewbacca for an illegal jumping a border fence is a thing.

Instead of telling the offended students blow it out their burrito, the college ran for the border. The school’s Diversity & Inclusion office fired off this apology:

“We would never want to make a connection between individuals of Latino heritage or undocumented students and aliens and I am sorry that our College Night appeared to do exactly that.”

The college went on to say, “This incident demonstrated a cultural insensitivity on the part of the program planners.”

Oh, I guess it isn’t a joke. I thought it was a joke. Oh well. I’ll just practice the egg-shell walk, so as to avoid offending anyone, how ’bout you?

– Aggie


Are Social Scientists Biased Against Conservatives?


We haven’t given out one of our coveted ‘Ya Think?™ awards in quite some time, so congratulations Professor Jonathan Haidt, you deserve it!!

On January 27, 2011, from a stage in the middle of the San Antonio Convention Center, Jonathan Haidt addressed the participants of the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. The topic was an ambitious one: a vision for social psychology in the year 2020. Haidt began by reviewing the field that he is best known for, moral psychology. Then he threw a curveball. He would, he told the gathering of about a thousand social-psychology professors, students, and post-docs, like some audience participation. By a show of hands, how would those present describe their political orientation? First came the liberals: a “sea of hands,” comprising about eighty per cent of the room, Haidt later recalled. Next, the centrists or moderates. Twenty hands. Next, the libertarians. Twelve hands. And last, the conservatives. Three hands.

Social psychology, Haidt went on, had an obvious problem: a lack of political diversity that was every bit as dangerous as a lack of, say, racial or religious or gender diversity. It discouraged conservative students from joining the field, and it discouraged conservative members from pursuing certain lines of argument. It also introduced bias into research questions, methodology, and, ultimately, publications. The topics that social psychologists chose to study and how they chose to study them, he argued, suffered from homogeneity. The effect was limited, Haidt was quick to point out, to areas that concerned political ideology and politicized notions, like race, gender, stereotyping, and power and inequality. “It’s not like the whole field is undercut, but when it comes to research on controversial topics, the effect is most pronounced,” he later told me. (Haidt has now put his remarks in more formal terms, complete with data, in a paper forthcoming this winter in Behavioral and Brain Sciences.)

The entire article is depressingly familiar, but go to the link to hear about how liberal academics punish conservative thought. Want tenure? Heh, heh, heh. I consider this trend to be an absolute disaster for our country, and we have been way too slow in recognizing it or attempting to correct it. Oh, well. I’m a big believer in You Reap What You Sow. And we have sown incompetence and willful ignorance.

– Aggie


The Left Continues To March Leftward

This would be a dog-bites-man story if it weren’t so Orwellian

In the U.S., the politics of the left versus the right rolls on with the predictability of traffic jams at the George Washington Bridge. It’s a lot of honking. Until now. All of a sudden, the left has hit ramming speed across a broad swath of American life—in the universities, in politics and in government. People fingered as out of line with the far left’s increasingly bizarre claims are being hit and hit hard.

Commencement-speaker bans are obligatory. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice withdrew as Rutgers’s speaker after two months of protests over Iraq, the left’s long-sought replacement for the Vietnam War. Brandeis terminated its invitation to Somali writer Hirsi Ali, whose criticisms of radical Islam violated the school’s “core values.”

Azusa Pacific University “postponed” an April speech by political scientist Charles Murray to avoid “hurting our faculty and students of color.” Come again? It will “hurt” them? Oh yes. In a recent New Republic essay, Jennie Jarvie described the rise of “trigger warnings” that professors are expected to post with their courses to avoid “traumatizing” students.

Oberlin College earlier this year proposed that its teachers “be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression.” The co-chair of Oberlin’s Sexual Offense Policy Task Force said last month that this part of the guide is now under revision.

I think it’s fair to say something has snapped.

Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich was driven out as CEO for donating money to support California’s Prop. 8. An online protest tried to kill Condi Rice’s appointment to the Dropbox board of directors over Internet surveillance. Incredibly, Dropbox CEO Drew Houston didn’t cave.

Earlier this year, faculty and students held a meeting at Vassar College to discuss a particularly bitter internal battle over the school’s boycott-Israel movement. Before the meeting, an English professor announced the dialogue “would not be guided by cardboard notions of civility.”

This gets worse and worse. Go to the link and read about the Harvard undergrad who published an article in The Crimson suggesting that we drop academic freedom in favor of social justice. And that we stop all research that doesn’t comply with her idea of social justice. And then read about the agreement that the Obama administration… never mind – I’ll post it:

It’s obvious that the far left has decided there are no longer constraints on what it can do to anyone who disagrees with it. How did this happen? Who let the dogs out?

The answer is not university presidents. The answer is that the Obama administration let the dogs out.

The trigger event was an agreement signed last May between the federal government and the University of Montana to resolve a Title IX dispute over a sexual-assault case.

Every college administrator in the U.S. knows about this agreement. Indeed, there are three separate, detailed “Montana” documents that were signed jointly—and this is unusual—by the civil-rights divisions of the Justice and Education Departments. Remarked DoJ’s Joceyln Samuels, “The government is stronger when we speak with one voice.”

That’s real muscle. But read the agreement. It is Orwellian.

The agreement orders the school to retain an “Equity Consultant” (yes, there is such a thing) to advise it indefinitely on compliance. The school must, with the equity consultant, conduct “annual climate surveys.” It will submit the results “to the United States.”

The agreement describes compliance in mind-numbing detail, but in fact the actual definitional world it creates is vague. It says: “The term ‘sexual harassment’ means unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” But there are also definitions for sexual assault and gender-based harassment. All of this detailed writ is called “guidance.” As in missile.

No constitutional lawyer could read this agreement and not see in it the mind of the Queen of Hearts: “Sentence first, verdict afterwards!” Indeed, the U.S. Education Department felt obliged to assert that the agreement is “entirely consistent with the First Amendment.”

First Amendment? It’s more like a fatwa. The Obama administration has issued a federal hunting license to deputize fanatics at any university in America. They will define who gets accused, and on what basis.

The White House enabled these forces again last week, releasing an Education Department list of 55 colleges that are “under investigation” for possible Title IX violations. Not formally cited but “under investigation.” The list includes such notorious Animal Houses as Catholic University, Swarthmore, Knox College, Carnegie Mellon and Harvard Law School. In truth, every school in America is effectively on the list.

And there’s more at the link. The really unfortunate thing for all of us that just want to be left alone is that there probably is no country left on earth where that can happen. If Texas secedes from the Union, I’ll join them. If they’ll have me…

– Aggie


Crazy Harry Blames Climate Change On The Koch Brothers!

What a nut job. He is actually putting their lives at risk by scapegoating them this way.

– Aggie


This Guy Went to a Clay Aiken Fundraiser and a Klan Rally Broke Out

I’ve got nothing against Clay Aiken; I thought he should have won against Ruben Studdard in Season Two of American Idol. But he is a Democrat, and he does have some, well, rather questionable friends:

I haven’t seen such hostility since last Thanksgiving! What’d the guy do, relieve himself on the pool table? Come on, Dems, can’t we all get along?


Obama Heading Al Sharpton Event

Completely disgusting

President Obama is lending his political support to fellow community organizer Al Sharpton by headlining the MSNBC host’s National Action Network (NAN) conference this week in New York. Obama’s choice to headline the conference underscores the close ties of the two leaders and provides an increased sense of political legitimacy to the controversial leader and his much-maligned organization.

Sharpton’s conference is held in April “not just to commemorate the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination, but to honor his legacy by proactively engaging in dialogue that will spawn change.” The NY Daily News reports that along with President Obama, the conference will feature other high-profile liberal leaders, including US Attorney General Eric Holder, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Over the years Sharpton’s organization has been accused of engaging in questionable financial practices, including using the threat of boycotts to extort donations from corporations and land Sharpton consultant positions. As the New York Post reported in 2008, nearly 50 companies—including GM, Pepsi and Wal-Mart, and some labor unions—had donated to NAN. The NY Post attributes many of these donations to extortionist tactics:

Terrified of negative publicity, fearful of a consumer boycott or eager to make nice with the civil-rights activist, CEOs write checks, critics say, to NAN and Sharpton – who brandishes the buying power of African-American consumers.” In some cases, they hire him as a consultant.

(Incidentally, one of the panel discussions for this year’s conference is “How Can Corporations Collaborate to Affect Change in the Community.”)

As Breitbart News reports, Sharpton’s organization was charged in 2006 by the IRS for improperly reporting taxes. The organization still owes the federal government $1.9 million in back taxes and penalties.

The ties between President Obama and Al Sharpton are strong. The NY Daily News reports that Sharpton has visited the Oval Office several times during Obama’s tenure. In 2009, Sharpton and Michael Bloomberg met with Obama on education initiatives. In 2010, the president invited Sharpton back to discuss jobs and the state of the economy with other black leaders. Sharpton also took part in the First Lady’s 50th birthday celebration and supported the president’s young black and Hispanic men initiative.

This is the second time Obama has appeared at the NAN convention, also speaking at the event in 2011.

Sharpton is a race-baiter and an anti-Semite. He is one of the reasons that I am no longer a democrat. What a cesspool of a country we’ve become.


Juan Williams Exposes The Left’s Hatred For Conservative African Americans

The background: Rutgers University hired Condoleeza Rice to be the commencement speaker this year. The faculty immediately voted to request that the invitation be rescinded. The leftist students piled on too, but what is noteworthy is the faculty response.

Juan Williams is black and liberal. He used to work for NPR until they fired him for publicly stating that he feels nervous in an airport when he sees Muslims in traditional clothing. Now he works for Fox, one of the poor, hapless liberals that provides red meat to the hungry conservatives there. (Sorry Fox, the bias is over the top too often).

Condoleezza Rice lacks “moral authority.” She fails to meet the standards of “exemplary citizenship” and she does not have what it takes to “inspire” graduating college seniors.

That crazy thinking comes from the New Brunswick Faculty Council of Rutgers University. They voted last week to ask university leadership to cancel Rice’s invitation to be this year’s Commencement Speaker and receive an honorary degree.

How is the public served by muzzling one of the most thoughtful, accomplished and respected political voices of her time just because she happens to be a Republican?
Yes, apparently the first African-American woman to serve as National Security Adviser and the nation’s Secretary of State doesn’t have what it takes to be honored by Rutgers.

Rice holds a Ph.D. in political science. She has taught college for decades. She was Provost of Stanford University. She worked her way up from a working-class family in the segregated South to the highest echelon of world power and politics.

But according to the Rutgers faculty council, all of that is negated by her service in President George W. Bush’s administration.

They cited her roles in pushing the false claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They also point to her support for using enhanced interrogation techniques to get information from terror suspects.

The facts are right. The conclusion is wrong.

There is an added element at play here. There is a disgraceful double standard amongst liberals, particularly those in academia, in the hatred they direct at black conservatives.

We saw this last April when the conservative neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson was forced to step down as a Commencement Speaker for Johns Hopkins University (where he ably served as the head of pediatric neurosurgery).

I am not a conservative but I have spoken out for years against the staggering amount blind hatred directed at black conservatives by liberals.

Liberals are shockingly quick to demean and dismiss brilliant black people like Rice, Carson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), Professor Walter E. Williams and economist Thomas Sowell because they don’t fit into the role they have carved out for a black person in America.

Black Americans must be obedient liberals on all things or risk being called a race traitor or an Uncle Tom.

I’ve experienced some of this vitriol firsthand when I have veered by liberal orthodoxy. I wrote about it in my book “Muzzled – the Assault on Honest Debate.”

How is the public served by muzzling one of the most thoughtful, accomplished and respected political voices of her time just because she happens to be a Republican?

Before her commencement speech, I would like to see any of one of the members of faculty council debate Secretary Rice on foreign policy and then let their students see how well their professors’ critique holds up.

Hell, how about we invite the entire faculty council to take their best shot at Secretary Rice in a debate.

Rice is the most famous Republican woman politician in the country. She gave the best speech of the 2012 Republican National Convention and, despite her lack of interest in political office, still gets mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate for 2016.

If she is truly on the fence about a White House run, I would suggest she go for it if for no other reason than to rub it in the faces of these pompous jackass professors.

He must feel as frustrated at Fox as BTL and I sometimes feel in the frozen Northeast. When you live in a world where only one perspective is acceptable, and when holders of that perspective can control whether you have a job or not, it gets a little old. Good for Juan Williams for standing up for Condoleeza Rice, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Sowell and the others.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Why Was Martin Bashir Permitted To Resign?

Why didn’t MSNBC fire him?

Just over two weeks ago, MSNBC host Martin Bashir delivered a harsh piece of commentary that culminated in the suggestion that someone should “s-h-i-t” in former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin‘s (R-AK) mouth. Bashir offered an abject apology on his next broadcast, but a chorus of critics continued to demand action against the host. After a reported “vacation” for the host earlier this week, Bashir announced, in a statement to Mediaite Wednesday afternoon, that MSNBC and Martin Bashir are parting ways.

Here’s the statement to Mediaite, from Martin Bashir, via email:

After making an on-air apology, I asked for permission to take some additional time out around the Thanksgiving holiday.
Upon further reflection, and after meeting with the President of MSNBC, I have tendered my resignation. It is my sincere hope that all of my colleagues, at this special network, will be allowed to focus on the issues that matter without the distraction of myself or my ill-judged comments.
I deeply regret what was said, will endeavor to work hard at making constructive contributions in the future and will always have a deep appreciation for our viewers – who are the smartest, most compassionate and discerning of all television audiences. I would also wish to express deepest gratitude to my immediate colleagues, and our contributors, all of whom have given so much of themselves to our broadcast.’

MSNBC released Bashir’s statement, plus the following statement from MSNBC President Phil Griffin:

“Martin Bashir resigned today, effective immediately. I understand his decision and I thank him for three great years with msnbc. Martin is a good man and respected colleague – we wish him only the best.”

Seriously, why is it ok to suggest that someone piss and shit into a woman’s mouth, just because she has the gall to be a conservative woman? Why is this ok? Why did it take this long for him to go, and why was he allowed to resign?

– Aggie

Comments (3)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »